# Review: Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 ZE Lens



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 15, 2016)

```
The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the brand new Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 ZE lens. This is the widest lens currently available in the Otus line which also has 55mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 offerings.</p>
<p>These Otus lenses have very limited users due to the cost and the fact that they’re manual focus only. However, for the photographers that don’t care about those two things, these lenses are amazing optically.</p>
<p>From TDP:</p>
<blockquote><p>Most apparent in the corner is the vignetting and its clearing causing increased brightness and contrast at narrower apertures. While many wide angle lenses render corners very noticeably blurred at their widest apertures, the Otus 28 holds things together well even into deep corners. I’m not ready to say that this lens is sharper than its longer siblings, but it performs at the top of its class. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-28mm-f-1.4-Otus-Lens.aspx">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1190733-REG/zeiss_otus_28mm_f_1_4_ze.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 ZE Lens at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Solar Eagle (Mar 15, 2016)

What do you think of the coma on this compared to other lenses? The review is kind of vague. I'm still looking for the ultimate night sky lens


----------



## Nitroman (Mar 15, 2016)

If the Otus line of lenses were auto focus, Zeiss would sell a lot more of these. 

It really is a fatal flaw in their plan and a shame for their customers. 

Sort it out Zeiss ...


----------



## traveller (Mar 15, 2016)

Nitroman said:


> If the Otus line of lenses were auto focus, Zeiss would sell a lot more of these.
> 
> It really is a fatal flaw in their plan and a shame for their customers.
> 
> Sort it out Zeiss ...



On the other hand, not having af frees up lens designers, as they don't have to make the focusing group small and light to allow it to be driven by motors. 

Apart from that, I think they have an agreement with Sony not to make auto focus DSLR lenses...


----------



## fentiger (Mar 15, 2016)

the only fatal flaw is the price, makes the 35mk11 look cheap


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 15, 2016)

traveller said:


> Nitroman said:
> 
> 
> > If the Otus line of lenses were auto focus, Zeiss would sell a lot more of these.
> ...



There's a problem to put an engine that moves, say, 200 grams of glass?!


----------



## Cali Capture (Mar 15, 2016)

This focal length is an interesting choice by Zeiss, considering the Otus line manual focus! Not wide enough for most landscape and Architecture uses where manual focus and that long throw focus ring would be OK. Yet same focus ring would make it difficult to use for general photography w/ moving subjects. I would have thought the 15mm would be their next Otus.
When you look at the Canon 35mm 1.4 II, it's build quality, sharpness and propietory auto focus advantage. It is the Otus of Autofocus! 
I'm looking forward to Canon moving thru the 50mm, 85mm and 135mm primes. I have the 35mm II, and it's worth the extra bucks! I'm hoping they break tradition by adding IS to the 85 or especially the 135mm?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 15, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Nitroman said:
> ...


There is no problem in putting a motor to move 200 grams of glass, but ...

If this movement is slow in a lens of $ 5000? ???
If this movement is noisy in a lens of $ 5000? :-\
If this movement is inaccurate in a lens of $ 5000? :-[

If there is no focus motor, will be a "perfect" lens without the three problems that I quoted, and all failed to happen is the user fault. : It will not be the fault of the lens of $ 5000. :-X


----------



## Bernard (Mar 15, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> There's a problem to put an engine that moves, say, 200 grams of glass?!



You would probably want to move 20 grams, not 200, in order to get fast autofocus. Moving 200g quickly would generate enough force to hurt the user (every action has an exact and opposite reaction!).

Then the problem becomes accuracy. No current autofocus system is accurate enough for a lens like this. They are all designed to be "good enough," which is the philosophical opposite of the Otus lenses.

Frankly speaking, if autofocus is enough for your photography, this isn't the lens for you. There's nothing wrong with that, by the way. It's easy to get bored by perfectly focused, uninteresting pictures.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 15, 2016)

This is outside of my areas of knowledge, but I would assume that lenses with this long focus throw would be slow. And, taking Sigma's far from impressive AF performance into account, I'd guess that Zeiss will not provide AF unless they get full access to the Canon and/or Nikon AF systems.

However, since I already have two Otus's and a few other manual focus Zeiss lenses, I can tell you that I find it a joy to use them as they are. Use a high precision focusing screen and you'll find it a lot easier than you think.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 15, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Nitroman said:
> ...



There is if they don't get access to Canon's AF algorithms. Would you want to spend 5000 on a lens that that has unreliable AF?


----------



## Nitroman (Mar 15, 2016)

I agree Random Orbits - that's why i'd never buy an Otus. 

I know the glass is superb - but only as good as the operator or AF system.

To be fair, no af is perfect ... but i find af usually more accurate than manual unless i use live view. In which case manual focus is not usually an issue.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 15, 2016)

Solar Eagle said:


> What do you think of the coma on this compared to other lenses? The review is kind of vague. I'm still looking for the ultimate night sky lens



Carnathan doesn't shoot much astro, so he doesn't report much about it. You'll have to wait until LensTip gets one. That's a standard test they run on all lenses.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 15, 2016)

Cali Capture said:


> When you look at the Canon 35mm 1.4 II, it's build quality, sharpness and propietory auto focus advantage. It is the Otus of Autofocus!



+1. Once the BR gunk is put into much higher resolving next versions of the 24, 50, 85, 135, etc. Canon users will simply giggle at the Otus line like a Mercedes driver giggles at a Bentley. Sure, it's better, but is it *that* much better for the extra money you are paying? I don't think so. 

I have no doubt the Otus lenses are stellar, but future L lenses that are 95% as good _*with first-party AF at 1/3 of the price *_ will disproportionately outsell the Otus line. 

- A


----------



## MaxFoto (Mar 15, 2016)

Pretty impressive a lens that costs 1/3 as much (Canon 35L II), is sharper wide open, much, much smaller, and has AF.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 15, 2016)

Nitroman said:


> I agree Random Orbits - that's why i'd never buy an Otus.
> 
> I know the glass is superb - but only as good as the operator or AF system.
> 
> To be fair, no af is perfect ... but i find af usually more accurate than manual unless i use live view. In which case manual focus is not usually an issue.



I tried a Zeiss 21mm Distagon on my 5DIII (stock screen), and the focus confirmation zone was too large to get good focus. It was a pain to find the two points where focus confirmation was achieved and then set it somewhere near the middle. It gave good results, but it was slow and tedious. That is not to say that I don't use manual focus lenses, but I'd rather not use manual focus when I don't have to for general use. Recently picked up the Sigma 20A on sale. AF isn't as good as Canon but it's passable. Center bank of points focuses accurately, but the left and right bank of points front focus. It's not as polished or refined as the Zeiss 21, but it's a lot less expensive and has passable AF, which is good enough for most situations.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 15, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> I tried a Zeiss 21mm Distagon on my 5DIII (stock screen), and the focus confirmation zone was too large to get good focus. It was a pain to find the two points where focus confirmation was achieved and then set it somewhere near the middle. It gave good results, but it was slow and tedious. That is not to say that I don't use manual focus lenses, but I'd rather not use manual focus when I don't have to for general use. Recently picked up the Sigma 20A on sale. AF isn't as good as Canon but it's passable. Center bank of points focuses accurately, but the left and right bank of points front focus. It's not as polished or refined as the Zeiss 21, but it's a lot less expensive and has passable AF, which is good enough for most situations.



It also depends on what you need this lens for. If you are... 


...performing tasks based out of LiveView, shooting video, landscapes, astro, etc.
...doing deliberate studio work where you can chimp your brains out (hell, even proof it at 100% on a monitor) and reshoot if necessary
...shooting macro on rails, focus stacking, etc.
...shooting street in an old-school manner with bracketed range focusing
[insert other reasons here]

... then an MF lens will do you just fine. There are entire realms of photography that demand MF or cope with MF pretty well.

But _for me_, I don't shoot those things above nearly as much as I shoot my life and things around me, and my life / my subjects / my circumstance [cough significant other] requires me to stick and move. I just don't get second chances for shots that often, so these Otus lenses -- and any MF glass for that matter -- are dead to me, regardless of price.

That said, they set a lovely bar for IQ, build quality, handling that future L lenses should aspire to.

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> It also depends on what you need this lens for. If you are...
> 
> 
> ...performing tasks based out of LiveView, shooting video, landscapes, astro, etc.
> ...



As long as future L lenses don't aspire to Zeiss prices!


----------



## wearle (Mar 15, 2016)

Solar Eagle said:


> What do you think of the coma on this compared to other lenses? The review is kind of vague. I'm still looking for the ultimate night sky lens



Solar Eagle,

I was a little disappointed with the Otus 28mm lens with respect to coma. The Canon 35mm f/1/4L II is much better; however, it is also a little more difficult to correct coma at 28mm. Here are some full resolution examples:

http://www.northwest-landscapes.com/images/testing/zeiss_otus-28mm_star-test1.jpg

http://www.northwest-landscapes.com/images/testing/zeiss_otus-28mm_star-test2.jpg

http://www.northwest-landscapes.com/images/testing/zeiss_otus-28mm_star-test3.jpg

I have some newer samples under better conditions if you are interested.

It's a great lens otherwise.

Wade


----------



## leica_f32 (Mar 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > I tried a Zeiss 21mm Distagon on my 5DIII (stock screen), and the focus confirmation zone was too large to get good focus. It was a pain to find the two points where focus confirmation was achieved and then set it somewhere near the middle. It gave good results, but it was slow and tedious. That is not to say that I don't use manual focus lenses, but I'd rather not use manual focus when I don't have to for general use. Recently picked up the Sigma 20A on sale. AF isn't as good as Canon but it's passable. Center bank of points focuses accurately, but the left and right bank of points front focus. It's not as polished or refined as the Zeiss 21, but it's a lot less expensive and has passable AF, which is good enough for most situations.
> ...



I've been using the Otus 85mm for about a year now. I purchased it for studio work and, yes, it excels beyond all its counterparts for that service. Then I took it out for landscape work and realized how much better it really was. Today it sits on my 5D3 or 5DSr when I'm out and about grabbing everyday shots. Crowds, animals - whatever I'm shooting. You only have one more task to perform - to turn the focus ring. The viewfinder gives you conformation of focus by the red focus points illuminating when you're dead on. You choose - don't want that in focus, keep turning and another item in the image lights up. It's really not that complicated.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 15, 2016)

leica_f32 said:


> I've been using the Otus 85mm for about a year now. I purchased it for studio work and, yes, it excels beyond all its counterparts for that service. Then I took it out for landscape work and realized how much better it really was. Today it sits on my 5D3 or 5DSr when I'm out and about grabbing everyday shots. Crowds, animals - whatever I'm shooting. You only have one more task to perform - to turn the focus ring. The viewfinder gives you conformation of focus by the red focus points illuminating when you're dead on. You choose - don't want that in focus, keep turning and another item in the image lights up. It's really not that complicated.



If you are shooting portraits at f/4 or landscapes at f/11 or so, I agree with you completely.

But if you are shooting at f/1.4 lens manually with nothing more than the AF confirmation dot, you are more skilled than I. Most everyone else espouses the use of focus screens to pull that off.

- A


----------



## leica_f32 (Mar 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> leica_f32 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been using the Otus 85mm for about a year now. I purchased it for studio work and, yes, it excels beyond all its counterparts for that service. Then I took it out for landscape work and realized how much better it really was. Today it sits on my 5D3 or 5DSr when I'm out and about grabbing everyday shots. Crowds, animals - whatever I'm shooting. You only have one more task to perform - to turn the focus ring. The viewfinder gives you conformation of focus by the red focus points illuminating when you're dead on. You choose - don't want that in focus, keep turning and another item in the image lights up. It's really not that complicated.
> ...



At 1.4 with the Otus or 1.2 with the 85L you have such a razor thin DOF that you only have two options: higher speed or lower ISO to move off that dime , or, live view with the magnifier default set at 100X to check things on the fly. Sometimes you want the shallow DOF, often times not. I only wish the 5D series and 1DX let me shoot at something like a 32ASA.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 15, 2016)

leica_f32 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > leica_f32 said:
> ...



My problem is that the 5D3 AF points are _boxes_ from an aiming/usage/feedback standpoint. They might confirm on the eye, on the eyebrow, on the bridge of the nose, etc.

At f/4, I won't miss, but wider than f/2, I absolutely will.

- A


----------



## Nininini (Mar 15, 2016)

Nitroman said:


> If the Otus line of lenses were auto focus, Zeiss would sell a lot more of these.
> 
> It really is a fatal flaw in their plan and a shame for their customers.
> 
> Sort it out Zeiss ...



This has absolutely *NOTHING* to do with Zeiss. As Zeiss has said many many many times, they would LOVE to put AF on canon mount lenses, but it is up to CANON to make their AF tech available. Canon doesn't want to .. because it would cut into their L lens profits if they need to compete with Zeiss.

This is the official Zeiss response to the AF question:

ZEISS: *"Due to international licences, it is not possible at the moment for companies outside Japan to offer AF lenses with EF or F mounts” *

Basically, due to japanese protectionism Zeiss can't put AF on Canon mount Zeiss lenses because Canon will not allow non-Japanese firms to get access to their AF system.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 16, 2016)

Nininini said:


> Nitroman said:
> 
> 
> > If the Otus line of lenses were auto focus, Zeiss would sell a lot more of these.
> ...



Canon's EF Patents are long ago expired. The License deal is a red herring. You don't need a license to use a expired patent.


----------



## Nininini (Mar 16, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > Nitroman said:
> ...



that's pure bs

1) You are saying Zeiss is lying.
2) We know Tamron and Sigma have major issues getting AF to work, they reverse engineer the Canon AF system, both sell USB docks because of it, both still release new lenses that can have very underperforming AF


----------



## retroreflection (Mar 16, 2016)

Patents are only one level of intellectual property. Trade secrets, including software and electronic system design, are way more significant. Keep your mouth shut and it lasts forever. 
Zeiss would need all of that to build AF lenses, Canon doesn't want them to have it.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Mar 16, 2016)

MaxFoto said:


> Pretty impressive a lens that costs 1/3 as much (Canon 35L II), is sharper wide open, much, much smaller, and has AF.



Very impressive. I can't see the justification in price of Otus line. We are seeing lenses costing 20% the price, Sigma ARt 50 for example, that are so close in performance it's not funny. And my god 1.36kg for a 28mm lens. Not even if I won powerball would this be on my shopping list. 

I can't wait for Sigma Art 135 and 85 next as well as Canon BR versions too. If I wanted Zeiss I'd go no further than Milvus or get Loxia for Sony. Zeiss needs to realise the competition has improved dramatically and is no longer the ultimate IMO when you factor in other considerations like price and AF. They are throwing everything they have at these designs and still barely beat or match the others. Build quality might be better but if you read the Lens Rental tear down of the 35L II you will see Canon has built an amazing lens in that regards too.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 16, 2016)

Bernard said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > There's a problem to put an engine that moves, say, 200 grams of glass?!
> ...



The opposite reaction of moving 200 grams quickly will hurt the user? i doubt that very much.


----------



## photennek (Mar 16, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> leica_f32 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



On 5d3, how do you enable those AF points to give you focus confirmation when using manual focusing? I tried with a canon autofocusing lens and turned the AF to manual (on the lens). I also have configured my camera for back-button focusing, but that shouldn't matter in this scenario? I did not notice any kind of confirming action from the camera in any way... Although it was daylight, when the AF points do not illuminate red anyway, was this the catch? Help appreciated, for example a ref to the relevant manual page (browsed through, nothing caught my eye)

[sorry for being partly off-topic]


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 16, 2016)

photennek said:


> On 5d3, how do you enable those AF points to give you focus confirmation when using manual focusing? I tried with a canon autofocusing lens and turned the AF to manual (on the lens). I also have configured my camera for back-button focusing, but that shouldn't matter in this scenario? I did not notice any kind of confirming action from the camera in any way... Although it was daylight, when the AF points do not illuminate red anyway, was this the catch? Help appreciated, for example a ref to the relevant manual page (browsed through, nothing caught my eye)
> 
> [sorry for being partly off-topic]



I use don't back-button AF, I use the normal shutter button. But I believe that MF focus confirmation is done with your normally selected AF points/clusters but with the lens switched to MF (on the lens barrel). You hold down your shutter button halfway while manually focusing, and when your selected AF points are in focus, they will turn from black to red.

(Someone please correct me if my memory is off -- it's been ages since I've used that feature.)

- A


----------



## Bernard (Mar 16, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> The opposite reaction of moving 200 grams quickly will hurt the user? i doubt that very much.



Take something weighing 200g (or having a volume of 200 ml of water) and shake it back and forth by a cm quickly. Ideally, you would want to make the full motion in no more than 100 ms (10x per second). Do you feel the vibration? Now use your face as the stop, like you would if you were using an eye-level viewfinder...

That's why AF lenses focus by moving very small and light elements. It's an optical compromise, but it allows for faster AF, and lower power use. The fact is, if you use AF, you aren't interested in getting 100% of your lens's optical potential, so it's not an issue. These Milvus and Otus lenses are for the few situations where getting 100% out of a lens makes a visible difference. Obviously, they are also for photographers who don't like losing control to AF systems.


----------



## slclick (Mar 16, 2016)

Those who complain about the lack of AF in Zeiss and other companies lenses must never shoot macro or tilt shift. 

AF is a very new concept in the grand scheme of things and if folks in the past could do it with their clunky gear, you too can do it with your whiz bang techno marvel bodies. 

btw this is coming from someone who was once blind in one eye and has an auto immune disorder which effects my retinas so suck it up.


----------



## Rick (Mar 16, 2016)

I would have been all over this lens if Zeiss had not changed how they approach infinity (being able to focus past the infinity mark). With older lenses, Zeiss provided a hard stop at infinity. If the lens was well calibrated, a blind man could focus such a lens by turning it to infinity and leaving it (if the target was infinity of course).

As it stands, my eyesight does not allow manual focusing any longer and I have to have auto focus. The way I see it, the Batis 25mm autofocus lens is a reasonable alternative with very good sharpness across the frame. I could buy the A7r II and the Batis with the Otus money and still have money left over for a Dr. Pepper.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 16, 2016)

slclick said:


> Those who complain about the lack of AF in Zeiss and other companies lenses must never shoot macro or tilt shift.
> 
> AF is a very new concept in the grand scheme of things and if folks in the past could do it with their clunky gear, you too can do it with your whiz bang techno marvel bodies.
> 
> btw this is coming from someone who was once blind in one eye and has an auto immune disorder which effects my retinas so suck it up.



For $4-5k for these Otus lenses, I think the task of photography should be _easier_, not harder. 

I respectfully appreciate your point -- we all do have the ability to learn this skill. And yes, skilled photogs in the days prior to AF developed that skill and took stellar pictures. We _can_ do this, but our needs or our patience dictates that we prefer AF.

I'm not condemning this lens, but the Venn diagram overlap area of...

[Has the the skill/patience to shoot MF] + 
[Type of photography/videography plays well with MF] + 
[Has the money for Otus glass]

...is very, very small.

- A


----------



## slclick (Mar 16, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Those who complain about the lack of AF in Zeiss and other companies lenses must never shoot macro or tilt shift.
> ...



Love it!

Oh I won't be buying this anytime soon... I do my MF with Canon, Sam/Rok/Bow and Lensbabies. (LiveView x 5/10)


----------



## FramerMCB (Mar 16, 2016)

retroreflection said:


> Patents are only one level of intellectual property. Trade secrets, including software and electronic system design, are way more significant. Keep your mouth shut and it lasts forever.
> Zeiss would need all of that to build AF lenses, Canon doesn't want them to have it.



I would add, Tamron and Sigma are both companies headquartered in Japan. Zeiss, while many if not most of its lenses are manufactured in Japan, is a German company and headquartered in Europe. Lending further credence to the "rumor" that Canon does not allow non-Japanese companies to manufacture AF lenses for Canon cameras. And I believe it is absolutely true that both Tamron and Sigma have to reverse engineer their autofocus capabilities for all the AF lenses they make, whether for Canon, Nikon, or Sony.


----------



## slclick (Mar 16, 2016)

FramerMCB said:


> retroreflection said:
> 
> 
> > Patents are only one level of intellectual property. Trade secrets, including software and electronic system design, are way more significant. Keep your mouth shut and it lasts forever.
> ...



I cannot believe that for one moment. It's the simple mechanics of optics. You can build a sharper, clearer, less distorted lens without the internal and external parts needed for AF mechanisms.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 16, 2016)

FramerMCB said:


> retroreflection said:
> 
> 
> > Patents are only one level of intellectual property. Trade secrets, including software and electronic system design, are way more significant. Keep your mouth shut and it lasts forever.
> ...



As much as I have always heard the 'Canon AF is only for Japanese based companies', I have always also heard the 'Zeiss doesn't want to introduce imperfect guidance to perfect optics'.

Perhaps the reality of the former statement was spun by Zeiss marketing folks into the latter statement?

- A


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 16, 2016)

macVega said:


> Photographers that don't care about autofocus and cost : 0,000001 %..... :



Apparently that's enough to keep Zeiss profitable.


----------



## slclick (Mar 16, 2016)

macVega said:


> Photographers that don't care about autofocus and cost : 0,000001 %..... :



I care about AF just not in all situations and not with all lenses. So, your % quote/joke might not jive with MF/AF switches on all these Canon lenses.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 16, 2016)

Given $5K I'd rather choose the TS-E 24L II + 35L II, and use the balance of the cash (roughly $1300) to produce images in some exotic location(s).


----------



## Nininini (Mar 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:



> [Has the the skill/patience to shoot MF] +



There is no kill involved in manual focus. 

Patience yes, which is why manual focu is great for some thing, and not so great for things like action.


----------



## George D. (Mar 17, 2016)

EF lenses have MF/AF switch for a purpose, it's not just AF. Problem is recent DSLRs lack the split-screen/microprism type focusing screen to help the user's eye focus, so it's kind of self-cancelled. Any Canon hi-end DSLR should have interchangeable focusing screens. 

Now there is some sort of misunderstanding here. Minolta introduced the AF and the others decided to jump the bandwagon. Who invented AF in the first place, LEICA. They actually sold the rights to Minolta. Initially pros considered AF a joke. The norm (I think) should be Manual Focus and AF an option for quick motion, sports or tracking. Otherwise too much convenience turns into pampering.


----------



## leica_f32 (Mar 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Those who complain about the lack of AF in Zeiss and other companies lenses must never shoot macro or tilt shift.
> ...



You'd be surprised that it's not that small, or that unique. Zeiss sells quite a number of Otus lenses. Our local dealer is regularly replenishing his stock. Then again he does a big web business so these are going all over the place. You're not going to see them out and about as they are used for studio work and landscape predominantly. To those that only want to bother to capture an image with AF and don't want to bother with MF - I understand, it's more work. Ironically there are situations when each is needed and the work dictates the need.


----------



## leica_f32 (Mar 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> photennek said:
> 
> 
> > On 5d3, how do you enable those AF points to give you focus confirmation when using manual focusing? I tried with a canon autofocusing lens and turned the AF to manual (on the lens). I also have configured my camera for back-button focusing, but that shouldn't matter in this scenario? I did not notice any kind of confirming action from the camera in any way... Although it was daylight, when the AF points do not illuminate red anyway, was this the catch? Help appreciated, for example a ref to the relevant manual page (browsed through, nothing caught my eye)
> ...



Yes, you are correct. Turning a Canon AF lens to manual and depressing the shutter 1/2 way while turning the focus ring will activate and illuminate the focus points when focus is achieved.


----------



## wallstreetoneil (Mar 17, 2016)

*so the summary is, buy the Canon 35L II, cheaper, sharper, has AF*

I did.

I for one would love Canon to release a 28 1.4L - it would be a wedding / events masterpiece IMO


----------



## PeterAlex7 (Mar 18, 2016)

Nope, i will not spend $5000 for a lens that come without perfection. The Otus 85mm f1.4 is a kind of perfect lens, although it's lack of AF, people who can afford it, will buy it. For me, canon 35L II still the wide lens king, because for a "not-everyone-lens" the Otus 28mm f1.4 still have pretty much imperfections.

With $5000 price tag, you MUST offer something perfect.


----------

