Rumor of Zeiss Otus coming to Mirrorless Mounts

#101
Sporgon said:
Given the fact that Zeiss thought it was viable to produce these manual focus lenses for dslrs I can only assume that the target audience for serious photography would not use them for portraiture wide open, or anything like if they are shooting close. In all the weddings I shot I never once came across anyone who thought that a picture with just one eyelash in sharp focus and the rest blurred was anything but bad.
Even with mirrorless the only way to nail razor thin dof with manual focus is with magnification and although you can get used to doing it reasonably quickly, it’s still clunky. You could work this way in liveview with a dslr of course; maybe that’s what people did.
It’s also worth noting that the focus aid in mirrorless, where you join the two arrows together and it goes green, (Canon) is not accurate enough for f/1.4 or even 1.8, just as the ‘in focus’ dot on a dslr wasn’t either.
However I think that for the pleasure of using a good manual focus lens (if that’s your thing) it does make a lot more sense on mirrorless than it did on dslrs. But if you habitually shoot wide open with very fast lenses I’m not sure it’s worth the hassle.
Click to expand...
Zeiss would have run the numbers and expected to make profits for these lenses but....
If wide open f1.4 (or f1.2) is too shallow a depth of field then why make them instead of f4 for instance. Cheaper and smaller. Landscapers would use ~f8-f14 to maximise DoF.
Wide open for video in bright light makes sense if no ND filters but still the issue of focus/DoF comes into it.
Wide open (ultra) wide angle for astro makes sense to me and 20-35mm for live bands etc with low light and up close but focus is again the issue.
Maybe I am missing the point here.
 
Upvote 0
#102
Manual focusing is more than a method — it’s a way for photographers to connect deeply with their creative power and craftsman-ship, enabling both unparalleled control and artistic freedom. It allows for precise focusing on the center of the image, the story, and emphasizes the exact details that bring the visual idea to life.
Click to expand...

LOL. This might the most euphemistic passage I've read in a long time. Basically, "it ain't got AF." (But we'll charge you a premium for not having it.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#106
David - Sydney said:
Zeiss would have run the numbers and expected to make profits for these lenses but....
If wide open f1.4 (or f1.2) is too shallow a depth of field then why make them instead of f4 for instance. Cheaper and smaller. Landscapers would use ~f8-f14 to maximise DoF.
Wide open for video in bright light makes sense if no ND filters but still the issue of focus/DoF comes into it.
Wide open (ultra) wide angle for astro makes sense to me and 20-35mm for live bands etc with low light and up close but focus is again the issue.
Maybe I am missing the point here.
Click to expand...
I agree, it is something of a conundrum. I’ve never met anyone who has used these lenses professionally, although there must be many out there.
An f/4 lens isn’t sexy is it ? At least not with FF / 35mm sized sensors.
I can see that manual focus makes a lot of sense with ultra wide lenses, especially for landscape where AF can be a pain in the butt, but to own a manual focus 100mm f/1.4 and use it at wide aperture is like something akin to self-flagellation IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#107
Bonich said:
You will buy
You will be happy again
Click to expand...
I'll wait for the serious reviews.
Don't forget this lens has a very strong competitor, the RF 50mm f/1,2, which I can get for Euro1900,- from Panamoz...
The Zeiss costs more, is MF, but weighs far less and, if true, should be a real apochromat.
MF doesn't bother me here, as I'm using this focal almost exclusively for landscapes.
The weight of the f/1,2 does...but it is a superb lens.
Yet, there's also the RF 50mm f/1,4, inexpensive, sharp, AF, lightweight, compact...
You may have noticed that, after the beginning enthusiasm, my more rational brain has started to work again...;)
 
Upvote 0
#108
David - Sydney said:
Zeiss would have run the numbers and expected to make profits for these lenses but....
If wide open f1.4 (or f1.2) is too shallow a depth of field then why make them instead of f4 for instance. Cheaper and smaller. Landscapers would use ~f8-f14 to maximise DoF.
Wide open for video in bright light makes sense if no ND filters but still the issue of focus/DoF comes into it.
Wide open (ultra) wide angle for astro makes sense to me and 20-35mm for live bands etc with low light and up close but focus is again the issue.
Maybe I am missing the point here.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, for prestige (?) reasons, there is no longer a market for light, compact and highest quality small aperture lenses.
They simply wouldn't sell in sufficient numbers. Adapted Leica M lenses can be a solution, though focusing them on an EOS isn't always fun.
To be honest, I never use my compact M teles on my EOS, preferring to use the heavier and larger RF lenses with AF...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#109
Del Paso said:
Unfortunately, for prestige (?) reasons, there is no longer a market for light, compact and highest quality small aperture lenses.
They simply wouldn't sell in sufficient numbers. Adapted Leica M lenses can be a solution, though focusing them on an EOS isn't always fun.
To be honest, I never use my compact M teles on my EOS, preferring to use the heavier and larger RF lenses with AF...
Click to expand...
I agree unfortunately, so those of us that shoot at smaller apertures are relegated to paying likely higher price, and deal with the extra size and weight....of the faster lenses.

I need Canon to come out with a rf24-70 f4L, although I may settle on the 24-105.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#110
JohnC said:
I agree I fortunately, so those of us that shoot at smaller apertures are relegated to paying likely higher price, and deal with the extra size and weight....of the faster lenses.

I need Canon to come out with a rf24-70 f4L, although I may settle on the 24-105.
Click to expand...
Speaking of the 24-105 f/4...
A good lens, but a bit boring, if you know what I mean. I had it, was satisfied with it, but never surprised by what it produced. I sold it for the 24-70 f/2,8 and never looked back (but missed the 105mm).
I'm a bit afraid that, if ever a new 24-70 f/4 comes, it will be a non-L.
What I dislike about that? Maybe it's a mere coincidence, but both TDP and OpticalLimits tested the RF 28-70 f/2,8.
In TDP's review, the sides and corners were week at 28mm, very good at longer focals, while OL found exactly the opposite. Sample variations???
Is QC more stringent for expensive L lenses? I'm inclined to believe it, although the testing of the 28-70 could also be questioned...
Who knows...
By the way, I have a new favorite, the RF 70-200 f/4: Optically superb, inexpensive, light and compact. And I too miss the non-existing 24-70 f/4 L.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#111
Del Paso said:
Is QC more stringent for expensive L lenses? I'm inclined to believe it, although the testing of the 28-70 could also be questioned...
Who knows...
Click to expand...
I suspect is is more stringent, but still not perfect. Bryan/TDP got two bad copies of the EF 24-70/2.8L II then tested two more.

Del Paso said:
By the way, I have a new favorite, the RF 70-200 f/4: Optically superb, inexpensive, light and compact.
Click to expand...
I've never owned a 70-200/4. The RF version looks nice, but it's not all that much smaller than the f/2.8 (non-Z) version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#112
Del Paso said:
Speaking of the 24-105 f/4...
Is QC more stringent for expensive L lenses? I'm inclined to believe it, although the testing of the 28-70 could also be questioned...
Who knows...
Click to expand...
From my own experience; never had an L lens that’s more than +/- 3 AFMA, whereas my non-L Canon lenses have ranged from about +/- 5 to 13 !
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#113
Sporgon said:
From my own experience; never had an L lens that’s more than +/- 3 AFMA, whereas my non-L Canon lenses have ranged from about +/- 5 to 13 !
Click to expand...
My 24mm TSE II was 18 (!) off on the 5 DIII and 5 DIV. All the other L lenses were like yours (+- 3). My non-Ls were in the same category (+- 3).
After I had dropped the 24 TSE on concrete, it needed professional help from Canon. It came back exactly 18 off like before, and euro 950 more expensive...
Gaaaaaaah ! :p
 
Upvote 0
#114
neuroanatomist said:
I suspect is is more stringent, but still not perfect. Bryan/TDP got two bad copies of the EF 24-70/2.8L II then tested two more.


I've never owned a 70-200/4. The RF version looks nice, but it's not all that much smaller than the f/2.8 (non-Z) version.
Click to expand...
It is nevertheless longer, wider and 375 g. heavier. Since I didn't notice any important advantage, I chose the f/4.
I don't use it for portraits anyway (no talent at all for people photography !), so I didn't need f/2,8.
I wonder how much incidence the mostly automated manufacturing process had on sample variation. LensRentals seemed positively impressed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
ZEISS to Announce New OTUS Series of Lenses for Mirrorless
Replies
7
Views
1K
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Canon Rumors
ZEISS introduces the Nano Prime family of high-speed cine lenses for mirrorless full frame cameras
Replies
0
Views
1K
Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
E
Canon RF100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM Coming Soon for $9499?
Replies
7
Views
3K
EOS 4 Life
E
neuroanatomist
B+W's 'new' filter mounts and packaging
Replies
19
Views
22K
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Richard CN
New rumor of Supertelephoto DO’s and the R1 [CR2]
Replies
155
Views
53K
InVision
I
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu