Zeiss Otus 100f1.4
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:27 am
NatureScapes.net Nature Photography Resource - Photo Galleries, Discussion Forums, Nature and Wildlife Photography Articles and Tips
https://www.naturescapes.net/forums/
The title of this article says it all, although this is true of most super teles as well.E.J. Peiker wrote:The Sigma 105 is sooo good, has AF, and is soooo much cheaper....
SantaFeJoe wrote:The title of this article says it all, although this is true of most super teles as well.E.J. Peiker wrote:The Sigma 105 is sooo good, has AF, and is soooo much cheaper....
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/the-zeiss-otus-14100-costs-more-than-any-camera-you-can-fit-it-to
Joe
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....DChan wrote:SantaFeJoe wrote:The title of this article says it all, although this is true of most super teles as well.E.J. Peiker wrote:The Sigma 105 is sooo good, has AF, and is soooo much cheaper....
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.
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.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..
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.david fletcher wrote: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.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..