# Review: Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 Apo Planar T*



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 12, 2014)

```
<p>I never really get bored of reading about this lens. I’ll never own one, but it’s sure a lot of fun to talk about it. Dustin Abbott has completed his review of the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 for Canon, and as always, it’s quite thorough.</p>
<p><strong>From Dustin

</strong><em>“The Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZE is big and heavy. It is extremely expensive. It is manual focus only. But you already knew that. Perhaps you have already written this lens off because of those facts. But shooting with this lens is a revelation. Having used it for a while leaves me feeling that the weight and price may just be justified…if one can afford it. It is good enough and versatile enough that many shooters would better off owning fewer lenses to afford this one, and has caused me to mentally catalog my own collection and wonder what I would be willing to part with to aid that acquisition. If nothing else, the Otus 85 is most definitely on my wish list.”</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<p>Below is the video review of the lens, you can also read the text review and see the sample images gallery through the links below.</p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-cbMwnn7s1U?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://bit.ly/1wyAOni" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/12v4IuX" target="_blank">View the sample gallery</a> | <a 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 at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



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

Thanks for sharing! Here's a selfie of me in the woods holding the Otus. That's the reason I'm smiling. What an amazing lens!



Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 Review by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## JoFT (Dec 12, 2014)

Great Review - and thank you a lot. Having the 1.4/50mm from Canon (and a very old 1.4/50 from Zeiss from my Contax times) as well as the 1.4 85mm Sigma (and the 1.4/85mm Zeiss Planar as well for Contax) I love these lenses!! 

Now I know that I will not buy Sigma ART Lenses... I will grab all money together and wait for the OTUS....


----------



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

JoFT said:


> Great Review - and thank you a lot. Having the 1.4/50mm from Canon (and a very old 1.4/50 from Zeiss from my Contax times) as well as the 1.4 85mm Sigma (and the 1.4/85mm Zeiss Planar as well for Contax) I love these lenses!!
> 
> Now I know that I will not buy Sigma ART Lenses... I will grab all money together and wait for the OTUS....



You are obviously comfortable with manual focus lenses. Not everyone is, but the Otus line certainly rewards anyone who is willing to A) spend the money and B) do the focusing themselves!


----------



## Perio (Dec 12, 2014)

I love my 85 1.2ii  I'm sure once version iii is released and if there are good improvements, I'll grab 85 1.2iii instead of anything else


----------



## R1-7D (Dec 12, 2014)

Excellent review! I always enjoy your reviews.

I am purposely staying away from this 85 and the 55 Otus. I know exactly what will happen if I go near them…


----------



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

R1-7D said:


> Excellent review! I always enjoy your reviews.
> 
> I am purposely staying away from this 85 and the 55 Otus. I know exactly what will happen if I go near them…



That is probably wise ;D


----------



## Mr Bean (Dec 12, 2014)

Excellent review Dustin. The only downside (for my bank account) is I now know which 85mm to add to my lens collection 

Manual focus doesn't bother me as I spent the first 30 years of photography with manual lenses (FD series). And the focus confirmation in the current series of cameras makes it much easier.


----------



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

Mr Bean said:


> Excellent review Dustin. The only downside (for my bank account) is I now know which 85mm to add to my lens collection
> 
> Manual focus doesn't bother me as I spent the first 30 years of photography with manual lenses (FD series). And the focus confirmation in the current series of cameras makes it much easier.



Your point about focus confirmation is true. Live View also helps when you have a chance to be a little more deliberate. I've not used any of the better screens for manual focusing, but other have reported that those help, too. My experience is that my keeper rate with manual focus lenses is actually very high; I just take more time at acquisition.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 12, 2014)

This lens comes as no surprise to me we have the Zeiss Master Primes and other Zeiss cinematography lenses and the newer lenses are of a very high standard. 
Whilst this lens is expensive for amateurs, for professionals particularly wedding photographers this is an attractive lens.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 12, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Mr Bean said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent review Dustin. The only downside (for my bank account) is I now know which 85mm to add to my lens collection
> ...



Do you mean you are using the standard 'Brite Screen' in the 6D with the 85 Otus ? If so I'm surprised you're able to get focus at f1.4 with this lens because of that screen showing a dof of about f3.2, unless you are referring to live view, but it doesn't sound as if you are.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 12, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Do you mean you are using the standard 'Brite Screen' in the 6D with the 85 Otus ? If so I'm surprised you're able to get focus at f1.4 with this lens because of that screen showing a dof of about f3.2, unless you are referring to live view, but it doesn't sound as if you are.


The difference between the standard screen and the Eg-S screen is significant, when you´re shooting wide open with these lenses. The advantage with the 6D, compared to the 1DX (with the Ec-S screen) is that it is fully supported, so you don´t have to struggle with exposure compensation.


----------



## gsealy (Dec 12, 2014)

The photos that this lens takes are just different and amazing. I have seen such from a number of different reviewers and the results are consistent and brilliant. 

I will be purchasing this lens when I can arrange it financially. I also plan to use it doing video.


----------



## LostBoyNZ (Dec 13, 2014)

:'( Oh man, I shouldn't have watched that... I can feel the mental calculations buzzing around in my head already.


----------



## lo lite (Dec 13, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Mr Bean said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent review Dustin. The only downside (for my bank account) is I now know which 85mm to add to my lens collection
> ...



So does the Otus have focus confirmation? 

I am so stunned by those example pictures, they really seem to pop out right of the screen, it feels as if you almost could touch the subjects.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 13, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Bean said:
> ...



Is the sensitivity of the focus confirmation system related to the type of screen used (which I thought only affected the subjective perception of depth of focus)?
If not, Dustin Abbott can use focus confirmation reliably at f/1.4 even when his eyes cannot be trusted.
Curious...


----------



## meywd (Dec 13, 2014)

Thanks for the review, great as usual, the lens is really amazing, I wonder if there is a physical limit to sharpness or lens resolution, would this lens remain as sharp with high MP bodies of the future?


----------



## Eldar (Dec 13, 2014)

Again a good review and I appreciate your focus on the photography part of it and less on the pixel peeping chart porn we often see. I can only concur and say that if anyone is willing to focus manually, carry the weight and pay the price, there is nothing available out there, that can beat it. The only peers I know of, which Dustin also mention, is the Zeiss 135/2.0 and the other Otus brother, 55/1.4. They are, as far as I can tell, the only ones delivering total performance in the same league.

And for those who are tempted by these lenses, but have concerns with what it´s like to handle manual focus, find a store who can let you try one of the three lenses mentioned above, on a body with a precision focusing screen (Eg-S for 6D/5DII, Ec-S for 1D-cameras). Compare also to what it is like with a regular focusing screen. You´ll see that it is a lot less difficult than you might think. 

And! Do not judge your ability to manually focus by trying manual focus on an AF lens. That is a totally different thing. As an example, I compared the Sigma 50 Art and the Otus 55 earlier this year http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20716.0 where I manually focused both lenses. In live view I spent at least twice as much time to nail focus with the Sigma, Primarily (I think) due to its much shorter focus throw.


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 13, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Is the sensitivity of the focus confirmation system related to the type of screen used (which I thought only affected the subjective perception of depth of focus)?


Focus confirm is basically the same as PDAF, just w/o driving the motor to adjust focus. The screen doesn't affect it, it gives you only a better impression of the final image.
(The screen has an effect on exposure metering though, that's something to be kept in mind when pondering the thought of using ones that the camera isn't designed to take. Those 3rd party split screens come to mind.)


----------



## Berowne (Dec 13, 2014)

Manual focusing is not difficult. Everybody did it on analog Cameras. The SLRs I used (Rollei, Nikon, Canon, Leica) had bright Viewfinder so it was no Problem. 

I wonder whether Canon or Nikon will ever think about a DSLR with a really good optical viewfinder optimised for manual focusing. 

Greetings Andy


----------



## Leadfingers (Dec 13, 2014)

I'm surprised at the Depth of Field in the sample shots.

At F1.4, I would expect there to be *zero* DOF... but the DOF was surprisingly...deep.


Is that a function of the lens? the full frame camera? distance to subject? Or is it my lack of understanding how DOF works? :\


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 13, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



I presume the confirmation dot works from the AF phase detect module and so is not screen dependant. Just means with the standard screen you have to watch for the dot which I find distracting from what else in going on in the 'finder. That also puts an emphasis on AFMA does it not ? What happens if your camera body AF module is slightly out ? Of course you can't AFMA a manual lens !

Actually just thinking about it, maybe you can adjust the camera to correct the in focus confirmation dot.


----------



## dancook (Dec 13, 2014)

Leadfingers said:


> I'm surprised at the Depth of Field in the sample shots.
> 
> At F1.4, I would expect there to be *zero* DOF... but the DOF was surprisingly...deep.
> 
> ...



The further the subject from the camera, the greater the DOF will become - but it's all relative when compared to other apertures.

Is there something that says all sample images were shot at 1.4?


----------



## Leadfingers (Dec 13, 2014)

dancook said:


> Leadfingers said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised at the Depth of Field in the sample shots.
> ...



I Was referring to the images in the review video. Most of them are labeled.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 13, 2014)

Eldar said:


> And! Do not judge your ability to manually focus by trying manual focus on an AF lens. That is a totally different thing.



Worth repeating.

A dedicated MF lens could have ~270* of rotation on the focusing ring while a Canon EOS EF lens will have significantly less.

Makes a big difference.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 13, 2014)

lo lite said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Bean said:
> ...



The Otus does have focus confirmation, and, in my experience, it is quite accurate. That isn't always the case with manual focus lenses and focus confirm chips, but my keeper rate with the Otus was very high.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 13, 2014)

Leadfingers said:


> dancook said:
> 
> 
> > Leadfingers said:
> ...



The landscape image at f/1.4 was shot at a distance of 75-80 feet away. The depth of field of an 85mm lens at f/1.4 at that distance is slightly more than 20 feet. If you reduce that distance to the subject to 7 feet the depth of field becomes only 2 inches. With most lenses this doesn't really matter - shooting infinity subjects at wide apertures is a joke, but the microcontrast, resolution, and lack of CA on the Otus line makes shooting wide open infinity subjects a reality. That was part of what made the lens so unique.

Here's an image I haven't shared before. Wide Open, medium distance (about 50 feet). Dead branches against a blown out sky. This is wide open (f/1.4). Check out #1) the great detail in the tree (and contrast in this high contrast setting and B) the utter lack of chromatic aberrations/fringing in a scene that would be full of them with many lenses. I have not applied any profile to correct anything. It is a conversion from RAW only (I did remove a distracting power line from the sky)


----------



## noncho (Dec 13, 2014)

I was on a presentation about the new Zeiss and I can say that this lens is not from my league. 

Here is one picture with Otus 85 1.4 on EOS-M  (1920x1280):
http://www.nonchoiliev.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/IMG_3172_.jpg


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 13, 2014)

danski0224 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > And! Do not judge your ability to manually focus by trying manual focus on an AF lens. That is a totally different thing.
> ...



Exactly. The worse lenses to manually focus, though, are STM or other focus by wire lenses (Canon 85II is similar). I hate the disconnected feeling and the lag of focusing with those.

I'm reviewing the 24-105 STM right now, and it is still there. Of course, I'm also reviewing the Makro-Planar 50mm f/2 at the moment and when you add the macro range onto a manual focus lens it feels like you could focus at day before getting to infinity! I think I'll keep my 100L Macro!~


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 13, 2014)

noncho said:


> I was on a presentation about the new Zeiss and I can say that this lens is not from my league.
> 
> Here is one picture with Otus 85 1.4 on EOS-M  (1920x1280):
> http://www.nonchoiliev.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/IMG_3172_.jpg



That must have been a very interesting balance! I never put the Otus on my M. I've got the Zeiss Distagon 15mm right now for review from Zeiss - I'll have to throw it on my M just for the fun of it.


----------



## Click (Dec 13, 2014)

Thanks Dustin. Great review. I enjoy watching it.


----------



## Leadfingers (Dec 13, 2014)

One other noob'ish question...

The bokeh on this lens seems really smooth and soft. As opposed to the bokeh I get on my cheaper lenses which is very "computer pixelly"...Is that generally a sign of a quality lens?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 13, 2014)

Leadfingers said:


> One other noob'ish question...
> 
> The bokeh on this lens seems really smooth and soft. As opposed to the bokeh I get on my cheaper lenses which is very "computer pixelly"...Is that generally a sign of a quality lens?



The bokeh is exceptionally good from the Otus, yes. There are some much cheaper lenses that produce very nice bokeh, however. The most notable is the Canon 135L.

I'm not quite sure what you are describing, but if you are shooting with narrow aperture zoom lenses (f/5.6) you frequently will not have much subject separation and your backgrounds will look more busy. This is less true with longer telephoto lenses, as f/5.6 can be a very narrow depth of field at longer focal lengths.


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 13, 2014)

Leadfingers said:


> As opposed to the bokeh I get on my cheaper lenses which is very "computer pixelly"...Is that generally a sign of a quality lens?


Some lenses have their spherical aberrations(those causes fast lenses to appear soft and low contrast when used wide open) overcorrected. That makes the in focus areas appear extra sharp and gets them higher marks in the commonl tests, but the bokeh appear tends to busy or nervous. (Optical image stabilization can exacerbate the issue.)
Zeiss prefers the spot on approach.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Dec 13, 2014)

Berowne said:


> I wonder whether Canon or Nikon will ever think about a DSLR with a really good optical viewfinder optimised for manual focusing.
> 
> Greetings Andy



^^^^ This....I own the Zeiss 135 APO, stunning lens, wish my 5D3 allowed precision screens and perhaps a microprism screen or even more accurate Focus Dot Confirmation. Every manufacturer right now is really pushing video features, I would like an optimized stills camera.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 14, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > Great Review - and thank you a lot. Having the 1.4/50mm from Canon (and a very old 1.4/50 from Zeiss from my Contax times) as well as the 1.4 85mm Sigma (and the 1.4/85mm Zeiss Planar as well for Contax) I love these lenses!!
> ...


+1, for a pixel peeper Otus would be the best option but, for regular photographers Canon 85/1.2L is as good in terms of sharpness and hopefully the new Sigma 85/1.4 (Art) if release will follow very close the Otus in terms of IQ and sharpness


----------



## JoFT (Dec 14, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> R1-7D said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent review! I always enjoy your reviews.
> ...



I totally agree, that´s wise. I made the [email protected] photokina...

http://delightphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2014/9/photokina-2014---lens-tryouts

And now being away from it... I do not think I will get one of the SIGMA ART Lenses...


----------



## Hill Benson (Dec 15, 2014)

I really need to avoid these reviews of the Otis 85 because the more I see and hear about the lens the more justified the price tag becomes to me. I was lucky enough to feel the build quality of the 85/1.4 at a presentation and it felt nothing short of phenomenal. The movement of the focus ring was the smoothest I had ever felt. If dare rent the lens for a weekend I can imagine it being very hard to hand back!

Great review Dustin.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 15, 2014)

I don't expect to see one anytime soon. I expect that I will get the Sigma Art 50, which is very sharp wide open, as I don't need the extra 5% of Zeiss goodness. I am contemplating the Zeiss ApoSonnar 135, which is both sharp and bokehlicious. But really, lens pron is fun but not what I need to be thinking about from a photographic learning standpoint. Gear is good enough, by and large. Yes, if you have a 6D, the S screen is a HUGE help in focusing manual lenses - I have some old soldiers from the 1960s that I am using (with adapters) for interim, until I fill in a few holes in my EF range of lenses (I have EF-S lenses). I need to learn external lighting (Speedliteing), and need eventually to add another speedlite and stand/clamps and decent-sized reflector and grids and a softbox and radio triggers to my basic 580EXII, correction gels, StoFen dome, Rogue Flashbender reflector/flag/add-on diffuser panel, and one nano stand.


----------



## JoFT (Dec 16, 2014)

Hill Benson said:


> I really need to avoid these reviews of the Otis 85 because the more I see and hear about the lens the more justified the price tag becomes to me. I was lucky enough to feel the build quality of the 85/1.4 at a presentation and it felt nothing short of phenomenal. The movement of the focus ring was the smoothest I had ever felt. If dare rent the lens for a weekend I can imagine it being very hard to hand back!
> 
> Great review Dustin.



You are 100% right, I totally agree!!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 16, 2014)

NancyP said:


> I don't expect to see one anytime soon. I expect that I will get the Sigma Art 50, which is very sharp wide open, as I don't need the extra 5% of Zeiss goodness. I am contemplating the Zeiss ApoSonnar 135, which is both sharp and bokehlicious. But really, lens pron is fun but not what I need to be thinking about from a photographic learning standpoint. Gear is good enough, by and large. Yes, if you have a 6D, the S screen is a HUGE help in focusing manual lenses - I have some old soldiers from the 1960s that I am using (with adapters) for interim, until I fill in a few holes in my EF range of lenses (I have EF-S lenses). I need to learn external lighting (Speedliteing), and need eventually to add another speedlite and stand/clamps and decent-sized reflector and grids and a softbox and radio triggers to my basic 580EXII, correction gels, StoFen dome, Rogue Flashbender reflector/flag/add-on diffuser panel, and one nano stand.



I agree that the Sigma is probably an easier choice for many photographers, but believe me when I say that in terms of absolutely image quality it is (while better than other options) not in the same league as the Otus. The only lens that comes close to the Otus performance is the Sonnar 135.

I would say it is more than an extra 5%, but also agree that it may be more than many photographers need. Still, it is stunningly good and has (unfortunately) required me to take a step back and recalibrate my mental expectations before reviewing other lenses.


----------



## infared (Dec 16, 2014)

Great review...wish I hadn't read/watched...LOL!
I am sticking with my 85mm f/1.2L II. 
Dustin...please do not do a comparison...just leave me in ever lasting ignorance!
That way I can still love the lens that I own.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 16, 2014)

infared said:


> Great review...wish I hadn't read/watched...LOL!
> I am sticking with my 85mm f/1.2L II.
> Dustin...please do not do a comparison...just leave me in ever lasting ignorance!
> That way I can still love the lens that I own.



That is pretty much the way I felt about my beloved 135L after doing the Sonnar T 135 review.


----------



## infared (Dec 16, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Great review...wish I hadn't read/watched...LOL!
> ...



Yes..Yes...I remember reading it! At least you could say that the 135L was less than half the price and has super fast AF....
My 85L II may be less than half the price..but the AF is turtle-like..at best!!!!! LOL! (I do still REALLY love that lens...it;s unique).


----------

