| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Posts: 7568
Location: Hong Kong
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 1:19 pm Post subject: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 on A7RII night |
 |
|
calvin83 wrote:
(The lens and the rayqual adapter I bought exclusive for this lens.)
One of the two APO Distagon designed for SLR cameras. This is a bulky lens which weighs near 1kg. Since the focus throw of this lens is pretty long and the sharpness is good enough even at wide open, I found it is easier to focus than my other fast lenses.
All photos taken mostly at F1.4 to F2.0. They are resized to 50% of the original raw file with the default Adobe Lightroom settings. It is best to download the photos and view it at 100%.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
Normally, I don’t post edited images. For this lens, I think it is worthy to post an edited version to show how much details can be recovered from the raw file.
Original:
Edited :Exposure +1.38, Highlights -60, Shadows +50
_________________
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jamaeolus
Joined: 19 Mar 2014
Posts: 2965
Location: Eugene
Expire: 2015-08-20
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jamaeolus wrote:
 very nice!
_________________
photos are moments frozen in time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Sharptail
Joined: 23 Nov 2020
Posts: 1198
Location: Winnipeg Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doc Sharptail wrote:
Interesting, and at times, strange rendering.
Definitely something happening with the 3-D pop- the rest is not really to my taste, but that's just me.
Enjoy the new toy!
-D.S.
_________________
D-810, F2, FTN.
35mm f2 O.C. nikkor
50 f2 H nikkor, 50 f 1.4 AI-s, 135 f3.5 Q,
50 f2 K nikkor 2x, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 35-105 3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 200mm f4 Micro A/I, partial list.
"Ain't no half-way" -S.R.V.
"Oh Yeah... Alright" -Paul Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11019
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
#8
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alex_d
Joined: 19 Jan 2019
Posts: 419
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex_d wrote:
while this lens has very good optics,
those pictures do not effectively represent its strength,
only good low light possibility wide open.
show us for what is this lens really made for ..
im curious ..
like a cat
.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun Thomas
Joined: 20 Aug 2018
Posts: 659
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alun Thomas wrote:
I think night shooting is a real torture test for some lens aberrations like flare, fringing or coma. I always try to do some when evaluating a lens. For myself it's also interesting to compare performance of a modern lens against older types. This Zeiss lens is very high performance but has not managed to completely eliminate some coma or very slight fringing outside the focal plane. I haven't tried any of my F/1.4 lenses at night lately, mostly playing around with F/1.8-2 lenses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 570
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
just amazing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 4015
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| Ultrapix wrote: |
| just amazing |
Really?
All those images are 10 MP - which is not a real test for modern high perfomance glass.
I have been shooting the Otus 1.4/28mm with 43 MP sensors in Rome (night time as well) around 2018; maybe I should publish those images ... 
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 570
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2023 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
| Ultrapix wrote: |
| just amazing |
Really?
All those images are 10 MP - which is not a real test for modern high perfomance glass.
I have been shooting the Otus 1.4/28mm with 43 MP sensors in Rome (night time as well) around 2018; maybe I should publish those images ...
S |
There are so many qualities (or faults) that an expert eye can detect even on small pictures; the absence of glow for example is so obvious on these pictures. I recognize these lenses even on a 2K movie on a laptop. Then if I am looking for effective sharpness I obviously may look at higher resolution samples. That said, I'll be very happy to see your Rome shots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018
Posts: 1264
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2023 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
except size and weight for a walk around lens, i just see it sooo.......yumy
everything is beautiful for wide open perfomance |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Posts: 7568
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2023 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
| jamaeolus wrote: |
| very nice! |
| Doc Sharptail wrote: |
Interesting, and at times, strange rendering.
Definitely something happening with the 3-D pop- the rest is not really to my taste, but that's just me.
Enjoy the new toy!
-D.S. |
  
| alex_d wrote: |
while this lens has very good optics,
those pictures do not effectively represent its strength,
only good low light possibility wide open.
show us for what is this lens really made for ..
im curious ..
like a cat
.. |
I think its strength is how it handles low light at wide open....
| Alun Thomas wrote: |
| I think night shooting is a real torture test for some lens aberrations like flare, fringing or coma. I always try to do some when evaluating a lens. For myself it's also interesting to compare performance of a modern lens against older types. This Zeiss lens is very high performance but has not managed to completely eliminate some coma or very slight fringing outside the focal plane. I haven't tried any of my F/1.4 lenses at night lately, mostly playing around with F/1.8-2 lenses. |
When it comes to available light photography at night, high performance modern lenses are better choice most of the time. I have consider the Sigma art 40/1.4 before purchasing this lens. The art 40 is even better corrected lens(coma and astigmatism) and cost much less than the otus.
| Ultrapix wrote: |
| stevemark wrote: |
| Ultrapix wrote: |
| just amazing |
Really?
All those images are 10 MP - which is not a real test for modern high perfomance glass.
I have been shooting the Otus 1.4/28mm with 43 MP sensors in Rome (night time as well) around 2018; maybe I should publish those images ...
S |
There are so many qualities (or faults) that an expert eye can detect even on small pictures; the absence of glow for example is so obvious on these pictures. I recognize these lenses even on a 2K movie on a laptop. Then if I am looking for effective sharpness I obviously may look at higher resolution samples. That said, I'll be very happy to see your Rome shots. |
I think 10MP (resized from 40MP) is enough for observing the weakness of a consumer grade lens no matter it is modern or vintage. It is also a suitable size for viewing at 100% on a 4K monitor. Since this lens is announced 10 years ago, there are already lots of review on the internet which shows how how this lens performs. I am not going to repeat what they do myself.
| kiddo wrote: |
except size and weight for a walk around lens, i just see it sooo.......yumy
everything is beautiful for wide open perfomance |
Not a good lens to carry if you walk around for the whole day.
_________________
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crazy Leica Fox
Joined: 29 Apr 2017
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2023 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Crazy Leica Fox wrote:
Thank you for the samples! In another thread, I suggested a comparison to your Contarex, but that was tongue in cheek. Those two lenses couldn't be more different, and nobody would have trouble telling them apart! If you took these same photos wide open with the Contarex, they would be a mess of SA, flare, coma, and low resolution. The Otus, while not perfect, is worlds better for night photography! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Posts: 7568
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2023 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
| Crazy Leica Fox wrote: |
| Thank you for the samples! In another thread, I suggested a comparison to your Contarex, but that was tongue in cheek. Those two lenses couldn't be more different, and nobody would have trouble telling them apart! If you took these same photos wide open with the Contarex, they would be a mess of SA, flare, coma, and low resolution. The Otus, while not perfect, is worlds better for night photography! |
Well. The Contarex Planar is not as bad as some ppl think although is is already a 60 years old lens. It can't compare with the Otus but it is still the best lens of it time. The stregnth of the Contarex Planar is it have decent contrast at wide open, which is uncommon for SLR lenses made in late 50s to early 60s.
Contarex 55/1.4 wide open, resized to 10MP, No PP. For this kind of sujects, I like the feel/rendering of the Contarex Planar more than the Otus Distagon.
_________________
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbass
Joined: 27 Jul 2019
Posts: 450
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2023 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cbass wrote:
That's a beast of a lens, but with the proper weight lifting regime and a solid steroid protocol it shouldn't be a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Posts: 7568
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
| cbass wrote: |
| That's a beast of a lens, but with the proper weight lifting regime and a solid steroid protocol it shouldn't be a problem. |
I think anyone who is able to handle a slr 24-70/2.8 should be ok with the otus 55.
_________________
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 880
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Very impressive lens (size and outcome).
I guess that even not discussing price I would not want to carry around such weight for a single focal length. My travel set of a zoom or three or four primes is much lighter than that.
It is clear however that none of the vintage primes can compete with the results you are displaying. I guess I would be content with a Canon FD or Minolta 50 f1,4 closed down to 2,4 to reach decent results.
_________________
Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Posts: 7568
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
| lumens pixel wrote: |
Very impressive lens (size and outcome).
I guess that even not discussing price I would not want to carry around such weight for a single focal length. My travel set of a zoom or three or four primes is much lighter than that.
It is clear however that none of the vintage primes can compete with the results you are displaying. I guess I would be content with a Canon FD or Minolta 50 f1,4 closed down to 2,4 to reach decent results. |
I think if you stop down a Canon FD or Minolta 50 f1,4 to F2.8, there will not be too much different between the otus and the canon/minolta, especially on a camera with 24MP or below.
_________________
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HansMoleman
Joined: 12 Jul 2019
Posts: 156
Location: MD USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HansMoleman wrote:
If I may at what ISO were those taken?
And |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018
Posts: 1264
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
| calvin83 wrote: |
| lumens pixel wrote: |
Very impressive lens (size and outcome).
I guess that even not discussing price I would not want to carry around such weight for a single focal length. My travel set of a zoom or three or four primes is much lighter than that.
It is clear however that none of the vintage primes can compete with the results you are displaying. I guess I would be content with a Canon FD or Minolta 50 f1,4 closed down to 2,4 to reach decent results. |
I think if you stop down a Canon FD or Minolta 50 f1,4 to F2.8, there will not be too much different between the otus and the canon/minolta, especially on a camera with 24MP or below. |
canon FD it has 8 blades and Minolta 50mm only 6, at least in bokeh there´s difference (annoying i hate 6 blades in portrait lenses, as many times one need to close down one or two steps at least) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Posts: 7568
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
| HansMoleman wrote: |
If I may at what ISO were those taken?
And |
160, 250, 2500, 800, 320, 1600, 3200, 400. The extras taken at 320.
_________________
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 4015
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| calvin83 wrote: |
| cbass wrote: |
| That's a beast of a lens, but with the proper weight lifting regime and a solid steroid protocol it shouldn't be a problem. |
I think anyone who is able to handle a slr 24-70/2.8 should be ok with the otus 55. |
Absolutely. Problem is ... I do mainly landscape / cityscapes, and two "Otus size" lenses are covering nearly everything (Zwiss ZA 2.8/16-35 and Sony AL 2.8/70-200). Quality of both lenses is sufficient for large 40x60cm (16x14 inch) calender images.
Try that with a set of Otus lenses ... not even talking about the limitation of the focal length (28/55/85/100) vs 16/20/24/35/70/100/135/200 ...
While I really did appreciate the image quality at f1.4, Otus lenses don't work for my style of working. Same applies for modern medium format lenses BTW.
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbass
Joined: 27 Jul 2019
Posts: 450
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cbass wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
Absolutely. Problem is ... I do mainly landscape / cityscapes, and two "Otus size" lenses are covering nearly everything (Zwiss ZA 2.8/16-35 and Sony AL 2.8/70-200). Quality of both lenses is sufficient for large 40x60cm (16x14 inch) calender images.
Try that with a set of Otus lenses ... not even talking about the limitation of the focal length (28/55/85/100) vs 16/20/24/35/70/100/135/200 ...
While I really did appreciate the image quality at f1.4, Otus lenses don't work for my style of working. Same applies for modern medium format lenses BTW.
S |
You probably don't even need a FF setup. 16x14 prints are not large and Calendar paper isn't exactly high end. You could get away with a nice small APS-C setup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbass
Joined: 27 Jul 2019
Posts: 450
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cbass wrote:
| calvin83 wrote: |
I think if you stop down a Canon FD or Minolta 50 f1,4 to F2.8, there will not be too much different between the otus and the canon/minolta, especially on a camera with 24MP or below. |
This reflects my experience for most older 50's. The biggest difference is at f/1.4-f/2 and once you get to f/2.8 the differences are more theoretical than practical with some exceptions such as curvature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11019
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2023 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
| calvin83 wrote: |
| cbass wrote: |
| That's a beast of a lens, but with the proper weight lifting regime and a solid steroid protocol it shouldn't be a problem. |
I think anyone who is able to handle a slr 24-70/2.8 should be ok with the otus 55. |
Absolutely. Problem is ... I do mainly landscape / cityscapes, and two "Otus size" lenses are covering nearly everything (Zwiss ZA 2.8/16-35 and Sony AL 2.8/70-200). Quality of both lenses is sufficient for large 40x60cm (16x14 inch) calender images.
Try that with a set of Otus lenses ... not even talking about the limitation of the focal length (28/55/85/100) vs 16/20/24/35/70/100/135/200 ...
While I really did appreciate the image quality at f1.4, Otus lenses don't work for my style of working. Same applies for modern medium format lenses BTW.
S |
Love to. 
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018
Posts: 1264
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2023 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
| cbass wrote: |
| calvin83 wrote: |
I think if you stop down a Canon FD or Minolta 50 f1,4 to F2.8, there will not be too much different between the otus and the canon/minolta, especially on a camera with 24MP or below. |
This reflects my experience for most older 50's. The biggest difference is at f/1.4-f/2 and once you get to f/2.8 the differences are more theoretical than practical with some exceptions such as curvature. |
You guys right, just as Steve from 2.8 many other lenses would work better(for landscapes a good zoom it's unbeatable), but this specific lens is soo good where none of the others are , definitely for people that would shoot up to f2 most of the times, otherwise doesn't make sense , especially for sensors up to 24MP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
