# DXOMark Reviews Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 10, 2014)

```
<p>DXOMark has completed their review of the Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 Apo Planar T* for both Canon and Nikon. As you would expect, this lens is an absolute gem when it comes to image quality. It easily outperforms all the 85mm lenses from both Canon & Nikon in optical tests. How that all translates in the field is up to the photographer.</p>
<div id="attachment_17207" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/dxocanon85compare.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17207" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/dxocanon85compare-575x494.jpg" alt="Click for larger" width="575" height="494" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for larger</p></div>
<p><strong>DXOMark says:</strong>

<em>“The new Otus 85mm is without question the most desirable and best performing 85mm portrait lens available but at $4,490 it’s not for those without deep pockets. It’s also rather large and bulky (although it’s remarkably well balanced on the D800 models), and it lacks the convenience of autofocus. While that may not be an issue for most enthusiasts or professionals (particularly as AF is at best difficult with f1.4 models) it’s likely to further limit its appeal, even if the real reason is obvious.”</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Zeiss-Otus-85mm-f1.4-Apo-Planar-T-Canon-ZE-and-Nikon-ZF.2-mount-lens-reviews-World-s-best-performing-85mm-portrait-lens" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <strong><a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1077281-REG/zeiss_2040_292_otus_apo_planar_85mm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 Apo Planar T* $4490</a></strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 10, 2014)

Again fascinating that a lens with better "metric scores" (better sharpness, vignetting, and CA) is getting a lower overall DxOMark Score than the Otus 55/1.4.

DxO scores mean nothing to me.

Edit: I was referring to the comparison picture displayed here at first with the D800 Body and Otus 55/1.4 and Zeiss Apo Sonnar 135/2.0 as opponents. See here:
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Zeiss-Otus-85mm-f1.4-Apo-Planar-T-Canon-ZE-and-Nikon-ZF.2-mount-lens-reviews-World-s-best-performing-85mm-portrait-lens/Zeiss-Apo-Planar-T-Otus-85mm-F1.4-ZE-Canon-versus-competition


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 10, 2014)

For the price of that lens, I would expect it would have some outstanding properties. 

Don't think I am going to fork over that much dough for an 85 though.


----------



## sdsr (Sep 10, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Again fascinating that a lens with better "metric scores" (better sharpness, vignetting, and CA) is getting a lower overall DxOMark Score than the Otus 55/1.4.
> 
> DxO scores mean nothing to me.
> 
> ...



There's a rather different sort of review, by someone who actually took photos with one, here:

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


----------



## poias (Sep 10, 2014)

Why are we giving credence to DXO? They always rank Canon as second rate, so why give them more ammo against our gear and our company!


----------



## jebrady03 (Sep 10, 2014)

poias said:


> Why are we giving credence to DXO? They always rank Canon as second rate, so why give them more ammo against our gear and our company!



That's probably not the best philosophy. You can take issue with their methods, comparisons, etc, but don't disparage solely because they rank "your brand" lower than others. 

It's kind of like saying "you can't break up with me because I'm breaking up with you" or "you can't fire me because I quit".


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 10, 2014)

jebrady03 said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Why are we giving credence to DXO? They always rank Canon as second rate, so why give them more ammo against our gear and our company!
> ...


Agreed and there's been very little debate over the years in regards to their measurements. It's their "scores" that are calculated from those measurements that has caused signification consternation among the [Canon] faithful. Putting the word scores in quotes might be generous.

As for the new lens, the Canon is nearly (and like at f/1.4) just as sharp in the center as the Zeiss, which for portrait uses is what will matter most. For off center compositions and architecture/landscapes, the corner sharpness will be far better on the Zeiss. The lower CA will also help in high contrast situations and likely with the definition in people's pupils.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 10, 2014)

How's the bokeh? The 85mm focal length is all about bokeh, because it is sharp enough.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 10, 2014)

poias said:


> Why are we giving credence to DXO? They always rank Canon as second rate, so why give them more ammo against our gear and our company!



I really hope this post was intended to be sarcastic.


----------



## bellorusso (Sep 10, 2014)

This test clearly shows that Canon is the best here. For one, nor Nikon, neigher Zeiss are able to open to 1.2, fo second, actually you don't really need anything more to say. 8)


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 10, 2014)

The raw data is the raw data... So if you want to draw your own conclusions, you can. Maybe the number they give isn't always expandable, but there is a baby there... So don't throw it out with the bathwater.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 10, 2014)

Actually, this is quite interesting comparision. It shows, that Canon 85/1.2L clearly does not lag behind, is quite cheaper (relatively ofc), has AF (slow as it may be) and for most of the people, it will do the job nicely enough. From a standpoint of avid amateur photographer, I have to but ask for whom is 85mm Otus meant? I mean, where is the significant difference (when there is significant PRICE difference) in optical perfomance to its peers?

(honest question, I'm really curious, can't really wrap my head around this one...)


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 10, 2014)

Khalai said:


> Actually, this is quite interesting comparision. It shows, that Canon 85/1.2L clearly does not lag behind, is quite cheaper (relatively ofc), has AF (slow as it may be) and for most of the people, it will do the job nicely enough. From a standpoint of avid amateur photographer, I have to but ask for whom is 85mm Otus meant? I mean, where is the significant difference (when there is significant PRICE difference) in optical perfomance to its peers?
> 
> (honest question, I'm really curious, can't really wrap my head around this one...)



It is like the pokemon, gotta catch them all.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 10, 2014)

I'd like to see Rodger Cicala run it thru his new test machine. While I'm sure that the lens is absolutely a gem, there are always weak spots in a product due to tradeoffs involved in design and manufacturing. Knowing what they are would be mostly out of my curiosity, since I won't buy one in any event.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 10, 2014)

I paid $1400 for a 3 month old Zeiss 135/2.0. What a bargain


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 10, 2014)

Everyone seems to have missed the really fun DXO comparison. The CR guy posted all the Canon mount lenses on Canon body data, but look at the side by side with the Otus on a Nikon body. 

Effectively, the lens goes from a score of 38 to _49_ solely based on the increased resolving power of the Nikon. See attached.

Further: "It’s also rather large and bulky _(although it’s remarkably well balanced on the D800 models)_" Because the 5D3 (by exclusion) is some sort of ergonomic train wreck, right? 

Title of Nikon + Otus review = "Outstanding performance"

Title of Canon + Otus review = "Sharpness limited by sensor"

Though the second statement is potentially fairly made point -- that the lens can outresolve the Canon sensor -- the _tone_ of the words is damning. Nice work, DXO, you have again failed to earn any respect as a neutral review source.

- A


----------



## Ivan Muller (Sep 10, 2014)

Has anyone noticed that the 'true' max apertures as indicate by the Tstop is nowhere near the manufacturers claim? The Zeis is closer to a f1.8 lens than f1.4 and the rest fare no better....


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 10, 2014)

Ivan Muller said:


> Has anyone noticed that the 'true' max apertures as indicate by the Tstop is nowhere near the manufacturers claim? The Zeis is closer to a f1.8 lens than f1.4 and the rest fare no better....



Effectively, focal length is 'sort of' right and the Tstop is usually slightly off. Pricier cinema lenses are more on-point for these metrics, I believe.

Roger Cicala comments on this at times, as he did here:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/first-look-zeiss-cz-2-70-200mm-t2-9

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 10, 2014)

Ivan Muller said:


> Has anyone noticed that the 'true' max apertures as indicate by the Tstop is nowhere near the manufacturers claim? The Zeis is closer to a f1.8 lens than f1.4 and the rest fare no better....



T value is not aperture value, an f1.4 lens is a "true" f1.4 if the apparent aperture diameter is focal length divided by 1.4. The T value relates to actual light transmission and is pretty much irrelevant with TTL metering stills cameras. 

Aperture value is always lower than T (transmission) value because however good the glass is you always lose some.


----------



## rs (Sep 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Ivan Muller said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone noticed that the 'true' max apertures as indicate by the Tstop is nowhere near the manufacturers claim? The Zeis is closer to a f1.8 lens than f1.4 and the rest fare no better....
> ...


+1

Nothing is completely transparent - even the air inside the lens. And if you can see _any_ reflections on any of the elements within the lens when peering through the end, that's light which hasn't made it through.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Effectively, the lens goes from a score of 38 to _49_ solely based on the increased resolving power of the Nikon. See attached.



You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is: Never get involved in a land war in Asia. But only slightly less well known is this: Believing that DxO's optical metrics are the primary determinants of the Lens Score. 

I know, as you show in the screenshot DxO sticks that Score right on top of the list of lens metrics, suggesting the Score is a synthesis of those measurements. It's not. The Lens Score is primarily based on 'performance in 150 lux illumination' (the light level found in a dim warehouse). What that means in practice is the the Lens Score is heavily influenced by the Sensor Overall Score of the body on which it is tested. So, while some of the Zeiss 85/1.4 Otus' higher lens Score on the D800E comes from the higher P-MPix value, the relative difference in the sensor Score also accounts for much of that difference. For example, comparing the two current 600mm lenses, we see that the Canon lens is sharper, has higher transmission, less distortion, equal vignetting, and less CA...the Canon lens is optically superior, but the two lenses get the same score because the D800 sensor scores higher (and I should point out that DxO has explained that their Sensor Score is independent of resolution, so it's not the 22 vs. 36 MP accounting for that difference). Also worth noting that their chosen conditions for the lens score – dim light – would generally require a high ISO setting, yet their Sensor Score is biased toward low ISO (2 of the three subscores are considered only at base ISO). Bias on top of bias. That's DxO's biased scores – aka *BS* – for you...




ahsanford said:


> Nice work, DXO, you have again failed to earn any respect as a neutral review source.



That part you got perfectly correct.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Sep 10, 2014)

I saw a great video on the practical differences between the Zeiss Otus 85mm and the Nikkor 85mm. This Nikkor is one of the best lenses and I was impressed by how much better the Zeiss performed over it. Coupled with the D810, the detail, contrast and CA performance was very impressive. 

I'd only get one if I were a full-time professional and using a Nikon D810.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 10, 2014)

I'm actually surprised by the light transmission issue here. The front element on the Otus is HUGE (86mm, if I recall). I would expect light transmission to be better.

Still, watching this video makes it clear how HUGE of a difference there is in microcontrast with this lens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_-vUXkOaOY&list=UUL5Hf6_JIzb3HpiJQGqs8cQ

Where I reviewed the Zeiss Sonnar T 135/2, it literally destroyed my beloved 135L in this regard.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 10, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I'm actually surprised by the light transmission issue here. The front element on the Otus is HUGE (86mm, if I recall). I would expect light transmission to be better.
> 
> Still, watching this video makes it clear how HUGE of a difference there is in microcontrast with this lens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_-vUXkOaOY&list=UUL5Hf6_JIzb3HpiJQGqs8cQ
> 
> Where I reviewed the Zeiss Sonnar T 135/2, it literally destroyed my beloved 135L in this regard.



It's probably just me, but I wasn't blown away by the images in the video. Maybe I am now just jaded.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Ivan Muller said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone noticed that the 'true' max apertures as indicate by the Tstop is nowhere near the manufacturers claim? The Zeis is closer to a f1.8 lens than f1.4 and the rest fare no better....
> ...



Quite a few of the latest EF lenses do seem to have a T value that is the same as the aperture: the 24-70 IS, 40 pancake, 24/28/35 IS primes. These are all slower lenses but it does look like Canon are achieving a very high light transmission efficiency - you know - to make up for the sensor.........


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 10, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Ivan Muller said:
> ...



LOL - but a solid point, and part of why I was surprised that the T-stop lagged so much with the Otus 85. I raised the point in my 35IS review that the light transmission between the Sigma 1.4Art and the 35IS wasn't all that big. The 35IS feels like it has a wider aperture than f/2 (although it actually just REALLY has an f/2 aperture, instead of a f/2.3 or such.)



jdramirez said:


> It's probably just me, but I wasn't blown away by the images in the video. Maybe I am now just jaded.



I know what you mean. Several of them seemed really underexposed, but the crops certainly showed the great detail rendering.


----------



## infared (Sep 10, 2014)

Interesting.

I take everything from DxO with a grain of salt, but I include their info in my mix and assess accordingly.

I will not be buying an Otus 85mm because of manual focus and price.

I own a Canon 85 f/1.2L II and absolutely love it.

Perhaps a new Sigma Art could challenge all of this. (along with some focusing issues!!! LOL!)

Side note: DxO rates the existing Sigma 85mm at higher sharpness than the Canon 85L II.
(that is there overall rating, not shown here..they only have the sharpness numbers)

...but this reviewer (below) put 4 or 5 copies of the old Sigma against the Canon L II and totally
disagreed with the DxO findings. Just food for thought.

http://cannonfastreviews.com/canon-85mm-f1-2-l-ii-vs-sigma-85mm-f1-4-ex


----------



## drjlo (Sep 10, 2014)

Khalai said:


> I have to but ask for whom is 85mm Otus meant? I mean, where is the significant difference (when there is significant PRICE difference) in optical perfomance to its peers?



Well, according to Mr. Thein at the link review above:

"I’m sure many keystrokes will be wasted to explaining why alternative X at $1000 is better. If you have to even ask why, this is not the lens for you."

Nice, eh?


----------



## BozillaNZ (Sep 10, 2014)

I know, DXO will always rate Canon lower than others so what? the more they try to push me the more I will stick. What can they do about it?

Yes! Nikon is the best but no, I won't buy one thabkyouverymuch!


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 10, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Yeah, it reminded me of my 100L macro.


----------



## eml58 (Sep 11, 2014)

When I'm shooting this Lens on my 1Dx or 5DMK III or a7r (Delivery first week November because it's Australia), I'm pretty sure what DXO think, or don't think of the Lens will not be high on my thought process, I'm reasonably sure it'll be Subject, Focus, f/stop, exposure, satisfaction and a Glass of good Red.


----------



## deleteme (Sep 11, 2014)

RGomezPhotos said:


> I'd only get one if I were a full-time professional and using a Nikon D810.


While I admire the quality of the lens I can scarcely imagine a full time pro wanting to buy one. Manual focus for what is a portrait lens seems to be a recipe for frustration.
The other reason a pro would not buy it is because $4500 is a lot of working capital tied up in a tool that no client will appreciate.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 11, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Title of Nikon + Otus review = "Outstanding performance"
> 
> Title of Canon + Otus review = "Sharpness limited by sensor"
> 
> ...



That's why I'd like to see the lens rentals data from their machine that tests the lens on a stand-alone basis. No camera body involved that influences the results. Zeiss also generates their MTF curves from actual testing, so they are a good source of actual lens performance.


----------



## Zv (Sep 11, 2014)

Normalnorm said:


> RGomezPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > I'd only get one if I were a full-time professional and using a Nikon D810.
> ...



Yeah it does seem like a poor business decision. I guess you could make that money back if you're one of the top pros earning thousands per job. For the average working person it's like 2 months salary for almost no gain in extra clients or work. Don't forget you have to insure that bad boy too! 

I have a feeling Sigma are going to bring out an updated Art version of theirs soon at a quarter of the price and 99% of the IQ. The current one gets the job done as it is for most folk looking for an affordable 85.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 11, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd like to see Rodger Cicala run it thru his new test machine. While I'm sure that the lens is absolutely a gem, there are always weak spots in a product due to tradeoffs involved in design and manufacturing. Knowing what they are would be mostly out of my curiosity, since I won't buy one in any event.



Yes, altho this thing is PD sharp, I don't care for the swirly-circular bokeh in the background of some of those examples when it's wide open. It does improve as it's stopped down. This would not always be an issue but I don't like everything about how it renders OOF areas.
Give me the Samyang for $300 !


----------



## talicoa (Sep 11, 2014)

DXO can score this however they want, but when they say things like this: "The new Otus 85mm is without question the most desirable and best performing 85mm portrait lens available" I have no desire to continue reading what they are selling.

What are they smoking? I still haven't figured out what use case there is for this lens. You can't hand hold this lens for closer portraits wide open. You can't. Not while focusing manually. 

I will guarantee that I could take sharper photos with my Canon 85mm 1.8 when doing portraits within 10 ft of the subject. I have a pretty steady hand, but there is always enough movement with a standing subject to sway forward and back a few inches. With the Otus, you would have some very sharp ears and the tip of people's noses. That isn't really what I am interested in. 

maybe some still life shots would work well on a tripod?

What am I missing? Why is this the Most Desirable and Best performing 85mm?


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 11, 2014)

Zv said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > RGomezPhotos said:
> ...


Looking forward to see the Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art. The current version outresolve the mighty Canon 85mm f1.2L in some aspects and come close in others. The new 'Art' should be a winner.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 11, 2014)

talicoa said:


> DXO can score this however they want, but when they say things like this: "The new Otus 85mm is without question the most desirable and best performing 85mm portrait lens available" I have no desire to continue reading what they are selling.
> 
> What are they smoking? I still haven't figured out what use case there is for this lens. You can't hand hold this lens for closer portraits wide open. You can't. Not while focusing manually.
> 
> What am I missing? Why is this the Most Desirable and Best performing 85mm?


We did shoot f1.4 portraits back in the old days, where no AF was available. I had the first 50mm f1.2L lens and have lots of good shots with it, wide open. 

A major part of being a photographer then was to practice your manual focusing skills. People were also shooting all kinds of sports and wildlife at the time. Very few (if any) shot f1.4 though, but you still had to handle the movement issues. So adding a precision focusing screen to your camera (I use Ec-S on my 1DX), you can clearly shoot portraits handheld with this lens. But you have to practice quite a bit to master it. If you pick up these manual lenses only once every now and then, I agree, you will not make it. I have lots of close portraits taken with the Otus 55mm at f1.4 (and the Zeiss 135mm at f2.0), where focus is exactly where I want it, so I imagine I will be able to do it with the 85mm also.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Sep 11, 2014)

Zv said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > RGomezPhotos said:
> ...



Yes, you have to GRADUATE to this level of lens. If two month's salary is $4500, then you haven't reached that level. I don't even know serious, semi-professional photographers who earn that little. That's where I'm coming from. 

In that context, I'll say again that this lens is for the full-time professional, wealthy amateur or those maniacal enthusiast types who rather take the bus than buy a car to afford this lens. Especially love that last category of folks.  I know full-time pros that need to budget for that super-lens. Because they are reaching that level in their business when they need the performance, functionality or durability that lens will give them.

And at that level, $4500 is simply another business expense. Laptops, computers, advertising, marketing, health insurance and other expenses are all going to cost as much if not more than that lens. Hell, most professionals I know who use a cell phone for business have a monthly bill at least $100/month. If you stop your service after 4 years, you got a worthless piece of plastic. But you still have a lens. And since I insure my gear, I can estimate that insuring this lens will cost about $5 - $7/month. That's a cheap lunch.

And for portraits, AF is a convenience. Even if you're shooting at f1.4, AF isn't going to nail focus much if any faster than manually. And at that aperture, your AF is going to hunt for focus every time you press the shutter. MF isn't. I'm cool if someone likes AF. No problem. But I've been MF for my fashion and portrait work, forever. I don't miss it. "Recipe for Frustration"? If you have really bad eye sight and don't have glasses. Yes, I guess it is.

Lastly, even if I were at that level to afford this lens, even if I shot with a Nikon D810, I don't know if I would get this lens. Detail is AMAZING... And if you do lots of close-ups, it might be worthwhile. But as I mentioned numerous times on canonrumors.com, my Canon setup is sufficient until I can graduate to Medium Format. Because 'the look' of MF is more important than pure sharpness. Unless Canon comes out with a sensor that can give me that same look, possibly with that 5-layer sensor that they patented recently, that's my plan.


----------



## talicoa (Sep 11, 2014)

Eldar said:


> talicoa said:
> 
> 
> > DXO can score this however they want, but when they say things like this: "The new Otus 85mm is without question the most desirable and best performing 85mm portrait lens available" I have no desire to continue reading what they are selling.
> ...



So are you saying that a well practiced manual focusing photographer could use this lens as an effective portrait lens in close quarters wide open? What do you think the keeper rate would be hand held? What percentage of those keepers would use to the fullest extent this very expensive glass? I think it would be disappointingly low.
One of the first posts here had a link to some real world examples, I even went to the flickr site referenced. Guess what? No portraits. Some beautiful photos, but no portraits. 

In the past photographers practiced their manual focusing. Nowdays it is the videographers out trying to perfect this skill.

I agree that this lens could have a place, but my real gripe was with DXO, who doesn't seem to understand the lens other than by its stats.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 12, 2014)

talicoa said:


> So are you saying that a well practiced manual focusing photographer could use this lens as an effective portrait lens in close quarters wide open? What do you think the keeper rate would be hand held? What percentage of those keepers would use to the fullest extent this very expensive glass? I think it would be disappointingly low.


I don´t know if you have tried, but if you use a high precision focusing screen (I use the Ec-S), nailing focus is not that difficult, even in quite poor light. Close head shots wide open are difficult both with and without AF, if the subject is moving. But the way I shoot portraits, it works quite well and my keeper rates are high. But on close portraits I often use at least f2.0, because I find the f1.4/f1.2 DOF to be too shallow. You´ll just get an eye (maybe not even the whole eye) in focus. It makes interesting images now and then, but not very often.

I have lots of out of focus f1.2 examples from my 85/1.2L II, but unfortunately, I have no shots to show from a manually focused 85mm (yet ...).

There are lots to be said about DxO, but the statement you refer to works for me. I am drooling over this lens, but preorder is not open here in Norway yet, so I still have time to sober up and be sensible. 

I find it more difficult to figure out how they sum up their test results and settle on a final score for a lens. Based on the various numbers they published for the Zeiss lenses (on Nikon body), how could the Zeiss 135/2 get a lower overall score than the two Otus lenses? Sharpness is higher, Transmission is the same (relative to wide open aperture), distortion is lower, vignetting is lower and CA is less.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 12, 2014)

talicoa said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > talicoa said:
> ...



Shooting portraits wide open manually is not quite as hard as you think, particularly since Zeiss lenses do have focus confirm (which is pretty accurate). It takes some practice, yes, but better a manual focus lens than one with erratic AF.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 12, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> talicoa said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



I manually focus when I have a stationary target, shoot stopped down (f8), or are using a tripod and live view. Outside of that... give me a good consistent auto focus.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 12, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I find it more difficult to figure out how they sum up their test results and settle on a final score for a lens. Based on the various numbers they published for the Zeiss lenses (on Nikon body), how could the Zeiss 135/2 get a lower overall score than the two Otus lenses? Sharpness is higher, Transmission is the same (relative to wide open aperture), distortion is lower, vignetting is lower and CA is less.


Their T-Stop measurements seem to be the key to their "scores". A decent f/1.4 lens will beat the 300 f/2.8 IS II and Zeiss 135 f/2 (the top two Canon lenses, by measurements) in terms of scores.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I find it more difficult to figure out how they *sum up their test results and settle on a final score* for a lens. Based on the various numbers they published for the Zeiss lenses (on Nikon body), how could the Zeiss 135/2 get a lower overall score than the two Otus lenses? Sharpness is higher, Transmission is the same (relative to wide open aperture), distortion is lower, vignetting is lower and CA is less.



That's the key point. They *don't* 'sum up their measurements' to determine a final Score. 

From a couple of pages back:



neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Effectively, the lens goes from a score of 38 to _49_ solely based on the increased resolving power of the Nikon. See attached.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Their T-Stop measurements seem to be the key to their "scores". A decent f/1.4 lens will beat the 300 f/2.8 IS II and Zeiss 135 f/2 (the top two Canon lenses, by measurements) in terms of scores.



Well, if you were going to shoot in a dimly lit warehouse, which would Canon MkII lens would you choose – the 600mm f/4L IS II or the 50mm f/1.8 II?

Surely you can see that it makes perfect sense that the nifty-fifty _deserves_ the higher Score. It's a much better lens...for shooting in a dimly lit warehouse.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 12, 2014)

talicoa said:


> DXO can score this however they want, but when they say things like this: "The new Otus 85mm is without question the most desirable and best performing 85mm portrait lens available" I have no desire to continue reading what they are selling.
> 
> What are they smoking? I still haven't figured out what use case there is for this lens. You can't hand hold this lens for closer portraits wide open. You can't. Not while focusing manually.
> 
> ...



You are missing the fact that a long throw manual focus lens is specifically designed to manual focus, it is a quantum leap from trying to manual focus any AF lens, they are built completely differently.

Ask anybody that has used the Canon FD 85 f1.2 and then tried to MF an EF 85 f1.2. With a good focusing screen and a lens designed to MF it isn't as hard as you think, do it day after day and it becomes second nature.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> With a good focusing screen and a lens designed to MF it isn't as hard as you think, do it day after day and it becomes second nature.


Those are both the key things most people don't get when they bash MF lenses. After using the super precision matte on my 5DII and 60D for several years, the 5DIII and 1D X viewfinder screens look like some has poured sugar all over them. The are blurry and grainy. The short throw on the focus ring of AF lenses also makes fine tuning very difficult, but if you've used a Zeiss, Canon FD or TS-E lens, or any other MF lens, the ring rotates a long way making precise focus quite easy even handheld.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 13, 2014)

I have posted some images over on the Zeiss 135mm f2.0 thread, but I´ll repost one here, since I don´t have the Otus (yet). This is a very close shot (uncropped) of a moving cat, shot wide open. I think you´ll agree that that is one sharp eye.

You may think that I only got this one, but I got several, from different distances. I also missed some, but probably not more than I would with the 135/2.0L. DOF is very thin. As several has pointed out, focusing with one of these Zeiss lenses is a completely different sport, than trying to do so with a regular AF lens and a precision focusing screen is a must.

1DX, 1/8000s, f2.0, ISO100


----------



## LovePhotography (Sep 14, 2014)

1. What DxO says doesn't affect my photos. What Canon's sensors do (or don't do), does. If Canon ever gets as sick about hearing about the 36MP better sensor as we do, maybe they should effing make a better one. They sell enough cameras, it's not like they couldn't afford it.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 16, 2014)

Preorder button pressed, so then it is time to wait ...


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 24, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Preorder button pressed, so then it is time to wait ...


You can download the DxO profile while you - I saw they just posted it.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 24, 2014)

I was trying to manually focus with my 85L mkii the other day... it did not go well. Sure it was f1.2 and I was shooting at a backlit object with heavy contrast... but no... not even freaking close. 

This was through the viewfinder and not live view... but it was a mess. So much so that the camera adjusted the exposure. Time by three fold.

And I while I was doing it I was thinking.. this is a lot of twisting for a little bit of movement... so I'm not sure how it would compare to the Otis... but my confidence is shaken that I could use a full manual focus lens.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 24, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I was trying to manually focus with my 85L mkii the other day... it did not go well. Sure it was f1.2 and I was shooting at a backlit object with heavy contrast... but no... not even freaking close.
> 
> This was through the viewfinder and not live view... but it was a mess. So much so that the camera adjusted the exposure. Time by three fold.
> 
> And I while I was doing it I was thinking.. this is a lot of twisting for a little bit of movement... so I'm not sure how it would compare to the Otis... but my confidence is shaken that I could use a full manual focus lens.


You shouldn't be discouraged. The Otus is a totally different animal mich better suited for the task. But f1.2 is challenging. Try with a precision focusing screen and a real manual focus lens and I'm sure you will fix it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I was trying to manually focus with my 85L mkii the other day... it did not go well. Sure it was f1.2 and I was shooting at a backlit object with heavy contrast... but no... not even freaking close.
> 
> This was through the viewfinder and not live view... but it was a mess. So much so that the camera adjusted the exposure. Time by three fold.
> 
> And I while I was doing it I was thinking.. this is a lot of twisting for a little bit of movement... so I'm not sure how it would compare to the Otis... but my confidence is shaken that I could use a full manual focus lens.



AF lenses are simply not designed to MF, trying to do it with a fast prime and standard focusing screen is an exercise in futility. But the 85 f1.2 predates AF, try the focus throw on an FD version and you will see how we managed it back in the day.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 24, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> AF lenses are simply not designed to MF, trying to do it with a fast prime and standard focusing screen is an exercise in futility. But the 85 f1.2 predates AF, try the focus throw on an FD version and you will see how we managed it back in the day.



It was the mkii... I was being lazy and omitted that tidbit of info.

In the past... I've had decent results when tripod mounting and manually focusing while using live view... and when shooting at f8, but that really isn't a fair comparison at all. 

Having said that... I afma'd the lens at +3 and I've been pleased with the results here to fore... though I fully retract some previous statements about shooting the sigma 50 art as a manual focus lens...


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 24, 2014)

I find it really interesting that the lens has, apparently, 1/3rd stop less vignetting on the D800 than the 5D3.


----------

