Page 1 of 1

Zeiss Otus 100f1.4

Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:27 am
by SantaFeJoe

Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:56 pm
by E.J. Peiker
The Sigma 105 is sooo good, has AF, and is soooo much cheaper....

Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:19 am
by SantaFeJoe
E.J. Peiker wrote:The Sigma 105 is sooo good, has AF, and is soooo much cheaper....
The title of this article says it all, although this is true of most super teles as well.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/the-zeiss-otus-14100-costs-more-than-any-camera-you-can-fit-it-to

Joe

Re: Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:41 am
by DChan
SantaFeJoe wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:The Sigma 105 is sooo good, has AF, and is soooo much cheaper....
The title of this article says it all, although this is true of most super teles as well.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/the-zeiss-otus-14100-costs-more-than-any-camera-you-can-fit-it-to

Joe

A D5 still costs more.

Re: Re:

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:40 pm
by E.J. Peiker
DChan wrote:
SantaFeJoe wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:The Sigma 105 is sooo good, has AF, and is soooo much cheaper....
The title of this article says it all, although this is true of most super teles as well.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/the-zeiss-otus-14100-costs-more-than-any-camera-you-can-fit-it-to

Joe

A D5 still costs more.
Except that the resolution of the D5 sensor would never show you a difference from a similar focal length lens priced at 20% of the cost of this lens....

Re: Zeiss Otus 100f1.4

Posted: Fri May 03, 2019 10:11 pm
by Jens Peermann
A more affordable Alternative would be the 135/f2 Milvus at around $2,200. It also is tack sharp edge to edge wide open (it’s insanely sharp at f4), has no CA, no distortion and delivers great colors and contrast. It’s not an Otus lens, but Zeiss has admitted that it meets the standards  for lenses in that class and doesn’t have the name only because it was introduced before that series was conceived (some claim it actually inspired the Otus line). 

It’s a bit longer, but that shouldn’t be much of a factor. I use it a lot for shooting live bands in nightclubs in low light, and that works great even though it’s a manual lens (and I shoot there at f/2 and f/2.8).

Re: Zeiss Otus 100f1.4

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 10:57 am
by david fletcher
Jens Peermann wrote:A more affordable Alternative would be the 135/f2 Milvus at around $2,200. It also is tack sharp edge to edge wide open (it’s insanely sharp at f4), has no CA, no distortion and delivers great colors and contrast. It’s not an Otus lens, but Zeiss has admitted that it meets the standards  for lenses in that class and doesn’t have the name only because it was introduced before that series was conceived (some claim it actually inspired the Otus line). 

It’s a bit longer, but that shouldn’t be much of a factor. I use it a lot for shooting live bands in nightclubs in low light, and that works great even though it’s a manual lens (and I shoot there at f/2 and f/2.8).
Good advice that.  I have in the past enjoyed the 135 focal length.  Canon 135 F2L which was a superb lens.  Then the Nikkor 135 F2, which was not quite as satisfying.  Have had my beady eyes on the Zeiss/Milvus 135, as I already have a couple of Zeiss lenses, and I've found their rendering and sharpness more than aesthetically pleasing.  

Re: Zeiss Otus 100f1.4

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 11:34 am
by Jens Peermann
david fletcher wrote:
Jens Peermann wrote:A more affordable Alternative would be the 135/f2 Milvus at around $2,200. It also is tack sharp edge to edge wide open (it’s insanely sharp at f4), has no CA, no distortion and delivers great colors and contrast. It’s not an Otus lens, but Zeiss has admitted that it meets the standards  for lenses in that class and doesn’t have the name only because it was introduced before that series was conceived (some claim it actually inspired the Otus line). 

It’s a bit longer, but that shouldn’t be much of a factor. I use it a lot for shooting live bands in nightclubs in low light, and that works great even though it’s a manual lens (and I shoot there at f/2 and f/2.8).
Good advice that.  I have in the past enjoyed the 135 focal length.  Canon 135 F2L which was a superb lens.  Then the Nikkor 135 F2, which was not quite as satisfying.  Have had my beady eyes on the Zeiss/Milvus 135, as I already have a couple of Zeiss lenses, and I've found their rendering and sharpness more than aesthetically pleasing.  
If you consider the Canon 135/2 a superb lens, the Milvus will blow you away. I owned and used the Canon 135/2 for about 20 years and it was my favorite lens. When Zeiss introduced the 135/2 APO Sonnar - which is optically identical to the 135/2 Milvus, just a different barrel - I was tempted to replace the Canon with it but reasoned that it cannot be that much better to justify the expense.

Well, two years ago the Zeiss was discontinued and existing stock was sold off at a great discount, so my defense collapsed and I bought that lens. It makes the Canon look like it was designed by an apprentice during his first week on the job. With the Zeiss you can actually take an image wide open and it will be tack sharp from corner to corner (sharpness at f/2 is about the same as at f/8; I don't know any other lens that offers that). You're no longer limited to the center of the frame for selective focusing that makes the subject not just stand out, but jump out. For me that's the most valuable asset this lens offers.