# Zeiss 55 f/1.4 Distagon Availability Coming in the Next 24 Hours? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 7, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/zeiss-55-f1-4-distagon-availability-coming-in-the-next-24-hours-cr2/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/zeiss-55-f1-4-distagon-availability-coming-in-the-next-24-hours-cr2/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>New Zeiss 55 f/1.4 Distagon

</strong>We’re told that the new Zeiss 55 f/1.4 will be part of the new “Otus” family and will appear for preorder some time in the next 24 hours. This lens is the start of a new family of lenses from Zeiss that will set the gold standard of optical quality.</p>
<p>The price for this new lens is apparently $4000 and is manual focus. The lens will be available on November 11, 2013.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1007599-REG/zeiss_2010_056_55mm_f_1_4_otus_lens.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296">Preorder the Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 </a></strong></p>
<p><em>Thanks B</em></p>
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><b>cr</b></span></p>
```


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 7, 2013)

for 4000$ it better be perfect.... and people complain about maybe 400-500$ for a 50mm f1.8 IS from canon... ;D


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 7, 2013)

I cannot see how this price can be correct. Truly dumbfounding. I think Sigma is going to embarrass the shit out of Zeiss when they update their 50mm f/1.4.


----------



## Imagination_landB (Oct 7, 2013)

at this price tag it better have the best quality all around the frame from any lens on the market. What fool would buy a lens at this price AND manual focus if its not the best ever..


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 7, 2013)

For $4000, I expect the lens to have fastest & accurate AF


----------



## miv (Oct 7, 2013)

Had this lens in my hand at the last Photokina and talked about it with a Zeiss rep. He *did* say the price point would be very steep, but I don't remember the number he gave. 4k does seem a bit too much, would have guessed ~2k.

Couldn't put it on a camera, but the sample shots they had looked incredible concerning sharpness, color reproduction and in particular edge performance.

We'll see 

*Edit: I also remember him saying something like bringing medium-format standards to the 35mm world (and the accompanying prices, so maybe 4k is right after all).


----------



## horshack (Oct 7, 2013)

I'll wait for the $799 equivalent from Sigma.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 7, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> For $4000, I expect the lens to have fastest & accurate AF



that was a good one...


----------



## jebrady03 (Oct 7, 2013)

My mom shared a saying with me as a kid... "A fool and his money are soon parted".

For $4000, there better be a laundry list of things it does better than anything and everything else, and that's not limited to photography ;D


----------



## curtisnull (Oct 7, 2013)

I watched a video on this lens a few months ago. The optical quality difference is astounding. This lens makes everything else look like crap. I do recall that the price was way up there. $4,000 sounds right and it is manual focus.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 7, 2013)

curtisnull said:


> I watched a video on this lens a few months ago. The optical quality difference is astounding. This lens makes everything else look like crap. I do recall that the price was way up there. $4,000 sounds right and it is manual focus.



How could you tell from a video?


----------



## Isurus (Oct 7, 2013)

This is true. It was actually up on B&H for preorder yesterday at a price of $3999. However, it was taken down, probably at the request of Zeiss since it wasn't officially announced yet. Digilloyd had a post up briefly too, but Zeiss asked him to take it down until late this evening.


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 7, 2013)

my personal favourite advantage of the lens: the corner sharpness wide open is way sharper than on ANY other 50mm lens. shooting video at night means this feature can be essential and worth the price.


----------



## curtisnull (Oct 7, 2013)

unfocused said:


> curtisnull said:
> 
> 
> > How could you tell from a video?
> ...


----------



## deleteme (Oct 7, 2013)

Well, they can price it any way they want. I am sure they will sell enough to make it worth their while. 

What amuses me is that it will leave those complaining about Canon prices a little breathless.


----------



## curtisnull (Oct 7, 2013)

Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mEj6CqZWMk#t=112


----------



## infared (Oct 7, 2013)

I agree wit Horshack, my next 50mm will most likely be a new Art Series Sigma AF Lens, (I currently own their current 50mm f/1.4 as I feel it is best for my needs I based on the other lackluster offerings out there). I am glad to know that there is perfection out there without AF...but I can't justify that kind of coin for a manual focus 50mm lens.


----------



## drjlo (Oct 7, 2013)

infared said:


> I am glad to know that there is perfection out there without AF...but I can't justify that kind of coin for a manual focus 50mm lens.



Agreed. I *might* entertain buying that Zeiss some day at that price IF it had AF, period. 
And it still doesn't go to f/1.2, i.e. 50L Mk II (hopefully soon).


----------



## distant.star (Oct 7, 2013)

.
I understand this lens does not autofocus in the traditional sense.

However, I hear each lens includes a dedicated personal assistant -- an unclothed 19-year-old woman who sets the focus for you. She does not always get it right, but you don't really notice.

I'm going out first thing in the morning and buy a few lottery tickets; surely I'll win.


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 7, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> I understand this lens does not autofocus in the traditional sense.
> 
> However, I hear each lens includes a dedicated personal assistant -- an unclothed 19-year-old woman who sets the focus for you. She does not always get it right, but you don't really notice.



Of course, after a year, she leaves you and takes half your gear.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 7, 2013)

It'll be very interesting to see some real world tests on this lens. If the resolution is high enough to justify the cost maybe others will respond with competing lenses, and hopefully it'll help push the megapixel war machine back into gear.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 7, 2013)

FINALLY! ;D

The wait is over, too bad I spent my money for it on the 200 f2 because they took to [email protected] long to release it... New savings account started, marked 55.

Canon: Please get your stuff together and support the EC-S focusing screen for 1d X. Or make a decent 50 yourselfs...


----------



## Jappe (Oct 7, 2013)

There is official information about the lens:

http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/otus/otus1455.html

and data sheet:

http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_otus/otus_1455.pdf


----------



## Viggo (Oct 7, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Expect the Zeis to be manual focus and to deliver outstanding image quality. If you think the Zeis lenses are too highly priced then they're simply not for you.
> 
> Pre-release review:
> http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-Otus-55f1_4.html



+1, I think I can actually say I haven't seen one overpriced lens for Canon. Outstanding IQ costs a bit more than an entry level 50. I have been using the 2470 mk2 100% of time lately and I can't fail and it puts out so consistent fantastic output I have nothing to complain about. Is it twice as good as the mk1, to me, easy...


----------



## Jappe (Oct 7, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Expect the Zeis to be manual focus and to deliver outstanding image quality. If you think the Zeis lenses are too highly priced then they're simply not for you.



If you compare f.ex price per weight then Zeiss's are not priced too much over Canon announcement prices. ;D


----------



## vscd (Oct 7, 2013)

>I cannot see how this price can be correct. Truly dumbfounding. I think Sigma is going to embarrass the S___ 
>out of Zeiss when they update their 50mm f/1.4. 

I don't think so. 

And, as long as people buy Leica lenses for $6999 with lower IQ... everything is possible


----------



## janpolacekcom (Oct 7, 2013)

I have had an opportunity to play with it for a while and it worth every penny..

https://www.flickr.com/photos/janpolacek/8682080182/in/set-72157633336606129


----------



## duydaniel (Oct 7, 2013)

Look like we got some Zeiss employees on Canon site 8)


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 7, 2013)

janpolacekcom said:


> I have had an opportunity to play with it for a while and it worth every penny..
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/janpolacek/8682080182/in/set-72157633336606129



sorry but what exactly in this images justifies the price?
i see nothing you could not do with a cheaper 50mm 1.4.

maybe it´s because you resized the images and in the originals the quality is more prominent.

i do believe the zeiss is great .. just not 4000$ great.


----------



## RVB (Oct 7, 2013)

Very high quality lens,but imagine how expensive it would be if it had A.F and I.S.. for this money I prefer medium format which offers leaf shutters ,A.F and superior viewfinder.Another aspect of this that would put me off buying it is the weight,2.2lbs for a manual focus 55mm prime lens is a bit on the heavy side..


----------



## infared (Oct 7, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Expect the Zeis to be manual focus and to deliver outstanding image quality. If you think the Zeis lenses are too highly priced then they're simply not for you.
> 
> Pre-release review:
> http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-Otus-55f1_4.html



Aloof comment, above. :
...but the Zeiss does look to be IMPRESSIVE.
It would not be of much use in a high action environment, though.


----------



## RVB (Oct 7, 2013)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/748876-REG/Hasselblad_3023052_Wide_Angle_HC_50mm_II_F_3_5.html the superb HC50mm mk2 which also has autofocus and leaf shutters is only 650dollars more than the Zeiss at B&H.. No chance of me buying the Zeiss at that money..the Zeiss is obviously going to be a good low light lens and for dedicated Canon or Nikon shooters it might be worth the money but I would prefer to wait and see what Sigma and Canon do next before handing over 4k


----------



## Rick (Oct 7, 2013)

*Just Say No!!*

to ridiculous pricing. This ain't crack folks, you can do without this lens until the price HAS to be re-adjusted. Besides, success selling high prices for this brand encourages others to raise their prices.


----------



## kkelis (Oct 7, 2013)

Maybe after this Canon will start charging 4000 for their lenses


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 7, 2013)

*Re: Just Say No!!*



Rick said:



> to ridiculous pricing. This ain't crack folks, you can do without this lens until the price HAS to be re-adjusted. Besides, success selling high prices for this brand encourages others to raise their prices.



plus.. it´s really overkill for the usual 2000x1300 pixel flickr images.


----------



## nehemiah (Oct 7, 2013)

"Ridiculous" for one may be quite reasonable for another. I think some will change their minds once they see some of the images this lens will be capable of. I've certainly been tempted by the Zeiss Planar Macro after seeing some of those images. By the way, this lens doesn't even cost as much as my coffee machine (La Cimbali). That may be ridiculous to some, but more than worthwhile for me (the coffee machine, that is).


----------



## sanj (Oct 7, 2013)

nehemiah said:


> "Ridiculous" for one may be quite reasonable for another. I think some will change their minds once they see some of the images this lens will be capable of. I've certainly been tempted by the Zeiss Planar Macro after seeing some of those images. By the way, this lens doesn't even cost as much as my coffee machine (La Cimbali). That may be ridiculous to some, but more than worthwhile for me (the coffee machine, that is).



Right on brother!


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 7, 2013)

nehemiah said:


> "Ridiculous" for one may be quite reasonable for another. I think some will change their minds once they see some of the images this lens will be capable of. I've certainly been tempted by the Zeiss Planar Macro after seeing some of those images.



by the way.... the question with such stuff always is.. do you need the skills of the photographer or the lens to shot those pictures?


----------



## infared (Oct 7, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> nehemiah said:
> 
> 
> > "Ridiculous" for one may be quite reasonable for another. I think some will change their minds once they see some of the images this lens will be capable of. I've certainly been tempted by the Zeiss Planar Macro after seeing some of those images.
> ...



Having both works for me!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 7, 2013)

You do not understand. When you buy this super duper lens, you get an appointment with the best eye doctor in the world, and you get a pair of glasses that make your eyes super duper, to adjust manual focus with high precision. With this glasses in your eyes, you can even see the bacteria reproducing in sweat groom when he steps on the church door.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 7, 2013)

nehemiah said:


> And don't misunderstand, I'm not saying you've got to buy it to justify your manhood.



no, because for that you have a coffee machine.  ;D


----------



## unfocused (Oct 7, 2013)

Just received an e-mail from Adorama. The lens is officially announced and is priced at $3,990 U.S. I think I'll take a pass.


----------



## zlatko (Oct 7, 2013)

It's good to see that they made the Canon version focus in the Canon direction and the Nikon version focus in the Nikon direction.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 7, 2013)

hmmm ... no AF, no IS, 55mm, 4.3k € ... well Zeiss, thanks but no thanks. 

Come back Zeiss, once you got Canon-compatible AF in your lenses. And you can leave out the entire manual focus stuff, ring, gear, everything. Not needed here any longer.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 7, 2013)

Am I the only one that is surprised to see a ton of halos on their Flickr samples (the full-size ones from the Nikon D800E)? I'm sure the lens is sharp as $#@!, but wonder why they would post over-sharpened samples.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 7, 2013)

For those who are saying only a fool would buy this lens...I bet if it were a Canon-built lens, there would be several who would be pouncing on the "fool" name-calling. 

For myself, I can't believe Zeiss are doing this, and making it a manual focus lens. Somehow it's ok for them to make autofocus lenses for the Sony-Nex and Fuji mounts, but when it comes to Nikon and Canon mounts...manual focus is all they deserve...and to charge such a high price too? It is comical!!

Again, this not only screams for Sigma to produce a similar optical quality lens at a far lower price...but I say to build something no other manufacturer would ever try. A lens that I personally want, and no doubt there are others who want one. A 90-160mm f/1.0-1.6 zoom with IS...now THAT might almost be worth spending $4000. It could accept 100mm front filters, or else more likely use a rear filter insert of some type. It could probably weigh less than 3.5 pounds. At its announcement, Sigma could claim the suggested retail price would be $4699 or something, then turn around and let all the retailers sell them for under $4k...similar price structure to what they've been doing. They could call it "the Da Vinci Super" or something! If Canon built such a lens, they would charge $12k, and if Zeiss built it, it would be manual focus and would cost $50k !!


----------



## distant.star (Oct 7, 2013)

.
Okay, got it on my wish list at B&H. Now off to the lottery ticket store!!


----------



## janpolacekcom (Oct 7, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> janpolacekcom said:
> 
> 
> > I have had an opportunity to play with it for a while and it worth every penny..
> ...



I was on my iPad in the morning.. here is the link to the raws: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2yvtrnaphzoodru/4BbG6X43cI


----------



## infared (Oct 7, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > link=topic=17334.msg321114#msg321114 date=1381154877]
> ...




yeah well it´s like my "dick" reply....words are cheap. 
[/quote]

Jeeeez...lighten up Lichtgestalt...I thought I was making a joke.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 7, 2013)

I´m not the expert on MTF charts, but I was expecting something a bit more impressive than what Zeiss has published for this lens, ref:
http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_otus/otus_1455.pdf
I´m sure a lot of you guys are more qualified than me in interpreting this than me, but my expectations were higher. What resolution, contrast, distortion, bokeh etc. can we expect here? The image examples I have seen did not make me very wise.

On the other hand. In every discipline in the world, someone is pushing the envelope. If this lens delivers the quality Zeiss claims, and to be honest, they do have some credit to their name, it´s only natural that they charge us for it. Hifi, flyfishing gear, bicycles, watches, pens ... you name it. Enough people are more than willing to pay for the extra micro dB, milli miles/hour, nano gram saving, having something exclusive ... And the 55/1.4 will be able to trigger most of those urges with the photographiles. Am I one ... eehhh ... probably, so I´d better never read a review or (worse) try one


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 7, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> For those who are saying only a fool would buy this lens...I bet if it were a Canon-built lens, there would be several who would be pouncing on the "fool" name-calling.



If it were a Canon lens, it would have autofocus (unless it's a TS), so pouncing on them would be warranted.

I honestly can't imagine how anyone puts up with a manual focus lens. Manual focus lenses are fairly specialized pieces of hardware, usable only under fairly controlled environments—studio photography, still life photography, possibly landscapes (but only if you're not in a tour group that must adhere to a schedule), etc. I own a couple of manual focus primes in this range. I bought the pair for something like a hundred bucks plus hardware to adapt them to my camera. They're fun to use in the situations where it is feasible to do so, and if I really wanted to do some controlled (studio) portrait photography, I might pull them out, but otherwise, they are enough of a pain in the backside that a few hundred bucks is an upper bound to how much I'd pay for one.

Lack of autofocus makes a lens cheap in my mind. Sure, I can focus photos by hand, but without a really long focus throw, I'm not likely to hit the focus as precisely as an algorithm can, and with a long focus throw, I can't do it nearly as quickly. When you're doing unposed portrait photography (which is a big part of what I do when I'm touring), a half second means the difference between getting a great shot and a total dud.

So I agree with the folks saying that if this were a $4k lens with autofocus, it might be interesting, but a $4k manual focus lens is a non-starter.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Oct 7, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Expect the Zeis to be manual focus and to deliver outstanding image quality. If you think the Zeis lenses are too highly priced then they're simply not for you.
> 
> Pre-release review:
> http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-Otus-55f1_4.html



Yup. This is a no-compromises lens... The video says it all. You're basically getting medium format quality on 35mm sensor. And for $4000, that's actually a reasonable price for that caliber of lens.

But what does this REALLY mean? I bet Canon is going to announce their big megapixel camera very soon and possibly show it at Photoplus in New York. Timing seems about right. The only 35mm camera that would benefit from this lens is the D800 and Zeiss would not have poured all this money just for one camera. 

Can't wait!


----------



## dadgummit (Oct 7, 2013)

No no no no no no no!! Once Canon sees the competition selling a ~50mm lens for $4,000 then they will price theirs accordingly. This means that the rumored 50mm f1.8 IS will be in the multi thousand range instead of $500 like people are predicting. ;D


----------



## Viggo (Oct 7, 2013)

I really don't think Canon has been waiting for Zeiss to release the 55 so we
Have something to use with a high mp camera. And I don't think Zeiss knows what canon are releasing before it's released, they assume. That being said it's highly likely a few more high mp cameras will come. Not that I in any way think this lens is at all wasted on a 5d2 or 1dx.


----------



## Jeffrey (Oct 7, 2013)

I'm very much looking forward to shooting with this new lens. The other lenses that Zeiss has released for Canon bodies are amazing but cost nothing close to what this new lens will cost. 

I have no idea if Canon pays a bit of attention to Zeiss. Canon sells many multiples in the tens of thousands of lenses for one lens that Zeiss sells, the pricing points are worlds apart, and Zeiss not having autofocus eliminates a large segment of the lens buyers. 

That being said, there are those of us who absolutely love the Zeiss glass.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 7, 2013)

Is there a technical reason why it is 55mm and not 50mm? Is it not possible to design a fast (i.e. f/1.2-f/1.4) lens with a double gauss design? Is it why the 55 is a reverse-telephoto design?


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 7, 2013)

I'd be interested to try the lens, as I'm sure many would. I presume at that price copy variation is zero - or at least it better be. The copy variation we see in some of the expensive Canon ( and Nikkor ) lenses is alarming. 

But my main worry would be - post processing. 

So much can be done with even cheap pp programs to picture quality that I wonder after skillfull pp how much real word difference there would be when using moderate apertures.


----------



## ksagomonyants (Oct 7, 2013)

I'd buy it if I had money  I'm sure there going to be lot of people who can afford paying 4k for a lens. And for some of you guys who keep criticizing Zeiss for making manual focus lenses for Canon... I think the issue is not with Zeiss, but with Canon not willing to allow the Zeiss to make AF lenses for Canon bodies :-\


----------



## drjlo (Oct 7, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> But my main worry would be - post processing.
> 
> So much can be done with even cheap pp programs to picture quality that I wonder after skillfull pp how much real word difference there would be when using moderate apertures.



From what's reported so far, the big advantage of Zeiss 55 will be corner sharpness wide open. For those who need that, well price could be no object. 

It's mentioned that mere mortal lenses can be similarly sharp in the center wide open and when stopped down. Early users are also reporting the Zeiss is perhaps too sharp for portraits, calling it "Portrait for perfect skin" lens, so for non-model adults I shoot, I would be stuck with less post-processing time with my L primes.


----------



## RVB (Oct 7, 2013)

drjlo said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > But my main worry would be - post processing.
> ...


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 7, 2013)

I think this lens is far from a no compromise lens:
* LARGE
* HEAVY
* VERY EXPENSIVE
but ... different needs = different style of compromise(s). In some situations a 1 kg perfect lens IS MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE than a 300 g standard "equivalent"!

I am looking forward to test the chrome ring FD 1.4 / 50 which is small, light and waiting to be reused since 2000 with my EOS M which I bought today. "Digital" will show its weaknesses (optically) and I see low contrast/a slight halo + longitudinal CAs. My need: low DOF photography and/or low light photography - so these weaknesses might be negligible.


----------



## Axilrod (Oct 7, 2013)

Why is everyone so upset about the price of this lens? Don't buy it if you think it's too much. Price aside I'm sure it performs like a dream, I've never been disappointed by Zeiss glass.


----------



## RobertG. (Oct 7, 2013)

Hi, I'm really happy about this lens anouncement  There was no really good 50mm lens available yet. For landscape photography in this focus length I used so far an old medium format tilt-shift lens or the TS-E 45mm. Both are mediocre but you can't shoot every scene with a TS-E 24 L II or a TS-E 90mm. The tilt-shift design offered at least proper corner sharpness and less hassle than an ordinary 50mm lens on a panorama head.

I don't really mind the size or the weight of this lens. To have AF would be a bonus but I don't really care! It takes me normally several minutes to set up my equipment for a landscape shot, so I do have time to manually focus in live view. And for street photography, events etc. I prefer the EF 35L yet. For such occassions Sigma will hopefully update soon their 50mm lens.

The only negative aspect is the price. 2500-3000 EUR would be great. Now it will take a few more months of saving.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Oct 8, 2013)

Viggo said:


> I really don't think Canon has been waiting for Zeiss to release the 55 so we
> Have something to use with a high mp camera. And I don't think Zeiss knows what canon are releasing before it's released, they assume. That being said it's highly likely a few more high mp cameras will come. Not that I in any way think this lens is at all wasted on a 5d2 or 1dx.



No. You have it backwards. Zeiss has been waiting for Canon. And manufacturers work very closely together. Zeiss works with Sony and Fuji after all. Sandisk has been working closely with Canon with the new CFast 2.0 CF card standard. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the big MP Canon used this new card standard. 450MB/s: PERFECT for a fast, big MP camera.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 8, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> For $4000, I expect the lens to have fastest & accurate AF



+1


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 8, 2013)

curtisnull said:


> Here's the video:



Well it does seem to be pretty amazing in that it looks to be more or less APO and to also have zero hazing and full contrast and detail at f/1.4 under any lighting AND even into FF corners is pretty nuts.

Man $4000 though is still rough. At $2500 they may have sold some good number, $4000 will cuts sales a lot since that is just too much for many for such a lens no matter how amazing. Still it will get some sales since the performance does seem way better than any other current 50mm (I've never really had a look at the Leica stuff though, which have been said to have been the best up to this point.)

OTOH Canon managed to make a complex 24-70 2.8 more or less APO so you wonder if they couldn't match this and with AF for say $2600??

It makes the 1.2L optical performance look like a total joke, same for the sigma 1.4 and all the older types of course too.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 8, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Expect the Zeis to be manual focus and to deliver outstanding image quality. If you think the Zeis lenses are too highly priced then they're simply not for you.
> 
> Pre-release review:
> http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-Otus-55f1_4.html



It really does seem to be awfully amazing at f/1.4. It's really a shame it doesn't have AF. You almost have to use liveview since VF MF is so awful these days with many cameras (especially with 5D3 which has the dumb smart VF that is utterly useless for MF).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 8, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> janpolacekcom said:
> 
> 
> > I have had an opportunity to play with it for a while and it worth every penny..
> ...



How about absolute color purity? A regular 50 1.4 would be tossing green hazes over everthing behind the exact plane of focus and purple in front and would be blurry near the edges and under some of those lighting conditions you'd get some bad halation effects. Remember those are all f/1.4, many under very nasty lighting (for a 1.4 lens).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 8, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I´m not the expert on MTF charts, but I was expecting something a bit more impressive than what Zeiss has published for this lens, ref:
> http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_otus/otus_1455.pdf
> I´m sure a lot of you guys are more qualified than me in interpreting this than me, but my expectations were higher. What resolution, contrast, distortion, bokeh etc. can we expect here? The image examples I have seen did not make me very wise.
> 
> On the other hand. In every discipline in the world, someone is pushing the envelope. If this lens delivers the quality Zeiss claims, and to be honest, they do have some credit to their name, it´s only natural that they charge us for it. Hifi, flyfishing gear, bicycles, watches, pens ... you name it. Enough people are more than willing to pay for the extra micro dB, milli miles/hour, nano gram saving, having something exclusive ... And the 55/1.4 will be able to trigger most of those urges with the photographiles. Am I one ... eehhh ... probably, so I´d better never read a review or (worse) try one



well compare to the canon 50 1.4:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_4_usm

note that you need to look at the f/1.4 zeiss chart and compare the top zeiss line to the top thick BLACK canon line  and the bottom BLACK Canon line to what would be a line somewhere half-way between the two lower zeiss lines. Looks better now no?

Also I think zeiss MTF are measured on an optical bench from a real lens while the canon chart is from an ideal lens copy computer simulation.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 8, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> Is there a technical reason why it is 55mm and not 50mm? Is it not possible to design a fast (i.e. f/1.2-f/1.4) lens with a double gauss design? Is it why the 55 is a reverse-telephoto design?



they didn't want to use a simple double gauss design again anyway, yeah those are cheap and produce amazing result stopped down but we have tons of those with the current non-L canons and regular nikons and so on


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 8, 2013)

not having AF though, not joking this time, does hurt it, 4k is a lot and without AF its usage is more limited (especially considering how miserable most modern DSLR are for through the VF AF, it's not like old pre-AF days where you at least had a chance to MF)


----------



## Policar (Oct 8, 2013)

Performance looks unreal. Great that they're taking apochromatic performance seriously as it makes a huge difference. These photos look incredible.


----------



## ME (Oct 8, 2013)

I like Zeiss and have several already. This looks to be a really good lens, but @$4000 it is too much for my budget. I might would pay ~$2500, but after reading the diglloyd review, my 5dII would not be good enough for this lens and I would have to buy a D800 camera:"The 55/1.4 Distagon is the ideal lens for a camera having a sensor with very wide dynamic range, such as the Nikon D800/D800E". Where is ankorwhats his name. Just kidding!! ??? : ;D


----------



## tnargs (Oct 8, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> I cannot see how this price can be correct. Truly dumbfounding. I think Sigma is going to embarrass the S___ out of Zeiss when they update their 50mm f/1.4.



Too true!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 8, 2013)

I'm surprised at the feelings that the price is too high. $50,000 and up is common for high quality Cinema lenses, and some are so expensive that they won't sell them, just lease them.

$4,000 is chicken feed as far as high end lenses go.
Of course, the spy agencies have been known to invest hundreds of millions.


----------



## ME (Oct 8, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm surprised at the feelings that the price is too high. $50,000 and up is common for high quality Cinema lenses, and some are so expensive that they won't sell them, just lease them.
> 
> $4,000 is chicken feed as far as high end lenses go.
> Of course, the spy agencies have been known to invest hundreds of millions.




I'm not saying it is too high. It is too high for my budget. I would also like to have the Zeiss 15/f2.8, but my budget wont allow it at this time. The Zeiss 35/1.4, 135/f2 are also in my sights. I have the 50/1.4, the 21/f2.8, and 100/f2 mp. Can only afford so many Zeiss's at a time, unless you would consider a no-interest loan over a 10yr span ;D. I wonder if I could borrow the Hubble for a while. After all, my tax dollars paid for a few molecules of it.


----------



## bleephotography (Oct 8, 2013)

Here's a lengthy interview/preview by B&H: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DILwPyQKDA

Personally, if it had AF I'd be willing to fork out $4k, which is not to say it isn't worth the money; it just isn't worth _my_ money.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 8, 2013)

There are endless threads on this forum about the slow AF of the 85 1.2L II. This Zeiss lens have 248 deg rotation angle of focusing ring and I assume it carries (at least) as much glass. For you who understand this better than me, wouldn´t that end up being a very slow AF?


----------



## duydaniel (Oct 8, 2013)

bleephotography said:


> Here's a lengthy interview/preview by B&H: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DILwPyQKDA
> 
> Personally, if it had AF I'd be willing to fork out $4k, which is not to say it isn't worth the money; it just isn't worth _my_ money.



Thanks
After watching, I have more respect for Zeiss


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 8, 2013)

drjlo said:


> From what's reported so far, the big advantage of Zeiss 55 will be corner sharpness wide open. For those who need that, well price could be no object.
> 
> It's mentioned that mere mortal lenses can be similarly sharp in the center wide open and when stopped down. Early users are also reporting the Zeiss is perhaps too sharp for portraits, calling it "Portrait for perfect skin" lens, so for non-model adults I shoot, I would be stuck with less post-processing time with my L primes.



Yeah, that's another reason I don't get this lens. What's the target audience?

Corner sharpness in a portrait lens just isn't that important, typically. If anything, it is undesirable; many of the lenses that I've seen folks rate as being the best for portraits are some of the softest at the corners, because corner softness puts emphasis on the subject, who is typically at the center.

And for landscapes, 55mm is typically too narrow by a factor of two-ish, so I can't imagine that they intended those folks to buy it, either.

And no AF means that you won't realistically want to use it as your walking-around lens (not to mention that 55mm is a bit tight for that—IMO the sweet spot is somewhere in the 30-40mm range).

*shrugs* I guess they think somebody is looking for this lens. I just wish I understood who.




Eldar said:


> There are endless threads on this forum about the slow AF of the 85 1.2L II. This Zeiss lens have 248 deg rotation angle of focusing ring and I assume it carries (at least) as much glass. For you who understand this better than me, wouldn´t that end up being a very slow AF?



Probably, yes. They presumably built it the way they did so that it would be easier to manually focus accurately. Precise manual focus and autofocus speed are basically at odds with one another.


----------



## George D. (Oct 8, 2013)

"The golden standard"... Standing ovation to Zeiss. _Takane no hana _ (Jpn: something beyond reach).


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 8, 2013)

Eldar said:


> There are endless threads on this forum about the slow AF of the 85 1.2L II. This Zeiss lens have 248 deg rotation angle of focusing ring and I assume it carries (at least) as much glass. For you who understand this better than me, wouldn´t that end up being a very slow AF?



AF speed depends on the forces you can apply to the moving elements. The higher the forces the higher the acceleration and the faster the moving elements of the focusing group are in place.
But the forces to accelerate an object are proportional to the mass of that object - so your idea is basically correct if you take into account that the forces you can apply in a lens are limited. That is the fact because the battery of a camera can only provide some limited power and this limits the forces on - e.g. - focusing elements.
Compare a 30 kW engine for a motorcycle and a truck.

Internal focusing is a solution with telephotos: You move a small and more or less lightweight element to gain focus. In Zeiss' OTUS 1.4 55 I see only massive lenses/lens groups so it will be limited in that way.

You can overcome that problem with stronger batteries (or perhaps a supercap which provides power peaks) and stronger motors but ... fast acceleration and deceleration of massive lens groups will rotate or shift your lens/camera system substantially. You can add additional masses which move in the opposite direction to compensate for this effect ... twice the power is needed and we speak about a 2 kg lens system with a 1/2 kg battery ... not exactly a system for the hobbyist!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 8, 2013)

I totally agree and unfortunatly we live the generation of lens chart "experts" who troll internet review re-gurgitating the same old twollop, without every understanding why or how to use a particular lens. It reminds me of the old mk 24-70L lens....widely slamed by review sites and yet it's in the lens bag of 99% of professionals who shoot Canon. It was the web based amatures who dissed it while most of the pros loved it and were perplexed by the amatures opinion. In my opinion many maligned lenses generally outperform their owners! 
I wish people would seek perfection in their photography and not their gear!

For a portrait lens, say take a 35mm, I am looking for a lens which when shot wide open, has gentle vignetting and soft corners. Which has good contrast, good colour and sharpness. Not too much contrast or hyper colours. Accurate AF at both MFD and infinity and I need the out of focus rendering to be smooth and unfussy (eg 50L not 50 1.4). I need it small and light and not intimidating to my subject. Close Min focus is ideal but not essential, most portraits are around the 1 metre mark. If I need this lens for landscapes or studio, I expect the vignetting to go and the corners to shapen up and even up across the frame as I stop down.

Very few photographers actually need sharp corners wide open. Unfortunatly, twee lens review sites tell uninformed people that they do. There are photographers who shoot only lens charts and like twiddling their moustaches....apparently they consider themselves "experts" although they often don't seem to have the matching photos


----------



## Viggo (Oct 8, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Very few photographers actually need sharp corners wide open. Unfortunatly, twee lens review sites tell uninformed people that they do.



I agree with a lot of you say, but using the 5d3 and 1dx focusing system having sharp corners is the difference between having to only use center composition, or use the edge focusing points and still retain a sharp image. A HUGE difference for me. Try shooting the 50 L wide open at the edge focusing points, and then do the same with the 200 f2. It makes or breaks a composition. For me at least. It's not about having detail in the background with a center composed portrait.


----------



## Isurus (Oct 8, 2013)

I'm honestly surprised by the negativity around price with this lens. It's a niche lens with a complex design and near flawless image performance that demands a large price. So be it I say. I'd like to purchase it, but two things will prevent me from doing so in the short term:


Canon does not have a high megapixel body yet to take advantage of this lens. Granted, there are certainly other benefits such as color rendition, contrast, edge-to-edge sharpness, but my guess is that it really shines with a high megapixel body
Manual focus through the viewfinder on newer Canon models is an exercise in frustration if you are extremely anal about perfect focus placement. Forget about it on the 5D III, as the viewfinder presents an image with an f-stop well smaller than large ones on prime lenses. I have a 1D-X, but have yet to try one of the focus screens that can be purchased, so maybe I can go that route.

Regardless, I find this thens very intriguing and hope to be able to rent a copy to try at some point. I will reserve any judgment on price until then.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 8, 2013)

Isurus said:


> I'm honestly surprised by the negativity around price with this lens. It's a niche lens with a complex design and near flawless image performance that demands a large price. So be it I say. I'd like to purchase it, but two things will prevent me from doing so in the short term:
> 
> 
> Canon does not have a high megapixel body yet to take advantage of this lens. Granted, there are certainly other benefits such as color rendition, contrast, edge-to-edge sharpness, but my guess is that it really shines with a high megapixel body
> ...



As MP goes up, difraction limitations increases...so the pros and cons of high MP cameras on a 35mm format is unkown at the moment. 
It's true, the 5DIII and all Canon stock screens render a DOF of roughly f4...which is a million miles away from fast primes (f1.2). For f2.8 glass, it's not so important but for fast primes, it needs to be worked around. The 1Dx, 5DII and 6D have interchangable screens and when fitted with a "g rated" fine focus screen, the actual DOF can been seen in the viewfinder...but the screen is somewhat darker (fine if you are using primes). I have found that the Spot AF system (which I think isn't on the 1Dx - please correct me if i'm wrong) is fantastic and nailing a precisely placed point of focus, but it's tricky. 
All DSLR's with liveview can "see" the right DOF on the back sceen....sure it's not as nice or easy to use as the view finder, but it's an option.
Will I be trying this lens? Probably not and I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to. It's 2013 and I need lenses which have top tier AF systems to match the capability of my top tier DSLR camera bodies.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 8, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Isurus said:
> 
> 
> > I'm honestly surprised by the negativity around price with this lens. It's a niche lens with a complex design and near flawless image performance that demands a large price. So be it I say. I'd like to purchase it, but two things will prevent me from doing so in the short term:
> ...



"roughly f4" ? I think it's actually f2.5.

The 1d X have the spot-AF in the same way the 5d3 does, and also an advantage over the 5d3, the ability to set spot-metering to any focusing point.

I have the EC-S focusing screen for the 1d X, but I stopped using it after buying the 24-70 II, and it was indeed tricky, because metering isn't supported so you will be doing a fair bit of compensation.


----------



## Rick (Oct 8, 2013)

*If you paid more than $4k for a coffee maker, you deserve the Zeiss lens.*



nehemiah said:


> "Ridiculous" for one may be quite reasonable for another. I think some will change their minds once they see some of the images this lens will be capable of. I've certainly been tempted by the Zeiss Planar Macro after seeing some of those images. By the way, this lens doesn't even cost as much as my coffee machine (La Cimbali). That may be ridiculous to some, but more than worthwhile for me (the coffee machine, that is).



Somehow, I must believe you are pulling my leg.

I think 99.9999% out of 100 photographers will agree with me. However, at this price, maybe Zeiss only needs the .0001% to be profitable. The raw manufacturing cost of this lens would be only a fraction higher than any of their other 35mm SLR 50s.


----------



## nehemiah (Oct 8, 2013)

*Re: If you paid more than $4k for a coffee maker, you deserve the Zeiss lens.*



Rick said:


> nehemiah said:
> 
> 
> > "Ridiculous" for one may be quite reasonable for another. I think some will change their minds once they see some of the images this lens will be capable of. I've certainly been tempted by the Zeiss Planar Macro after seeing some of those images. By the way, this lens doesn't even cost as much as my coffee machine (La Cimbali). That may be ridiculous to some, but more than worthwhile for me (the coffee machine, that is).
> ...



Do you own any Zeiss glass? I do. I still have it and did not return it. All those 99.9999% people that you are ASSUMING agree with you (even on this forum, you'll see more of an 70/30 split as to the opinion on this lens -- certainly not 99.9999 to .0001), every single one of them is familiar with the Zeiss name. Why? They've been in business for a long time, and seemingly are doing just fine. Oh, but you know better than they what sells.

The lack of reason and humility around here is disconcerting.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 8, 2013)

Viggo said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Isurus said:
> ...



It's certainly higher than f2.8 becuase I've tested it with my lenses...stock screen and I can't see stopping down from f1.2 round to f4.

At launch there was internet forum chatter around the 1Dx's spot focus point only being usable on certain lenses, where as it was open to any lens on a 5DIII. But I could well be wrong, it's just what I remembered from the specs at launch. Where the 1Dx certainly as an AF feature is when all 61 points are active, the colour and face deetection AI Servo tracking is amazing. The 5DIII's tracking is excellent, but not in the same league. But the 5DIII is a different machine for different markets, it was heavily directed by a well known wedding photographer...hence the dual slots, pro AF, superior build and nearly silent shutter (very sweet and spookily quiet). 

There's a menu item custom function for the EC-S screen, it'll allow the camera to meter correctly. Otherwise, you'll get some funky and inconsistent metering.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 8, 2013)

Just to play the devil's advocate here in terms of price/performance, let's assume the new Zeiss is able to outresolve the highest resolution Canon sensor, the 5D Mark III. If we trust DxO's measurements, there is only one lens that currently outresolves the 5D III sensor, the 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM, which retails for $7,299. It has autofocus, IS, and a fancy lens case.

Assuming the Zeiss 55 is of similar build quality, comes with some kind of fancy case, and is manufactured at a much smaller scale, the price doesn't seem entirely outrageous. All other factors aside, it costs more to make far fewer lenses than it does for volume production and Germany is typically more expensive than Japan.

I hope the lens turns out to be amazing - anything that will motivate other manufacturers to compete is a good thing.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 8, 2013)

Wow...$4000 for a lens that's just this side of useless - no AF and the most boring focal length there is.

Honestly, I wouldn't pay $80 for it. I'd rather have a used Canon 50/1.8. Actually, I sold my 50/1.8 (and 50/1.4), so I probably wouldn't even pay $80 for a Canon.

Okay, I'd give $20 for it. Maybe I could use it for something.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 8, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Just to play the devil's advocate here in terms of price/performance, let's assume the new Zeiss is able to outresolve the highest resolution Canon sensor, the 5D Mark III. If we trust DxO's measurements, there is only one lens that currently outresolves the 5D III sensor, the 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM, which retails for $7,299.



Never trust the DxO measurements for that - they are shot through an AA filter, and thus are not telling you the performance of the lens, only the lens plus the AA filter.

Most Canon lenses dramatically "out-resolve" the highest pixel-density sensor Canon makes (the 70D).


----------



## zlatko (Oct 8, 2013)

*Re: If you paid more than $4k for a coffee maker, you deserve the Zeiss lens.*



dilbert said:


> nehemiah said:
> 
> 
> > I think 99.9999% out of 100 photographers will agree with me. However, at this price, maybe Zeiss only needs the .0001% to be profitable. The raw manufacturing cost of this lens would be only a fraction higher than any of their other 35mm SLR 50s.
> ...



Of course he doesn't know or have any info to share. The lens has rare glass, a floating element and other features that help it to deliver an unbelievable level of performance. It is much bigger and built to a higher standard. Production will be much slower and more labor intensive than for a typical 50/1.4. All of that costs money to build ... a lot of money.

The first image samples look absolutely stunning. This lens is going to make some people very, very happy. It is not in my budget, and with manual focus it's not that practical for my work. Under different circumstances I would be all over it.


----------



## xvnm (Oct 8, 2013)

*Re: Just Say No!!*



dilbert said:


> Ridiculous?
> 
> Check the price for other Canon EF lenses made by Zeis:
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?sts=ta&Ns=p_PRICE_2|1&N=0&srtclk=sort&Ntt=zeiss+for+canon



This kit seems pretty reasonable: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/818396-REG/Zeiss_410951_0000_032_ZE_SLR_Lens_Case.html


----------



## RGF (Oct 8, 2013)

Wonder if OTUS is code for grossly overprice?


----------



## RVB (Oct 8, 2013)

I'm Looking forward to the 35mm and 21mm versions,especially the 21mm which is a focal length I like a lot..


----------



## Jeffrey (Oct 8, 2013)

The only review that I have read from anyone who has actually used the lens is from Lloyd Chambers. Yet everyone is an expert and has strong opinions about the lens without ever having shot one frame using the new lens. Minds made up. Verdict entered. How sad!

I'm sure that in time the usual lens rental companies will have the lens available for rent. Maybe take the lens for a test drive, after which you can decide if the lens is great based on your own review.


----------



## RVB (Oct 8, 2013)

Jeffrey said:


> The only review that I have read from anyone who has actually used the lens is from Lloyd Chambers. Yet everyone is an expert and has strong opinions about the lens without ever having shot one frame using the new lens. Minds made up. Verdict entered. How sad!
> 
> I'm sure that in time the usual lens rental companies will have the lens available for rent. Maybe take the lens for a test drive, after which you can decide if the lens is great based on your own review.



I doubt anyone will be disappointed with the I.Q unless they want a lens with a slightly softer look for portrait's,or If they just find the haptic's unfriendly.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm surprised at the feelings that the price is too high. $50,000 and up is common for high quality Cinema lenses, and some are so expensive that they won't sell them, just lease them.
> 
> $4,000 is chicken feed as far as high end lenses go.
> Of course, the spy agencies have been known to invest hundreds of millions.



Yeah but Cinema lenses also sell like 10 copies. And spy lenses may have a total run of 1 or maybe a handful.


----------



## candc (Oct 9, 2013)

4 grand is a lot but just think, no more sigma af problems! sold!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I totally agree and unfortunatly we live the generation of lens chart "experts" who troll internet review re-gurgitating the same old twollop, without every understanding why or how to use a particular lens.



More like the age of the arrogant artistic/pro type who doesn't get tech and just tries to disparage those who do.
Learn how to expose!!!! Learn how to shoot!!!!

Yeah whatever. Of course nobody who cares about any lens or sensor details knows how to expose or cares to ever bother trying to compose.



> It reminds me of the old mk 24-70L lens....widely slamed by review sites and yet it's in the lens bag of 99% of professionals who shoot Canon. It was the web based amatures who dissed it while most of the pros loved it and were perplexed by the amatures opinion.



It depends what you wanted to do with it and what type of pro you were. Plenty of pros don't shoot anything that needs crispy corners at 24mm FF or care about purple fringing branches against skies. Then again some do. It depends what you wanted/needed out of it.

I also see a ton of pros praising the new version and saying it was well worth the price over their old version.

Don't forget that the new one also has a higher precision AF engine (which most other than landscape pros could surely appreciate at least a little bit) and it's not just sharper across the board but also fights off stuff like longitudinal CA better. If you don't care, don't pay, but enough with the high and mighty act.



> In my opinion many maligned lenses generally outperform their owners!



That's as silly a tired old statement as saying that only the lens matters.



> Very few photographers actually need sharp corners wide open. Unfortunatly, twee lens review sites tell uninformed people that they do.



It depends, for super-tele and 70-200 longer lenses it can be nice to have sharp corners wide open.
It's not as critical for a wider lens in many cases, I think PZ was a bit off for slamming the 24 1.4 II as being worse than the 24-105 just because it has totally soft edges at 1.4 (nevermind they are much sharper at all shared apertures). That said, at times you might have important stuff off-center and many lenses quickly go bad off-center at f/1.4.

Also don't forget that this lens does a lot more than just offer better edges sharpness. It gets rid of halation which can occur across the frame when shooting say the canon 50 1.4 at 1.4 under bright conditions and when too much light is reflecting off everything in the scene. It can also get tons and tons of nasty purple fringing (and green haze over OOF stuff).




> There are photographers who shoot only lens charts and like twiddling their moustaches....apparently they consider themselves "experts" although they often don't seem to have the matching photos



The funny thing is that so far from what I've seen, 80% of the people who write what you just did end up having nothing but some shots of a few cats in their back yard in their galleries and the amateur twiddler lab techies end up having giant galleries from around the world or big time sporting event, etc.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I totally agree and unfortunatly we live the generation of lens chart "experts" who troll internet review re-gurgitating the same old twollop, without every understanding why or how to use a particular lens. It reminds me of the old mk 24-70L lens....widely slamed by review sites and yet it's in the lens bag of 99% of professionals who shoot Canon. It was the web based amatures who dissed it while most of the pros loved it and were perplexed by the amatures opinion. In my opinion many maligned lenses generally outperform their owners!
> I wish people would seek perfection in their photography and not their gear!
> 
> For a portrait lens, say take a 35mm, I am looking for a lens which when shot wide open, has gentle vignetting and soft corners. Which has good contrast, good colour and sharpness. Not too much contrast or hyper colours. Accurate AF at both MFD and infinity and I need the out of focus rendering to be smooth and unfussy (eg 50L not 50 1.4). I need it small and light and not intimidating to my subject. Close Min focus is ideal but not essential, most portraits are around the 1 metre mark. If I need this lens for landscapes or studio, I expect the vignetting to go and the corners to shapen up and even up across the frame as I stop down.
> ...



Not to say that you need anything fancy to take really nice photos. You can have fun and take nice shots of certain things with just a simple body and a single cheap lens.

(otoh use that at the super bowl and you may never return again)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2013)

Viggo said:


> "roughly f4" ? I think it's actually f2.5.



not realistically. shoot an f/2.8 lens and it makes a HUGE zone appear to be in focus and it's not easy at all
realistically I'd call it closer to f/5.6 to be honest terms of how well you can use it, especially if you don't take 10 minutes to rock back and forth to it


----------



## nehemiah (Oct 9, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> i see nothing you could not do with a cheaper 50mm 1.4.



I don't know. Lloyd Chambers says that this lens (after shooting with it, and I quote), "without doubt the finest lens ever produced for a SLR or DSLR . . . It sets a new benchmark".

But Lichtgestalt says he can do it with a 50 1.4. So I don't know.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 9, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > "roughly f4" ? I think it's actually f2.5.
> ...



Set the lens to 5.6 and push the dof button and you don't see a difference in dof and brightness?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 9, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It depends what you wanted to do with it and what type of pro you were. Plenty of pros don't shoot anything that needs crispy corners at 24mm FF or care about purple fringing branches against skies. Then again some do. It depends what you wanted/needed out of it.
> 
> I also see a ton of pros praising the new version and saying it was well worth the price over their old version.
> 
> ...



I've not seem much purple fringing with my 24-70L, although I do see a bit from my 85IIL. My 24-70L shows a bit of CA maybe but not that much to be a problem, my 2nd photographer's 24-70L is a tad sharper than mine and is a really nice lens. Yes the new version is an amazing upgrade to the mkI in almost every area, although probably not to my 2nd photographer's copy...hers is stellar. I am waiting for a new one, but I rarely buy new equipment during a wedding season. I like to learn and shake a lens down in my own time and not introduce a risk into a wedding. It's a fantastic piece of kit and the two which i've tried were very impressive. Much like this Zeiss lens I guess. 

If you think I have a high and might act then you really don't know me at all.

The lens an important component in a chain of important components and skill sets...and my statement was not silly. 

You are welcome to look over my flickr account and professional wedding blog site to see if I fit into your view of your 80% view...I hope not. I'm not hard to find and I have plenty to show! Just google GMC Photographics.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 9, 2013)

This is an interesting lens for sure and I'm probably not Zeiss' target audience, so my thought and opinions of this lens are largely irrelivant to Zeiss. If we compare Canon's 50L, there is a stark comparison here between two dinstinct markets / buyers. 
I have no need for manual focus lenses. I have only two in my collection, the TS-e 17L and 45. Both of which, I rarely use. 
The Canon 50L has probably the best AF, contrast, build quality and flare control of any 50mm lens currently made. It's a very nice piece of engineering which is quite apparent when handling one. But optically, it has some weak spots, particularly with sharpness wide open. It's expensive compared to the consumer and prosumer counterparts. But the feature which seperate it from those other lenses are the features which most working pros desire and need. 
This Zeiss is a lot more expensive and therefore attracts a different kind of personality. One who views optical performance as the highest priority, before eye watering cost, AF, build and all other considerations. 
I could buy a new 400mm f2.8 L IS II for the same price of this new 55mm lens...which puts this new lens into perspective!


----------



## RVB (Oct 9, 2013)

"I could buy a new 400mm f2.8 L IS II for the same price of this new 55mm lens...which puts this new lens into perspective! " 

Where can you buy a 400mm 2.8 L mk2 for 3000euros??


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 9, 2013)

My 2c are:

I. People spend that much on 5Dmk3 + 24-105mm f/4, I guess some studio photographers would spend that much on a top of the line normal lens.

II. The lens would get cheaper in a couple of years, so when Canon upgrades it's 50mm L & 85mm L, it would have to make the lenses competitive with this one. That could have a cascade effect, as in how expensive & good the 85mm f/1.8 upgrade would have to be.

[I'm assuming Canon would want to upgrade the 85mm f/1.8 to compete with Sigma's 85mm f/1.4 eventually.]

I might be wrong, but I have some hope this would do some good to future upgrades.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 9, 2013)

RVB said:


> "I could buy a new 400mm f2.8 L IS II for the same price of this new 55mm lens...which puts this new lens into perspective! "
> 
> Where can you buy a 400mm 2.8 L mk2 for 3000euros??



Yep, apologies, I got my numbers all wrong. I thought his was retailing at 8K...although I probably could pick up a S/H mkI for close to the retail or this lens. I couls certainly pick up a 135L 50L and 24IIL for the same price!


----------



## RVB (Oct 9, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> RVB said:
> 
> 
> > "I could buy a new 400mm f2.8 L IS II for the same price of this new 55mm lens...which puts this new lens into perspective! "
> ...



It's a lot of money but like high end audio you pay a lot for the extra 10% in performance ,the main attraction here is the superior performance at wide aperture's and control of aberrations,focus shift is barely evident and the same for LOCA,I ordered one today here http://www.dalephotographic.co.uk/mall/productpage.cfm/DalePhotographicOnline/_2010056/301525/Zeiss%20Otus%2055mm%20f1%2E4%20Apo%20Distagon%20Canon%20ZE%20Lens I just couldn't resist trying it out,I will ebay some unused gear to cover the cost,also I think that a speciality lens like this will hold its value well over time..

The is a 21mm version on the cards and also an 85mm according to this Zeiss rep Carl Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Distagon, Sony NEX, and 135mm f/2.0 APO-Sonnar

My main system is a Leica S which offers amazing performance with A.F and Leaf shutters so for me this purchase is all about low light shooting..


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 9, 2013)

RVB said:


> The is a 21mm version on the cards and also an 85mm according to this Zeiss rep


I could definitely get on board with a 21mm version, but need to start saving now, I suppose. 

Also, I can't believe everyone's shock over the price. It was announced and designed as a no holds barred lens and given what Canon's charging for the superteles (not to mention Leica [35mm & MF], Hasselblad & co.), I don't think it's crazy. From LLoyd's mini review on B&H, it looks like it delivers and is built to be tough as nails.


----------



## vscd (Oct 9, 2013)

>People spend that much on 5Dmk3 + 24-105mm f/4, I guess some studio
>photographers would spend that much on a top of the line normal lens.

I totally agree with that.

>II. The lens would get cheaper in a couple of years

No, they never do. The opposite is on Zeiss, they rise in years. For example: http://geizhals.at/de/?phist=369893&age=9999]


>That could have a cascade effect, as in how expensive & good the 85mm f/1.8 
>upgrade would have to be.

The 85mm 1.8 needs no update, this is one hell of a lense. And if you need more
light, there is an unbeatable lense available (85L 1.2). 

>[I'm assuming Canon would want to upgrade the 85mm f/1.8 to compete with 
>Sigma's 85mm f/1.4 eventually.]

I don't think so. Canon has really done great lenses for the 85mm range.

>I might be wrong, but I have some hope this would do some good to future upgrades.

There are a lot of Zeiss distagon/planar-lenses out there for ages, rangin from 1000-2500 
Euro. There is no impact on canon because they don't compete... manual lenses with 
perfect optics are another class than AF-lenses, I guess most of em are sold to videomaker.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 9, 2013)

Photography much like any other hobby has products that vary in quality and pricing. And much like other hobbies, things get exponentially more expensive as you get to the top end. If this lens is in fact optically capable of what Zeiss is claiming, then it is unmatched by anything else on the market. If you look at any other line of products for any activity, the absolute top of the line item will almost always seem outrageously priced unless you happen to want/need what that item can do that all the competing items of that type cannot. 

While I agree that it is a large sum of money for a normal lens, the fact that it is able to do something which no other lens can currently do makes it worth the price of admission (for the consumer that needs/wants that level of performance for their work). They could ask 5k for the lens and it would still be justifiable in my book since NO OTHER LENS CAN DO WHAT IT DOES (optically). No, it doesn't have AF or IS. But the guys that are looking at buying this lens aren't necessarily concerned with that. Not that I am an expert on this, but based on the little I do know, both of those features could cause restrictions on obtaining maximum optical quality and aberration control. 

Yes, there are plenty of other normal lenses that will get YOUR specific job done for a lot less cheese (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that). But guess what, that doesn't mean there aren't people out there that can make good use of the optical quality this lens offers. 

Everything has it's place. Different strokes for different folks.

I personally own the 50/2 Makro alongside the 50L, and Conurus modded Contax Zeiss 50/1.4. I love all three for their unique characteristics and they all have their place depending on what I am trying to accomplish. Many would say that is a waste of money and I COULD get the job done with just one of them. But hey, if you can afford to have something and it does what you want it to do, why not? No reason to knock people for purchasing something when you don't necessarily share their set of needs/wants. 

All of this is neither here nor there anyway. I just want to see what this lens starts yielding once it gets in the hands of consumers as it could be stunning.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 9, 2013)

vscd said:


> >That could have a cascade effect, as in how expensive & good the 85mm f/1.8
> >upgrade would have to be.
> 
> The 85mm 1.8 needs no update, this is one hell of a lense. And if you need more
> light, there is an unbeatable lense available (85L 1.2).



I use fast primes mainly to shoot bands on stage, where I'd like to have fast focus. I've heard the 85mm f/1.2 is slow to focus, and not making money from my equipment*, I'm hesitant to spend that much for an extra stop (not to dis the f/1.2's IQ, which I've heard is legendary).

Sigma released it's 85mm f/1.4 after I bought the Canon f/1.8, and I see no reason to switch, certainly not for a fraction of a stop.

Some of my friends bought the Sigma for that fraction of a stop, even though it costs twice as much as Canons 85mm f/1.8, which is where I think Canon loses money.




* If I wasn't afraid to self employ in a very competitive market, I flatter myself that I would have done just that. As a friend once said, There is a fine line between cowardice and wisdom.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2013)

Viggo said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



compare the DOF difference to when using liveview and try actually focusing an f/2.8 or f/4 lens through the VF in real world scenarios


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I could buy a new 400mm f2.8 L IS II for the same price of this new 55mm lens...which puts this new lens into perspective!



If only! You can't even buy the 300 2.8 IS II for the same price. Or even a used 300 2.8 original Mark I for that price (I'm glad I got mine, new, for this price though, just before the prices went all crazy for the super-teles).

(I didn't look over your website much but you are not the 80% cats only. You do seem to focus mostly on weddings and, on top, mostly B&W (which also limits some types of artifacts) and such shooters often have different needs and priority than many others and they are the other group that tends to say such things often.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2013)

RVB said:


> The is a 21mm version on the cards and also an 85mm according to this Zeiss rep Carl Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Distagon, Sony NEX, and 135mm f/2.0 APO-Sonnar



The 85mm sounds the most potentially interesting. It is a shame about the loss of AF though as it does relegate the line, especially with today's VF, to more specialized shots, of which plenty can be made so you could get a lot out of it, but at these prices it is rough to be locked out of so many other scenarios.

It seems perhaps a bit overkill for 21mm since that is really wide and edge non-landscapes subjects might start looking weird and you have sharp ones to the corner now stopped down and ones that fight off PF well and ones that offer T&S effects. Although even with the 24 1.4 II and 24-70 II you do have to watch the corners a little bit even stopped down and the current zeiss 21 already has a bit more biting micro-contrast than those.... But the 24-70 II already is just about APO and you get AF and ZOOM so you don't need to crop as often or as much and the 24 and 17 T&S primes, well, offer T&S effects. So a $4500 21mm has a lot of competition in serious ways.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2013)

vscd said:


> The 85mm 1.8 needs no update, this is one hell of a lense. And if you need more
> light, there is an unbeatable lense available (85L 1.2).



They are super sharp stopped down and not too bad wide-open, but they could be sharper at the edges wide open and even at the center (especially the 1.2L isn't 100% sharp wide open). But more than that, they suffer from LoCA. The 85 1.8 has about as much LoCA as I have ever seen from a lens! Even under weak indoor lighting in a gym white uniforms become absolutely riddled with PF all over the place. They toss tons of purple in front and green haze behind all over stuff.


----------



## ME (Oct 9, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Photography much like any other hobby has products that vary in quality and pricing. And much like other hobbies, things get exponentially more expensive as you get to the top end. If this lens is in fact optically capable of what Zeiss is claiming, then it is unmatched by anything else on the market. If you look at any other line of products for any activity, the absolute top of the line item will almost always seem outrageously priced unless you happen to want/need what that item can do that all the competing items of that type cannot.
> 
> While I agree that it is a large sum of money for a normal lens, the fact that it is able to do something which no other lens can currently do makes it worth the price of admission (for the consumer that needs/wants that level of performance for their work). They could ask 5k for the lens and it would still be justifiable in my book since NO OTHER LENS CAN DO WHAT IT DOES (optically). No, it doesn't have AF or IS. But the guys that are looking at buying this lens aren't necessarily concerned with that. Not that I am an expert on this, but based on the little I do know, both of those features could cause restrictions on obtaining maximum optical quality and aberration control.
> 
> ...




Exactly. I have the Zeiss 50/1.4 and the Sigma 50/1.4, but still desire to have the 50L (and this lens). I could also use more money to buy those lenses . They all render images differently, not necessarily better or worse, just differently. If Da Vinci and Van Gogh both painted the same scene, they would look very different, and the same thing with different photographers. That does not mean that I cant enjoy both. And as for as the debate on techy vs artist, Da Vinci was both, Einstein was both (he played violin). I believe a balance is good.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 9, 2013)

My other passion in life is music and highend audio and photography equipment is actually quite cheap in comparison to what you pay for the high end audio stuff. This lens cost about the same as my Triplanar VIII tonearm, without the pickup and without the turntable ... Sounds like a bargain to me ...

I was really planning to stay away from this lens ... but, having read the available previews and reviews and looked at the available samples ... who am I kidding ...


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 9, 2013)

I believe that lloyd also stated in his review that the image quality in the center was basically similar to the 50/2 Makro Planar except it goes to 1.4 and that quality stretches to the edges of the frame. 

I personally use the Zeiss 50/2 Makro when the scenario permits and I am looking for absolute resolving power. None of the other 50mm lenses I have even come close at f/2. If the Otus 55 in fact can deliver the DOF and light gathering ability of 1.4 while maintaining that level of IQ across the whole frame, I can tell you that it would be nothing short of astonishing.


----------



## Jeffrey (Oct 9, 2013)

+1


----------



## vscd (Oct 10, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> They are super sharp stopped down and not too bad wide-open, but they could be sharper at the edges wide open and even at the center (especially the 1.2L isn't 100% sharp wide open). But more than that, they suffer from LoCA. The 85 1.8 has about as much LoCA as I have ever seen from a lens! Even under weak indoor lighting in a gym white uniforms become absolutely riddled with PF all over the place. They toss tons of purple in front and green haze behind all over stuff.



I, myself, do not mind on vignetting anymore (if it's fair below -2ev). First, I like em on potraits and secondmore they can be resolved in postprocessing... The LoCA on the 85 1.8 is visible, but those effects can be fixed within DXO/Lightroom, at most. Of course we want the perfect lense, especially if we're filming with it. I just think Canon has more open todos on a 50mm 1.2 L Lense, than on the 85mm range.

The Problem is, that everyone is pixelpeeping at the moment... and I think the Zeiss 55mm 1.4 is the answer to the question "what can be done"? It's like paying 20 grands more on the "S"-Modell of the Porsche Turbo. The last 15 horsepowers are expensive.

I can see a clear market for the lense... photographers with the medium format PhaseOne/Leica S2 have now a clear smaller alternative @the same IQ: Nikon D800+Zeiss (or something coming up from Canon).


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 10, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I believe that lloyd also stated in his review that the image quality in the center was basically similar to the 50/2 Makro Planar except it goes to 1.4 and that quality stretches to the edges of the frame.



It's good to know that it will match the EF 85mm f1.2 then as well as the EF 35 f2 IS, and no doubt it will give the 40mm pancake a run for its money at 2.8 

Only joking, I know the other attributes of the Zeiss lens. Also centre resolution is often over stated at the exclusion of mid frame res, which in reality makes for a much better lens. Still not convinced of the importance of sharp boarders with ultra fast apertures, but there ya go.

I think it has been pointed out before that if the Cosina made Zeiss dslr lenses were hand made in Germany they would cost about €3000 each.


----------



## RVB (Oct 10, 2013)

vscd said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > They are super sharp stopped down and not too bad wide-open, but they could be sharper at the edges wide open and even at the center (especially the 1.2L isn't 100% sharp wide open). But more than that, they suffer from LoCA. The 85 1.8 has about as much LoCA as I have ever seen from a lens! Even under weak indoor lighting in a gym white uniforms become absolutely riddled with PF all over the place. They toss tons of purple in front and green haze behind all over stuff.
> ...



"I can see a clear market for the lense... photographers with the medium format PhaseOne/Leica S2 have now a clear smaller alternative @the same IQ: Nikon D800+Zeiss (or something coming up from Canon)."

Lack of A.F and leaf shutters limits the audience,I have used quite a few Zeiss lenses and have the 15mm at the moment,but the Leica S 24 and HCD-28mm are better,and what happens when Medium format hits 120MP which it will at some stage.. and the huge bright viewfinder is another bonus... 

Having said that it is as you say a smaller alternative when money dictates the gear you can buy or if you need a smaller kit..although with this Zeiss lens weighing 1kg the weight benefit is a moot point,the D800 is not much lighter than the Leica S..


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 10, 2013)

RVB said:


> Having said that it is as you say a smaller alternative when money dictates the gear you can buy or if you need a smaller kit..although with this Zeiss lens weighing 1kg the weight benefit is a moot point,the D800 is not much lighter than the Leica S..


Very true, but with an SLR you have cameras capable of amazing autofocus - oh wait  I think this lens will appeal to people heavily invested in SLR gear who may be willing to spend the money but aren't ready to make the FULL inve$$$tment in medium format.


----------



## RVB (Oct 10, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> RVB said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 10, 2013)

This thread led me to pull out the 50/2 Makro for some quick shots last night. Don't mind the leftover spaghetti sauce on her face.

Wide open at f2. Like I said before, I am very curious to see what the Otus 55 is capable of at 1.4 if the whole frame performs on par with or better than the 50/2 Makro in the center.


----------



## RVB (Oct 10, 2013)

This Zeiss Flickr accounts shows a selection of images taken with the 55.. I believe this one is by Lloyd Chambers http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/10185277475/#


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Oct 11, 2013)

OK - $4000 for a for an all manual 50mm f1.4 lens. Adorama shows a summicron f2.0 for $7350, an old summilux f1.4 for $3995, and the noctilux f0.95 for 10,995 (all manual). The Canon cinema 50mm lens is $4700. 
Guess if you want to play with the big boys, you have to step up to the plate!


----------



## vscd (Oct 12, 2013)

>Guess if you want to play with the big boys, you have to step up to the plate!

Manual focus is nothing you can take 100 photos in a hurry, so I guess this
separates boys from men  I never got *any* AF-Lense with the same smooth
focusring as on manual ones... 

...there seems even to be an advantage of manual focussing:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-70d/9


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Oct 14, 2013)

RVB said:


> This Zeiss Flickr accounts shows a selection of images taken with the 55.. I believe this one is by Lloyd Chambers http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/10185277475/#



One word: WOW!

This lens is SO CLOSE to medium format... Even the D800 isn't enough to fully utilize the lens. You get the resolution, but not the tonal range.

Again: WOW!


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 14, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> RVB said:
> 
> 
> > This Zeiss Flickr accounts shows a selection of images taken with the 55.. I believe this one is by Lloyd Chambers http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/10185277475/#
> ...



Your "WOW-ing" is meant satirical, right? 

The linked picture is just another addition to the gazillion of poorly composed, ultra-boring cat pictures on the net. I hope it is taken with an iphone since it would be an insult if it were to come from somebody allowed to use a $ 4k Zeiss lens or a MF camera. ;-)


----------

