Zeiss Otus--I guess I've gone truly insane...

[iiiNelson]

3D-KRAFT tested some 50mm lenses including OTUS 55mm.
http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151&catid=40&Itemid=2

I’d say my personal experience was about 100% in line with this test.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Those are very poor examples of what the Leica Noctilux and Summilux can produce . I am dropping out of this thread ...I ve done my research ,tested the actual lenses and stand by my conclusions . Your experience may be different .

I look at my images at 200% on a 5K iMac for resolution and full screen for aesthetic . Not sure how the tester could make the color so far off and claim to be relevant evaluations . Take a look at Diglloyd s tests if you want to see real comparisons that you can evaluate .

Keep in mind I am not saying the Sony lenses isn t a good choice ..size,native AF ,cost ,balance on camera ..all big pluses . But its not nearly as close on IQ (to the OTUS) as that test implies .

 

[pegelli]

I don't have (and never tested) a Noctilux or Summilux so can't comment on those results. I only have an old Summicron 50 (1958 "Dual Range") that I will not choose for sharpness but for the (very subjective) lovely smooth rendering and fall-off that's special and can't be reproduced with any other nifty 50 that I have or have used.

On the other hand in the linked test I can clearly see how the Otus in both sharpness (detail and microcontrast) and field curvature beats the Sony/Zeiss 55 but in these examples the more subjective rendering I can't see too much difference. Only the bokeh at 1.4 for the Otus is a bit smoother than at 1.8 for the Sony/Zeiss but I think that's just 2/3 stop more dof.

And as in every test you shouldn't take it as an absolute, it's just another datapoint among many. Methods and results differ between tests, even when only test charts are involved and even more, like in this case, when live scenes are taken.

Anyway, I value all the information provided by all in this thread, so thanks!

 

[iiiNelson]

I don't have (and never tested) a Noctilux or Summilux so can't comment on those results. I only have an old Summicron 50 (1958 "Dual Range") that I will not choose for sharpness but for the (very subjective) lovely smooth rendering and fall-off that's special and can't be reproduced with any other nifty 50 that I have or have used.

On the other hand in the linked test I can clearly see how the Otus in both sharpness (detail and microcontrast) and field curvature beats the Sony/Zeiss 55 but in these examples the more subjective rendering I can't see too much difference. Only the bokeh at 1.4 for the Otus is a bit smoother than at 1.8 for the Sony/Zeiss but I think that's just 2/3 stop more dof.

And as in every test you shouldn't take it as an absolute, it's just another datapoint among many. Methods and results differ between tests, even when only test charts are involved and even more, like in this case, when live scenes are taken.

Anyway, I value all the information provided by all in this thread, so thanks!

I don’t have extensive experience with a Noctilux. I’ve used one on exactly two separate occasions. It’s a great lens without a doubt but it does cover a niche. The Summilux I owned....

I agree with Roger in the sense that these aren’t the best representation of that lens as it looks like it was misfocused in some shots. When I did my own tests they were with the Summilux being used on my own on the M9’s and not on a Sony but the ultimate conclusion was the samee. The 55/1.8 (at least the one I personally own) was just as good if not better at the pixel level as it applies to sharpness across the frame (whether used on the original A7 or the A7R). I understand that the Sony had more resolution than the M9 but I wanted to put each lens in their optimal setting for my usage. Maybe my test wasn't the most scientific but it applied to how I’d use each lens. The 50 Summilux is less than optimal on an unmodified Sony... whether that’s because of lens design or not is an argument for another day but in general I had much better luck with Zeiss and Voigtlander M lenses (regardless of focal length) on Sony than Leica lenses FWIW. I don’t know if it’s a matter of Leica having Aspherical lenses which creates a different ray angle or lack of profile. In any case you will have less headache by using them on M cameras if you build your system around them... if you just want the Leica look... invest in R lenses (or SLR lenses in general).

Again to answer your original question and as you can see the Otus has something special going on with it. Whether the increased cost and size is worth it is subjective. Few people complain about it optically though. Those that do usually just realize it’s not the lens for them. Nothing wrong with either decision and at this level of quality we are all really nitpicking. A great photo can be taken with any of these lenses when given their ideal environment to shine. I think that fact gets lost when trying to contrast the differences between lenses for common (I hesitate to use the word normal) usage. In an effort to highlight what is largely subtle, but real, optical differences between premium lenses I believe that it’s human nature to ”color” the commentary comparative and superlative words in an effort to bring about the points. Again there are differences that are in fact real but how much they matter is in fact subjective to the individual user. What I personally can appreciate about sites like DXO is that they can present data with minimal conjecture... but what I dislike about those sites is that it leads to fanboyism for the ignorant (in the truest sense of the word that just means unknowing) that may not understand or consider the nuances of the data and how it may or may not be a benefit for some photography... but this is the age of the internet and subsequently arguments must be made.

 

[drunkenspyder]

Okay, this is embarrassing. I have the three Otus 28/55/85 lenses that I used on all my most recent Nikons before switching over to the Sony. I just assumed I would be selling them, because . . . well, that's why it's embarrassing. But now I've got to get that Metabones adapter and see what's what.

Granted, my primary reason for switching to Sony was to get a system better suited to wildlife and lightweight travel, when I didn't need anything MF or it was too bulky/slow to use, and with better AF/Eye/Wildlife than the Z7—though occasionally I still miss the AF on my D850. So, I would not be inclined to haul the Otus lenses around very often, but it would still be nice to have the option. Also, I am going to have to compare the Voigt 50/2 Lanthar with the Otus. Just to see.

Addendum: As I started to look more thoroughly, I came across this Commlite adapter. Seems like it would permit me to use a number of my lenses on the A7r iv. Anyone have experience with it?

 

[B L]

Nikon to Sony adapters:
https://briansmith.com/nikon-lens-adapters-sony-e-mount-cameras/

 

[JoelM]

I use a commlite (or clone) with the Nikkor 24mm 1.8 lens. Focus, readout, and exif data all work great. I had used it in the past with the 300 f2.8 and it also worked well. I use it on the a7rii, btw.

Joel

 

[DougDolde]

I have a hard time believing Otus lenses are worth the money considering their size, weight and cost. Not to mention lack of autofocus.

 

[jeffreybehr]

I have a hard time believing Otus lenses are worth the money considering their size, weight and cost. Not to mention lack of autofocus.

I too used to think that...until I tried a couple.. While the 85 proved too heavy for my weight-restricted right shoulder, the 55 is a keeper for me.

PS. I'm keeping my Batis 85.

 

[B L]

I have a hard time believing Otus lenses are worth the money considering their size, weight and cost. Not to mention lack of autofocus.

Dear Doug, I heard someone say big is beautiful.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Here is Peter Coulson camera bag content:

https://shotkit.com/peter-coulson/

Jeez I spent a whole day with him in NYC in OCT . We talked at length about HB and Sony both about equipment but also about the companies themselves . He is a HB ambassador and surely doesn t want to say anything negative about their gear . But he demonstrated how he uses the Sony for several shooting scenarios and he is quite pleased with what he can accomplish . He still has a complete set of HB gear for his studio but when he is on the road ..his go to kit is the Sony A7R 3 and the Zeiss OTUS Lenses 55/85/105 .:banghead: