Leaked images: A detailed look at the unreleased Zeiss Otus 100mm F1.4 lens

I find it very difficult to justify the price of a rental for this Otus lens.

$5000 for a manual focus lens. Seriously. It goes with those $7000 Prada shoes and that $3000 designer camera strap.

On the plus side: if photos taken with this lens are out-of-focus and blurry, you only got yourself to blame.

Have $5000 to burn and no clue what to burn it on? Here's a suggestion: get the $1500 SIGMA 105mm - it has AF to boot! - and donate the remaining $3500 to a worthwhile and respectable charity.

@squid
Dry I wasn't talking about renting the lens I was saying head over to lensrentals.com to get more accurate sharpness/aberration tests than dxo mark

@3pgrey:

The 85mm SIGMA wins even at lensrentals:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/mtf-tests-for-the-sigma-bbl-the-big-beautiful-85mm-art-lens/

So, the SIGMA 85mm looks better on MTF charts, it has AF, and it's 3 times cheaper than the Otus. But the Otus has that je-ne-sais-quoi that justifies the $5000 price tag. Oh-kay. :-)

@squid
Just remember it's just mtf figures. That said yes the sigma is good. Can't argue that. But there's some things you can't really see from an mtf chart. The new sigma 28mm is really nice, but the otus handles highlights like no other; you can expose for a room and not blow the lights in the scene, and I can't think of another line of lenses that can do that (I'm ignoring Leica don't bite me)

@3pgrey: Actually, I'm still trying to figure out the Leica Thing myself. Leica stuff being reassuringly over-priced. :-)

A friend of mine owns Leica stuff and swears by it. Nothing else will do. Problem is, I can't really tell the difference between his Leica shots and his iPhone shots. :-)

I know it's just MTF numbers and it bears little relevance - really - to a real photo. I've seen beautiful photos taken with a D750 and the 28-300VR, which most snobs will poo-pooh as amateurish plastic.

My question is: once we're out of the El Cheapo Plastic gear category, does this outrageously expensive gear really make a noticeable difference? I mean compared to the more reasonably priced gear.

By noticeable I mean my own lying eyes, and no pixel-peeping.

I don't believe it's the camera and the lens that will make the photo. There's a lot of work to be done after pushing the button.

Maybe it's because I'm not a portrait shooter - at all. I just can't get into that "dreamy" look stuff.

@USN Squid

Did you even read the link that you posted? I went to the lensrentals.com link that you provided and this is Roger Cicala's conclusion on these two lenses:

"From an MTF standpoint, it’s better than any other 85 except the Otus, and it makes a very respectable showing against that fine lens.."

Again that is only based on an MTF standpoint and even there the Otus wins. Also, what I have to add to that is if you focus for corners instead of the center, the Otus will get much sharper on that region. The MTF already shows that it is a lot sharper in the center than the Art lens.

My sister is a Leica shooter and I've tried many times to sway her away from that brand so that she can acquire more gear for the same budget. You see, I also thought that Leica lenses, although really good, were way overpriced until I came across the Summicron-C. The Leica Summicron-C Cinema lenses are among if not the very best and most sought after cinema lenses out there. Zeiss Otus lenses have nothing on those. If and when I strike it rich, I will gladly invest half a million dollars for a set of those Lenses which I will then rent out to filmmakers, agencies and production companies. Gear rentals is also part of my photography business.

No, I did not read whatever Roger Cicala has to say. I looked at the numbers. Numbers are what I care about. Roger Cicala's personal opinions bla-bla-bla do not interest me.

Many people manage to convince themselves that, because they paid a lot of money for a certain item, that item is somehow "better" than an equivalent, but cheaper other item. That's the whole point of marketing.

If lens rentals is part of your business, you have a vested financial interest in pushing expensive, over-priced gear. Your rental rates are proportional to the price of the underlying item you are renting out.

And many people carelessly comment on something that they know very little about and is based on what other people say and or their own very limited experience. I own and use both the Otus and the Art for a few years now as well as other 85mm f/1.2-1.4 lenses. I got the Art lens directly from Japan by pre-order before most of the world did and before I purchased the Otus. When our local Zeiss distro lent me an Otus and a medium format camera with lenses to review, I returned the MF and its lenses after a week but kept the Otus for over a month because I was so impressed by it.

I've never loaned any of my lenses outside my team before. I added a lighting rental business because big productions and its photographers demand either Profoto or Broncolor only. We didn't need to push them these expensive equipment. If they are willing to spend millions of dollars for the advertisement, a few thousand dollars more in rentals will not matter to them especially if it gives them better and more consistent results and all the while saving them time, money and frustration. To be able to use the very best equipment that is also the most reliable and ergonomic gives them this. Finally, as a professional photographer and business owner for a decade, I am now at a point where I do not accept low budget productions hence I am not in direct competition with those who are still new in the business.

You rent out equipment for pay. The price of your rentals is proportional to the price of the equipment you rent out. If profit was not your motive, you wouldn't be in business. That's all I need to know about your motives.

I don't care where you get your lenses or how much you like them. I am interested in measurable performance metrics.

The measurable performance metrics of this Otus lens, as well as the 85mm Otus tell me that it is an over-priced product, targeted at those who don't know any better, and who believe that more expensive is better by definition.

I am not one of those people. But I am keenly aware that many others are.

I have been shooting (photos) since I was 9 years old. I'm in my early 40's now. Here's an insight based on my experience: the equipment does not make the photo. It was true for film cameras, and it is equally true for digital ones, today.

No one goes into business without profit in mind otherwise it will just be a non-profit organization. My business pays my bills.

And we do not care how you interpret the results that Roger Cicala obtained. Most will agree with his conclusions rather than yours. Who are you again?

We also could care less if you've been shooting since you were nine. I also started with film and could have possibly been shooting even longer than that. What matters is how you shoot now and what you get paid for it.

Great. If your business pays your bills, go take care of your business, pay your bills, and stop pushing your overpriced rental gear here.

I can ask you the same thing: who are you?

I've already described to you who I am. Do you not read? You are the one who's pushing your beliefs against Roger Cicala's own conclusions and based on his data. Why should we believe you when you have absolutely no credentials against Roger? You are like that person that buys and promotes cars based on the brochure and the advertised top speed. Are you sure you're not a kid?

Yes, I've got to take care of business. In fact, I have a shoot today as I did yesterday and the day before and will also do so tomorrow and the following day. Good luck trying to push your beliefs to others here of whom most also know how to read MTF charts.

I can think on my own, and I can form my own opinions and reach my own conclusions. Can you?

I don't care about Roger Cicala, or what he has to say. I care even less about you quoting Roger Cicala. Do you understand this simple concept?

Stop pushing your rental gear here and stop parroting someone else's opinions. Try thinking on your own. Assuming you can.

Did you send Roger Cicala an edible arrangement and a Hallmark card with a throbbing red heart? If you haven't yet, you should. Very soon.

Go over-charge for your photo shoot because you're using Otus lenses. There's plenty of suckers out there who will fall for your con. I'm not one of them.

Excuse me, you were the one who posted the link to Roger Cicala's review. I merely read what you posted and pointed out your error. It seems that you have a problem with comprehension. I have a friend who might be able to help. She's a shrink in NYC with really impressive credentials. I'll ask her to give you a discount. Keep in touch.

I did not know, the truth is that the shape is very similar, parasol included. I would like to know about quality, I am very surprised with my 35 f1.2 and it is from its normal line, it is the best lens I have tested for Sony E APSC and I have tested all Sony (50mm 1.8, 35mm 1.8) and Sigma (16mm f1.4 and 30mm f1.4), this Samyang turns out to be the sharpest, without distortion, with better contrast and a very nice reproduction of color (the Sony 50mm 1.8 and the sigma 30 f1.4 approach but do not arrive ). That's why I'm wondering and I do not think it's crazy if you can optically compare an XP with an Otus.

What sharp Canon lens are you talking about?

!!!

I'm not buying one there's plenty of people in the world that can easily afford Otus glass and they do give fantastic IQ.

Personally at this price point I think I'd rather go MF or even Tech cam.

@hfolkertsma, yes, for snobs they don't. For people who want to maximize the price/performance ratio using their hard earned money, they do.

U r 50% correct. I have not bought an Otus, but I have Rented an Otus.

You'll need a forklift to pick it up.

Am familiar with the 30 yo Minolta lenses on my α850. My 70 yo Carl Zeiss Jena m42 mount lenses are killers and much much better than the Minoltas on every field. Does this -in your opinion- make the East German zeiss better than Oberkochen ones?

The superlative 135mm f/2 Milvus fills that gap

It's manual focus and fixed focal length, so focus breathing won't be an issue.

Focus breathing is an artifact of AF hunting to re-acquire focus. Since manual focus stays where you set it, it doesn't breathe.

No it isn't... if you film a movie and want to get the focus from the face in the front to another one in the back, the picture/crop will change. This has nothing to do with autofocus in any regard.... it's just uncorrected. Maybe watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIrJUFtYxiQ (It's a Leica btw.)

.

@irakly
Yeah, put the 85mm into the equation and I suspect they'd have to really do something special. They might not care too much for Leica but I hope someone does a comparison. The bokeh on the 85mm has onion rings, so maybe they ironed that out. Maybe a unique look? You couldn't sell it on being sharper because the 85mm is sharp, and it's not long enough to really change they type of shots you're doing. They need to announce it so I can preorder

the difference between 85 and 100 is surprisingly significant, just like between 75 and 90 summicrons. Despite them having very similar signatures, I couldn't bring myself to like the 90 for anything but product shots and full-face portraits. 75 leaves so much space to work with while the 90 feels too confined.

@irakly
Talking specifically about portraits, the 85mm and 100mm will give different looks because of the length, but not as much that they won't be competing against each other. How much does a portrait change when you back up so the framing is the same for the 100mm and the 85mm? Or the 90mm for that. If you take the 85mm closer to match the 100mm the difference would be a little bigger. But surely they're still competing

@Gannon
I find cheeseburgers are a perfect measure of currency

"pfzt
@vscd yes! Please stop with this imperial nonsense."
There is no rest of the world, only us, the rest will come around

OKay to make it more EU friendly then we can measure it in croissants

🥴🤭