I ABSOLUTELY LOVE my otus lenses. I have all 4 and wouldn't have it any other way. Good as gold.

@sayeduzzamanrayan9387

Ай бұрын

Defintely costs as much, weight wise

Hard to justify considering the Sigma 105mm f1.4 is also optically excellent, does feature AF and is MUCH cheaper

@Twobarpsi

Жыл бұрын

Great points!

@niceyesplease

Жыл бұрын

Or the 75 1.2 Viltrox 😄

@sharpskilz

Жыл бұрын

pretty sure their 105 f2.8 is fine for 99 percent of photographers. This is for the pricey gear flex heads.

@nogerboher5266

Жыл бұрын

Actually, it's really easy to justify the price, because in the real world, people don't pixel peep ''bokeh,'' corner sharpness, aberrations or other trivial nonsense. No sane photographer ever does that. You won't find any other lens in existence that render images as stunningly as the 55mm, 85mm and 100mm Otus lenses from Zeiss. The only other three lenses that come even remotely close to the 100mm Otus, are the Irix 150mm f/2.8, the Schneider Kreuznach 150mm f2.8 for the Phase One XF system and the Hasselblad 150mm f3.4 for the Hasselblad H system... Sigma can't even make a lens that renders depth, saturation and contrast properly, let alone anything else... Not to mention the lack of ''3D'' rendering that you would otherwise get with Zeiss, Leica, Hasselblad, Phase One or Irix lenses in the same focal range. Even worldwide famous photographers like Yulia Gorbachenko, Peter Coulson, Bella Kotak and many others, who shoot on Hasselblad and Phase One, give endless praise and swear by the Otus line of lenses. Sigma doesn't even remotely compare to the 1.4/100 Otus.

@niceyesplease

Жыл бұрын

@@nogerboher5266 what do you say about the RF 85 1.2, I have heard it rivals Zeiss Otus quality in all those terms you have described. I still do not think that many people would actually see the difference betwenn the Zeiss, Nikon or Sigma.

I've been waiting for you to tackle these Otus lenses. Thanks for doing this.

Hey! Loving the posibility of getting in touch with something that probably will never ever will be capable of buying! hahaha. Nice review, superb lens. Thanks Chris!

ZEISS also sells a manual 135 f/2 in their Milvus line for less than half the price of the Otus 100 f/1.4 The 135 is spectacular, weather sealed and crazy sharp.

@whitebuffalo4904

Жыл бұрын

The previous 135/2 APO-Sonar is to this day the greatest lens I have ever used.

@dbasarich

8 ай бұрын

@@whitebuffalo4904 Is that the first round of ZE lenses that zeiss had for DSLR cameras? That's one of the lenses I really wanted. I might buy a used one. I am still using my Canon 85 1.2 which was around the same price.

@dbasarich

8 ай бұрын

I would love to see a hands on comparison between the Otus 100 and Milvus 135 for portraits and general people photos. I would assume both to be super.

Hello from Montreal! Thanks for always sharing the best content in in KZread. Happy New Year 👍🤗✨🎊

Thanks Chris! Happy new year!

I absolutely adore your lens reviews, particularly how they've evolved and improved over the years. The best on KZread. By far. I have a suggestion for a very minor additional bit of information that honestly shouldn't cost you any real time and effort to include. Just as you always describe at what point stopping down will improve vignetting, close-up image quality, and longitudinal chromatic aberration, some lenses improve bokeh ball roundness with very little stopping down, while others must be stopped down a lot. My Sigma 85mm f/1.4 produces edge-to-edge, perfectly round balls at only f/2. A Tamron 85mm takes much more stopping down to achieve the roundness effect but by then the balls are much smaller. I make this suggestion, not as a criticism, but out of love for you and your channel.

@matthewneleigh567

Жыл бұрын

I'm going to second this- I've oft wondered what shape bokeh balls (or polygons as the case may be...) take as some of the reviewed lenses are stopped down.

@RealRaynedance

Жыл бұрын

That bokeh ball roundness is also part of vignetting, and actually from the same type of vignetting that causes the light falloff. Agreed that it would be an interesting test for really fast primes as a subset of the bokeh testing like longitudinal CA is, but someone correct me if I'm wrong, you _should_ be able to make a fair guess at how bokeh ball roundness would improve by how much the light falloff improves with stopping down. I don't have either of the Sigma 85s, so I can't vouch for that lens in particular.

@SilverLarry

Жыл бұрын

@@RealRaynedance Interesting. Thank you.

One of the reasons this lens is so expensive is how it focuses blue and UV light. Makes a difference under some light conditions

@MattTrevett

Жыл бұрын

Wow that would really be an important factor in this review. Thanks for posting the comment.

@dbasarich

8 ай бұрын

I have owned Sigma-Canon-Nikon multiple off brands and multiple Zeiss lenses.....and unless you need autofocus the Zeiss has the best color separation under all lighting conditions.

the color of this lens is beautiful. It project a 3D looks, the ofjects really pop out.

This lens is just an incredible beast hands down

100mm lenses so underrated. they has less geometric distortion than 85mm for portraits but more versatile than 135mm indoors

@janihonkala8154

Жыл бұрын

Höpö höpö.😂

@dbasarich

8 ай бұрын

I want to replace my Canon 1.2 L 85mm with the Zeiss 100 or 135mm Milvus. I would assume that 100mm Zeiss would better my Canon 85 1.2 USM L lens across the board.

Chris, I've been watching your reviews for over six years now and I really appreciate your invaluable contribution to the photography world. I've a small bit of criticism regarding the image quality chart portion: Corner vs center sample inconsistency isn't too uncommon in your videos. In this video we only have one center sample at f/1.4 and four corner samples at f1.4/2.8/4/11. We never get to see what the center looks like at any other f-stop but f/1.4. A disappointing withholding for such a high quality lens. Thanks again for all your reviews.

@christopherfrost

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for your comment! The reason I don't go back to check the middle of the chart when the image quality there was completely sharp at a brighter setting is simply because the image quality there will not deteriorate upon stopping down, except for softening due to diffraction (which I cover when looking at corner image quality). So there's no point going back to check the middle again and again - it'll still be more or less as sharp

@christopherfrost

Жыл бұрын

I can confirm though that this lens became razor sharp in the middle at f/2.

Two things disturbed me in this video. The intro and the fingerprints on that lens. what a magnet!

I love the portraits of your wife. She is so photogenic and so natural.

Would be interested in you doing a review of the Nikon 105 1.4 E lens, and maybe compare with the Sigma 105 1.4 - just a thought. Nice review of the Otus :) -PD

Looking forward to the DG DN mirrourless versions of the ART 105mmF1.4 and 135mmF1.8!

Any chance of a review of the Tamron 50-400 any time soon? God bless and Happy New Year, Mr Frost!

@christopherfrost

Жыл бұрын

Yes, when I can get hold of one :-)

That Book test was a selling point back then showing that these Otus Lenses had no aberration. Text was black before and after focus. But I believe there seems some slight quality variation between individual lenses. Maybe they just couldn’t nail it in their mass production. But still, if you pay that price, than you want a true apochromatic lens. But still, there’s something about these Zeiss images I really like, especially the “bite” that comes from these lenses.

Very nice review! Do you expect Samyang, Sigma, and other lens companies will continue releasing any future DSLR lenses?

i'm surprised it did not impress you as much as the Sigma...and that it was not technically superior. That being said i have the Sigma and the Otus 55mm and i use both in my portrait work and i agree the way an Otus lens renders with its contrast and bokeh...it separates subjects like nothing else and with such dreamy backgrounds...the Sigma 105mm is magical too and i have the Sigma 85mm Art but the 105mm is just something more special. I use the Otus primarily for wide open moody shots and the Sigma for standard portraits...very happy to see you tackle another Otus 🤗👍🏻

@ralphsaad8637

Жыл бұрын

He does say that the otus is better, however the price really is extravagant.

Do you refocus if you look at corner sharpness? Some lenses don't have a flat focal plane of not all making corner sharpness tests with the focus set in the center kinda unaccurate.

Happy new year by the way 🎉

Chris, can you do a review on Z50mm f1.2 versus Nikon F200mm f2 , I like to see the bokeh rendition. Happy New Year. Cheers

The Zeiss images will always look way more special than the sigma, that price though! I agree that lens makers should explore the 100-105mm range for prime lenses more, it offers the best rendering of face features. I find that 85mm can still show the slightest amount of distortion upclose.

@oliverlison

Жыл бұрын

I love working with Zeiss lenses. I am using 6 Milvus and classic lenses. The Otus line-up is very impressive and at the same time those lenses are not very practical. All Otus lenses are very big and heavy. My Milvus 85/1.4 is already large in diameter and heavy at 2.8lbs. the large diameter makes it difficult to grap accordingly and I have big hands. Therefore is my least used lens. I prefer the 2/50 for most of my stuff. The prices of the Otus are not insane. The Nikkor 58/0.95 is insane. In the end counts what story are you able to tell and not the lens nor the camera. Zeiss images may look different but no one will ask what lens was being used for a particular job.

@ralphsaad8637

Жыл бұрын

@oliver Lison I do believe lenses can help you achieve a particular look naturally that may befit your style and thus enhance your photography. It doesn't have to be very expensive gear. For example my favorite lens is my 300$ tamron 45mm f1.8 which has a combination of great color tones, contrast, bokreh, and sharpness that give the image that I personally love. Didn't get the sigma 50mm f1.4 as the images seemed a bit flat, uninspiring and the colors were tinted towards warm/green tones.

I was thinking of this one some years ago but I went for the Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art

I own this lens and use adapted to my hasselblad x1d and fujifilm gfx 50s medium format mirrorless cameras and it is my all time favorite portraits lens. I also own zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm F2, samyang 85mm f1.2, zeiss milvus 50mm f1.4 and previously owned Sigma 105mm f1.4 art and Sigma 135mm f1.8 art lenses. Also used most other modern 85mm f1.4 lenses and 70-200mm f2.8 lenses. If you look at the image quality aspects on a technical level (test charts or brick walls), you truly miss out why this lens is the hands down best portraits lens ever made. Yes it has some vignette, yes it is almost 5000$, yes it is manual focus only, yes, there is no weather sealing gasket. But this is the flagship lens from prestigious Carl Zeiss company. To fully appreciate this lens, you would be working on a tripod and full zoomed in the eye for critical focusing and this lens does magic unlike any lens out there for full body environmental portraits. its rendering, micro contrast and amazing color rendition will cause your jaw drop specially when looking at images coming from a medium format mirrorless camera such as i mentioned above. Dear chris, can i suggest you to speak more about the overall rendering aspects of lens in your lens reviews in 2023 as technical aspects alone does not justify some truly exceptional lenses and this is coming from someone who thinks you are one of the very best camera and lenses reviewers on youtube. Seriously this in my opinion, this best commercially available lens on planet earth and no lens can deliver the same overall look to the images that this monster will give if you are patient and want nothing but the best. Cheers

@Testprinz

Ай бұрын

This is very good. I think so too and i have the Otus 55 mm 1.4.

What a lens!

can focus guise apply on it?

This is as good as a lens can be at this size. The bokeh shape distortion and vignetting comes with the size limitation. They obvioualy do not care for breathing. Everything else appears to be perfectly corrected.

The 105mm from Sigma is amazing.

6:28 - I want to give you a tip that might change your life! I see you tried to slow down your video (thus producing choppiness). If using Premiere Pro, right click on the footage (after you time stretched it), click on the "speed/duration" option. You should now see a section relating to the type of frames (I can't remember exactly, but if you look, you'll find what I'm referring to), click the drop down, and click on "optical flow" or something to that effect. Hit okay then bomb out of it. Play that portion of the clip, and nothing has (seemingly) changed - this is normal. When you render your video, that section with the optical flow will be smooth like butter (it artificially fills the frames), this works well unless it's fast paced footage, in which case it will create glitchy frames. Prior to rendering, you can test to see how it looks by creating an "in" marker (by hitting "i" on the keyboard) at the beginning of the stretched clip, and an "out" marker ("o" on the keyboard) at the end of that clip. Now go to the top menu bar, drop down "Sequence" menu, click on something like "render frames in to out" or something to that effect, and it will temporarily render that section so you can see if the optical flow is doing the job well enough to taste. I hope this helps!

If you find it, try the Zeiss Classic Apo Sonnar 135mm f2, it's outstanding and you can buy it for 1.000£ or less. Ciao!

@alberte58

Жыл бұрын

I have one for f-mount (ZF.2) and love it. Excellent quality and much cheaper.

@LucaBono.Studio

Жыл бұрын

@@alberte58 yeah, I've too and I love it! Cheers!

It has better depth transition than the Sigma 105, which makes subjects look cut out and placed on the smooth background (the Sigma) vs a more spaced out transition zone of focus with the Zeiss.

@frontstandard1488

9 ай бұрын

IMO of course. Just a preference.

I always say "Howdy everyone" with you when you start your videos. When you don't do it, then I get sad :(

The slight softness at 1.4 and the heavy vignetting is claimed to be part of the Zeiss design. The softness and dark corners is for portraiture. Many of their lenses exhibit this.

Colours?

Thanks for the video. "I'm glad your mama has good temper and you're still alive." :) TBH I could not afford for this premium lenses, but I using an alternative solution: Olympus E-5 + Fotodiox "C/Y-to-43 adapter" + Contax C/Y ZEISS Planar T* 50mm f/1.4. This setup would equivalent to 100mm and f/2.8 DoF in 135 format.

i wish this could be on FE mount ;) of course AF :) but that would be like 4k or more ;)

Even though it would still be really expensive, bringing this lens to a ~2000 price point would actually be realistic.

@jankompan

Жыл бұрын

Manual focus and no weather sealing ? Well and sharpness isnt there. Canon RF 85 1.2 .... with perfect focusing, perfect sharpness and second to none build quality is 1500 euro cheaper :) . So even 2000 is too expensive ..

You're paying for the Zeiss microcontrast but it's disappointing to lack so many features at that price

The almost perfect sharpness wide open isn't a problem if you shoot portrait, it softens the skin a little. And it's a tread-off for the most beautiful bokeh you'll ever see !

That was an unsually upbeat review for a Zeiss lens from you, I feared far worse 😉 Unfortunately, it's rather a dull time of year for an outdoor test, as where this lens really excells is combining great colours (nature, portraits) and smooth backgrounds. That's still quite unique for a bright apo lens. The catseye bokeh is just a consequence of the front lens diameter - the lens would have to be even larger and heavier to reduce this further.

Looks like a fingerprint magnet!

Nice images, but this is heavily leaning on brand reputation. Objectively, a lens at that price should be damned near perfect , and this falls short of quite a few technical markers. I agree with the comment below that it is more realistically a £2000 lens, and even then would still be trading on the premium that Zeiss commands. 'Third party' manufacturers are very impressive these days, and in many respects, out perform the established brands for half the price!

The Otus 1,4/85mm has less longitudinal chromatic aberration.

That price is outright robbery, even if it had AF it'd still be twice what it should be. The performance is barely any better than the Viltrox 75mm f/1.2, it's insane.

@imharikrish

Жыл бұрын

Exactly my thoughts! For almost 1/9th of the price, Viltrox XF 75 1.2 is a far better deal!

awesome lens! I just cant afford this lol too pricey..😅😅

Still waiting to hear whether Fuji’s new Xh2 with higher density APSC sensor and 56mm 1.2 mkii really does outperform the sharpness of full frame sensors with a variety of macro lenses…. Nikon z7 with 105mm mc certainly seemed weaker as did the Sony A7R II with Voight 110mm macro.

@Bayonet1809

Жыл бұрын

Why compare the 56/1.2 to full frame macro lenses, why not to 85/1.2 or 85/1.4?

@roscot40

Жыл бұрын

@@Bayonet1809 normally macros are among the sharpest. When watching earlier videos of the latest macros for Nikon et all, I noticed in the recent 56mm 1.2 R WR that it seemed to resolve more detail than those FF offerings. I wanted to know whether this was merely a codec thing on Frost’s side or whether the Fuji XH2 with new 56mm actually out-resolved the FF macro combos. My question was to him as I doubt anyone else has tested this stuff yet. I didn’t mean to trigger any FF fanboys. This was just an observation taken from watching Chris’s videos.

@Bayonet1809

Жыл бұрын

@@roscot40 The new Fuji 56/1.2 is really good, I agree, and yes, I would like to see a comparison to full frame lenses. Although I don't think Chris could possibly isolate all variables in such a test without an optical bench like the guys at lensrentals have. I thought comparisons to the best full frame 85mm portrait lenses made the most sense considering that the Fuji itself is a portrait lens. A comparison to the Fuji GF 110/2 on a 50MP GFX would also be interesting. I am hardly a full frame fanboy; I have APS-C, full frame, and 44x33mm medium format cameras, and am rooting for all of them to do the best they can.

@roscot40

Жыл бұрын

@@Bayonet1809 I think we both know that even an original GFX 50s with GF110mm is going to destroy any fidelity arguments against an APSC sensor, but FF is definitely interesting to me. I’m just wondering if the high pixel density on these sensors and the exponentially more powerful processors is really is starting to make more of an impact on image resolution than the normally accepted high quality glass argument. Imagine a GFX with 160MP (640MP pixel shift) and the GF120mm or 110mm… for most people overkill, but for those of us printing archival 600dpi at A0+… You get my point.

Technologies like AF and IS can be very useful in a lens and might seem like a glaring omission in the Otus range. But AF and IS add a lot of complexity and can in time fail. On an Otus there's not a lot to go wrong, so perhaps an Otus will still be going strong decades from now when the hi-tech lenses make nice paperweights. Zeiss lenses are built to last a lifetime. The build and optical quality of the Otus 100 have much in common with Zeiss's Supreme Prime 100mm T1.5 cine lens that costs over £18,000.

Hmpf. maybe for in studio still life or 2d repro work. I think the quality of this lens was intended to appeal to owners of large megapixel Full frame systems and for certain medium format systems, but at a time close to their initial release when there weren't as yet many native lenses made for them. If you're using a camera of smaller than 45/50 megapixels, it's benefits might be wasted. Sigma art lenses from the same time would probably be a better choice bang for buck sharpness wise. Bokeh quality may be another matter. I recall one flagship sigma art lens was stunningly sharp, but that translated to the bokeh balls having sharp edges too, so less "creamy".

@Bayonet1809

Жыл бұрын

This Zeiss 100/1.4 was actually the last lens released by Zeiss. It came out after the Sigma 105/1.4.

Nice review as always!👋 you should have tested the otus lenses on a 5DSR instead of the r5 with adapter😉. I personally own the 55mm 1.4 and i was blown away by its rendering at release. I preordered it and dont regret it (rented and tested it first). Its worth every hard earned cent for me...Till today, it is my favourite lens of all time. It is truly spectacular, a joy to use with its buttery focus ring and i enjoy it so much in practice. I later bought the 85 1.4 too and it is a masterpiece too (superb IQ,ever better corrected than the 55, but superheavy). love the bokeh too💥I cant work all day long with the 85 because of his weight. The 55 is in my opinion the otus to buy... The 24 and 100 are beautiful too, but are like the 85, a bit too heavy in weight.

I have this persistent idea that Zeiss lenses deliver better color rendition. Perhaps it's just my mind. Thanks for the review!

@peterebel7899

Жыл бұрын

They are great - but I prefer some samples of the Milvus line over the Otus. I love the by far better versatility of my three (50mm Macro, 100mm 2.0, 135mm 2.0), every has weather sealing and the same color rendition, all three together did cost by far less than this heavy 100 biest.

It's funny that at this price you can get both Fujinon GF110mmF2 and GF80mmF1.7 😅

@tiziocaio8657

Жыл бұрын

I have Fuji GF lenses and they are incredible, but tbh Leica and Zeiss colours are slightly better

The thing is, the guys at lensrentals made the observation, that there was a jump in the second half of last decade regarding the ability to develop, engineer and manufacture glass elements for lenses. The reason why Zeiss lenses dont live up to their decade long hype and enormous price is that basically everyone else caught up with the advance of tech, Zeiss camera lens dept meanwhile hopes less knowlegeable people will still buy to the hype

@frontstandard1488

9 ай бұрын

Zeiss lenses, for all their flaws, have wonderful colour. It makes digital look like film almost. The saturation and contrast are what make them work IMO. You either like it or not. The corner sharpness they achieved a decade ago (on old, small f and ef mounts) is perhaps because these lenses are almost medium format, and it took making new, much wider mounts plus the new lens technologies to catch up. Says a lot for Zeiss imo. Nothing wrong with using an old lens though, and the build quality is a bonus to those who appreciate it. Heavy sure but we can build muscles and strength to cope with that.

For such a luxury product, they really ought to try to make it look better

yeah...Zeiss Otus 100 thingy...I got two, one for sundays...really...not my box of frogs...certainly not at this price. I stick with my Fuji XF collection. Suits me down to the ground...that lot.😏

You have a very patient wife to pose all the time. I hope you pay her a percentage of the lens cost. Thank you I do value your lens tests.

These Otus lenses definitely need a price reduction. They simply don't make sense compared to more modern optics.

@oliverlison

Жыл бұрын

Have a look at the Contax 645 2/80. It goes for a fortune now. 10 years ago, I should have bough the entire stock. It is too expensive now for a lens of the 2000s

Its definitely another 3D machine in the Otus range that I had to look at the Sigma 105mm 1.4 review to compare it, and no the Zeiss definitely has the Dimensionality of a typical Zeiss and Leica lens. The Sigma looks very nice and I'm sure it can produce Dimensionality, but I would expect it to be of a lessor degree of 3D effect. Mind you I have the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art and people say its not very good at 3D rendering, but mine is very good at times giving that slight holographic 3D effect which I didn't expect after the way reviewers speak about it. I prefer this Zeiss over the Sigma. The cats eye specular highlights on the Sigma wrecked it for me. But this Zeiss lens is too expensive. Oh and I like the way the Sigma 105mm can work on a 20 mega pixel Canon 6D and also work on a 42 mega pixel Sony A7Rii. Unlike a Fujifilm lens can work on its 16 mega pixel camera, and a 24 mega pixel on and 26 mega pixel camera, but cannot work on a 40 mega pixel Fuji camera. Its a 14 mega pixel increase or 34% increase in pixel density and half of Fujis lenses and more cannot resolve their 40 mega pixel XH2 and XT5. But a 20mp Canon to 42mp which is more than a 50% increase in pixels on full frame - and no problem for the Sigma! But also Christopher puts the Sigma 105mm onto a Sony apsc 24mp which translates to a 57 mega pixel sensor if it were full frame, and the 24mp sensor did great. So that sigma surely will work well on 50 mega pixel Sony A1 and Sony A7Riv 61 mega pixel sensor. So I do not get how Fujifilm cameras with 40mp cannot resolve half of its lens range and is clearly having diffraction issues at all apertures caused by airy disks. Plus some of the approved lenses also do not look too great when compared to the 26mp and 24mp cameras, and these approved lenses are suffering from slight airy disk diffraction. And a Sigma 105mm 1.4 can eat up a Canon 6D with 20mp, eat up a Sony A7Rii with 42mp and it easily eats up a Sony apsc 24mp (which works out to 57mp for full frame density) images! What is wrong with Fujifilm - They can't make a lens and they can't make a camera, what a disastrous camera company!

Мне кажется советская оптика будет вечной с такими ценами на новую оптику.

@TheBlackFoxMaster

Жыл бұрын

Например Kaleinar-3B/Калейнар 3Б 150мм F3.5.

I wonder what that money for?

Zeiss 3D Pop ™

£3800 a bargain considering a pint of beer is now 5 quid, i'll take 2!

My mother would also kill me haha.

Zeiss are living in the past price wise. Charging a fortune for a dated design. Wonder how long the company can keep trading on its name?

Lost me at Manual Focus.. and for that price. I don't know.

I have that lens.. otherways its overpriced.. but! That 3D pop is awesome! Thats because i like that lens.

There is a super cheap alternative. The Zenit 100mm f1.5 with M42 mount. It is super rare but sells for around 100$ used. I got one in excellent condition for 120€ and use it with a macro screw adapter on my Sony full frame camera. The image quality is not as good as the lens in the video but you can get amazing photos. I would borrow you my lens if you organise the shipping and if you are interested.

Ouch.............thats about what Chris makes per video 🤐

Almost all the Zeiss lenses benchmark in a sub-par manner like this.. for this brand's hype and cost price i'd expect nothing short of pitch perfect stellar performance wide open and all across the aperature range. But is not so, its never so. I've personally used and tried dozens of Zeiss lenses that end up all being a cost/performance ratio disappointment. Even my (trusted, loved, beloved and forever to be kept) Sony RX-1II with it's 35mm F2 lens is never center razor sharp before F4 and the corners quite never sharp at any aperture, period. Some of the Chinese lenses like 7Artisan, TTartisan or even the absolutely killer new AF versions of the Viltroxes are where the money invested make seriously more sense than this overpriced "German" pseudo-awesomeness. Thank you for the video and happy new year 🎉🥳🎊🎈🎁🍾👯‍♀️📷

@oliverlison

Жыл бұрын

I am not really sure what you are talking about? I have been using Zeiss lenses for more than a decade. Admittingly, I have to say that some lenses should not be touched at all. Zeiss has those lenses but also others have these for sale in their line-up. All Sony-Zeiss lenses were developed by Sony with assistance from Zeiss. Zeiss approved the design and slapped their sticker on it. This has benefitted Sony and as everyone knows, Sony developed the GM Series. (Zeiss lenes on smartphones are sourced and matched with Zeiss' expertice in colour science for some markting hocus-pocus in return; meaning getting their name across China to sell some medical equipment etc in my opinion). Your Sony RX1 Zeiss lens dates back to 2010 or so. It was also not upgraded with the RX1 MKII. As having said, I am working with Zeiss lenses for more than a decade, owning 6 Milvus and classic lenses. I love working with them and everything that comes with manual focus. Many lenses have become stellars for me such as the 2/25 classic, the 2/50 Milvus and the 1.4/85 Milvus. Zeiss lenses are colour matched, have a high re-sale value. Yes, there are some things that some people don't like. Zeiss lenses for Nikon are usually sharper than their Canon equivalents. They are manual focus only, heavy and expensive. I am hoping for myself that I still can use my Zeiss lenses for another 10 to 15 years without seeing any degradation. Owning Zeiss lenses I am seeing Viltrox, 7Artisan or TTartisan to rise. All I see that those lenses want to be like Zeiss or Leica and basically stealing industrial designs from other companies. I am not talking about the optics but rather about the physical apperance. Viltrox is leaning their industrial design on Fujifilm, 7Artisan and TTartisan's look like Leica copies. with spelling errors. Therefore I cannot support them. If they would industrial design would be independed and not a look-a-like then it is a different story. And by the way, Chinese-made lenses are cheap because they flush everything down the Yangtze River. This is something that in Japan nor in Germany cannot be done. Protecting the environment costs a lot of money. But anyway, we won't get political here. In the end the maker of the lens does not matter. It is the story you are telling. Happy New Year to you.

@ralphsaad8637

Жыл бұрын

The only lenses in a full frame market that come close to the zeisses are the new RF lenses from Canon (at least in a Canon system). Their performance and rendering is proven at this point by the many reviewers who tested them snd were blown away by them.

I would nit-pick all day if it cost that much and wasn’t absolutely perfect in every way. I’d rather use an adapted Konica ar 135 😅

Nothing to right home about . It is ok but , the price . I don’t mind paying for the greatest , best , if you need it . This lens isn’t it . Nice review

Though the lens is superb… I cant help but feel that the mighty have fallen… With all of the lenses that offer near perfect image quality that have emerged in recent years, its hard for Zeiss to justify their over expensive MANUAL FOCUS lenses in today’s market… Though I’ve never tried the 85 Otus… I can’t imagine it being sharper than my RF 85 1.2… and for $4500, I dont care to find out… 😌

@nogerboher5266

Жыл бұрын

People who shoot with Otus lenses don't care about auto-focus or about pixel peeping sharpness, ca or bokeh. People who shoot with Otus lenses care about image output and rendering, not about trivial stuff discussed in this video. Shoot an image with a Sigma 1.4/105, Zeiss Otus 1.4/100, Leica 2/90 APO ASPH or even Zeiss 2/100 Makro-Planar and then place all 4 images side by side and you'll see and realize why worldwide famous photographers like, Bella Kotak, Yulia Gorbachenko or Peter Coulson praise and choose the 100mm Otus over the Sigma/Tamron/mount native equivalents.

@markdbey

Жыл бұрын

@@nogerboher5266 Agreed… Well said…

@Bayonet1809

Жыл бұрын

@@nogerboher5266 The entire point of the Otus line was supposed to be "pixel peeping sharpness". They were also marketed as Apochromatic, so should have no ca. And if bokeh was also unimportant then what do you suppose they were meant to be good at?

@Bayonet1809

Жыл бұрын

@@markdbey Why would you agree with such unquantified nonsense?

@nogerboher5266

Жыл бұрын

@@Bayonet1809 I'm sorry but that's flat out wrong. At the time of making Otus line of lenses, Zeiss was still under a 10 year partnership contract with Sony, where they have been experimenting in creating a wide variety of different lenses with different and newly engineered optics for the E mount. Basically an experimental period for both Zeiss and Sony. That's also the sole reason why the Sonys GM line of lenses even exists today - it's thanks to Sony-Zeiss partnership contract. The whole point of Otus line of lenses was for Zeiss to make lenses for Full Frame sensor cameras, that are able to mimic the soft and clean Medium Format look and feel of the old Zeiss lenses that Zeiss used to make for the Hasselblad V system - and at the time of making Otus lenses, Zeiss used Hasselblads latest H lenses and H5D 60MP digital back as a reference point. That's also the whole reason why the entire top 1% of the photography and cinema industries praise and swear by Otus lenses when they are not shooting on their PhaseOne or Hassy cameras. Nothing to do with pixel peeping sharpness, bokeh or anything else, the whole point of Zeiss making Otus lenses was to make a lens that has the three dimensional, soft and clean medium format look that the old Hasselblad V system lenses from Zeiss had. Best example is the legendary Zeiss Planar T* 80mm f2.8 CF (not CFi) lens aka. the king of portraiture. That was the goal and the goal was achieved successfully, so much so that almost every big name photographer and cinematographer you can think of swears by Otus lenses when they shoot Full Frame. (One more thing, Otus lenses were never advertised nor manufactured as true APO lenses - that's a flat out lie. )

$4.4k for a manual focus lens and no weather seal gasket ??? No thank you… i pick Canon RF 135mm F1.8 IS over this black hunk of metal any day !

That price is unjustifiable

I don't like the colors or the name. Sony lenses complete with this at a quarter of the price. But now I remember you had a macro lens review that knocked your socks off in most departments...now what was it...a 60?

I saw earlier few pictures from this lens. Bokeh in light environment looks like "blur" tool from GIMP. I like almost zero distortion here, but really. For the price of this lens you can afford a full frame mirrorless camera and a good lens with AF. And your images will be sharper, especially with eyes of your model due to great AF in modern camers. So, why you ever consider Zeiss 100mm? It's a good lens, but not worth the money. Example: Nikon Z7 + 50mm 1.2s is cheaper (and you can also add Z MC 105mm macro with little more, so you have camera and 2 great lenses with similar pirce). Sony A7 IV + any sigma 1.4 or Sony macro or Sony GM 85 1.4 or other lenses. Canon? Why not. R6 II gen + 85mm 1.2 is also cheapter than this Zeiss.

I think I'd prefer the Samyang 135mm F/1.8 over this one :)

nice lens, but price bad!

The only modern "crazy-stupid" lens that is worth it's stupid price is the Nikon Z noct 58mm 0.95. all the others look like same or worse than cheaper brands. I think only Leica will survive in the luxury lens market, and not because of its quality, which is clearly behind already.

Ciao😉

John's Gospel in Greek!

It's an older optical formula and just not at the level of something more up to date for mirrorless. Definitely in need of a price reduction given the gaps you demonstrated

Thanx for the review but im afraid this lens is now seriously outdated, sharpness should be perfect in the center @1.4 at this price. Also good luck carrying this lumb around on a wedding day 😉

Looks like a fingerprint magnet though, for such a high price only to be bested by a Sigma is kind of embarrassing considering Sigma does cut many corners to keep the pricing down but they cut the corners in all the best ways avoiding to hurt image quality, if I am not mistaken, Zeiss still hand assemble many their lenses "for premium" quality, which is a load of nonsense these days when machines can do a better job of it as Sigma has proven again and again.

Funny, otus means creature in Finnish. Lol, what s creature... Well, if your work, i mean a job demands such a quality, then go for it. Personally I don't believe any amateur even the most extrem one needs such a beast.

Who would have bought it? No AF, No IS, no weather sealing and so heavy for more than 4k? Better buy Canon RF 100mm macro

Zeiss Lenses and Binoculars are excellent, but Zeiss use rubbish rubber !!!

Has Zeiss stopped making lenses? What ever marginal advantage this lens has in image quality, it lost it when one looks at cost and usability!

Otus' lenses, super heavy and somewhat outdated. Sigma has passed them up for sharpness and rendering, and they also have autofocus and are much lighter.

@frankbregulla564

Жыл бұрын

color rendition way better on otus, own all otuses and lots of sigma arts,

@j.k5654

Жыл бұрын

Any lens maker can make sharp lenses. There is no competition in sharpness amongst makers. That’s for newbie’s… You fail to understand that the more sharpness you have, the less of other things you have. Lens making is about compromising everything. So again, any one can make crazy sharp lenses. They just choose not to.

Just curious, who evern pays this much to buy this lens? This is ridiculous! Viltrox XF 75mm 1.2 is a far better deal and the performance seems better!

So buy a sigma 105mm 1.4 Gotcha 😂

Again no coma check. I used to love your reviews cause you were testing lenses for coma. 99% of lens reviewers do not do it. And now for some reason you stop testing this... It really a pity.

@christopherfrost

Жыл бұрын

I only really check coma on wider angle lenses. It doesn't tend to be an issue on telephoto lenses unless the design is very seriously flawed

@martin9410

Жыл бұрын

I saw about 3 of his recent reviews just this month that did coma testing...so he hasn't discontinued it, except for this lens.

@Bayonet1809

Жыл бұрын

@@christopherfrost What about sunstars? They can be relevant on lenses of all focal lengths.

Lot of childlike/ignorant comments in this thread 😂 Embarrassing really

If that isn't the ugliest lens ever then I don't know what is...

Ridiculous money.

oh good. a $4000 f1.4 lens that had to be stopped down to f4 for good image quality. 🤡

@wilhelmw3455

Жыл бұрын

‘Stopped down to f1.4’ you mean stopped down from f1.4.

@cadenguizar8360

Жыл бұрын

@@wilhelmw3455 lmfao. oops

👌👌👌😘😘😘😘❣️❣️🇳🇪🇳🇪🙏💯🙏

Am I the only one who think these newer Zeiss lenses are just ridiculous ugly? IMO zeiss lens design housings peaked in 80s and 90s.