Zeiss 55mm/f1.4 Otus Distagon

[ShunCheung]

<p>Zeiss first pre-announced this lens a year ago. It looks like it is finally arriving later on this month. This 55mm/f1.4 is a complex Distagon design usually used on retrofocus wide-angle lenses, with 12 elements in 10 groups. For a 55mm "standard" lens, it uses a huge 77mm front filter, usually found on 24-70mm/f2.8 and 70-200mm/f2.8 type larger zooms.</p>

<ul>

<li>Zeiss Blog: <a href="http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=4260#more-4260">http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=4260#more-4260</a></li>

<li>Adorama First Look: <a href="http://www.adorama.com/alc/0014325/blogarticle/Zeiss-Otus-55mm-f14-Lens-First-Look">http://www.adorama.com/alc/0014325/blogarticle/Zeiss-Otus-55mm-f14-Lens-First-Look</a></li>

<li>DPReview: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/07/zeiss-announces-no-compromise-otus-55mm-f1-4-lens-for-slrs?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_0">http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/07/zeiss-announces-no-compromise-otus-55mm-f1-4-lens-for-slrs?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_0</a></li>

</ul>

<p>The price tag is a wopping US$3999 or 2940 Eruos. I know Zeiss is trying to advertise it as producing "medium-format-like" results, but at least for me, no thank you Zeiss.</p>

<p>The new Zeiss 55mm/f1.4 is manual focus only. It is available in Nikon F mount as a ZF.2, which is similar to Nikon's AI-S P manual focus lenses with a built-in CPU, as well as Canon EOS EF mount as a ZE lens.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>At least the Leica 50mm APO-Summicron and ASPH Summilux are small lenses: this looks a behemoth. I guess they know their market. I wonder how many they expect to sell? The small number I am sure they expect contributes a large part to the high price. I'm assuming this is a lens made as a prestige product, not really because there is a consumer demand for such a monster, particularly as they have their other 50s available.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Very interesting. Looking forward to the optical test.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Again, this new lens has a Distagon-style optical design, so its construction is more like a 24mm/f1.4, which is not exactly small. Leica's Summicron is not wide-angle lenses.</p>

<p>There is little doubt that specification tolerance on this new lens is very tight, leading to a lot of rejects and therefore adding to the cost. But a $4000 50mm (or 55mm), f1.4 is going to sell in very low volumes. On top of that there is no auto focus. Back in 2005 or so, I had a chance to try the then new Zeiss ZF 50mm/f1.4, on a then top-of-the-line Nikon D2X (no live view). I had a lot of focusing difficulty and ended up with a bunch of slightly out-of-focus images. In reality, I doubt that this 55mm/f1.4 will see a lot of professional use. It is more for the elite photographers and collectors. For most of us, the $220 Nikon 50mm/f1.8 AF-S is just fine.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I have to say I was hoping it would be a little closer to the price of the Canon 50 f/1.2. I'd pay, after saving up a lot, for a ~50mm without obvious softness wide open and without the longitudinal chromatic aberration that curses almost all lenses under about 100mm - it's the reason I've only owned f/1.8 50mm lenses so far. (Not that the 50mm lenses are better than the f/1.4s, but I'm prepared to get worse performance if I pay less for it.) Zeiss claim to be fixing exactly what I want them to, but I'm going to be saving for a while. And it would be awfully nice if Nikon could sell one for half the price with working autofocus before I finish saving up. (Nikon, unlike Canon, don't really have a premium 50mm - unless you count some old manual focus lenses.)<br />

<br />

I hope it's as good as they want it to be. I'm still slightly confused as to whether their latest 135 f/2 is supposed to be in the same range, or just "very good". If this is how much they charge for a 50mm, I'm shuddering to think how much the next "money no object" lens will cost. :-)</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Andrew</p>

<p>Have you shot the Canon 50mm f/1.2? I have and found it to be unacceptably soft wide open. Not just in real world use but testing it on a resolution chart.</p>

<p>As for the Zeiss I have to ask are they on Crack? For that kind of money I will buy a Nikon 58mm f/1.2 or just continue to use the 58mm f/1.4 that I already have. And before you ask I have used a Nikon 58 f/1.2 and yes it was a challenge to focus but not impossible and when the focus is on it is very nice wide open</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>I think you can get an idea of prices by looking at the Leica 50mm Apo Summicron which retails for over $7300. That is probably the lens you are looking for your 50mm. I suppose if the Zeiss is as good, then it will be a bargain! On the other hand, Zeiss are not saying theirs is apochromatic (I think...) so I assume that in principle the Leica may be better. However you look at it is very, very poor value.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Taking into consideration how little I use the 50mm focal length, the Nikon 50/1.8G AF-S is in the right price bracket (and yes, I am paying $100 or thereabouts over the D version just for the convenience of having AF-S); I'm still considering forgoing that focal length altogether though.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>With ISO's going through the roof, who needs F1.4 when F2.0 will do ?....and Zeiss's F2.0 is no slouch. Maybe I'm just too practical. My old 50/1.8 just did Aurora Borealis (@F2 or 2.5)....and certainly didn't need anything with F1.4. Maybe <em>need</em> is not what's about.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[james_scholz]

<p>Lloyd Chambers has a lot to say about this lens on his blog. He has been testing one for some time so his real world experience is worth checking out.</p>

[phule]

<p>Sounds like a good weekend rental candidate to me. Now if I can only convince Calumet to put this in their rental program... ;)</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Is the focus distance information provided in the Nikon mount version?<br>

It does not look like this lens is a "D" lens in Nikon mount, or is it?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Have you shot the Canon 50mm f/1.2? I have and found it to be unacceptably soft wide open. Not just in real world use but testing it on a resolution chart.</blockquote>

 

<p>Michael: No, I haven't, but I've certainly seen the analysis. Don't worry, I'm not claiming that Canon have a competitor to this Zeiss. The f/1.2 lenses were something I deliberately gave up when switching from Canon to Nikon - and I did so knowing that they're compromised. I'm just suggesting that Canon have something they'd like to sell you if you had a lot of money in your pocket and want a 50mm. Nikon don't, which is why I'd like them to solve the problem by undercutting this Zeiss!</p>

 

<blockquote>As for the Zeiss I have to ask are they on Crack? For that kind of money I will buy a Nikon 58mm f/1.2 or just continue to use the 58mm f/1.4 that I already have. And before you ask I have used a Nikon 58 f/1.2 and yes it was a challenge to focus but not impossible and when the focus is on it is very nice wide open</blockquote>

 

<p>I've not used one, but again I've seen a lot of reviews (hello, I'm an armchair photographer). The Noct-Nikkor is a special bit of design, but I don't believe it's especially sharp by modern standards (or indeed by contemporary standards), nor that it resolves my LoCA concerns. It was designed to correct coma, which is good, but not the only thing that needs correcting!</p>

 

<blockquote>With ISO's going through the roof, who needs F1.4 when F2.0 will do ?</blockquote>

 

<p>Sorry, but this argument gets trotted out periodically, and it's gibberish. ISOs aren't <i>going</i> through the roof - they <i>went</i> through the roof. Do not expect a continued increase in high-ISO sensitivity. Someone who says there's no benefit to a faster aperture has never tried to shoot in a restaurant, or under candlelight, or at dusk, or... Were those aurorae hand-held? On top of this, aperture gives you subject separation. See what a Noctilux can do and tell me you can get the same out of an f/2 50mm lens. Admittedly, f/1.4 is only one stop, but it's a stop that can matter (and enough to make people want to buy an FX camera rather than a DX one).</p>

 

<blockquote>On the other hand, Zeiss are not saying theirs is apochromatic</blockquote>

 

<p>They are. This is the main thing that interests me, it also being the primary reason I own a 200 f/2.<br />

<br />

Currently, I'm in Dieter's camp - though I bought the AF-S for the optics. I wonder whether that's just the case because I can't find a 50mm that I like, however. If the Zeiss solved my objections with current 50mm technology, it might become a focal length I liked more. Which it had better be if I resorted to spending that much money on it...</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Arriving later this month eh? So Zeissina have finally got a round Tuit.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Joe that is just so bad...I am still laughing...:-)</p>

<p> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Andrew, quite right. They are indeed saying it is APO, in which case it's a better deal than than the Leica APO Summicron 50mm: if $4000 counts as a better deal. The ASPH Summilux f1.4 though is also $4000.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>Lloyd Chambers weighs in:<br>

http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-Otus-55f1_4.html</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Currently, I'm in Dieter's camp...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not quite I suppose - a $4000 50mm lens doesn't even make it onto my list of desirable lenses and I don't even spend a millisecond considering one. That's despite the desirable attributes ASPH and APO - the overwriting disqualifying one is "50mm". Luckily for Zeiss and Leica, not all seem to think like me ;-)</p>

<p>One thing the enormous price tag of this offering (and the APO Summicron-M) tells me is that one should stop asking for improvement of the more "affordable" lenses currently offered - if indeed implemented, a price increase by a factor of ten might be the price to be paid...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>the overwriting disqualifying one is "50mm". Luckily for Zeiss and Leica, not all seem to think like me ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dieter, actually the new Zeiss lens is a 55mm (fifty-<strong>five</strong>), not 50mm. Now, would you re-consider since you are getting an extra 5mm? :-)</p>

<p>I am also no fan of the 50mm lens. Way back when I bought my first SLR (a Minolta SRT-101) in the 1970's, I bought the Minolta 58mm/f1.4 lens as a kit. Later on I switched to Nikon and never bought any 50mm lens again until 2011, mainly because the 50mm/f1.8 AF-S is so affordable. I always have some Nikon zoom that covers 50mm, though.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Now, would you re-consider since you are getting an extra 5mm? :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OMG, that changes everything! Thanks for pointing that out Shun - I just pre-ordered the lens as I can't possibly live without it now and can't wait until I can hold it in my hands and fondle it ;-) </p>

<p>Actually, it changes nothing at all - whatever there is in the range from 45mm to 60mm is of no particular interest to me - whether on FX or DX.</p>

<p>I do like the 35mm focal length on DX though - but maybe only because it was the only option of a fast prime for DX. The 28/1.8G that was released later but is a lot more expensive and quite a bit larger too.</p>

<p>Owning both the Nikon 35/1.8G and a Leica Summicron-M 35/2 ASPH made me quite cautious about the alleged superiority of a lens that costs 15x as much - using both on a NEX 6 I am very hard pressed to tell the results apart. And on FX, the Sigma 35/1.4 gives the Leica lens a run for less than a third of the price (and a full f-stop to boot).</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Well, likewise I'm not a fan of 50mm, I just can't tell whether it's because I've never found a 50mm that I like or whether it's because I actually don't find the focal length appealing. I'm prepared for someone to buy me one of these, and I'll promise to report back, though.<br />

<br />

The thing that interests me is that I can already buy a 150mm apochromat (ish) from Sigma, and my 200mm Nikkor is already apochromatic. The new Zeiss 135 is pretty close to this goal as well, but I'm not sure I can justify one since the previous two lenses are already substituting for my 135 f/2 DC. (Plus I'm not making <i>that</i> much money.) Maybe an 85mm f/1.4 with similar qualities would tempt me more than the 55mm - I went for the budget option in that category too.<br />

<br />

I've actually not put a zoom that covers 50mm on my D800 for a while. The 28-200 I used to carry around doesn't really keep up with the sensor, and I've not tested my 28-80 yet. I'm clearly not missing it enough to buy a 24-70, though some third party options look vaguely appealing. I did buy a 35mm to fill the 24mm-70mm gap with something other than a 50mm prime.<br />

<br />

The primary effect of it being a 55mm is that I can never remember its focal length. I keep mixing it up with a Noct-Nikkor. I wonder how it compares with a Coastal Optics macro?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Owning both the Nikon 35/1.8G and a Leica Summicron-M 35/2 ASPH made me quite cautious about the alleged superiority of a lens that costs 15x as much - using both on a NEX 6 I am very hard pressed to tell the results apart.</blockquote>

 

<p>Well there's your problem. You should be using it directly on a Leica camera to get the magic. (Actually, LensRentals did do a recent post on the quality of adaptors, so that's only partly a facetious statement.)<br />

<br />

The more I look at this thread, the more I wish they'd picked a different name. Mostly because the pronunciation is similar to the name of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortis_Deley">a former presenter of the Gadget Show</a> who was especially annoying. (Personal opinion based on presenting style, I'm sure he's lovely in real life.)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Just read Lloyd's review (and looked at the images). Damn. Now I want one, if more for the characteristics than the focal length. Though I'd have been more convinced if he'd come up with something to complain about. I'll await other reviews with interest, since I'm not going to have the money to put down on one of these for quite some time...</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>looks like a lovely lens for d800e owners who can actually justify such a purchase. it would have been nice to know, however, how many tries it took Lloyd to nail that focus at 1.4.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I'm with Eric on this one.</p>