Showcase Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 APO Otus

[arthury]

What do you think?
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=5234

Sample image
14862256903_6907cc4378_o.jpg

Many say that we have enough 85mm APO lenses out there.
Tell me, which one is corrected for the blue, red and green ranges of the spectrum?
In other words, are they are real APO lenses or are they just slapping the APO on the barrel to sell lenses?

 

[lowell5]

What do you think?
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=5234

Sample image
14862256903_6907cc4378_o.jpg

Many say that we have enough 85mm APO lenses out there.
Tell me, which one is corrected for the blue, red and green ranges of the spectrum?
In other words, are they are real APO lenses or are they just slapping the APO on the barrel to sell lenses?

arthur, would you please please PLEASE get this lens and post wonderful images??

and that sample...good grief!!

 

[RickW]

I don't know about color correction, but I fear that lens will cost more than my car.

Not to mention - if one has a Zeiss 100/2, what would make this lens more attractive other than the extra stop and one half?

I am sure it will rock, but side by side next to the 100/2 - both shot at f2? Think there will be a visible difference in real photography (not talking about shooting focusing charts, brick walls etc - I mean an actual real world print)?

I fooled with the Otus 55 at the most recent PhotoFair at the Javits Center in NY. Very sharp indeed and feels like a manufacturing work of art. Worth $4k? I suppose if one hits the lottery, but for real life photographers?

At some point, one has to consider the law of diminishing returns.

 

[Kingfisher]

arthur, would you please please PLEASE get this lens and post wonderful images??

and that sample...good grief!!

Is it me or is the bokeh horrible on this lens? There's some weird aberration that separates the rock formation from the sky, very annoying. I love the 3D effect in this image as it is so realistic you can get dizzy looking at it. Doesn't looks like it is as sharp as the 55mm Otus.

 

[X Ray]

I'd much rather have an 85 1.4G and a vacation to somewhere exotic to use it. Sorry, but manual focus is for the 70's. I intend to leave it there.

Just my opinion. I know many may disagree.

 

[RickW]

I'd much rather have an 85 1.4G and a vacation to somewhere exotic to use it. Sorry, but manual focus is for the 70's. I intend to leave it there.

I sort of ignored the MF vs AF issue when I wrote my reply. I own the AF 85/1.4 and the Zeiss 100/2 and I don't necessarily mind the MF factor on the Zeiss as long as I am using it for studio type work where I have the luxury of nailing the MF. When shooting in situations where I need the AF (for example, shooting squirming/active children portraits), the Nikon AF is my preferred choice.

The point I was making is that even if one ignores the not insignificant difference between MF and AF, the price of the Zeiss 55/1.4 is too insane for me to consider. Even if it was AF. And of course, I expect that the new Otus 85, which is the subject of the thread, will cost even more. At what point is "sharp" sufficient and is it worth thousands more for that tiny smidgen of improvement (assuming that there actually is an improvement in real world use)? Just arguing that if I did have an extra $3k lying around, I could think of many other things to spend the bucks on that would give me more bang for the buck than the Otus lens series.

 

[arthury]

It is hard to argue ... in all technological fields, one has to pay in exponential terms for the final 1% of perfection.
Do you need the last 1% of perfection? Only you know.

 

[lowell5]

Is it me or is the bokeh horrible on this lens? There's some weird aberration that separates the rock formation from the sky, very annoying. I love the 3D effect in this image as it is so realistic you can get dizzy looking at it. Doesn't looks like it is as sharp as the 55mm Otus.

Yah the sky thing I noticed. But I'm pretty impressed with that pop of the cowbot against that subdued background. Bokeh is no where that of an Art lens.

 

[X Ray]

I sort of ignored the MF vs AF issue when I wrote my reply.

Hey Rick. I was just basically thinking out loud. My reply wasn't aimed as a response to anyone's posts.

I can see where you're coming from. The cost alone would do it for me, and then the fact that it won't even auto focus.......I wouldn't want it at $2k. Actually, not even for $1200.

 

[mood]

says $4500

good lord
I agree with above
I love my ancient 85/1.4 D

so many other things I can do with that kind of cash...

 

[Panther]

I'd much rather have an 85 1.4G and a vacation to somewhere exotic to use it. Sorry, but manual focus is for the 70's. I intend to leave it there.

Just my opinion. I know many may disagree.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I'm going to be a jerk and say this will be a waste of money. Better off buying a 200 f/2 VR and get the ultimate in portrait performance. I'm sure on charts this lens will blow away the 85mm 1.4 G, but in actual use I just can't see how a portrait photographer will properly utilize this thing. I got a buddy who shoots fashion with a D800E and some of his sharpest shots are off a humble 50mm 1.8 G which easily produces razor sharp double page spreads.

 

[pictureted]

I'm happy with my lowly 85/1.8G.

Seems like part of a trend to see what the upper bounds on pricing really are. Like the $250,000 multi-complicated watches and $1 Million cars - just a little closer to within reach and more useful to me.

 

[Kingfisher]

Yah the sky thing I noticed. But I'm pretty impressed with that pop of the cowbot against that subdued background. Bokeh is no where that of an Art lens.

I think a lot of the "pop" has to do with the layout scene and background. I would like to see the shoot the same scene and lighting with the 85/1.4G. I suspect there won't be all that much difference in pop. No matter, if it ain't putting lobster on my table I ain't buying it.

 

[X Ray]

I'm happy with my lowly 85/1.8G.

Exactly!

Scalpel sharp at f1.8. Gotta love this lens.

Let's be honest, it's tough to see a difference in DOF between f1.4 and f1.8. So if you don't actually need the extra light of the 1.4G, the 1.8G is a dream come true.

 

[lowell5]

I still drool over stuff that's made to be over the top or made under very tight tolerances especially to push technology. In this case the 36 MP sensors.

 

[onemorelens]

Both Lloyd Chambers and Ming Thein are raving about the optics of this lens.
If it had AF I would be sorely tempted. Thank goodness it's MF!

 

[lowell5]

Both Lloyd Chambers and Ming Thein are raving about the optics of this lens.
If it had AF I would be sorely tempted. Thank goodness it's MF!

Those guys have boners for anything zeiss.

 

[colincarter]

They might be great lenses but the Otus range are so fugly.

I know cosmetics shouldn't be an issue but OMG they look so cheap and that focus ring is horrible to use.

I'm not selling my Nikon 85 f1.4g anytime soon.

 

[Ron Scubadiver]

Ming Thien has a review of this lens:

http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/09/09/lens-review-zeiss-zf-2-1-4-85-otus-apo-planar/