# Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 18, 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/2013/11/zeiss-otus-initial-impressions/"></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/2013/11/zeiss-otus-initial-impressions/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>From <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com">LensRentals.com</a>

</strong>Roger at LensRentals.com has done some initial testing on the new <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1007599-REG/zeiss_2010_056_55mm_f_1_4_otus_lens.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">$4000 Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 lens</a>. When Zeiss announced the lens, they claimed it would be the best SLR lens ever made. By all accounts, it appears Zeiss has come through on that claim.</p>
<p><strong>Says Roger

</strong><em>“I won’t try to say whether the Otus is worth $4,000 to you. But I can certainly say that Zeiss did what they said they had done: gave it exceptional performance even in the corners at widest aperture. From a resolution standpoint, it is, as Zeiss said it would be, “the absolute best SLR lens in the world today.”<strong>

</strong></em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/11/otus-is-scharf" target="_blank">Read the full article</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1007599-REG/zeiss_2010_056_55mm_f_1_4_otus_lens.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 18, 2013)

I wonder how well this lens would work on my wife's t4i??? :


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 18, 2013)

Lenstip's review is out as well:
http://www.lenstip.com/2069-news-Zeiss_Otus_55_mm_f_1.4_ZE_ZF.2_-_lens_review.html

And for those keeping track, Carl Zeiss finally cleared up the filter size in their blog:
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=4432#comments



> Carl Zeiss Lenses | November 7, 2013 at 4:11 pm
> 
> Dear Myung Soo Lee,
> Thanks for you question. To keep the outer dimensions of the Otus 1.$/55 as compact as possible, we managed it to reduce the orginally filter diameter from 82mm to 77mm without any side effects on performance, functionality and sturdiness. If you have further questions, just ask
> ...


----------



## AtSea (Nov 18, 2013)

He won't say whether it is worth $4000 to me, but I will. 

..No.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 18, 2013)

AtSea said:


> He won't say whether it is worth $4000 to me, but I will.
> 
> ..No.


Me, neither, but if they release a 24mm, as is rumored, then I might consider it. It would have to blow away the TS-E 24mm, though.

If you shoot 55mm all day long (think fashion or advertising pros) and do huge enlargements (think fashion or advertising pros again), I think this lens would probably be worthwhile. For the rest of us, no.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 18, 2013)

I am really looking forward to get this lens. Everything looks promising so far. $4.000 is a lot, but less than for a 200/2 and cheap compared to a 300/2.8 (I need to justify the price ...) No confirmation date yet though.


----------



## ScottyP (Nov 18, 2013)

Sorry but the world's best DSLR lens would have AF....


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 18, 2013)

ScottyP said:


> Sorry but the world's best DSLR lens would have AF....



It wouldn't, because that would add the camera as a big part of the equation. Then we would hear endless talks about Zeiss' poor QC


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 18, 2013)

It is very expensive to add a little better performance. Its obviously a supurb lens, but it also cost a lot more than a merely excellent lens.

They are apparently very hard to get, so they are selling well.


----------



## drjlo (Nov 18, 2013)

I'm a bit surprised by the mediocre vignetting performance of -2.05 EV per the Lenstip review, especially given how huge the lens is. 

http://www.lenstip.com/390.8-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Otus_55_mm_f_1.4_ZE_ZF.2_Vignetting.html


----------



## Viggo (Nov 18, 2013)

ScottyP said:


> Sorry but the world's best DSLR lens would have AF....



Although I love my AF more than anyone, I have never experienced a MF lens jump to background or hunt.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 18, 2013)

And he didn't even mention how completely free of nasty LoCA/PF it is even wide open where the other fast 50mm are riddle with purple (and green) junk.

So between the res center and corners and the above, yeah pretty impressive as expected from the early Zeiss MTF and samples.


----------



## thepancakeman (Nov 18, 2013)

Best? So, it's the lightest? And has the greatest zoom range? Is unprecedented in it's telephoto capabilities?

People that market "the best" anything drive me nuts. Maybe it's the sharpest in the corners wide open. Maybe it has the truest color representation and saturation. Great, but that doesn't make it "best" in a million different other scenarios.


----------



## LarryC (Nov 19, 2013)

Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?


----------



## ScottyP (Nov 19, 2013)

Viggo said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but the world's best DSLR lens would have AF....
> ...



Sure, but you can turn AF off whenever you want to. But not having the option for AF is a negative. Remember that their "world's best" claim was bold, and broad, and kind of outrageous. But the WORLD'S BEST DSLR LENS would be able to do something as simple as autofocus. When people discuss Bower or Samyang lenses or other cheap-o brands, no one bends over backwards to dismiss the shortcoming, unless it is to say that is forgivable "for the cheap price", which does not apply here with the Zeiss. So a great lens? Sure. The world's best? That is really bold.


----------



## candc (Nov 19, 2013)

you have to hand it to them. i am not sure what the main factor that makes a lens so sharp, contrasty and punchy is? is it the quality of the glass, coatings, optical formula, super tight tolerances? all of the above is suppose. i have seen some cutaways of zeiss lenses i am not sure even how many of those elements move but they look really complex. 

whatever it is you have to give them credit whether it is something that suits your needs or not.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 19, 2013)

LarryC said:


> Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?



I'd imagining _much much much_ tighter component tolerancing than cheaper lenses, and a systematic elimination of assembly float / jiggle / variation (by design) would make this very difficult to reverse engineer for such a low cost.

I'm not remotely drinking the Kool Aid that this costs $4k to build, but it's also not a vanilla EF mount prime design by any stretch. Zeiss saw an opportunity to build a premium MF prime and sell a performance message that goes hand in hand with the needs of a high MP sensor. One might argue that a future Canon refresh to the L primes could deliver 95% of what the Otus does at a lower price, much like how Sigma scoops Canon business in some lengths today.

So the value proposition of the Otus will _someday_ be its undoing. But that someday is when Canon or Sigma makes something that can deliver performance that compares to what Roger and others have experienced (...with AF, weather sealing, etc.) for less -- and _that_ may be a while. The numbers alone for the Otus are staggeringly good so far.

- A


----------



## Policar (Nov 19, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And he didn't even mention how completely free of nasty LoCA/PF it is even wide open where the other fast 50mm are riddle with purple (and green) junk.
> 
> So between the res center and corners and the above, yeah pretty impressive as expected from the early Zeiss MTF and samples.



It's funny how no one seems to mention the lens being truly apochromatic, especially when, while the added resolution and contrast might not be immediately apparent in web-sized samples, this is obvious in virtually ever sample anyone has posted. The colors look so pure and vibrant.

This lens looks AMAZING. I have no plans to buy it, but it looks like the type of thing that can set one's work apart almost instantly if used even competently, similar to the 200mm f2 L IS.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 19, 2013)

LarryC said:


> Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?



Seriously Canon produces a 24-70 II for over $2,200 and people go through several copies to find a decent copy.
Do you really think they can approach the Quality Control necessary to produce a lens like this for $400??


----------



## deleteme (Nov 19, 2013)

LarryC said:


> Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?



It is only slightly about materials and labor.
This is a prestige brand. It is the Rolex of lenses. They are thoroughly aware that the market for manual focus lenses is small so the ones on sale must either be ultra premium (Zeiss, Leica,Schneider etc) or super cheap (Samyang).
By leaving off AF they obviate the need to license, design, and test a configuration for both Nikon and Canon and the attendant support and repair expenses of all of this.
By imbuing the lens with the last bit of resolution, bokeh quality and superb build, they can maximize their profit over a small production run. By dropping the price they lose the cachet of scarcity and the mythic legend of its alleged excellence.
Familiarity breeds contempt. Scarcity and urban legend breed awe.


----------



## Pi (Nov 19, 2013)

Really? It is hard to make general conclusions of 4 shots, but ... (BTW, who takes a shot of dead leafs at 1/1000 sec. and ISO 800? The lowest ISO shot is at ISO 200. )

I do say impressive sharpness wide open but ... only when I pixelpeep. Without pixelpeeping, I see dull colors and contrast (well, better processing might change that), and circular bokeh. Here







you can see faint concentric circles in the bokeh - not actual circles but ones formed by the oval shaped highlights. Well, any lens cuts the highlights this way but the only examples I have seen where this is apparent is from an older Leica f/1.0 lens. The shot above is just plain ugly, sorry Roger.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 19, 2013)

LarryC said:


> Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?


What makes you think they are machine ground? Sure, the initial blank is machine ground, but I really expect that its finished by hand. The technicians that can do this are very few, and can only finish a few lens elements a day. That's why they are hard to find and expensive. The high end Canon lenses are also hand finished. The tolerances are so tight that the lens cannot be measured directly, and uses indirect measurement to get those few millionths of a inch tolerances.

If they were easy to make, the Chinese would be cranking them out by the zillions, but they are extremely difficult to make.
Yes, Zeiss doubles the price just for their name, but so does Canon and Nikon.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 19, 2013)

LarryC said:


> Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?



You perhaps need to compare Apples with Apples, sort of.

Canon/Nikon/Sony Lenses are comparable, some within the group are slightly better than others, all made for the mass market, with a few exceptions, Large Whites (and Nikons similar range), 50f/1.2 etc. 

Zeiss lenses you might need to compare with Leica, not made for the mass market more for the Pro/serious amateur that will appreciate that 10% extra all round, IQ etc etc, and the engineered for a life time Lens.

In the Otus 55f/1.4 Category you should be perhaps trying to compare it to the Leica Summilux 50f/1.4, both are manual focus, both are engineered to last 50 years, both are USD$4K Lenses.

A couple years back I tried the Leica M9 system, the Summilux 50f/1.4 Aspherical I waited a little over a year on back order to finally get a copy, Leica sell, mostly on Back Order, every Lens they make, Zeiss have a similar problem (joking), Canon/Nikon/Sony would just love top have the same issue.

I feel this is one area where you do probably get what you pay for, I hope so, I have the Otus 55f/1.4 on order.


----------



## anthonyd (Nov 19, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> LarryC said:
> 
> 
> > Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?
> ...



Sure, the human hand can feel tiny anomalies, or wrong curvature, beyond what a typical machine can produce. But for a product that costs $4K and competes against products that cost $340 (canon 50mm f/1.4) I suppose they built machines and manufacturing processes that are not typical. When it comes to millionths of an inch I would trust a (very well made and tuned) machine more than an expert technician. You don't have hand made scramjet engines, or VLSI circuits, or MEMS. Try producing this by hand:
http://www.memx.com/
Also, there is no such thing as "the lens cannot be measured directly". We can measure down to nanometers with scanning electron microscopes and that's about 200 times finer than the smallest wavelength of visible light.

I will agree with your overall view though, that we won't see Canon/Nikon/etc making a similar lens for $400 any time soon, or the Chinese mass producing them.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 19, 2013)

LarryC said:


> Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?



What is so special about a $2,000,000 Bugatti Veyron that any car company could not reverse engineer and produce for $20,000? It's just another well-made shape on 4 wheels, right?

It should seem obvious that every bit of extra performance costs something to engineer and build, from the 6 elements of special glass to every other part in the lens. Those $400 lenses aren't built anything like this Otus lens.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 19, 2013)

zlatko said:


> LarryC said:
> 
> 
> > Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?
> ...



Actually, it costs Bugatti’s parent company Volkswagen AG nearly $5 million to make one, but the company sells a Veyron for around $2.7 million. That’s a $2.3 million loss on each car, which doesn’t even consider the millions the company spent in car development.

I'd say that 's pretty special (IMHO this car is a showcase of the engineering power of VW).

Btw I'm willing to bet the Zeiss 55 isn't a 'Veyron' lens.


----------



## RGF (Nov 19, 2013)

LarryC said:


> Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?



Issue is not cost, but why would someone pay for it. What does it deliver that than "regular" lens does not - beside the ego boast of having the best and most expensive lens (based upon focal length)


----------



## Viggo (Nov 19, 2013)

ScottyP said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > ScottyP said:
> ...



I don't think it's as simple as to "just put AF in there" and keep that IQ, or else Canon would have done that already, and do you think the Otus would be 4k with AF? Well, the 200 f2.0 is pretty close to a perfect lens (optically) but it's not small light and inexpensive now is it..


----------



## FlorentC (Nov 19, 2013)

LarryC said:


> Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?



An interesting read from Lloyd Chambers here.


----------



## studio1972 (Nov 19, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> AtSea said:
> 
> 
> > He won't say whether it is worth $4000 to me, but I will.
> ...



I think the target market is not pros (who would be better served by the Canon 50L as it has AF, or a medium format system if they really need the resolution), but enthusiasts with lots of money who really need the 'best lens in the world' for their holiday snaps.


----------



## 100 (Nov 19, 2013)

Mass production is the main reason for a low price technical product. You need a lot of money to develop something. Let’s say it’ll cost you 1 million to develop and the manufacturing cost per product are $10. 
You aim to sell 10,000 of your product. 
Development cost per product is $100, so total cost per product is $110. 
If you can sell 1 million of your product, the development cost per product is only $1, so the total cost is $11 per product.

I know it’s a bit more complicated than that, but in general a big part of the high price of a low sales technical product is due to development cost.


----------



## Mr Bean (Nov 19, 2013)

Blackout said:


> LarryC said:
> 
> 
> > Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?
> ...


Yep, a good read. Making a lens with very tight tolerances, with aspherics in the mix is very difficult (centering issues with aspheric lenses can be tricky). While Canon/Nikon do make fast optics in the 50mm range with aspherics / special glass, etc, they are soft wide open. This one isn't


----------



## studio1972 (Nov 19, 2013)

Mr Bean said:


> Blackout said:
> 
> 
> > LarryC said:
> ...



Remember the canon lenses are much older designs. Canon's more recent lens designs are much sharper, like the 100mm macro L.


----------



## infared (Nov 19, 2013)

I think that it is fantastic that Zeiss has made this lens! I guess it is very difficult to make a great normal (for FF) lens...no one has until now. I cannot afford this lens...but I would love to have the opportunity to view some prints made from it by a skilled image maker. That would be exciting.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 19, 2013)

LarryC said:


> Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?



Others have already brought up economies of scale and exclusivity of having a limited edition product both of which will result in high unit prices. I'm guessing that Zeiss also has patents to protect its design from being copied, and patents last for 20 years so if you wait that long you might see knockoffs being released.

Just another point on "special" lenses, these are designed to address specific deficiencies in mainstream lenses and you should expect them to be more expensive. People often argue about how much better these are (e.g. maybe 5-10% better) than a competitor lens or a predecessors. The challenge is whether you as a photographer can truly showcase that extra 5-10% of optical performance or not. If optics is the only limiting factor in your photography then these lenses will definitely set you apart from other photographers. If your creativity, composition and use of light is poor then you'll only be taking crap pictures that look 5-10% better optically.


----------



## Jeffrey (Nov 19, 2013)

I have this lens on order and am anxiously awaiting its arrival. I have several other Zeiss lenses, all of which are incredible. I imagine this lens will be another favorite for me. The lenses really are amazing.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 19, 2013)

studio1972 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > AtSea said:
> ...


Probably, but I know a few product and fashion pros who are near, or in one case at, the top of their field and they will gladly pay whatever is asked for even slight improvements in IQ. They all shoot medium format for most things, but like the flexibility and speed of SLRs for some of their location work.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 19, 2013)

RGF said:


> LarryC said:
> 
> 
> > Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?
> ...


It may be the most expensive 55mm, but Leica offers a 50mm that's $8K and another that's $11K.

What the Otus delivers is amazing performance at wide apertures. Forget the ego boost. It delivers something that a regular lens doesn't. The resolution numbers are even better than those of the Leica Summilux 50 (also $4K), which had previously surpassed all other fast 50's on Roger's tests (granted the Otus is a 55).

Of course resolution isn't everything, and for most of us isn't worth that much money. But this lens is without doubt very special. Why someone would pay for it: they want the photographs that can be made with it. Having special tools isn't just about having them, but about using them and making something special with them.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 19, 2013)

studio1972 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > AtSea said:
> ...



+1.

This also is the power of Leica IMHO.


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 19, 2013)

Clearly I'm not part of the target market for this lens; I would want AF and to pay 1/10 the asking price. 

But I do understand and appreciate the economics of diminishing returns (i.e., at the high end of any product market, it costs multiples more money for small incremental improvements). This product is no doubt targeted to a relatively small market; I would be curious what Zeiss' first year sales projects are for the Otus.

(I do wish they had named it "Otis" instead of "Otus," however, in honor of the town drunk on the Andy Griffith show ...)


----------



## MLfan3 (Nov 19, 2013)

literally it is a great great lens , almost perfect , no doubt about it.
but it is just too huge , it is longer than the Nikon 24-70mmf2.8G, I think the size makes it just an impractical lens for many.
I do not mind 4k for a lens of this great, but I do really hate the huge long ugly barrel design.
So I will use my Zeiss 50mm f2 MP for another few years.
if you guys do not mind the huge 50 kind of lens , then just get it , there is nothing comes close to it at least in a lab test.


----------



## deleteme (Nov 19, 2013)

MLfan3 said:


> literally it is a great great lens , almost perfect , no doubt about it.
> but it is just too huge , it is longer than the Nikon 24-70mmf2.8G, I think the size makes it just an impractical lens for many.
> I do not mind 4k for a lens of this great, but I do really hate the huge long ugly barrel design.
> So I will use my Zeiss 50mm f2 MP for another few years.
> if you guys do not mind the huge 50 kind of lens , then just get it , there is nothing comes close to it at least in a lab test.



Ultimate IQ was the goal, not a pancake.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 19, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> Best? So, it's the lightest? And has the greatest zoom range? Is unprecedented in it's telephoto capabilities?
> 
> People that market "the best" anything drive me nuts. Maybe it's the sharpest in the corners wide open. Maybe it has the truest color representation and saturation. Great, but that doesn't make it "best" in a million different other scenarios.



huh?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 19, 2013)

LarryC said:


> Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?



Because they all respectively currently have 50mm lenses that already cost a lot more than $400 that don't really compete with the Otus.


----------



## AdamJ (Nov 19, 2013)

I was going to compare a Glock .38, which will shoot a man dead, with a Desert Eagle .50, which will shoot a man very dead.

But that first shot of Roger's, of the red berries, even at the published size, seems to display bokeh that is so creamy, I suspect it would clog my arteries instantaneously and render me not just very dead but extremely dead.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 20, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> LarryC said:
> 
> 
> > Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?
> ...



Agree, I have & use the Canon 50 f/1.2 L, very good Lens, My copy though I've settled on after 3 attempts. I like very much the way this lens renders the background, I very seldom use it on auto focus as I'm mostly using it at f/1.2 or f/2, focussing is critical at this shallow depth of field. I expect the Otus 55 to be quite a bit better in any and all areas, except auto focus, and in a couple of weeks I'll know.

I'm somewhat surprised at those that criticise the Otus 55/f1.4 based on price alone, I don't really see the sense in it, either you appreciate there is a difference and want the Zeiss Lens for the little extra IQ it will deliver, and are prepared to pay the 2x price over the Canon 50f/1.2L, or your not, to criticise Zeiss for producing an amazing lens because it's "too expensive" is a little like criticising a Petrus Pomerol 1986 over any 2 litre cask wine, you need to first be able to appreciate that there is a difference, if you can't, your going to head for the cask wine, so just enjoy it.


----------



## Pi (Nov 20, 2013)

There are a few more shots on Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/[email protected]/pool/with/9171284804/#photo_9171284804


----------



## candc (Nov 20, 2013)

this lens doesn't suit my needs so much. i like to shoot wide angle landscapes and wildlife mostly. if i was more into portraits and studio or product photography i would buy because it seems to be the absolute best at what it was made for


----------



## docsmith (Nov 20, 2013)

These optics, 24 mm f1.4...I'd think about it.


----------



## candc (Nov 20, 2013)

Pi said:


> There are a few more shots on Flickr:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/groups/[email protected]/pool/with/9171284804/#photo_9171284804



that's my point, all those shot's are just excellent. i don't know if you could get that with something else or not but i don't think so. it might not make sense for everybody but those shots are great

that slideshow at the link is the best i have ever seen, there is an in person almost 3d quality to this lens


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 20, 2013)

I've said it before and will say it again. Every hobby has it's own top end and highest level of premium quality equipment. For that extra 5-10% performance, people pay through the nose. Many buy the respective items for the peace of mind of knowing they have the best, some want to show off, and some just because they can. However, there are still the handful of people out there that could utilize that extra 5-10% performance upgrade and exploit it to the fullest. For anyone to make blanket statements about the lens, it's cost, and it's general lack of worth exhibits a very limited perspective. 

This reminds me a lot of road biking which happens to be another one of my hobbies. For the lightest, top grade components on your bike, those components are exponentially more expensive than the next consumer level item down even though it may be the difference of mere ounces in weight. Does this automatically equate to a performance difference to the average cyclist? Probably not while they are going 15 mph down the local bike path. But hey, somewhere out there are a fair amount of cyclists that will when they need those tenths or hundredths of a second to win a race and shaving some ounces off their rig may do that for them. Are you going to tell them they don't need that gear cause it's overpriced or is missing one feature they may not feel is necessary? Don't be the overweight guy in tights telling the stud that he doesn't need those lighter wheels cause they are overpriced.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 20, 2013)

Pi said:


> There are a few more shots on Flickr:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/groups/[email protected]/pool/with/9171284804/#photo_9171284804


Now I´m REALLY looking forward to get the lens. The images in this series looks very promising.


----------



## Pi (Nov 20, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > There are a few more shots on Flickr:
> ...



Well, the person behind the lens makes a difference, too (sorry Roger  ).


----------



## jrista (Nov 20, 2013)

Quite the impressive lens. Boke is beautiful, and it is razor sharp. Seems sharp is really "in" these days. It used to be in portraiture that a little softness was desirable, but it seems people want to extract every amount of detail they possibly can these days, right down to the pores in their skin.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Nov 20, 2013)

Love this thing.. 50mm is where I shoot 90% of the time. Regardless of what others will tell you.. It's a damn fine focal length for shooting portraits. And many other things. Every photographer should have a 50mm in their pack.

I've used many a 50mm and settled on my Zeiss 50mm f1.4. Amazing quality and nothing else will do for its image characteristics. Contrast, bokeh and one of the sharpest lens from f4 on. A gorgeous portrait lens from f2 - f2.8, fantastic event and landscape from f4 on... Incredibly dynamic.

The Otus is definitely on my list.. But probably not until 2015. And only if Canon has a body for it that is truly a competitor to the D800 and more importantly: Medium Format 

Expensive? Only if you don't value 50mm and the level of performance it brings. Especially if you're making money with it.


----------



## sanj (Nov 20, 2013)

I totally agree that 50mm is a near essential focal length.


----------



## sanj (Nov 20, 2013)

MLfan3 said:


> literally it is a great great lens , almost perfect , no doubt about it.
> but it is just too huge , it is longer than the Nikon 24-70mmf2.8G, I think the size makes it just an impractical lens for many.
> I do not mind 4k for a lens of this great, but I do really hate the huge long ugly barrel design.
> So I will use my Zeiss 50mm f2 MP for another few years.
> if you guys do not mind the huge 50 kind of lens , then just get it , there is nothing comes close to it at least in a lab test.



How?


----------



## Viggo (Nov 20, 2013)

sanj said:


> MLfan3 said:
> 
> 
> > literally it is a great great lens , almost perfect , no doubt about it.
> ...



+1, people use much bigger lenses ALL the time. And it's basically the same size as a 2470, and people even more often use a 70-200 which is much bigger and heavier. It's big and heavy for a 50, but not as a lens in general. And for me being used to the 200 f2 for portrait stuff, this is a feather....


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 20, 2013)

Just out of curiosity; does anyone have an idea how the Canon EOS CN E50 1.3L Cinematic lens would compare with the Zeiss ?

Prices are similar.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 20, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Just out of curiosity; does anyone have an idea how the Canon EOS CN E50 1.3L Cinematic lens would compare with the Zeiss ?
> 
> Prices are similar.


I'm still waiting to see a single test a Canon Cine lens - I'm very curious to see how they perform


----------



## thepancakeman (Nov 21, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > Best? So, it's the lightest? And has the greatest zoom range? Is unprecedented in it's telephoto capabilities?
> ...



Sorry, just saying that "best" doesn't consider need. It's not the best sports lens. It's not the best travel lens. So saying it's the best lens without any qualifiers is just blatantly wrong. 

Sticking with a favorite, car analogies: a McLaren might be the best car if you're going to the track, but not if you're towing your boat to the lake or picking up friends from the airport. So you can't just say a McLaren is the best car, just like it's inaccurate to say that this is the best lens.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 21, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > thepancakeman said:
> ...



I do agree with you regarding the sweeping ambiguous claim of best lens ever. That, I cannot speak to as it is more subjective than anything based on everyone's needs and perceptions. What I will say though is that it is probably OPTICALLY the best production lens in existence today for 35mm DSLRs if what everyone is saying holds true. So in that regard, it is the best.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 21, 2013)

Optically best, unless you count maximum aperture.


----------



## RVB (Nov 22, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> Best? So, it's the lightest? And has the greatest zoom range? Is unprecedented in it's telephoto capabilities?
> 
> People that market "the best" anything drive me nuts. Maybe it's the sharpest in the corners wide open. Maybe it has the truest color representation and saturation. Great, but that doesn't make it "best" in a million different other scenarios.



They claimed the best image quality in 35mm format and they achieved this... simples..


----------



## Pi (Nov 22, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Optically best, unless you count maximum aperture.



Too early to say. Fast lenses are about bokeh, not sharpness only. I have not seen enough examples to convince me that it is the best. Closeups do not tell you much about bokeh - the torture test is when the blur is of smaller radius, and one of Roger's samples looks really bad in that regard.

I have seen more impressive shots with the new Nikon but maybe the reason is that the Nikon is more widely available and more affordable.


----------



## MLfan3 (Nov 22, 2013)

despite of the huge barrel size , I really seriously considering this lens.
it costs almost 4k and it is huge but considering the incredible optical quality , it is actually a big bargain lens.
I really want it but it is just a tad oversized , it won't fit into my usual small walk around camera bag.


----------



## dcm (Nov 22, 2013)

MLfan3 said:


> ...
> I really want it but it is just a tad oversized , it won't fit into my usual small walk around camera bag.



I imagine I can afford a new bag if I can afford this lens


----------



## Eldar (Dec 20, 2013)

;D Finally, two months and 10 days after I placed the order, I finally have the Otus 55 f1.4 in hand ;D

One day later and I would not have been able to pick it up before my Christmas vacation. Now I get ample time to play around with it. 

First impression ... focal length seems to be about 55mm and focus is manual ...  
But it has a look and feel like no other lens I can think of. It radiates quality from the moment you lift the box it comes in. 

Now it is time to figure out if it is worthy of the hype and worth the extra hassle and all the money.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 20, 2013)

Eldar said:


> ;D Finally, two months and 10 days after I placed the order, I finally have the Otus 55 f1.4 in hand ;D
> 
> One day later and I would not have been able to pick it up before my Christmas vacation. Now I get ample time to play around with it.
> 
> ...



I'm sure I speak for many when I say I'm looking forward to seeing some of your images taken with it, and hearing your views on how the image quality compares with other exceptional glass.

Have a great Christmas and all the best for the New Year.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 22, 2013)

The wind is howling outside and the snow wip the skin off peoples faces, so not very tempting to shoot anything outside at the moment, so in the mean time ... f1.4, ISO100 on a 5DIII. Merry Christmas everyone 

From a physical, mechanical and handling perspective, the lens is everything Zeiss said it would be. The only thing that I would have preferred differently is the positioning of the focus ring. The way I hold the camera I would have liked to have it a bit closer to the front. But I have no problem operating it the way it is. Focusing is extremely smooth and with the focus aid in the camera it works quite well. At f1.4 it is a bit difficult though, due to the very shallow DOF. But that is difficult for AF also. 

I am considering buying the Ec-S focusing screen for the 1DX, to see if that helps MF further. It steals light though and it is not supported by Canon firmware.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 22, 2013)

Here are a couple more. They are RAW straight from the camera, converted to JPEG in Lightroom. Both ISO100 f2.2


----------



## Eldar (Dec 22, 2013)

Here´s No.2. Both with 5DIII.


----------



## jrista (Dec 22, 2013)

Thanks for the samples, Eldar! Looks like a wicked sharp lens...blows my mind. Even at 100% zoom, I can't say I've ever seen anything quite that sharp before. 

The one thing that did stand out was the boke. It looks like it is slightly spherical, but there are clearly visible concentric rings in each boke blur circle. If you downscale everything, that becomes invisible, but if you wanted to print large, might be a problem.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> Thanks for the samples, Eldar! Looks like a wicked sharp lens...blows my mind. Even at 100% zoom, I can't say I've ever seen anything quite that sharp before.
> 
> The one thing that did stand out was the boke. It looks like it is slightly spherical, but there are clearly visible concentric rings in each boke blur circle. If you downscale everything, that becomes invisible, but if you wanted to print large, might be a problem.


To show you a bit more, here is the same shot at f2.8. You can see the bokeh change. The lights in the background is a Christmas tree, so the lights are pure lights or combined light and reflection from a Christmas ball, like the two with a red shadow. There are also reflections from the glitter strings. I believe a shot with pure light sources in the background would have a more even bokeh. When I have more time I will do a bit more thorough testing.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 22, 2013)

Here´s one at f3.5 ISO800 on 5DIII


----------



## Eldar (Dec 22, 2013)

Here is another bokeh example, from the 7 candles on the mantlepiece. f1.4


----------



## jrista (Dec 22, 2013)

Eldar said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the samples, Eldar! Looks like a wicked sharp lens...blows my mind. Even at 100% zoom, I can't say I've ever seen anything quite that sharp before.
> ...



It isn't the amount of boke I was referring to. I hope you don't mind me using your photo, but here is a 100% crop that demonstrates the strange concentric rings inside of each boke blur circle (are you saying that funky effect is because the light sources are christmas lights?):


----------



## Eldar (Dec 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


That particular bokeh ball is a silver Christmas ball and it may be that you will get these kind of rings in that ball´s reflection. The strong lights are electric candles and they have a reflective edge, which makes an additional shadow in the bokeh. I posted one more with pure candles. That is probably more representative.


----------



## jrista (Dec 22, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Here is another bokeh example, from the 7 candles on the mantlepiece. f1.4



Yeah, that looks a lot cleaner!


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> It isn't the amount of boke I was referring to. I hope you don't mind me using your photo, but here is a 100% crop that demonstrates the strange concentric rings inside of each boke blur circle (are you saying that funky effect is because the light sources are christmas lights?):



Are the concentric rings a function of the grinding process of the aspheric elements? I noticed it in the 24-70 II, and the rings go away when the blur circle is a lot brighter. It might be that the candles flames also have the same "feature" if the exposure is reduced by a few stops.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 23, 2013)

Eldar said:


> The wind is howling outside and the snow wip the skin off peoples faces, so not very tempting to shoot anything outside at the moment, so in the mean time ... f1.4, ISO100 on a 5DIII. Merry Christmas everyone
> 
> From a physical, mechanical and handling perspective, the lens is everything Zeiss said it would be. The only thing that I would have preferred differently is the positioning of the focus ring. The way I hold the camera I would have liked to have it a bit closer to the front. But I have no problem operating it the way it is. Focusing is extremely smooth and with the focus aid in the camera it works quite well. At f1.4 it is a bit difficult though, due to the very shallow DOF. But that is difficult for AF also.
> 
> I am considering buying the Ec-S focusing screen for the 1DX, to see if that helps MF further. It steals light though and it is not supported by Canon firmware.



Beautiful shot Eldar


----------



## Eldar (Dec 23, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't the amount of boke I was referring to. I hope you don't mind me using your photo, but here is a 100% crop that demonstrates the strange concentric rings inside of each boke blur circle (are you saying that funky effect is because the light sources are christmas lights?):
> ...


You may be right. Looking at several of these lower light bokeh elements, they have the same concentric rings. I´ll have to check it out some more. 

The lens is great though. All the images you I have posted are RAW to JPEG straight from the camera, only reduced in size to fit the posting requirements. To be more conclusive about how good the optical performance is, I need to run some parallel testing with other lenses. But so far it looks very good and the hype seem to be well deserved.

The challenge is the manual focusing. Shot wide open, the extreme sharpness exposes mistakes brutally. My capabilities in this department is not what it used to be, probably a combination of lack of practice and fading eyesight, so to get the best from it I need to practice quite a bit.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 23, 2013)

Eldar said:


> The challenge is the manual focusing. Shot wide open, the extreme sharpness exposes mistakes brutally. My capabilities in this department is not what it used to be, probably a combination of lack of practice and fading eyesight, so to get the best from it I need to practice quite a bit.



You may find you need to pair the lens with a 6D fitted with the 's' screen to enable you to see the true dof. However you might find the controls annoyingly soft after using the 1Dx and 5DmkIII.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 23, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > The challenge is the manual focusing. Shot wide open, the extreme sharpness exposes mistakes brutally. My capabilities in this department is not what it used to be, probably a combination of lack of practice and fading eyesight, so to get the best from it I need to practice quite a bit.
> ...


The Ec-S screen works on the 1DX also, but with the need for exposure compensation. I will order one and see how it works.


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Julepynten ga noen indikasjoner om at du var norsk


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 23, 2013)

BTW. congrats on a great new lens


----------



## Eldar (Dec 23, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> BTW. congrats on a great new lens


Takk for det  According to the distributor I got the first Canon mount they delivered in Scandinavia, so I guess I was lucky


----------



## Eldar (Dec 23, 2013)

I did a quick test with the 85mm 1.2L II at f1.4 and the 24-70 f2.8L II at app. 55mm and f2.8, with the same setup. On the 85mm I could not see any concentric rings at all. On the 24-70 there were signs of rings, but much less than the Zeiss. I also tried the Zeiss on other sparkling reflections, but have not been able to recreate it on anything else yet.

To be continued ...


----------



## Eldar (Dec 23, 2013)

Weather permitted a walk outside for a couple of hours today. Here is with the 1DX outside my cabin. f11, 1/500s, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (Dec 23, 2013)

And here is one where there still was some snow on the branches. f11, 1/125s, ISO100 on the 1DX


----------



## jrista (Dec 23, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



--> "Christmas flower gave some indications about you being Norwegian "

LOL...eh?


----------



## jrista (Dec 23, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Weather permitted a walk outside for a couple of hours today. Here is with the 1DX outside my cabin. f11, 1/500s, ISO100



WOW! Beautiful view you have there, my friend! I would LOVE to be there right now...despite the snow!


----------



## Eldar (Dec 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > Julepynten ga noen indikasjoner om at du var norsk
> ...


He, he, You´re close, but "Julepynten" translates to Christmas decorations. And yes, it is beautiful here and we are here Because of the snow, not despite it


----------



## slclick (Dec 23, 2013)

Thanks for the outdoor shots. I liked seeing those (the red in the previous images was soooo saturated it made my eyes bleed) It didn't do a thing for helping me see the worth of that lens.


----------



## jrista (Dec 23, 2013)

Eldar said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Quasimodo said:
> ...



We need smarter internet translators. ;P 

I am guessing that comment was meant for you, not me, given the proper translation. ;D

Do you guys get aurora often up there? I'd LOVE to see how that lens does with a nice aruora. If there is anything I would love to see and photograph, in person, before I die is an aurora. I have intentions to retire in Alaska for that very reason, but God only knows if I'll (or even the world...) will live long enough to reach retirement.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 23, 2013)

slclick said:


> Thanks for the outdoor shots. I liked seeing those (the red in the previous images was soooo saturated it made my eyes bleed) It didn't do a thing for helping me see the worth of that lens.


You´re welcome! The red is how it came out of the camera ...


----------



## slclick (Dec 23, 2013)

Eldar said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the outdoor shots. I liked seeing those (the red in the previous images was soooo saturated it made my eyes bleed) It didn't do a thing for helping me see the worth of that lens.
> ...



Is your color space Adobe RGB or sRGB?


----------



## Eldar (Dec 23, 2013)

slclick said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...


Adobe RGB. If anything I could have chosen a slightly colder WB. It´s set at 3150, which is pretty correct to what it looks like, but for someone just looking at the images, about 3000 could have been less Christmas red.


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



It was not meant to be exclusive either, just when norwegians recognize other norwegians 

We do not get the Aurora down here. Both he and I live in the Oslo region, and you have to travel further up in the country to see it. I once witnessed it up in the mountains near Trondheim (halfway up). I has been a few times when they announced that we in Oslo would see them, but as sure as the bank, it has been cloudy each time


----------



## Eldar (Dec 24, 2013)

Here is one of Junior (with no red in it). This one is with 5DIII, ISO2000 and f1.4. 

All the images I have posted on this and the 1DX thread are only converted to JPEG and downsized to fit posting requirements. Some of them would clearly look better with some post processing, but now you can judge for yourselves. 

In general, after a couple of days with the manual focusing, the hitrate is going up and the lens is pure joy to work with. And as I, along with quite a few other posters here, have stated a few times on other threads, I find that there is something about primes that a zoom don´t have, which makes photography both more challenging and more fun.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 24, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



+1, always with something cool to see in the sky Oslo brings the fog and it clouds and rain.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 25, 2013)

Thoughtful daughter on Christmas eve. (with some red though ...)
f1.4, ISO1600, 5DIII


----------



## slclick (Dec 25, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Thoughtful daughter on Christmas eve. (with some red though ...)
> f1.4, ISO1600, 5DIII



Ahh, sorry about the red thing and that candle red looks great on my monitor...btw gorgeous profile of your daughter


----------



## Eldar (Dec 25, 2013)

slclick said:


> Ahh, sorry about the red thing and that candle red looks great on my monitor...btw gorgeous profile of your daughter


Don´t worry  At Christmas time we have red candles, red table cloth, red santas, red flowers ... red everything, with some green, so every indoor image tends to be warmed up by all the red reflections. Your comment made me reconsider a few things. 

But if you are considering this lens, I can only say that I am totally sold. It is phenomenal and worth every cent!


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 26, 2013)

Ahhh Eldar, I sure do envy you. Your whole lens lineup is like any Canon fans wet dream. Glad you're liking the Otus, might have to rent it one of these days : )


----------



## Eldar (Dec 26, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> Ahhh Eldar, I sure do envy you. Your whole lens lineup is like any Canon fans wet dream. Glad you're liking the Otus, might have to rent it one of these days : )


Hehe, getting old has its advantages 

If the focal length suits you, you should definitely try this lens. It is absolutely awesome!


----------



## Eldar (Jan 31, 2014)

I have been waiting to see images shot with this lens for over a month now. The only ones I have seen so far are the ones I have posted myself. 

It seem to be backordered all over the place, but there must be more CR members who has it. Please post images and share your thoughts and experiences with this lens.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 31, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I have been waiting to see images shot with this lens for over a month now. The only ones I have seen so far are the ones I have posted myself.
> 
> It seem to be backordered all over the place, but there must be more CR members who has it. Please post images and share your thoughts and experiences with this lens.


I'd like to see more, too, but you're free to share additional photos for the rest of us to see


----------



## Eldar (Jan 31, 2014)

Nalle Puh said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I have been waiting to see images shot with this lens for over a month now. The only ones I have seen so far are the ones I have posted myself.
> ...


Since you´ve had it for a month I assume you have loads of images to share. I´m looking forward to see them and read your thoughts about the lens.

I have read most of the reviews and seen most of the images, including Miranda and Dpreview. But I´d like to see what the CR community got out of it.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 1, 2014)

I´m afraid I don´t have much interesting to share, but to keep it going ...
1DX, 1/100s, f/11, ISO100 (only RAW to JPEG in LR5)


----------



## Eldar (Feb 1, 2014)

Here´s one more. At least there are a couple of pixel peeping points here ...
1DX, 1/1600s, f6.3, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (Feb 1, 2014)

For pixel peeping and bokeh ...
1DX, 1/3200s, f2, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (Feb 1, 2014)

Here´s the local lion crying out for better service ...
1DX, 1/30s, f3.5, ISO2000


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 1, 2014)

Eldar said:


> For pixel peeping and bokeh ...
> 1DX, 1/3200s, f2, ISO100


Since you asked...I took a look at the photo at 100% - WOW - the eye lashes, peach fuzz on the cheeks, and fibers in the fabric are all razor sharp and the bokeh is really soft. You certainly get what you pay for


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Feb 1, 2014)

@Nalle Puh: great pictures!
The Otus is good, and so are you!


----------



## zlatko (Feb 2, 2014)

That's good stuff! The lens draws beautifully.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 2, 2014)

Nalle (Winne the Poo, by the way). I am glad to see your posts. This lens is beyond anything I have ever seen. That´s why i´d like to see more real life experiences from the CR community. I must admit that the only thing on my mind today is how I can get an optimal manual focus setup with this and the expected Otus lenses.


----------



## candc (Feb 2, 2014)

Nalle Puh said:


> Otus at F-1,4



I don't think I have seen a cabinet knob look so good, there is no doubt that in the right hand's that this lens performs like no other, smashing photos!


----------



## Viggo (Feb 2, 2014)

It's a seriously bold claim from Sigma that they're going after the Otus with the 50 Art. But after owning the Zeiss 50 f2 I know once and for all, I can never use MF. So if the Sigma is about as sharp as the 50 f2.0 and have better AF than the 50 L, it will sell boatloads and be my favorite.


----------



## leGreve (Feb 3, 2014)

By a stroke of luck Im getting my ZE today.... In 10 minutes.

Right before Im off to Norway for four days.

So Ill be testing it out extensively in both photo and canon raw video... Really looking forward to this beast!


----------



## Viggo (Feb 3, 2014)

leGreve said:


> By a stroke of luck Im getting my ZE today.... In 10 minutes.
> 
> Right before Im off to Norway for four days.
> 
> So Ill be testing it out extensively in both photo and canon raw video... Really looking forward to this beast!



Sweet! Congrats! Where in Norway are you going?


----------



## Eldar (Feb 3, 2014)

leGreve said:


> By a stroke of luck Im getting my ZE today.... In 10 minutes.
> 
> Right before Im off to Norway for four days.
> 
> So Ill be testing it out extensively in both photo and canon raw video... Really looking forward to this beast!


I'm glad to hear the Otus community is growing and I am looking forward to see your posts. You're in for a treat


----------



## leGreve (Feb 3, 2014)

Viggo said:


> leGreve said:
> 
> 
> > By a stroke of luck Im getting my ZE today.... In 10 minutes.
> ...



Kristiansund… home of Stavenes Lighthouse, Bremsnes Cave and The Atlantic Road


----------



## Badger (Feb 3, 2014)

Please pardon this rookie question.

With all the discussion about cross type focus points vs. non cross type, and "how many focus points does your camera have?", here you have the top of the food chain lens that does not have AF. My question is, how do you use it? At f1.4, must you use a tripod and live view? Can this be used hand held without a tripod? Can one reliably focus using the view finder?

I am not in the market for this lens, I am simply curious as to how a lens like this is used. I remember back in the pre-autofocus film days where there was the indicator in the middle of the view finder that assisted with focusing but now those are gone.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 3, 2014)

leGreve said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > leGreve said:
> ...



Cool, I live in a similar sounding place, Kristiansand, at the very south of Norway. Almost all of Norway is superb for nature photography, landscapes and nowadays you might even experience a few degrees below, although is a very rare warm winter periods now. Have fun and please share some pictures !


----------



## Eldar (Feb 3, 2014)

Badger said:


> Please pardon this rookie question.
> 
> With all the discussion about cross type focus points vs. non cross type, and "how many focus points does your camera have?", here you have the top of the food chain lens that does not have AF. My question is, how do you use it? At f1.4, must you use a tripod and live view? Can this be used hand held without a tripod? Can one reliably focus using the view finder?
> 
> I am not in the market for this lens, I am simply curious as to how a lens like this is used. I remember back in the pre-autofocus film days where there was the indicator in the middle of the view finder that assisted with focusing but now those are gone.


Currently I use the standard focusing screens for the 5DIII and 1DX, which are not very good for manual focus. But all the outdoor images and about half of the indoor images I have posted earlier on this thread are handheld, focused through the viewfinder. But to focus through the viewfinder wider than f2.8 can be a bit of a gamble, due to shallow DOF and (lack of) accuracy on the focus indicators. But after some practice, I do get quite a healthy number of keepers.

But to me this lens is not for any stressed situation or action oriented shooting. It is a low shoulders, low pulse, take your time and use a tripod kind of lens.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 4, 2014)

Girl with the flu ...
1DX, 1/40s, f2, ISO400


----------



## Eldar (Feb 4, 2014)

Here is the first shot I took with this lens. I was thrilled after transferring it to the PC and having a look at the details. So now you know what a Norwegian Christmas tree looks like 
5DIII, 1.6s, f4,0, ISO100


----------



## leGreve (Feb 4, 2014)

Well… fate would have it that I got pneumonia the second I landed at my moms house….. still not in good shape.

So that kinda ruined my photo trip. I tried going out into the Fjell this morning, but it only made things worse.

Anyways. I was woken up early feeling bad, but I looked out the window and saw it was a stary morning.
So I quickly set up the tripod and tested the Zeiss.

This photo is shot at f 1.4, iso 1600 and 6 seconds exposure. Untouched…


My initial impressions are that this lens is huge  haha, so if you are coming from a "lesser" 50mm you'll be surprised.
However if you are used to having the 24-70 2.8L living on your camera you wont be surprised by its weight.

The lens is lovely. I like the old ZE and ZF.2 lenses, but construction wise Otus is a step further. I really feels solid and durable. Just dont do any fast swings around as you'll most likely hurt someone if you hit them with this blunt weapon made of metal 

What you have to be aware of before spending money on this:

- I'll probably get better at it but right now I'm relying on the live view with 10x magnification to set focus perfect. Which makes it a slow lens to work with.
- You can half press the shutter button and focus till the squares disappear, but it's not easy to hit the spot, especially at 1.4.
- Heavy… roughly 1kg.
- Looong focus rotation, which makes it lovely for my film work, but can be a bit of an effort for photos. I think it's around 270 degrees.
- Some people on the film community have talked about the ZF version of Zeiss lenses being better for filming because of the external aperture. However… this is only true if you are definitely going to de-click the lens. If not, you are stuck with half apertures opposed to the ZE version's 1/3 stops. Having said this… I don't think I would declick the Otus even if I could.


----------



## leGreve (Feb 4, 2014)

This shot it untouched…

So an addendum to my previous post would be that you might need a camera that can utilize the Otus' amazing resolution to its full extend. The 5D mk III to eyes doesn't seem to do so.

Also the vignetting is quite apparent at 1.4. This of course was already known, just interesting to see it for myself.

So blowing a bit to the flames of resolution warfare again here… suddenly the D800 looks mighty interesting 

iso 100, f 1.4, 1/80s


----------



## Eldar (Feb 4, 2014)

Glad to hear you got the lens and looking forward to many posts. It would be good if you could post closer to the 4M size limit though. Sorry to hear of your health. Hope you recover soon, so you can take advantage of the beautiful scenery where you are. 
I am in a similar situation, but with a less serious diagnosis. So in lack of anything better to do, I shot this out the window of my TV room. No stars though. Only thing special about this one is that it is NOT snowing. But it has a few pixel peeping qualities. 
5DIII, 13s, f10, ISO100


----------



## leGreve (Feb 4, 2014)

Hand held cat shot… very exciting. Again this is untouched. I focused with live view at 10x.
Settings were: iso 200, f1.4, 1/60s


----------



## leGreve (Feb 4, 2014)

My mom… settings: iso 100, f2.0, 1/320s


----------



## Eldar (Feb 4, 2014)

Very good! 
I am also looking forward to a higher resolution body, even though I am not very tempted by the 800. 

I have practiced my focusing skills through the viewfinder for a while now and from f2 I get an acceptable amount of keepers. Wider than that is a bit of a gamble. I am tempted to install the EcS focusing screen in my 1DX and see how that works.


----------



## leGreve (Feb 4, 2014)

Settings: Iso 800, f 4, 1/200s

This was a quick test of the 50cm near focus. I just love that soft transition of focus and the ever so creamy bokeh.

The grain ofcourse is not because of the Zeiss but the fact that I underexposed a whole stop on iso 800.


----------



## leGreve (Feb 4, 2014)

Out look from the Bremsnes Cave on Averøy, Norway.

It's a stich up from two shots. Also this one is edited; local contrast and saturation changes along with a 100 / 1 / 0 USM

Settings: iso 100, F4, 1/100s


----------



## eml58 (Feb 6, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Very good!
> I am also looking forward to a higher resolution body, even though I am not very tempted by the 800.
> 
> I have practiced my focusing skills through the viewfinder for a while now and from f2 I get an acceptable amount of keepers. Wider than that is a bit of a gamble. I am tempted to install the EcS focusing screen in my 1DX and see how that works.



I've ordered the Ec-A screen so we can swap experiences later.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 6, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Very good!
> ...


Did you get the Otus before Christmas? There are lots of angry posts on the Zeiss website for late deliveries.


----------



## sanj (Feb 6, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Very good!
> ...



The screen does not help at all. At least not to me... So miss the older split screen types. My XE2 has FANTASTIC manual focus aids...


----------



## Eldar (Feb 6, 2014)

sanj said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


----------



## eml58 (Feb 6, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Did you get the Otus before Christmas? There are lots of angry posts on the Zeiss website for late deliveries.



I did, but it's still sitting in Singapore while I'm in Australia, pick it up from my Office 18th Feb when I get back, perhaps then I can contribute.



sanj said:


> The screen does not help at all. At least not to me... So miss the older split screen types. My XE2 has FANTASTIC manual focus aids...



That's sad, perhaps we try the Ec-B, I've read that the Ec-S fits into the 1Dx but doesn't work the way it was designed in this particular Body, only in the older bodies 1DMK IV 1Ds MK III etc, but I've had no experience with these manual focus screens so at $50 each it's worth buying a few and see which works best. I certainly need something as I gave up the Leica M9 due to my inability to precisely focus this Range Finder, wonderful Camera & Lenses, my eye sight just wasn't up to the system.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 7, 2014)

eml58 said:


> That's sad, perhaps we try the Ec-B, I've read that the Ec-S fits into the 1Dx but doesn't work the way it was designed in this particular Body, only in the older bodies 1DMK IV 1Ds MK III etc, but I've had no experience with these manual focus screens so at $50 each it's worth buying a few and see which works best.



Frankly I didn't really find a great deal of benefit from the Ex-S screens for manual focus. I found the most obvious benefit to be in seeing the real depth of field. In theory the point of focus should 'pop' in and out more, but in practice there is only a subtle difference.

In the days of manual focus slrs only the very cheapest (Zenit) had a plain ground screen with no other focusing aid such as microprism or split screen.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 7, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > That's sad, perhaps we try the Ec-B, I've read that the Ec-S fits into the 1Dx but doesn't work the way it was designed in this particular Body, only in the older bodies 1DMK IV 1Ds MK III etc, but I've had no experience with these manual focus screens so at $50 each it's worth buying a few and see which works best.
> ...


I can't speak for the 1DX or Otus, but with my EF-S focusing scree in my 5DII, I can accurately focus at f/1.2 with my 50L about 80-90% and 85L about 95% of the time. I put those lenses on my 5DIII and I miss focus 80% or more of the time when shooting wide open. It's probably the only reason I haven't upgraded my 5DII. The regular screen looks so grainy on the 5DIII it drives me nuts, not to mention that it doesn't give me an accurate bokeh preview. My slowest lenses are f/3.5, and I really hope Canon brings back interchangeable screens to the next 1D / 5D bodies.


----------



## eml58 (Feb 7, 2014)

Appreciate the comments Sporgon/Mackgyver, seems with the advent of "Live View" the manual Focus screens have lost some significance with the newer models from Canon, the fact that you can no longer legitimately change the screen on the 5DMK III is disappointing, I've ordered the Ec-A & Ec -B, see how they perform in the 1Dx with Manual Focus.

Again, appreciate the feedback.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 7, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Appreciate the comments Sporgon/Mackgyver, seems with the advent of "Live View" the manual Focus screens have lost some significance with the newer models from Canon, the fact that you can no longer legitimately change the screen on the 5DMK III is disappointing, I've ordered the Ec-A & Ec -B, see how they perform in the 1Dx with Manual Focus.
> 
> Again, appreciate the feedback.


I agree about LiveView, but when I shoot portraits, I find that manual focus at f/1.2-f/2 usually works better and unless it's on a tripod, LiveView does me no good. I hope the screens work out for you, and this beautiful lens, of course.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> d. In theory the point of focus should 'pop' in and out more, but in practice there is only a subtle difference.
> 
> In the days of manual focus slrs only the very cheapest (Zenit) had a plain ground screen with no other focusing aid such as microprism or split screen.


 I put those lenses on my 5DIII and I miss focus 80% or more of the time when shooting wide open. It's probably the only reason I haven't upgraded my 5DII. The regular screen looks so grainy on the 5DIII it drives me nuts, not to mention that it doesn't give me an accurate bokeh preview. 
[/quote]

I suspect this may be more to do with the transmissive/translucent LCD displayed over the focusing screen on the 5Dmkiii. (Take the battery out of the camera and the screen will go dark). It is one of the reasons I changed from
Nikon in 2005 when I did much manual focus. Now Canon are fitting them . However since the advent of AFMA and BBF I really dont manual focus much now. 

I agree with you on interchangeable screens for the mkiii, if for nothing more than to be able to see real dof and clean the inside of the thing !!

I suspect the best current camera to use the Otus on without an LCD overlay would be the 6D with 's' screen. 

Now I know that by chance eml's son has one that his Dad could try.................


----------



## leGreve (Feb 8, 2014)

Or get an external monitor…

I had a Cineroid monitor I was using for a bit, but didn't really like it. So I got a TVLogic instead. Stellar product!

Well, for video at least. So far I'm ok with the live view for focusing on stills.


----------



## optikus (Feb 8, 2014)

Hi,

as said before, the missing of interchangeable focusing screens is a mess, not only concerning manual focus lenses - I prefer the split image as I am used to have it in my 1Ds and T90 (and added in a 10D by KatzEye), also concerning measuring purposes and architecture the grid-screens are very useful as well. So for the semi-pro and pro bodies it would be nice to see the interchangeable screens coming back with the next types.

In combination with the OTUS and other top-level-lenses a separate adjustment should be proceeded to get electronical and optical focal plane an accordance with the sensor. My 1Ds needed this, I first detecte some delta using the body with my Planar 2.0/110 and die 1.4/55 Color Ultron. I use (mostly) Dandelion programmable Chips for focus assist. 

As a result of my findings I sent the body for adjustment to a workshop and then tested and adjusted the chips of the wide open lenses with a diagonal focus-test-chart until the focus indicator and the split image indicate focus simultanously.

That increases togehter with a correctly adjustes ocular the percentage of sharp images significantly.

J.


----------



## leGreve (Feb 8, 2014)

Wauw.... So many beautiful words I dont know that I apparently need to know to take a photo.

Here I always thought if it works it works.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 9, 2014)

Nalle Puh said:


> a thoughtful horse at 1.4, soft but yet sharp and look at the hay, the main problem with this lens is still adding the sharpness plane where I want it at F 1,4 and without using live view


This is indeed a challenge. Below I have posted two images shot handheld within 3 seconds. They are a slightly different crop, but I was very confident that I had both her eyes and the candle light in focus. The first is dead on, the second is a clear miss.
Both images 5DIII, 1/100s, ISO1600, f1.4


----------



## Eldar (Feb 9, 2014)

... and here is No.2. Eyes are very much in focus, but the candle is not ... This is a situation where the Ec-S focusing screen probably would have made a difference.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 13, 2014)

It shows some pretty incredible IQ this lens, the color, contrast and punch is quite epic ;D


----------



## Eldar (Feb 21, 2014)

To keep it going ...
5DIII, 1/50s, f1.4, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (Feb 21, 2014)

My mantlepiece ...
5DIII, 1/15s, f1.4, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (Feb 22, 2014)

30 knots wind and way below freezing outside (again), with nothing better to do ...
5DIII, 1.3s, f5.6, ISO100


----------



## eml58 (Feb 23, 2014)

I get the impression from your last posts a certain "Cabin Fever" element creeping in.

Still, good images in any case, I can see a toilet seat coming next.

Been raining non stop here in Jakarta since I arrived back, I've taken a load of images around the house as well with the Otus on the 1Dx, 5DMK III & A7R, waiting to get outside before I attempt to post anything, currently my Otus images all show signs of "Cabin Fever".


----------



## distant.star (Feb 24, 2014)

.
Wow!

Your lens takes really good pictures!


----------



## Eldar (Feb 24, 2014)

eml58 said:


> I get the impression from your last posts a certain "Cabin Fever" element creeping in.
> 
> Still, good images in any case, I can see a toilet seat coming next.
> 
> Been raining non stop here in Jakarta since I arrived back, I've taken a load of images around the house as well with the Otus on the 1Dx, 5DMK III & A7R, waiting to get outside before I attempt to post anything, currently my Otus images all show signs of "Cabin Fever".


He he, spot on  i hadn't thought of the toilet seat, but I was planning a series on utensils


----------



## RobertG. (Mar 11, 2014)

These pictures look really great. I should seriously start saving money...


----------



## Eldar (Mar 11, 2014)

RobertG. said:


> These pictures look really great. I should seriously start saving money...


The only drawback of this lens is manual focus. But since you already have several MF lenses, you would enjoy all its positive sides. It is truly amazing!


----------



## Eldar (Mar 12, 2014)

It may be that you must be a Norwegian, Swede, Canadian or Fin, to appreciate what feelings an image like this evokes. 

After a dark wet autumn, with shorter and shorter days and darker and darker colors, we have been through howling winds, freezing temperatures and tons of snow. Within just over a week, most of the snow is gone (close to the coast) and the first flowers fight their way up through dead branches and leaves. A beautiful sight!

5DIII, 1/125s, f4.0, ISO250, handheld at very close to minimum focusing distance.


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 13, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> Wow!
> 
> Your lens takes really good pictures!



*He takes really good pictures!


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 13, 2014)

Eldar said:


> It may be that you must be a Norwegian, Swede, Canadian or Fin, to appreciate what feelings an image like this evokes.
> 
> After a dark wet autumn, with shorter and shorter days and darker and darker colors, we have been through howling winds, freezing temperatures and tons of snow. Within just over a week, most of the snow is gone (close to the coast) and the first flowers fight their way up through dead branches and leaves. A beautiful sight!
> 
> 5DIII, 1/125s, f4.0, ISO250, handheld at very close to minimum focusing distance.



The bokeh is smooth. I wonder how close the Sigma art 50mm will get to this.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 13, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> The bokeh is smooth. I wonder how close the Sigma art 50mm will get to this.


I find it a bit strange that we have not seen (at least I have not) any image examples from the Sigma yet. 

I must admit that this Sigma, to me at least, is the most interesting non-Canon or -Zeiss lens ever, so something to examine would be great. If they pull it off at a reasonable price, it must have consequences for the others.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 13, 2014)

Eldar said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > The bokeh is smooth. I wonder how close the Sigma art 50mm will get to this.
> ...



Agreed. Well, they are known for long announcement periods, I think.


----------



## thepancakeman (Mar 14, 2014)

verysimplejason said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .Wow!
> ...



I suspect this is a tongue-in-cheek reference back to earlier threads talking about skill vs. equipment and photographic pet peeves.

It does beg the question though, for those who say it's not the equipment but the skill of the photographer ("I can take great pictures with my iPhone"), what is the point of a $4000 50mm manual focus lens? ???


----------



## Eldar (Mar 14, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...


Well, in my book that is quite simple. If you´re happy with your iPhone, stay with your iPhone and save the money for something else.

I think most of the images posted here was meant to show what the lens can deliver, not the skills (or lack of skills) of the photographer. At least that was my intention. So, from that perspective, the quote from distant.star is quite relevant.

Every time I get one of the images from this lens up in LR, I´m trying to figure out whether I could have the same IQ with one of the other (and much cheaper) lenses. And, after a fair number of shots, I am confident that this lens outperforms every other lens I have seen. The 4MB limitation for these posts reduce the IQ a bit, so for you who would like to see the full performance, it is well worth getting access to some images in full size raw format.


----------



## thepancakeman (Mar 14, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I think most of the images posted here was meant to show what the lens can deliver, not the skills (or lack of skills) of the photographer. At least that was my intention. So, from that perspective, the quote from distant.star is quite relevant.
> 
> Every time I get one of the images from this lens up in LR, I´m trying to figure out whether I could have the same IQ with one of the other (and much cheaper) lenses. And, after a fair number of shots, I am confident that this lens outperforms every other lens I have seen. The 4MB limitation for these posts reduce the IQ a bit, so for you who would like to see the full performance, it is well worth getting access to some images in full size raw format.



For the record, I am in the camp that believes you cannot substitute for great equipment. Great equipment will not make a crappy photographer a good one, but it can certainly make a good one better and a great one truly remarkable.

But I'm still not buy this lens. 

That being said, do you have any photos that you've taken the same shot with the Zeiss and with the next best option that you can share. No doubt these images look good, but like you I'm curious if/what the lens delivers that can't be gotten elsewhere.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 14, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> That being said, do you have any photos that you've taken the same shot with the Zeiss and with the next best option that you can share. No doubt these images look good, but like you I'm curious if/what the lens delivers that can't be gotten elsewhere.


I have not done any real head to head comparisons. The only lens I have with overlapping FL is the 24-70 f2.8L II. To make a comparison of interest, I should have had a couple of alternative 50ish f1.4/1.2 lenses. I may buy the Sigma Art, when it is released. If I do, I will make direct comparisons.

But if you take the time to read some of the more thorough reviews, like http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-Otus-55mm-f-1.4-Distagon-Lens.aspx you will get a fair understanding of what it delivers.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 14, 2014)

I think it is the image quality at 1.4 that sets this lens apart. Beautiful bokeh is ruined by lack of quality in the in-focus part of the image; there's non of that with this lens.

The 85 1.2 has been described as 'astoundingly good' in the centre at 1.2 but compare it even at 1.4 to the Otus and it's like night and day. 

As you stop down the superiority will fade; and all lenses start to gravitate together at f11 in terms of resolution.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 15, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I think it is the image quality at 1.4 that sets this lens apart. Beautiful bokeh is ruined by lack of quality in the in-focus part of the image; there's non of that with this lens.
> 
> The 85 1.2 has been described as 'astoundingly good' in the centre at 1.2 but compare it even at 1.4 to the Otus and it's like night and day.
> 
> As you stop down the superiority will fade; and all lenses start to gravitate together at f11 in terms of resolution.


I agree that it is when shot wide open it really shine. But compared to other lenses I have used (and have) I would say that it is in a class of its own from 1.4 to 4.0.


----------



## leGreve (Mar 15, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is the image quality at 1.4 that sets this lens apart. Beautiful bokeh is ruined by lack of quality in the in-focus part of the image; there's non of that with this lens.
> ...



The thing with these kinds of debates and the "camps" that arise, also heavily depend on what your needs are….

The AF people will never find a way to justify this lens….. the people who constantly venture above F8 (for what ever reason) will find it hard…. and the people like me, who work both as a cinematographer but also a commercial photographer, are happy that we can get something that operate similarly to the other Zeiss primes, with premium image quality and handling. Seriously….. The Otus handles way better than ANY dslr lens I've ever had for video / film work. I almost find it that much better than Zeiss' own ZE /ZF series, even though those also have a nice throw.

Since I work most of my shots below F4 for narrative work, the IQ of the Otus is great to have.

I totally agree that for some things you'd probably go for some other lens…. heck, for run & gun viral stuff I mostly grab my Canon zooms since high apertures wont make it worse… atleast according to the client.

So…. just like some people will happily invest in a set of Ultra Primes from Zeiss, a set of CP.2s or Canon CN-Es then there are also people like me and Eldar who don't mind spending on the things that give us what we need.

NO dslr lens has what I want or need except the Otus. End of story. Even if the Sigma Art comes in with great IQ, it will still be a stills AF lens with, for me useless and in precise focus throw. So I wouldn't even consider that… and for stills work, if I need better than what the Canon lenses can provide, I'd jump up to Phase One instead, for both amazing resolution and detail but also way better color rendition than dslr.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 19, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I think it is the image quality at 1.4 that sets this lens apart. Beautiful bokeh is ruined by lack of quality in the in-focus part of the image; there's non of that with this lens.
> 
> The 85 1.2 has been described as 'astoundingly good' in the centre at 1.2 but compare it even at 1.4 to the Otus and it's like night and day.
> 
> As you stop down the superiority will fade; and all lenses start to gravitate together at f11 in terms of resolution.



My brief experience with the 85L bears this out. It did become extremely sharp by f/5.6, but who would really buy it to just shoot at f/5.6?


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 19, 2014)

Eldar said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > That being said, do you have any photos that you've taken the same shot with the Zeiss and with the next best option that you can share. No doubt these images look good, but like you I'm curious if/what the lens delivers that can't be gotten elsewhere.
> ...



I'd like to compare the Otus to my Voigtlander. I can already see the bokeh is terrible by comparison (no surprise), but I suspect the resolution is not a night and day improvement (it's there, yes). However, as stated above...bokeh is really what you are buying a fast lens for. If you can have excellent bokeh and sharpness, that is having it all. I suspect the bokeh is far better on the Otus even than the 50L, but I can only guess.


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 19, 2014)

Eldar said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > verysimplejason said:
> ...



Hmmm... I didn't notice that what I said got a lot of drama behind it. All I'm saying is he's using one of the best lens available and he's using it to the fullest just as what must be expected from somebody who got access to such a beast of a lens. Truly, such a magnificent equipment doesn't deserve somebody who can't use it properly. It's like a sharp katana in the hands of a real Samurai.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 12, 2014)

Granpa´s morning coffee and newspaper chair. Forever empty ...
5DIII, 1/60s, f4, ISO250 (handheld)


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 13, 2014)

There are only two things I don't like about the Otus 1.4/55:
1) The price... because I would have to sacrifice too much other stuff to buy it :'(
2) The onion bokeh... but this is only really noticeable with specular highlights that are OOF. In normal shots its not really noticeable.

Overall the Otus 55 a very impressive lens but I'm happy with my auto-focusing 135L for now...


----------



## Eldar (Apr 13, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> There are only two things I don't like about the Otus 1.4/55:
> 1) The price... because I would have to sacrifice too much other stuff to buy it :'(
> 2) The onion bokeh... but this is only really noticeable with specular highlights that are OOF. In normal shots its not really noticeable.


Price is price and I agree that you should really want it to buy it. I also agree on the bokeh issue. But there is something I don´t really understand about boked. Because it varies, depending on light source. 

I have attached two examples. The first is of five candle lights and the second is a chandelier with electric light. The bokeh from the electric light has a clear onion bokeh, whereas the candle lights are clean. If someone could explain why this happens, it would be most appreciated.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 13, 2014)

Eldar said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > There are only two things I don't like about the Otus 1.4/55:
> ...



Thanks for the reply, a quick question... Were your candle light and artificial light images shot at the same shutter speed? The only thing I can thing is that there is motion blur with the candle shot.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 13, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...


Shooting conditions were same same, f-stop, shutter speed and ISO.


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 13, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Price is price and I agree that you should really want it to buy it. I also agree on the bokeh issue. But there is something I don´t really understand about boked. Because it varies, depending on light source.
> 
> I have attached two examples. The first is of five candle lights and the second is a chandelier with electric light. The bokeh from the electric light has a clear onion bokeh, whereas the candle lights are clean. If someone could explain why this happens, it would be most appreciated.





Eldar said:


> Shooting conditions were same same, f-stop, shutter speed and ISO.


+



StudentOfLight said:


> The only thing I can thing is that there is motion blur with the candle shot.



Motion blur would also be my guess.

Not just the camera, but the candle flames are moving. In comparison, the electric light source is steady.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 13, 2014)

This is not motion blur and it is not candle light movement. This attached shot is 1/4000s(!!), f1.4, ISO2000. It is later in the day, so lighting conditions are different. 

It is consistent that non-electric light does not have onion blur and I do not understand why.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 13, 2014)

Eldar said:


> This is not motion blur and it is not candle light movement. This attached shot is 1/4000s(!!), f1.4, ISO2000. It is later in the day, so lighting conditions are different.
> 
> It is consistent that non-electric light does not have onion blur and I do not understand why.



That's a strange one; with the candles there is lower intensity of light, different colour temperature and smoke particles being produced, but I wouldn't have a clue if this would have any impact. Maybe the smoke makes the light more diffused. ???


----------



## candyman (Apr 13, 2014)

What about the intensity of the heat of the light?


----------



## Eldar (Apr 13, 2014)

Just to add, here are two more examples. The first example is electric christmas lights and some reflections from christmas balls. The other is more candles.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 13, 2014)

And just to follow up, in case we question if light intensity is the reason. Here are a number of shots, all at f1.4


----------



## Eldar (Apr 13, 2014)

My wife has now ruled me out as a complete nut case, running around shooting out of focus images and posting them on the internet ... :

Now I have changed lens. These two are of the same light sources, shot with the Sigma 35 f1.4 Art. As you can see, exactly the same happens. At one stage I thought it had to do with AC and net frequency, alternatively some switch mode power supply noise, but I have used all kinds of shutter speeds and it does not affect the result.

Someone should know/understand how this happens.


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 14, 2014)

Eldar said:


> My wife has now ruled me out as a complete nut case, running around shooting out of focus images and posting them on the internet ... :
> 
> Now I have changed lens. These two are of the same light sources, shot with the Sigma 35 f1.4 Art. As you can see, exactly the same happens. At one stage I thought it had to do with AC and net frequency, alternatively some switch mode power supply noise, but I have used all kinds of shutter speeds and it does not affect the result.
> 
> Someone should know/understand how this happens.



Have you tried photographing incandescent DC powered light sources?


----------



## eml58 (Apr 14, 2014)

Eldar said:


> My wife has now ruled me out as a complete nut case, running around shooting out of focus images and posting them on the internet ... :



That is really very funny, your wife, if she's anything like mine, does at times perhaps have a point.

I just finished putting together a Holiday schedule for the last 6 months of this Year, Greenland, Tibet, Namibia, Turkey, Morocco.

My wife looked at the schedule in complete Horror and asked just exactly what these places had for her, after some thought I added Japan, which seemed to make her Happy (Tokyo, Gucci, Hermes etc), I kept to myself the fact that I added Japan so I could Photograph the Snow Monkeys with no snow.


----------



## ahab1372 (Apr 14, 2014)

eml58 said:


> My wife looked at the schedule in complete Horror and asked just exactly what these places had for her, after some thought I added Japan, which seemed to make her Happy (Tokyo, Gucci, Hermes etc),


I know Tokyo, but I've never heard of the other two places. Sure they are in Japan?


----------



## eml58 (Apr 14, 2014)

ahab1372 said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > My wife looked at the schedule in complete Horror and asked just exactly what these places had for her, after some thought I added Japan, which seemed to make her Happy (Tokyo, Gucci, Hermes etc),
> ...



Unfortunately they are, when you come out of the Ground Floor Mandarin Oriental Tokyo turn right & they are the first two Shops you come to, I always try to turn left.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 14, 2014)

These are the two DC lightbulbs I have available where I am. As you can see, no onion rings there. It seems to me that this phenomena has an explanation outside the lens and it seems to be related to AC, since candle light and DC light are free from it.

I also tried this with some other lenses (85 1.2L, 24-70 2.8L II and I get the same result. The sharper the lens, the more visible it gets. I really think we should get to the bottom of this.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 14, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > My wife has now ruled me out as a complete nut case, running around shooting out of focus images and posting them on the internet ... :
> ...


He he If I had as much time to travel (off work) with my wife as you do, I would have a challenge or two as well. It would probably turn into a meet-between-destinations kind of marriage


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 14, 2014)

I think it might be a lens effect which is due to the heat from the candle distorting the air around it. This is what causes heat haze over a hot road.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 14, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> I think it might be a lens effect which is due to the heat from the candle distorting the air around it. This is what causes heat haze over a hot road.


I doubt that. The AC light sources (25W) are higher powered than the DC light source (7W). Wheras the candle light (I assume) is higher powered than the AC light bulbs


----------



## jrista (Apr 15, 2014)

Someone needs to go out and take some pictures of mossy stumps and cattails. We need to determine if he who shall not be named had talent, or if it really IS the lens!  

(Sorry, just trying to spice up this thread again with some beautiful nature photography.)


----------



## Eldar (Apr 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Someone needs to go out and take some pictures of mossy stumps and cattails. We need to determine if he who shall not be named had talent, or if it really IS the lens!
> 
> (Sorry, just trying to spice up this thread again with some beautiful nature photography.)


Sorry jrista, for getting lost in bokeh. It is quite puzzling though. But I have now moved that issue to a separate thread.  

I don´t believe I have any f1.4 mossy stumps or cattails to offer, but I´ll see if I can get some images out instead


----------



## jrista (Apr 15, 2014)

Eldar said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > There are only two things I don't like about the Otus 1.4/55:
> ...



This is due to the nature of light wavefronts and diffraction. Diffraction is an INTRINSIC property of light. It exists within the wavefront itself, to be 100% accurate...it is not actually due to light bending around obstructions or anything like that. Light diffracts around obstacles and through openings intrinsically, the effect of which appears to be the "bending" of light (hence the colloquial descriptive terms most often used). The difference between the two sample photos you took is that one is a "naked" light source...the flames of candles; the other is an enclosed light source...either light emitting diodes or tungsten filaments, encased within a class or plastic bulb. 

Because of imperfections and impurities in the bulb of your lights, the light coming from them is not a pure, uninterrupted wavefront. Therefor, the effects of diffraction, which occurs when the wavefront from the enclosed light source encounters imperfections and impurities (i.e. a microscopic opaque granule in the glass or plastic of the bulb), show up in your boke blur circles.

There is nothing wrong with your lens. The difference in the two images is due to the difference in the nature of the wavefronts coming from them. Flame is THE actual light source, and so long as there is no other obstruction between you and the flame, a pure, unadulterated wavefront enters your lens. The electric lights are a light source enclosed within a bulb, and an already diffracted wavefront is what enters your lens.

An excellent (although rather technical) explanation of the true nature of light can be found here:

http://www.telescope-optics.net/wave.htm

In quote:



> *Diffraction*
> 
> According to Huygens' principle, every wavefront point is a source of secondary wavelets, through which spreads in the direction of propagation. This constitutes a micro-structure of energy field propagation, with the energy advancing in the direction of the wavefront, but also spreading out in other directions. Principal waves, or wavefronts, form in the direction determined by extending straight lines from the point source. Waves moving in other directions generate phase difference, preventing them from forming another effective wavefront (FIG. 1, top right). However, these diffracted waves do interfere with both, principal waves and among themselves.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eldar (Apr 15, 2014)

Thanks jrista, that was clarifying. So that means that it has nothing to do with the design of the specific lens, since the diffracted wavefront already exists when hitting the lens. Criticizing a lens for onion-ring bokeh is therefore incorrect. Right?


----------



## jrista (Apr 15, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Thanks jrista, that was clarifying. So that means that it has nothing to do with the design of the specific lens, since the diffracted wavefront already exists when hitting the lens. Criticizing a lens for onion-ring bokeh is therefore incorrect. Right?



I would indeed say "right"! There is no way the Otus, touted as such a high quality lens, and clearly seeming to be such a lens, would produce such "onion ringing." Zeiss should be sued if they allowed that...that would mean they used glass of poor quality with impurities, which simply couldn't be the case given how sharp the lens is corner to corner.

For comparison, here is a photo of some christmas lights on a christmas tree that I took years ago. I tweaked the focus of this shot to purposely bring out the effects of diffraction. You can clearly see the primary diffraction pattern, the large circular pattern that dominates the shape of each blur circle, caused by the lens aperture. (NOTE: The blur circles here also exhibit spherical aberration, hence the reason the outer edge is brighter than the center, which is counter to your standard airy pattern, where the center is much brighter than the outer rings). 

You can also see the diffraction patterns caused by the obstructions presented by impurities within the glass of each christmas light. They look like rocks in a pond, causing additional waves in response to an incoming mechanical water wavefront.







This is definitely not the lens, it was the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, an otherwise high quality lens (certainly not as good as the Otus, but very good otherwise)...notice that each light exhibits a different pattern of obstructive diffraction, where as the primary circular diffraction wave caused by the aperture exhibits the same in each light. Two causes of diffraction converging in a single image. The "warping" and inconsistent gradient/rainbowing and larger but softer internal rings of each blur circle is also due to the glass of each Christmas light, not the lens. You can tell because those aspects of each blur circle change per light. 

If the nature of the wavefront and it's diffraction pattern changes with each light source, then the issue is most likely rooted within the light source, itself. If the nature of the wavefront and it's diffraction pattern remains consistent across light sources, then it is likely due to either an obstruction within the light path between the source and the lens, or the lens itself. Obstructions within the light path will remain consistent themselves, but may change position within the blur circle of each light source. Diffraction effects caused by the lens itself will always be exactly the same for each blur circle in the image...usually, if you have focused right, that will present as a circular waveform that should be pretty uniform and otherwise clean in nature.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 15, 2014)

Thanks again jrista, for your comprehensive and clarifying posts. They are very much appreciated and one of the main reasons why I spend time on CR!

... and my wife, when she returns to our cabin tomorrow, will be very happy to see that I have stopped shooting out of focus images of lights for CR posting :


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 15, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Thanks again jrista, for your comprehensive and clarifying posts. They are very much appreciated and one of the main reasons why I spend time on CR!
> 
> ... and my wife, when she returns to our cabin tomorrow, will be very happy to see that I have stopped shooting out of focus images of lights for CR posting :



Just don't start breaking the glass off from around the filaments to prove the point or you'll be _very _ unpopular !

Very interesting, but how does this answer the DC light bulbs not producing onion bokeh ?


----------



## Eldar (Apr 15, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks again jrista, for your comprehensive and clarifying posts. They are very much appreciated and one of the main reasons why I spend time on CR!
> ...


The DC lights I had are either unobstructed, so there is no distorting glass between the light source and the lens, or gas filled bulbs, which I suppose goes for the same.


----------



## jrista (Apr 15, 2014)

Actually, I did see just a slight bit of faint rings in one of the DC lamp images. At first I thought it was compression artifacts, but I'm pretty sure it is some slight warping of the blur circle.

I would have to see the DC lights photographed sharply to tell you any more. It all depends on the materials and quality of materials between the actual light source and the lens. I know that your average christmas light uses pretty cheap glass for the bulb. They pretty much always produce lots of little diffraction spots and funky warped and rainbowed blur circles. 

Other lights use better glass, and bulbs with diffuse inner coatings tend to exhibit less diffraction patterning due to the diffusion, which again changes the nature of the wavefront. Noble gases aren't going to be creating diffraction, however noble gases can emit light themselves. A neon bulb of some kind would effectively BE the light source, in which case once again, you end up with just air between the light source and the lens.

You aren't guaranteed to get "onion rings", nor any diffraction pattern for that matter, from every light bulb or other artificial light source. It depends on what things between the actual light emitting source and the lens may be causing diffraction. There aren't really any hard and fast rules here.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 15, 2014)

I started another thread on this topic. There are more images, including that of the DC light there.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20478.msg387413#msg387413


----------



## jrista (Apr 15, 2014)

Based on the design of the DC light, it does look like it is a diffuse bulb of some kind. It also has a reflecting shroud, I guess? Dunno, that's a pretty complex system. I think it would be difficult for someone far more versed in the concepts of wavefronts and diffraction and the mathematics behind it all to figure out how the light from those DC lamps would diffract. 

Anyway, regardless of the specific causes, I truly do not believe it is your lens that's the problem. The fact that you got different results from different light sources should alone be enough to tell you it can't be the lens.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 15, 2014)

From the link Jrista posted it appears aspherical elements may also have caused the effect. The concentric rings are slightly asymmetrical and the Otus does have aspherical elements. 
However, even if that is the case, this is very very minor side effect for some major correction of optical aberration. The Sigma seems to have them from the sample pictures, and I never seem to notice until specifically looking for it.
Anyway, now, looking forward to more gorgeous shots through the Otus, and hopefully a comparison with the Art- if you decide to buy it as well.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 15, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> From the link Jrista posted it appears aspherical elements may also have caused the effect. The concentric rings are slightly asymmetrical and the Otus does have aspherical elements.
> However, even if that is the case, this is very very minor side effect for some major correction of optical aberration.
> Anyway, now, looking forward to more gorgeous shots through the Otus, and hopefully a comparison with the Art- if you decide to buy it as well.


The Art is on preorder. Could not resist


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 15, 2014)

Eldar said:


> The Art is on preorder. Could not resist



Nice


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 15, 2014)

Not to re-open a closed case, but here's another thought - what happens if you throw a polarizer on the lens? In theory it should "straighten" the beams of light and eliminate the effects of diffraction, right?


----------



## eml58 (Apr 16, 2014)

Eldar said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > From the link Jrista posted it appears aspherical elements may also have caused the effect. The concentric rings are slightly asymmetrical and the Otus does have aspherical elements.
> ...



Same, must be a disease affecting Photographers.

That & the need to take Images of light sources :.

Still, that had a learning experience, Thanks so much jrista, all made complete sense once explained.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 16, 2014)

I promise, no more light bulbs 

I have tried to post an image, to get this thread back to images, but I only get a blank page in response. it´s within the size restrictions, so I don´t know what causes it. Anyone with the same experience?


----------



## Eldar (Apr 16, 2014)

I have tried to post a couple of images, but it seems I have hit the ceiling on how many posts one individual can do on one thread. This is last attempt.
5DIII, 1/100s, f1.4, ISO100


----------



## dcm (Apr 16, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I promise, no more light bulbs
> 
> I have tried to post an image, to get this thread back to images, but I only get a blank page in response. it´s within the size restrictions, so I don´t know what causes it. Anyone with the same experience?



I had this happen a couple of times recently as well. Waiting a while or restarting my browser/system seemed to clear it.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 19, 2014)

5DIII, 1/1000s, f1.4, ISO100


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 19, 2014)

Eldar said:


> 5DIII, 1/1000s, f1.4, ISO100



Quite nice!


----------



## Eldar (Apr 20, 2014)

dilbert said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Not to re-open a closed case, but here's another thought - what happens if you throw a polarizer on the lens? In theory it should "straighten" the beams of light and eliminate the effects of diffraction, right?
> ...


He asked a simple question. If you can´t answer his question or add to it, stay off. 

For you I can recommend a book on simple politeness. Freshman level might be to advanced thought ...

He did not ask for a rude reply from an incompetent jerk. Spread your garbage someplace else! 

Or, alternatively, start posting images and show us that behind this rude alias, there is one who knows where the view finder on a camera is. I for one have not seen a single image for you, so I believe you haven´t shot a single decent image in your life. So until I see someone comment on your images, you will remain on my list of ignored posters.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 20, 2014)

Eldar said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



To be fair, there are plenty of rude participants on here. I didn't realize dilbert had never posted an image. Maybe he will. I guess I wasn't as bothered by his rudeness, because I've seen so much of it on here, I'm becoming numb to it.

Mackguyver seems quite the level headed guy, I doubt the rudeness bothered him in the least. Not sure why it bothered you so much. Also I assume I am on your ignore list...lol...didn't realize that.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 20, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Or get a physics text book



Here's a book I recommend _you_ get.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0091906814


----------



## Eldar (Apr 20, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Mackguyver seems quite the level headed guy, I doubt the rudeness bothered him in the least. Not sure why it bothered you so much. Also I assume I am on your ignore list...lol...didn't realize that.


Carl, I´m sure Macguyver is perfectly fine. He has posted lots of good posts and should be treated accordingly. It is the volume of rubbish posts from Dilbert that filled my cup.
I will not participate in a thread extender, so I will end my comments here.

For the record, you are not on my ignore list


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 20, 2014)

Eldar said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Mackguyver seems quite the level headed guy, I doubt the rudeness bothered him in the least. Not sure why it bothered you so much. Also I assume I am on your ignore list...lol...didn't realize that.
> ...



Very glad to hear that, and once again, I very much like your image of the tree sunset above with the mighty Otus !!! Happy Easter to you sir!


----------



## Eldar (Apr 20, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...


Thanks Carl. It is actually a sunrise. Happy Easter to you to!


----------



## Eldar (Apr 20, 2014)

An early March morning at Hvalstrand Bad, where the seasonal restaurant is getting ready for spring opening. The Oslo fjord in the background.
5DIII, 1/15s, f5.0, ISO100, tripod


----------



## traingineer (Apr 20, 2014)

eml58 said:


> ahab1372 said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...



Carolina Herrera is good value. 8)


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 20, 2014)

dilbert said:


> So what would you have me do?
> 
> Give him a partial answer that is incomplete and doesn't transfer proper knowledge?
> 
> ...



Hey, how about this for an option: if you don't know the answer, why not keep shut? 
Especially considering that your advice is extremely impractical. One does not take a physics course to understand an optical phenomenon he might be passingly interested in. Do you usually sign up at the Culinary institute when you are interested in learning a new dish? And is it even possible for a working person earning a livelihood to sign up for college just like that?
By implying your advice was not a rude joke but actually intended seriously, you betray your intelligence.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Not to re-open a closed case, but here's another thought - what happens if you throw a polarizer on the lens? In theory it should "straighten" the beams of light and eliminate the effects of diffraction, right?



When you get into what diffraction actually is, you learn that it is not actually "caused" by anything. Diffraction is an intrinsic trait of light that exists within the wavefront. It is often described as the "bending" of light caused by it's encounter with an obstruction or an opening. That's a useful description to describe the effect of what is happening, however sadly it is not actually an accurate description of what is actually causing the effect. 

Light from a point light source is emitted in a spherical wavefront. That wavefront, in an ideal vacuum, will emanate progressively outwards, in perpetuity, without changing. The entire time the wavefront is propagating, it is also diffracting. Even though there is nothing to diffract from...the diffraction is intrinsic. At every point along the wavefront, at every moment, light diffracts...separates and spreads...in a predictable fashion and in such a manner as to reinforce the basic nature of light...inverse squared falloff. (If you think about it for a bit, for inverse square falloff to actually work, even in an ideal vacuum SOMETHING would have to be happening to the light in the wavefront to make it disperse...in the absence of everything else, the dispersion would have to be intrinsic...diffraction.) 

If you throw up an obstruction in the path of that light, the obstruction DOES block the light behind it. Any light not blocked by it continues on, however now there is a void in the wavefront. Without that void, the parts of the wavefront that make it around the obstruction don't actually "bend" to create the ring-light halos around the obstruction. They are diffracting, which is causing the light to spread out in a certain way. Same deal with an opening, only in this case all light except what passes through the opening is blocked, and the light that passed through it is still diffracting, still causing it to spread out.

So, since diffraction is an intrinsic property of light, will the use of a polarizer "straiten" light out? A polarizer is a filter that is designed to allow light with a certain radial orientation through. The filter could be thought of as basically a series of extremely thin, tall slits. The light with the same orientation as the slits will get through, all other light will be blocked. Each slit could be thought of as an aperture. Since diffraction is intrinsic...all the light that passes through the polarizing filter will still be diffracting. Even if your using a circular polarizer, the light that exits the quarter wave plate is also still diffracting. Diffraction cannot be stopped, because it is a fundamental trait of the behavior of light in a wavefront.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 20, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > When you get into what diffraction actually is, you learn that it is not actually "caused" by anything. Diffraction is an intrinsic trait of light that exists within the wavefront. It is often described as the "bending" of light caused by it's encounter with an obstruction or an opening. That's a useful description to describe the effect of what is happening, however sadly it is not actually an accurate description of what is actually causing the effect.
> ...



Light exhibits characteristics of both waves and particles. One of these characteristics is diffraction. Light is not said to exhibit diffraction because it is modeled after waves, but it is modeled after waves because it exhibits traits like diffraction, among other things, that cannot be explained by a purely particle nature.
Arrogance looks much better when backed by real talent


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > When you get into what diffraction actually is, you learn that it is not actually "caused" by anything. Diffraction is an intrinsic trait of light that exists within the wavefront. It is often described as the "bending" of light caused by it's encounter with an obstruction or an opening. That's a useful description to describe the effect of what is happening, however sadly it is not actually an accurate description of what is actually causing the effect.
> ...



I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. Here is an article that details the actual science of what a diffracted wavefront is, how diffraction in a wavefront presents and behaves, :

http://www.telescope-optics.net/wave.htm

And I quote:



> An imaginary surface connecting wave points of identical oscillatory motion, or phase, is called phasefront. Geometrical approximation of the phasefront, based on the identical ray optical path length (OPL) from the source is called optical wavefront, or simply wavefront. For optical telescopes, phasefront and wavefront are, for all practical purposes, identical as long as the wavefront error remains relatively small. The difference between the two comes from the latter increasing directly with the nominal wavefront deviation, while the former follows the increase nominally, but effectively it oscillates from the maximum constructive interference for wavefront points deviating any whole number of waves - including, of course, zero deviation - decreasing to zero constructive interference from any wavefront point deviating by a whole number of half-wave deviations.
> 
> Ray, on the other hand, is simply a straight line with the origin at the point-source, that remains perpendicular to the wavefront. While rays are useful in presenting geometrical aspects of optical phenomena, they represent only a tiny fraction of the total energy propagating through the energy field. Furthermore, it is only their geometric properties that are being considered. Therefore, ray (or geometric) optics has no direct relation with the physical properties of the energy field.



The geometric tools we use to describe light, such as rays, are simply that..._tools _used to _describe _light. They do not, however, actually have anything to do with what light actually is or how it actually behaves. 

And I quote further:



> *Diffraction*
> 
> According to Huygens' principle, every wavefront point is a source of secondary wavelets, through which spreads in the direction of propagation. This constitutes a micro-structure of energy field propagation, with the energy advancing in the direction of the wavefront, but also spreading out in other directions. Principal waves, or wavefronts, form in the direction determined by extending straight lines from the point source. Waves moving in other directions generate phase difference, preventing them from forming another effective wavefront (FIG. 1, top right). However, these diffracted waves do interfere with both, principal waves and among themselves.
> 
> ...



Diffraction is interference. If you study the nature of light and waves enough, you'll find many a renown scientist making that claim, that diffraction and interference are essentially the same thing. Diffraction is an intrinsic property of propagating light waves. When an obstruction blocks light or an opening passes light, the void left behind by the light that was blocked is filled with the diffracting light (the natural effect of each and every point along a wavefront sending out secondary wavelets.) The appearance of a diffracted wavefront is due to the interference those wavelets cause with each other. In case you don't actually read the entirety of the quoted text, let me point out the most important part, again:



> Again, there is no actual change in propagation for the light passing the aperture, including those close to the edge of obstruction _*(light does not "bend around the edge")*_; _whatever _the form of energy distribution behind the aperture,_ it is caused by the interference of primary and diffracted waves inherent to the energy field_ (FIG. 1, middle and bottom).



I've emphasized the key points. 

*I am not spreading bad science.* I'm explaining the ACTUAL nature of light. Light propagates as a diffracted wavefront, wherein each and every point along that wavefront results in secondary wavelets that constructively interfere to maintain the wavefront, except when it encounters an obstacle, in which case the interference is both constructive and destructive, thereby producing the familiar wave patterns, like an Airy Disc.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> *I am not spreading bad science.* I'm explaining the ACTUAL nature of light. Light propagates as a diffracted wavefront, wherein each and every point along that wavefront results in secondary wavelets that constructively interfere to maintain the wavefront, except when it encounters an obstacle, in which case the interference is both constructive and destructive, thereby producing the familiar wave patterns, like an Airy Disc.



Jon, with due respect Dilbert is raising a point about diffraction not being inherent to light, but secondarily attributable to light based on the waveform model (he is wrong, of course). 
Your post above and the quoted sections describes how diffraction is a property of light waves, but that would be applicable even if diffraction was attributed secondarily to light AFTER modeling it after waveforms IMO.

To find that answer, I recommend "Principles of optics: electromagnetic theory of propagation, interference and diffraction of light" by Born and Wolf. 

In any case, I think the reason for the onion rings in this case is the aspherical elements rather than diffraction.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> In any case, I think the reason for the onion rings in this case is the aspherical elements rather than diffraction.



If the onion rings were present in every photo of every light source, and if every OOF blur circle produced identical onion ring patterns, I would agree. However the candle lights produce no onion ringing at all, and the various electric lights produce differing onion ring patterns. Given that, it seems more logical to me that the source of the diffraction is external to the lens and camera. In other words, it's caused by the light sources themselves...say the glass or plastic bulbs surrounding whatever is actually emitting the light.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > *I am not spreading bad science.* I'm explaining the ACTUAL nature of light. Light propagates as a diffracted wavefront, wherein each and every point along that wavefront results in secondary wavelets that constructively interfere to maintain the wavefront, except when it encounters an obstacle, in which case the interference is both constructive and destructive, thereby producing the familiar wave patterns, like an Airy Disc.
> ...



So, regarding all of this. Are you saying there is a difference between mechanical waves and electromagnetic waves? To me, waves are waves. As much as I said that diffraction is inherent to light, light is a wave. Diffraction is inherent to waves. I mean, that's what the Huygen's Principal is. It isn't limited to light waves.

I'd also say that light isn't simply modeled after waveforms. Light IS waves. It's waves in full three dimensional space, which is also why they can behave as particles...a purterbation in an electromagnetic field, focused finely enough, would behave as a particle...a packet of energy that has a quantity, vector and magnitude. One could consider every point of a wavefront as a finely focused "photon". Wave-particle duality simply describes the nature of matter in general...that they are divisible (and quantizable) quantities of mass (particle), and that matter has the capability of transferring energy (wave). Light is not the only thing that, theoretically, exhibits wave-particle duality. All quantum particles do. Which means that all quantum particles are also waves. 

Even though waves can move through materials, such as water and air, waves are simply the propagation of energy. I would argue, with Huygen's Principal backing me up, that the description of diffraction in an electromagnetic wavefront is also the description of diffraction in any wavefront. It's all the same thing..waves are waves. So it really wouldn't matter if we were talking about a "mechanical" wave propagating through water that passes through a slit, or sound, or light. The actual fundamental reason diffraction exists and exhibits the properties it does is because it is an intrinsic trait of the *energy *propagating via the wave, not the material the wave is propagating through.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > In any case, I think the reason for the onion rings in this case is the aspherical elements rather than diffraction.
> ...



My knowledge of bokeh structure is far inferior to my knowledge of optics. However, the link you posted itself suggests that the onion ring is due to aspherical elements in the lens rather than diffraction.

http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html

One general note: diffraction is not caused by the light source. It is caused by objects in the path of light. You are suggesting it is happening at the level of the impurities in the light bulb, I am suggesting it is at the level of the lens elements. Also, even the candle light is not a pure light source. The yellow part is actually incandescent carbon particles that don't burn fully. Lens elements behave differently with different sources of light (in other words, diffraction characteristics will vary according to the nature of light emitted), so while it may not diffract candle light, it might diffract electric light. I don't have the Physics knowhow to predict the exact mechanism.

To refer to the second paragraph- in short, light has been theorized both as a waveform and as a particle- not because one leads to the other, rather because it has characteristics of both (including diffraction). It is not purely a wave. So yes, diffraction is a property of light, which likens it to a wave. 
Is there a difference in mechanical and electromagnetic waves? Yes, the former cannot proceed through vacuum. But that is not relevant here. Light has characteristics of an electromagnetic wave.
I didn't say diffraction is limited to light waves. Light exhibits diffraction. Waves exhibit diffraction (quite independently). Hence light = waves. Is it that simple? No, because light has particulate properties, too.
You are right, light is not modeled after waves. Light is a wave. But then, it is also a particle. One doesn't imply the other, but they are clearly not mutually exclusive.

In any case I am not an expert in Physics, my field is Biology. My knowledge in Physics is quite limited, and I type rather slowly, so I shall stop here. But the information above is quite accurate as you can check out.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



I do agree, that the aspheric element can cause the onion ringing effect. However, and I am honestly trying to think logically here, would that not effectively REQUIRE that every light source exhibit the effect, and that every boke blur circle exhibit it in the same way? If the onion ringing, specifically in the case of Eldar's photos, was a consequence of the aspheric element, I truly do believe that the candles would have exhibited the effect as well. They would have to, since the effect is caused by the lens, and not a bulb or something else in proximity to (around or between) the light source itself.

Additionally, if you blow Eldar's sample images up, most of the effects on the blur circles themselves are inconsistent from circle to circle. If they were consistent, I would agree with you 100%, however they are not consistent. The lack of onion ringing in the candles and the inconcistencies with which each blur circle exhibits lead me to believe the problem is external to the lens.

That is not to say lenses cannot cause effects like this...they can. However I also believe that a $4000 lens would NOT be exhibiting onion ringing. It's a very noticable and ugly effect, very ugly effect, that I would not be spending $4000 on a lens that had that problem. I am a big fan of Canon glass, however I have great respect for Zeiss, and I cannot imagine them creating a lens like the Otus with such a nasty flaw. 



sagittariansrock said:


> To refer to the second paragraph- in short, light has been theorized both as a waveform and as a particle- not because one leads to the other, rather because it has characteristics of both (including diffraction). It is not purely a wave. So yes, diffraction is a property of light, which likens it to a wave.
> Is there a difference in magnetic and electromagnetic waves? Yes, the former cannot proceed through vacuum.



Just to touch on a point. A magnetic wave is an electromagnetic wave. There is no electronic or electrostaic wave, nor is there a magnetic wave. There are electromagnetic waves. Magnetic _fields _do indeed exist in space, which is a vacuum. NASA's space probes have been equipped with both a plethora of electromagnetic sensors as well as plasma wave sensors ever since the first ones were sent into space. We've measured the effects of electromagnetic fields in space, which includes the measurements of electric fields, magnetic fields, and plasma waves (electromagnetic effects propagating within free electrons and positively charged ions...plasmas...within interplanetary and interstellar space.)

Now, if you are referring to the propagation of a wave through magnetized mediums (say the waveform that forms in iron particles that conform to the electromagnetic field around a magnet), then that is a bit different. I guess that could be called a "magnetic wave."



sagittariansrock said:


> But that is not relevant here. Light has characteristics of an electromagnetic wave.
> I didn't say diffraction is limited to light waves. Light exhibits diffraction. Waves exhibit diffraction (quite independently). Hence light = waves. Is it that simple? No, because light has particulate properties, too.
> You are right, light is not modeled after waves. Light is a wave. But then, it is also a particle. One doesn't imply the other, but they are clearly not mutually exclusive.
> 
> In any case I am not an expert in Physics, my field is Biology. My knowledge in Physics is quite limited, and I type rather slowly, so I shall stop here. But the information above is quite accurate as you can check out.



I think we pretty much agree on everything else.


----------



## 100 (Apr 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'd also say that light isn't simply modeled after waveforms. *Light IS waves*. It's waves in full three dimensional space, which is also why they can behave as particles...a purterbation in an electromagnetic field, focused finely enough, would behave as a particle...a packet of energy that has a quantity, vector and magnitude. One could consider every point of a wavefront as a finely focused "photon". Wave-particle duality simply describes the nature of matter in general...that they are divisible (and quantizable) quantities of mass (particle), and that matter has the capability of transferring energy (wave). Light is not the only thing that, theoretically, exhibits wave-particle duality. All quantum particles do. Which means *that all quantum particles are also waves*.



What exactly do you mean by "is"?
If you mean "is equal to" than you are basically saying that all quantum particles are light (which is untrue)

Diffraction isn’t inherent to waves because light is a wave, it’s inherent to waves period.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > To refer to the second paragraph- in short, light has been theorized both as a waveform and as a particle- not because one leads to the other, rather because it has characteristics of both (including diffraction). It is not purely a wave. So yes, diffraction is a property of light, which likens it to a wave.
> ...



Oops, typo. I meant MECHANICAL waves. Mechanical waves cannot proceed through vacuum.
See, my typing sucks!


----------



## 100 (Apr 20, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Diffraction applies also to mechanical waves (water for instance). Put a slit in a dike (did I just write that?) and see what happens when a wave hits.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> I do agree, that the aspheric element can cause the onion ringing effect. However, and I am honestly trying to think logically here, would that not effectively REQUIRE that every light source exhibit the effect, and that every boke blur circle exhibit it in the same way? If the onion ringing, specifically in the case of Eldar's photos, was a consequence of the aspheric element, I truly do believe that the candles would have exhibited the effect as well. They would have to, since the effect is caused by the lens, and not a bulb or something else in proximity to (around or between) the light source itself.
> 
> Additionally, if you blow Eldar's sample images up, most of the effects on the blur circles themselves are inconsistent from circle to circle. If they were consistent, I would agree with you 100%, however they are not consistent. The lack of onion ringing in the candles and the inconcistencies with which each blur circle exhibits lead me to believe the problem is external to the lens.
> 
> That is not to say lenses cannot cause effects like this...they can. However I also believe that a $4000 lens would NOT be exhibiting onion ringing. It's a very noticable and ugly effect, very ugly effect, that I would not be spending $4000 on a lens that had that problem. I am a big fan of Canon glass, however I have great respect for Zeiss, and I cannot imagine them creating a lens like the Otus with such a nasty flaw.



I think this might be a rare phenomenon even for aspherical lenses, and it also might be due to sample variation. It might be a side-effect far outweighed by the advantages of correcting optical aberrations. 
I found a lot of examples on internet fora about Zeiss lenses producing onion ring bokeh and that being correlated with aspherical elements. Of course, that does not imply causality.
I agree, if it is a 'flaw' then Zeiss won't have it in a $ 4000 lens. I'd like to think Zeiss won't have it in any lens, but least of all in the Otus. It might just be an unavoidable and acceptable issue. 
It might be a good idea to contact Zeiss and ask, though. It might just be that copy. Have you seen any other review of the Otus having onion rings (unlike other Zeiss Asph lenses)?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 20, 2014)

100 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Where did I say diffraction doesn't happen in mechanical waves?
Jrista asked (see below) if I thought there's any difference in mechanical and electromagnetic waves, and to him wave is a wave. I responded to that by saying the difference is mechanical waves cannot propagate in vacuum. I also added the difference is irrelevant in this case.

I am familiar with the physics of diffraction.
Please understand the context first.



jrista said:


> So, regarding all of this. Are you saying there is a difference between mechanical waves and electromagnetic waves? To me, waves are waves.





sagittariansrock said:


> Is there a difference in mechanical and electromagnetic waves? Yes, the former cannot proceed through vacuum. But that is not relevant here. Light has characteristics of an electromagnetic wave.


----------



## 100 (Apr 21, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Why the hostility?
You asked a question, I gave you the answer. Nothing else to it. 
In one of your previous posts you wrote _In any case I am not an expert in Physics, my field is Biology. My knowledge in Physics is quite limited, and I type rather slowly, so I shall stop here. But the information above is quite accurate as you can check out._

So I thought you didn’t know…


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 21, 2014)

100 said:


> Why the hostility?
> You asked a question, I gave you the answer. Nothing else to it.
> In one of your previous posts you wrote _In any case I am not an expert in Physics, my field is Biology. My knowledge in Physics is quite limited, and I type rather slowly, so I shall stop here. But the information above is quite accurate as you can check out._
> 
> So I thought you didn’t know…



No hostility implied, my friend. 
I merely asked you to understand the context, and then cited it with quotes.
With written posts its possible for statements to appear curt and brusque, and I apologize for any unintentional hostility that might have come across.
Is my intention clearer now?


----------



## 100 (Apr 21, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Why the hostility?
> ...



I read, I try to understand the context and I react. Sometimes I’m not thorough enough. Sorry about that, even though mistakes can happen anyway.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 21, 2014)

100 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



No worries, I often cannot read through pages after pages of posts myself. 
Appreciate that you tried to clarify something.
Cheers!


----------



## jrista (Apr 21, 2014)

100 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'd also say that light isn't simply modeled after waveforms. *Light IS waves*. It's waves in full three dimensional space, which is also why they can behave as particles...a purterbation in an electromagnetic field, focused finely enough, would behave as a particle...a packet of energy that has a quantity, vector and magnitude. One could consider every point of a wavefront as a finely focused "photon". Wave-particle duality simply describes the nature of matter in general...that they are divisible (and quantizable) quantities of mass (particle), and that matter has the capability of transferring energy (wave). Light is not the only thing that, theoretically, exhibits wave-particle duality. All quantum particles do. Which means *that all quantum particles are also waves*.
> ...



You misunderstood. Light is waves. It isn't "a wave", as that would imply a singular wave. The energy field that represents light propagates through space as waves. 

Other quantum particles are also waves. They propagate energy as waves, yet also have mass, therefor they ALSO have wave-particle duality. 

I entirely agree that diffraction is inherent to waves, period. That's what I was saying. ;P


----------



## jrista (Apr 21, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Ah! That makes a lot more sense.


----------



## jrista (Apr 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



LOL  ???

That isn't a random web site. I found that site years ago (probably before I ever even started posting on these forums) while researching optics for photography (I think that would make it even my pre-DSLR days, as I like to research concepts, theory, equipment, brands, etc. before I buy anything.) I pulled that site out of my bookmarks, bookmarks that I've been stringing along from Opera version to Opera version for years. 

It's one of the best web sites on the net that covers this stuff in as detailed, specific, mathematic, and scientific a manner as you can find, too! I seriously challenge you to find a better resource than that that explains the concepts better, or more correctly. And it is FAR from "simplified". Did you even check it out, did you actually look through the site at all? Do you know how much science and mathematics is used in that site to explain the concepts of optics, refraction, reflection, diffraction, and every other aspect of telescopes? It's riddled with math and complex theories, the same exact theories I LEARNED IN MY PHYSICS CLASSES IN COLLEGE.

My knowledge doesn't come only from the web...the web is simply an easy source for reference when one is trying to back up their arguments with hard facts (something I have done plenty...I still don't see any references from you to back up anything your saying.) I've got my old college physics books on my bookshelf here, right alongside, um, oh yeah, Feynman's QED (fantastic book, that.) I also have Newton's "Optiks" on the same shelf, as a nostalgic historical reference and read.

I guess I should have expected you to try and refute hard science. I do challenge you to actually read the site, instead of simply assuming it is unscientific or otherwise flawed simply because I'm the one who posted the link. You might actually learn something, find it edifying.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 21, 2014)

jrista said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



And we can now end this argument, agree with Jrista and talk about the Otus.


----------



## jrista (Apr 21, 2014)

Sorry, I'll shut up now. Bring on the beautiful photos!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 21, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sorry, I'll shut up now. Bring on the beautiful photos!



Good idea. He is just trying to bait you.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 21, 2014)

I am very impressed of what has been written. I personally believe it must be outside of the lens, but in this company I am a total illiterate. I have therefore sent off an email to Zeiss, with the link to this thread attached, to see how they reply. I´ll post their reply when I get it.

I welcome the return to images, but that must mean that more people than me must start posting. I am sure there are many readers of this thread who have the Otus.

Every morning, when I woke up in my cabin this Easter, a new icicle had formed from the gutter. At noon, when the temperature increased, it melted. Next morning, new icicle.

5DIII, 1/8000s, f2.2, ISO100


----------



## jrista (Apr 21, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I am very impressed of what has been written. I personally believe it must be outside of the lens, but in this company I am a total illiterate. I have therefore sent off an email to Zeiss, with the link to this thread attached, to see how they reply. I´ll post their reply when I get it.
> 
> I welcome the return to images, but that must mean that more people than me must start posting. I am sure there are many readers of this thread who have the Otus.
> 
> ...



WOW. Look at that boke! About as creamy as it gets!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



LOL 
Happy Easter!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 21, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I am very impressed of what has been written. I personally believe it must be outside of the lens, but in this company I am a total illiterate. I have therefore sent off an email to Zeiss, with the link to this thread attached, to see how they reply. I´ll post their reply when I get it.
> 
> I welcome the return to images, but that must mean that more people than me must start posting. I am sure there are many readers of this thread who have the Otus.
> 
> ...



Which melts sooner, the ice or the bokeh?
Nice!


----------



## leGreve (Apr 21, 2014)

I haven't got so many photos done lately… mostly I've been using it for video, so my share is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRTowWE1C9Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxDNwHkwKC8


----------



## Jeffrey (Apr 21, 2014)

I've been shooting with my Otus lens that I received just after they were released. I use the lens on my 1D-X. 

I've not noticed any rings or other anomalies with the photos I have taken so far. Most all of the shots were with the amazing hood on the lens. 

As for focus, it might take a bit of getting used to. Learning to focus this lens is like learning to ride a bike. Once conquered it almost becomes second nature. 

The images are amazing. I'm not a pro photographer or a techie with superior technical knowledge. I'm just a guy who loves to shoot landscapes, buildings details, and nature. The lens has outperformed my expectations in ever great way. Now I'm looking forward to seeing what new Otus lenses will be released at Photokina.

I encourage you to rent or buy this lens and have tons of fun using it for your photo needs.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 21, 2014)

Jeffrey said:


> I've been shooting with my Otus lens that I received just after they were released. I use the lens on my 1D-X.



Looking forward to seeing your photos. Photos beat technical discussions any day.


----------



## Jeffrey (Apr 22, 2014)

Posting images? Maybe, but probably not. I'd rather take my camera and go shooting. Sorry!


----------



## Eldar (Apr 22, 2014)

Jeffrey said:


> Posting images? Maybe, but probably not. I'd rather take my camera and go shooting. Sorry!


Nobody can make you post anything here, but it would be appreciated if you did. It would be of interest though if you did some f1.4 test shots with different kind of light sources in the out of focus area, to verify if you get the same onion ring bokeh as I get. I am quite sure I'll find it.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 24, 2014)

I got an answer back from Zeiss, which seems to be an honest one.

Apparently onion rings are normally indicators for aspherical elements, showing the structures of the manufacturing process. They also say that visibility and intensity of these structures depend on various factors in the scenery, such as the intensity of the light source compared to the surroundings, the exposure, the spectral built-up, the amount of "unsharpness" and many other factors. They also mention that some bright light sources in the out-of-focus areas may be clean, due to light intensity (saturating the sensor).

So, without starting a new series of unfocused shots of all the various light sources I have available at home : I think it is fair to conclude that this has to do with the lens. But! I made lots of shots where I deliberately used very fast shutter speeds at low ISO, to make sure I didn´t saturate the sensor. And in the cases where I had a clean light source, being a candle, a halogen point source or a gas filled bulb, I did NOT get onion rings.

So, I am still puzzled. :-\


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 24, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I got an answer back from Zeiss, which seems to be an honest one.
> 
> Apparently onion rings are normally indicators for aspherical elements, showing the structures of the manufacturing process. They also say that visibility and intensity of these structures depend on various factors in the scenery, such as the intensity of the light source compared to the surroundings, the exposure, the spectral built-up, the amount of "unsharpness" and many other factors. They also mention that some bright light sources in the out-of-focus areas may be clean, due to light intensity (saturating the sensor).
> 
> ...



Yes, it's very strange. To quote one of my favorite songs, "the problem with mysteries is they're so mysterious."


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 24, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I got an answer back from Zeiss, which seems to be an honest one.
> 
> Apparently onion rings are normally indicators for aspherical elements, showing the structures of the manufacturing process. They also say that visibility and intensity of these structures depend on various factors in the scenery, such as the intensity of the light source compared to the surroundings, the exposure, the spectral built-up, the amount of "unsharpness" and many other factors. They also mention that some bright light sources in the out-of-focus areas may be clean, due to light intensity (saturating the sensor).
> 
> ...



Nothing to be really puzzled about. What they seem to say is that it isn't predictable when the aspherical elements would cause the onion ring, only that sometimes it does. That makes it a 'rare' side-effect of an otherwise excellent technology for correcting optical aberrations. 
I'd go so far as to surmise that if it was predictable, Zeiss would have found a way to fix it.

So yeah, your lens is not 'perfect', it's just as perfect as the Germans (read: humans) can make it. I think I'd be able to sleep with that. 
Cheers


----------



## jrista (Apr 24, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I got an answer back from Zeiss, which seems to be an honest one.
> 
> Apparently onion rings are normally indicators for aspherical elements, showing the structures of the manufacturing process. They also say that visibility and intensity of these structures depend on various factors in the scenery, such as the intensity of the light source compared to the surroundings, the exposure, the spectral built-up, the amount of "unsharpness" and many other factors. They also mention that some bright light sources in the out-of-focus areas may be clean, due to light intensity (saturating the sensor).
> 
> ...



I still disagree. None of your OOF light sources were saturating the sensor. If I understand what Zeiss was saying, you REALLY need to saturate the sensor (i.e. have pure white full value OOF blur circles, blown blur circles...i.e. what you might get from spots of sunlight streaming through the leaves of a tree) to get solid color. The candles for sure were not even remotely close to saturating, yet they don't exhibit onion ringing. I am also 100% certain that the rings you see in my sample photo taken with my camera were due to the bulbs of the Christmas Lights I was photographing, not the lens (which does not have any aspheric elements.) 

I truly believe your lens is fine, and that the aberrations in *some* of your OOF blur circles are due to other things.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 24, 2014)

Thanks Jrista, I need some support.

I have just returned from a heated debate with my boss (or wife if you like). She was not overly enthusiastic when I said I would change all light sources in the house to either candles, halogen point source or gas light bulbs, to avoid onion ring bokeh in my out of focus light source images ... : What happened to sickness & health, support and encouragement and all that ... :-\


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 24, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Thanks Jrista, I need some support.
> 
> I have just returned from a heated debate with my boss (or wife if you like). She was not overly enthusiastic when I said I would change all light sources in the house to either candles, halogen point source or gas light bulbs, to avoid onion ring bokeh in my out of focus light source images ... : What happened to sickness & health, support and encouragement and all that ... :-\



Eldar, have you tried the same test using a different lens? The TDP review linked below shows how different bokeh is affected by the different lens designs. If you use a light source that produced the known effect with the Otus and then tried your S35, then you can compare the results with each other and to TDP to see whether or not it is a lens design/manufacturing issue. The S35 isn't as clean as the new 35 f/2 IS, but the pattern should be different if the effect is dominated by the lens manufacturing technology and not by wavefront interference that jrista mentioned.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

FWIW, just going by memory, I don't remember having the onion ring effect with the 85L II or the 135L, but I do remember running into it using the 24-70L II and the 28 f/2.8 IS with Christmas tree lights.


----------



## jrista (Apr 24, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Jrista, I need some support.
> ...



This is an excellent idea. At least it would generally settle the matter with some hard evidence.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 24, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Jrista, I need some support.
> ...


I posted an example with the Sigma 35A (see page 13 of this thread). Very clear onion rings. I also tried the 85/1.2L II at f1.2 (don´t believe I posted that). It does not show so clear rings, but they are definitely visible. Sharper lens, sharper rings, it seems.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 24, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



The onion ring effect is visible in your images on page 13, but it's not anything I would consider harsh or very pronounced. The main problem a lens can have with "bokeh highlights" (in my opinion), has to do with whether there is one severe bright ring around the outside of the highlight...not a bunch of very faint "onion ring" transitions inside it. If these onion rings were a lot harsher, like a bullseye or something, that would be different. If the ones in that image you posted, bother you that much...then it would take literally less than one second to blur them with the adjustment brush. I just don't see that as a problem for the 35A, at least based on the image you posted. What I'm more curious about, is the "transition zone" smoothness, and whether the harsh single "ring" around the outside, ever makes an appearance, or worse, looks pronounced...with the 35A.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 25, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar, have you tried the same test using a different lens? The TDP review linked below shows how different bokeh is affected by the different lens designs. If you use a light source that produced the known effect with the Otus and then tried your S35, then you can compare the results with each other and to TDP to see whether or not it is a lens design/manufacturing issue. The S35 isn't as clean as the new 35 f/2 IS, but the pattern should be different if the effect is dominated by the lens manufacturing technology and not by wavefront interference that jrista mentioned.
> ...



I remember reading somewhere that the rings could be due to the grinding/polishing process of the aspherical elements. According to the TDP link, it looks like the Canon 35 f/2 IS is remarkable in the smoothness of the OOF region. It might be worth bringing the Otus and S35 to a camera store and comparing it with the 35 f/2 IS. If the 35 f/2 IS performs notably better than the other two on the same subject then you'd have your answer.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 25, 2014)

To be honest, this is a minor problem for me. I have looked through the images I have with the Otus and there are only a couple that has the onion ring bokeh issue. I will have to make fairly large prints for it to be visible and if I did, I would fix it in post processing first.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 25, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> I remember reading somewhere that the rings could be due to the grinding/polishing process of the aspherical elements. According to the TDP link, it looks like the Canon 35 f/2 IS is remarkable in the smoothness of the OOF region. It might be worth bringing the Otus and S35 to a camera store and comparing it with the 35 f/2 IS. If the 35 f/2 IS performs notably better than the other two on the same subject then you'd have your answer.



The 35 IS will use moulded elements rather than ground & polished. I wonder if we are seeing an improvement in moulded element technology in that lens. It does seems to aquite itself very well against lenses that are using the much more expensive process.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 25, 2014)

Eldar said:


> To be honest, this is a minor problem for me. I have looked through the images I have with the Otus and there are only a couple that has the onion ring bokeh issue. I will have to make fairly large prints for it to be visible and if I did, I would fix it in post processing first.



I think even 'minor' is a gross overestimation of the 'issue'.


----------



## eml58 (May 3, 2014)

My first attempts at posting Images on this thread.

Used the Otus on both the 1Dx & 5DMK III recently while in Bali, found it almost impossible to get the focus spot on using the viewfinder, but once I got the hang of using Live view, zoomed to fix focus, then it starts to come together.

1Dx + Otus 55f/1.4 shot @ f/1.4 & 1/1250th ISO200


----------



## Quasimodo (May 3, 2014)

eml58 said:


> My first attempts at posting Images on this thread.
> 
> Used the Otus on both the 1Dx & 5DMK III recently while in Bali, found it almost impossible to get the focus spot on using the viewfinder, but once I got the hang of using Live view, zoomed to fix focus, then it starts to come together.
> 
> 1Dx + Otus 55f/1.4 shot @ f/1.4 & 1/1250th ISO200



Beautiful image


----------



## Eldar (May 3, 2014)

eml58 said:


> My first attempts at posting Images on this thread.
> 
> Used the Otus on both the 1Dx & 5DMK III recently while in Bali, found it almost impossible to get the focus spot on using the viewfinder, but once I got the hang of using Live view, zoomed to fix focus, then it starts to come together.
> 
> 1Dx + Otus 55f/1.4 shot @ f/1.4 & 1/1250th ISO200


Excellent Edward! Keep practicing and keep posting!


----------



## eml58 (May 4, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Excellent Edward! Keep practicing and keep posting!



Thanks Eldar, and also Qusi, appreciated.

This Lens was a bit of a learning Curve, I have the Zeiss 15 & 21, both are much easier to nail focus on than the 55, I imagine due to the WA of the 15 & 21, the 55 I just wasn't able to rely on my eyes pulling focus through the viewfinder, I don't think I actually nailed focus a single time this way.

Once I switched to using zoomed focus in Live view it was pretty well 100% on the focus.

Unfortunately for me, this relegates the Otus to a Lens I'll use for Portraits, Fixed Point Images, to try using this on moving subjects I think (for me) would be an exercise in futility, my eyesight just isn't good enough, even with an eye piece adaptor, to shoot using the viewfinder, this becomes worse on the 5DMK III which doesn't have as bright a viewfinder as the 1Dx. I do now have the "Ec" focusing screen for the 1Dx so I'll set up one of my 1Dx bodies with this & see if it's of any assistance.

There can be no question regards the Bokeh, Image quality though of this Lens, at f/2 through to f/5.6 this Lens is simply superb, I find that wide open you have a hairline of focus so how you use this is very subject dependant, can work exceptionally well, or be horribly wrong.

It will be very interesting to see how well in real life the Sigma Art 50f/1.4 compares alongside the Otus 55.

But to leave this Lens home at any time in the future will be difficult, after using it for a few weeks it's almost as "have to go in the bag" as my 300f/2.8 II (need a bigger bag).


----------



## jrista (May 4, 2014)

eml58 said:


> My first attempts at posting Images on this thread.
> 
> Used the Otus on both the 1Dx & 5DMK III recently while in Bali, found it almost impossible to get the focus spot on using the viewfinder, but once I got the hang of using Live view, zoomed to fix focus, then it starts to come together.
> 
> 1Dx + Otus 55f/1.4 shot @ f/1.4 & 1/1250th ISO200



It really is amazing how sharp that lens is wide open. I really love that. I need to get a 5D III this year, but I may just have to put an Otus on my list for the future...it's just phenomena.

Out of curiosity, what is the MFD? Can it be used as a closeup lens for objects within a foot or two?


----------



## CarlTN (May 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > My first attempts at posting Images on this thread.
> ...



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=917

_"Close Focus 
Specified Min Focus Distance 19.7” 
Tested Min Focus Distance (Wide / Long) 19.29” 
Maximum Magnification (MM) 0.14x" 
_


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> Out of curiosity, what is the MFD? Can it be used as a closeup lens for objects within a foot or two?


The 50cm MFD brings you fairly close, but when adding a 12mm extension tube I get about as close as I find practical.


----------



## jrista (May 4, 2014)

Eldar said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Out of curiosity, what is the MFD? Can it be used as a closeup lens for objects within a foot or two?
> ...



How is the magnification with the extension?


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Here´s an image of my iMac keyboard. Image area is about 9,5x6,2cm2. You can of course use a deeper tube, but I rather go for the macro lens in that case.


----------



## eml58 (May 4, 2014)

Bali Nusa Dua, last week.

1Dx & Otus 55 f/1.4 @ f/2.8 & 1/125th ISO800

It's an interesting lens, re jrista's comment, I have yet to shoot really close, but the previous Image of the water Lilly I was laying on some stones 3" above the pool & the water lilies were less than a meter distance (people walking by gave me a wide berth, something most Photographers are used to).

Karl pointed to the mfd (which I wasn't aware of) and 20" sounds about right without extension tube.

The more I use this Lens the more I like it, I used to love my 50 f/1.2 L but focus was so slow it was best used Manual Focus anyway.

The background blur is just amazingly smooth & the vignetting produced depending on the subject just adds to the mood of the Image.

This image was taken in shade very close to sunset, hence the ISO, no Flash.

My Model drank 2 Glasses of Wine before I was happy with this Image.


----------



## eml58 (May 4, 2014)

More Water Lillies, I like these because they tend not to move too much, and unlike my other Model, don't complain so much.

1Dx Otus 55f/1.4 @ f/5.6 & 1/125th ISO400


----------



## eml58 (May 4, 2014)

I like this Image, but it's also an example of how little room for mistakes you have @ f/1.4

I thought I had the Glasses in focus, but it ended up the Hands, still, I soft focus treated it & was Happy with the outcome, more importantly, so was the Model.


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Great to see your posts Edward! Impeccable quality as always.

I am still using the standard focusing screen on both the 1DX and 5DIII and your experiences with f1.4 MF is exactly what I have been through (still is). But you should be able to use it on the A7r. It would be interesting to hear how you feel the EVF works for manual focus.


----------



## CarlTN (May 4, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Great to see your posts Edward! Impeccable quality as always.
> 
> I am still using the standard focusing screen on both the 1DX and 5DIII and your experiences with f1.4 MF is exactly what I have been through (still is). But you should be able to use it on the A7r. It would be interesting to hear how you feel the EVF works for manual focus.



Good idea, the EVF would take the extra pupil of your eye out of the equation. That's the main reason it's difficult to focus via an optical viewfinder. It's because your eye is not seeing the same depth of field that the sensor is seeing. That's why they make frosted focusing screens, to help your eye's pupil mimic what the sensor is seeing. I first noticed this phenomenon on a 1D4 with my 58mm f/1.4 Nokton mounted. The depth of field I was seeing through the viewfinder, did not match what I saw on the rear LCD, via live view when I was focusing that way. (The lens is a manual focus only also.)


----------



## eml58 (May 4, 2014)

Hi Eldar/Carl, I will certainly give it a try on the a7r, unfortunately I'm in the process of moving the Family back to Australia (after 30 years away) so I've got gear between Jakarta, Bali, Singapore & Brisbane, PIA, a7r is in Aus, so will try it in July when I finally get moved.


----------



## expatinasia (May 4, 2014)

eml58 said:


> More Water Lillies, I like these because they tend not to move too much, and unlike my other Model, don't complain so much.



;D Funny! All great shots, eml58 (as always!).


----------



## ahab1372 (May 5, 2014)

eml58 said:


> I like this Image, but it's also an example of how little room for mistakes you have @ f/1.4
> 
> I thought I had the Glasses in focus, but it ended up the Hands, still, I soft focus treated it & was Happy with the outcome, more importantly, so was the Model.


So the picture increased the WAF for your photography?
Nice picture, beautiful model, and great tattoo btw


----------



## eml58 (May 5, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > More Water Lillies, I like these because they tend not to move too much, and unlike my other Model, don't complain so much.
> ...



Thanks Expat


----------



## eml58 (May 5, 2014)

ahab1372 said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > I like this Image, but it's also an example of how little room for mistakes you have @ f/1.4
> ...



Thanks ahab, the only Model I'm allowed to shoot is this one, the fact the Model is my wife of 23 Years may have something to do with it.

The Tattoo, mmmm, yes, my wife is competitive, I have a few small left over Tattoos from my 16 Years in the Army, my wife decided to see if she could out "Art" me, I think she succeeded.


----------



## eml58 (May 9, 2014)

Finally fitted & Tried the Ec Screen in one of my 1Dx Bodies.

Very Good, works an absolute treat, I can with the Ec Screen now critically focus in viewfinder as well as Zoomed Live View.

But, unfortunately, this is only useful in good lighting, dim lighting & your back to the Live View Mode for focus.

Takes 2 Minutes to carefully swap out the screens, so not a big issue if your in a clean environment, change screens, head out do your Images. Wouldn't want to try & change screens in Rain/Snow or dusty conditions, helps to have 2 Bodies.

Damn shame the 5DMK III has been design changed not to accept these screens, real oversight on the part of Canon.


----------



## Eldar (May 21, 2014)

I got an extra 5DIII body and have just installed the Eg-S focusing screen. It does not hav exactly the same footprint as the standard screen, but it was fairly simple to install. I had to adjust for 2/3 stop over exposure. But only practical consequence is that I cannot use auto ISO in manual mode, unless Canon release a firmware version like they did for the 1DX. To me that is not a problem though.

Focusing became a LOT easier with this screen and my hitrate at f1.4 (in good light) was very high from the first shot. I also found shooting in dim light easier than I had expected. Autofocus is working well also.

It was actually such a positive experience that I am waiting for something to go wrong


----------



## Eldar (Jun 27, 2014)

Long time since anyone posted anything here, so I thought I´d drop one. I still find this lens absolutely amazing and a joy to work with. 

This is from Husavik on on the north coast of Iceland. North Pole next.

5DIII (standard focusing screen), 1/80s, f8.0, ISO100

I can also give you a warning. I have had the Eg-S focusing screen in my second 5DIII body for a while. And it is now totally out of focus. If I follow the focus indicator it turns out OK, but when I use visual focus I am totally off. I do not understand how this happens, but it makes the body pretty much useless.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 27, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Long time since anyone posted anything here, so I thought I´d drop one. I still find this lens absolutely amazing and a joy to work with.
> 
> This is from Husavik on on the north coast of Iceland. North Pole next.
> 
> ...


Eldar, sorry to hear the focus screen isn't working out, but I really like this photo. The soft pastel colors and overlapping lines make for a beautiful composition and the house is in just the right place to add interest. Did you happen to shoot any wide angle shots close to the flowers by any chance? I bet that would be another interesting angle. And you're really going to the North Pole? Cool!


----------



## Snodge (Jun 27, 2014)

Hi Eldar,

I know it sounds a bit obvious (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything) - but sometimes for myself, my diopter wheel gets moved off where it should be, perhaps it is worth double checking it?


----------



## Eldar (Jun 27, 2014)

Snodge said:


> Hi Eldar,
> 
> I know it sounds a bit obvious (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything) - but sometimes for myself, my diopter wheel gets moved off where it should be, perhaps it is worth double checking it?


He he, no it's not that. The focusing screen is not a perfect fit, so it may have been slightly displaced by a bump.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 28, 2014)

Another from Iceland. This is Gullfoss, the largest fall in Europe (I´m told). Quite spectacular.

5DIII, 1/640s, f5.6, ISO100, pola filter


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Another from Iceland. This is Gullfoss, the largest fall in Europe (I´m told). Quite spectacular.
> 
> 5DIII, 1/640s, f5.6, ISO100, pola filter



Wow, must go there sometime. Great images, especially like the one if the house.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 1, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Another from Iceland. This is Gullfoss, the largest fall in Europe (I´m told). Quite spectacular.
> 
> 5DIII, 1/640s, f5.6, ISO100, pola filter



Nice


----------



## Eldar (Jul 1, 2014)

Geysir on Iceland
5DIII, 1/1000s, f5.6, ISO640, circular polarizing filter


----------



## candyman (Jul 1, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Geysir on Iceland
> 5DIII, 1/1000s, f5.6, ISO640, circular polarizing filter




Spectecular!


----------



## Eldar (Jul 22, 2014)

The view from Torghatten, a spectacular mountain on the northern coast of Norway, with a natural hole through it. This is taken from the hole.

5DIII, 1/160s, f5.6, ISO100, CPL filter


----------



## Eldar (Jul 22, 2014)

And here is the mountain, shot from the west.

5DIII, 1/50s, f11, ISO100, CPL filter


----------



## candyman (Jul 22, 2014)

Eldar said:


> The view from Torghatten, a spectacular mountain on the northern coast of Norway, with a natural hole through it. This is taken from the hole.
> 
> 5DIII, 1/160s, f5.6, ISO100, CPL filter




That's a great view


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 22, 2014)

Eldar, I like your series of photos of Torghatten across the various threads - you should think about submitting your work and a write up of this and/or the Iceland trip to the Zeiss blog. I think you have and are producing a great series of photos.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 22, 2014)

Thanks a lot, much appreciated. I also appreciate your suggestion Macguyver and maybe I should be a bit more ambitious. But I also appreciate having this as a no stress, no obligation, just for fun hobby. And, all things considered, compared to some of the others here on CR, I´m not very good. I´ve been blessed with lots of good opportunity lately and it is close to impossible not to get a good shot now and then.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 23, 2014)

I understand and even though I do some paid work, it's completely different than the personal work I do and that seems to work well for me. If I _had _to shoot landscape or wildlife for money, I think I would go crazy as they are way too unreliable in terms of consistent results. It is nice when it's just a hobby and you are doing the work purely for fun, so I can understand that from your perspective.

As for the quality of your work, I think you're underestimating your skills. Several of the photos from the Ark and Iceland that you've shared in recent times have been excellent! Remember that the biggest difference between the people we see as pros and others is that these pros only share their best work. If you take a look at the outtakes or shots of subject matter outside their expertise from many of the best pros, you would be shocked at how many of their shots are just average or even poor. I'm not saying this in relation to your work, but what I'm getting at is that when you look over all of your work, think about the only best shots you've taken. If you do that, I think you'll realize that you have a portfolio of work to be proud of - and obviously you are continuing to add to that.


----------



## leGreve (Sep 12, 2014)

Back on page 16 or so there was a debate about onion rings...

Unfortunately, it seems they are back.... in the 85 

Take a look at this video: four lenses are tested, and the Otus 85 is the only one showing severe onion rings in the bokeh.

https://vimeo.com/105732432


----------

