Rumor of Zeiss Otus coming to Mirrorless Mounts

[Hickup]

Certainly a very good lens (the Sigma). But far too heavy for travel.

You are right. They are so much more heavy than a smartphone, it sure is impossible to travel with them. Even worse, they are so bulky that they don't fit into the pockets of my trousers any more.

Makes me wonder how I'm able to travel to Scandinavia with them every winter, that should not be possible according to irrefutable internet opinion.

Now that I look at my 600mm f4, I wonder how I managed to take polar bear pictures with it. It is even more heavy and more bulky. Sure all people are right that told me my pictures have been taken in a zoo and I just misremember.

 

[antonio_s]

The OTUS 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 for RF have leaked:
View attachment 222595View attachment 222596

Well, comparing to the UK prices for the RF 1.2s, these lenses are at least not priced in a totally bonkers way. The EF Otus lenses were (and are) significantly more expensive new than the Canon RF 1.2 equivalents.

The 85/1.2 (and, almost as much, the 50/1.2) are virtually perfect and among my favorite lenses ever. If the RF Otus lenses are as good as the EF Otus lenses were, they should stack up optically just fine. But I would find it really hard to give up autofocus (although I'll admit that *if* you're specifically into MF, the mechanical design of the Otus lenses would be superior to the experience you get on the electronically coupled RF lenses).

 

[angelisland]

Always funny when people have strong opinions about things they have never seen.

I have seen pictures taken side-by-side with the original Otus 55mm and some competitors and if you would not have been able to spot the difference, you might have wanted to ask for an appointment with an optician.

The RF lenses are better now, but I doubt that they got better by that much,

I’m talking prints, not pixel peeping

 

[Del Paso]

You are right. They are so much more heavy than a smartphone, it sure is impossible to travel with them. Even worse, they are so bulky that they don't fit into the pockets of my trousers any more.

Makes me wonder how I'm able to travel to Scandinavia with them every winter, that should not be possible according to irrefutable internet opinion.

Now that I look at my 600mm f4, I wonder how I managed to take polar bear pictures with it. It is even more heavy and more bulky. Sure all people are right that told me my pictures have been taken in a zoo and I just misremember.

No need for cheap sarcasm.
I was expressing my opinion, I still find heavy lenses less appropriate for travel. If a 600mm is adequate for you, I'm fine with that.
Fora are a there to express one's opinion, or to contradict someone else's. There's a polite way to do so, but you seem to prefer aggressiveness...

 

[Del Paso]

It is a different set of compromises. I had the Otus 28mm f/1.4 and currently still own the Summilux 28, and the Otus is sharper wide open with less vignetting.

Same reason why the Noctilux-M 50/0.95 is 700g and has a 60mm filter thread and the Nikon Z 58/0.95 Noct is 2000g and has a 82mm filter thread: the Noct is way sharper and more corrected than the M wide open.

"It's a different set of compromises"
So right!
It may also depend on how one is using a lens, studio, outdoors, mostly at widest aperture etc...

 

[Bonich]

I’m sure that if you shot pictures with both lenses and put them side-by-side, no one would know which lens shot what.
Except they might know because the vice is more likely to be out of focus.
Micro contrast? Lol.

I had done this exercise: Side to side shots with 100 primes: FD100 2.0, EF100 2.8M II, RF100 2.8M, Milvus 100 2.0M, all with the R5:

Yes you see the difference! This is not about pixel peeping, this is all about colors and rendering: With every composition you can tell the Zeiss by the most pleasing set of colors (and you can tell the FD by a very pleasant less saturated color rendition as well

Comparing the Milvus 135 against the RF 135 the Zeiss rendition is the better in many aspects. But the RF owns AF and IS and collects a third of a stop more light, which is somewhat handy from time to time.

The OTUS ML85 might become a brother of the EF85 im my arsenal, I was never interested in the RF85.

 

[Del Paso]

I had done this exercise: Side to side shots with 100 primes: FD100 2.0, EF100 2.8M II, RF100 2.8M, Milvus 100 2.0M, all with the R5:

Yes you see the difference! This is not about pixel peeping, this is all about colors and rendering: With every composition you can tell the Zeiss by the most pleasing set of colors (and you can tell the FD by a very pleasant less saturated color rendition as well

Comparing the Milvus 135 against the RF 135 the Zeiss rendition is the better in many aspects. But the RF owns AF and IS and collects a third of a stop more light, which is somewhat handy from time to time.

The OTUS ML85 might become a brother of the EF85 im my arsenal, I was never interested in the RF85.

Color rendition is something quite subjective, and depends on many factors. Monitor, exposure, color temperature etc...
When for instance comparing Leica M and Zeiss ZM lenses, I tend to prefer Leica colors, less saturated. Yet, I nevertheless like the Zeiss ZM colors very much...But this can change from lens to lens, some ZM are more, some are less saturated . And it also depends on which software you use, LR or else.
Zeiss EF lenses have -for me- very pleasant colors, but nicer than Canon's EFs? Hard to say.I wouldn't go so far.
I do believe what you wrote, but would I see the same advantage for Zeiss? Possibly, but not certain.
One fact is a certainty: Zeiss produce some of the very best lenses around. But, just like my Leica R lenses, I don't use them wide open, unless for static motives. Lack of AF is for me, a serious drawback.
PS: To be clear, I use only Zeiss ZM and Classic, neither Otus nor Milvus. If I did, my statement could differ.
But maybe, the next Otus will be AF? Then I might very tempted...

 

[David - Sydney]

But MILFS have like the M cameras a very short flange to sensor distance.

I am sure that it is a typo

 

[David - Sydney]

Maybe Zeiss will fill the UWA (14mm or wider), fast (f 2.8 or faster) lens void from Canon. I would kill for a 14mm, f1.8 replacement for my Sigma Art lens for astro.

Only Sony can get you a decent/lightweight 14/1.8 :-(

 

[David - Sydney]

Certainly a very good lens (the Sigma). But far too heavy for travel.

All relative. I cart around a lot of gear for travel - especially when diving as a pair of strobes are 2.5kg + mounting hardware etc.
The Sigma 14/1.8 is ~1200g and the Sony 14/1.8 is 460g (and cheaper).

 

[RobbieHat]

Only Sony can get you a decent/lightweight 14/1.8 :-(

I would love a lighter weight option to the Sigma 14/1.8 but I don’t shoot Sony so that is what I am relegated to at the moment. Weight is less of a concern for me than optic quality, especially in the corners.

 

[Hickup]

I’m talking prints, not pixel peeping

Comparison was done with printouts on A4 paper, looked like inkjet. Certainly not fine art print, it was not even special printer paper or very high DPI. One page showed full picture, one page cropped in to better illustrate contrast and sharpness which was considered the differentiator for the Zeiss.

Difference in sharpness and contrast was clearly visible with both prints, the Otus was clearly superior by some good margin. I was actually quite surprised by how much.

Not what I consider pixel peeping.

 

[JohnC]

Comparison was done with printouts on A4 paper, looked like inkjet. Certainly not fine art print, it was not even special printer paper or very high DPI. One page showed full picture, one page cropped in to better illustrate contrast and sharpness which was considered the differentiator for the Zeiss.

Difference in sharpness and contrast was clearly visible with both prints, the Otus was clearly superior by some good margin. I was actually quite surprised by how much.

Not what I consider pixel peeping.

I've done the same (although on glossy photo paper) many years ago. At the time the comparison was a 24L mk1 vs the classic 21/2.8 distagon ze. The difference was noticeable to me in favor of the Zeiss.

 

[Del Paso]

I've done the same (although on glossy photo paper) many years ago. At the time the comparison was a 24L mk1 vs the classic 21/2.8 distagon ze. The difference was noticeable to me in favor of the Zeiss.

I still own the 21mm f/2,8 Zeiss Classic. Indeed, a great lens! Even the EF 24L II had no chance against it at wider apertures.

 

[JohnC]

I still own the 21mm f/2,8 Zeiss Classic. Indeed, a great lens! Even the EF 24L II had no chance against it at wider apertures.

likewise, I still own the classic 21, 35/2, 50MP, 135 Sonnar, and the Milvus 100MP. I'll never get rid of them despite shooting with mainly RF lenses now. I do get them out now and then to use with the adapter (particularly the drop in filter one). It actually makes them easier to use than with the EF mount.

 

[Del Paso]

likewise, I still own the classic 21, 35/2, 50MP, 135 Sonnar, and the Milvus 100MP. I'll never get rid of them despite shooting with mainly RF lenses now. I do get them out now and then to use with the adapter (particularly the drop in filter one). It actually makes them easier to use than with the EF mount.

I also own what I still consider to be the best macro lens, the Apo Makro Elmarit 2,8/100mm. Total lack of AC, extreme sharpness, great color rendition. The bokeh, yet, could be a tiny bit nicer in some situations. I guess it was the price to pay for an otherwise perfect lens...
I could also warmly recommend the Leica R 2,8/60mm macro. At infinity lots better than the MP 50mm, at least the one I own.

 

[Sporgon]

Always funny when people have strong opinions about things they have never seen.

I have seen pictures taken side-by-side with the original Otus 55mm and some competitors and if you would not have been able to spot the difference, you might have wanted to ask for an appointment with an optician.

The RF lenses are better now, but I doubt that they got better by that much,

Spot the difference at what viewing distance or magnification though ? If we’re going to study the image at 400% on 5K screen I’d agree with you, but looking at an a2 sized print printed at 300 or even 600dpi I’m not so sure.

 

[Sporgon]

You are right. They are so much more heavy than a smartphone, it sure is impossible to travel with them. Even worse, they are so bulky that they don't fit into the pockets of my trousers any more.

You’re not likely to travel or hike with just one of these prime lenses, are you ? You’ll be wanting to take at least two, maybe three. That’s where the weight kicks in.

 

[Sporgon]

Well, comparing to the UK prices for the RF 1.2s, these lenses are at least not priced in a totally bonkers way. The EF Otus lenses were (and are) significantly more expensive new than the Canon RF 1.2 equivalents.

Mint used Otus lenses are realistically priced used. If you want to try a mint 55/1.4 you can for around £1500. Says something about their original market I think.

 

[Berowne]

My guess is, that these lenses will be pretty good.
Build for mirrorless cameras, there are no longer the restrictions of the DSLR/SLR-Systems, especially the flange focal distance. And the manual focus eliminates the restrictions from the AF-Lensgroup. The optic-designer is free to do what he wants, no limits except cost.