I am loving the fact that not too long ago people weren't taking third party lenses like Sigma serious. Now they are being compared to much higher priced classics like Zeiss. Win for all photographers because we get more awesome gear to choose from.
MeisterYodarkus : I'm still not taking Sigma seriously. Their lenses are cheap and generally lacking the quality of major camera manufacturers' native lenses.
Madeline Mantiss Have you tried any of their Art series lenses yet? I would agree with you on their other lenses, but the Art series is pretty amazing in my opinion. I have used the 18-35 1.8 for quite a while and it is probably one of the best lenses you can get for APSC cameras. And from what I have heard the 35 and 50 are great too, even when you compare them to L-glass.
Are you kidding me!? Fro, if you see this please read it and take it as constructive criticism. Those are two COMPLETELY different lenses (not the 5mm focal difference). The Otus series are "cheap" cine lenses. They are meant to be used on stuff like RED, Sony FS700, F5, F55 etc hence no auto focus system. They are manual lenses because we (who's in the video production business) RARELY use auto focus. This is a really, really bad comparison, I'm sorry Jared. I like your stuff and watch every single video but sometimes you guys do stuff that you have no / very little background knowledge about. At 5:43 "But, maybe this lens could be used for cine, maybe it's a good cine lens, but the only other thing is you are not gonna be able to put "one of those cine thingys that you spin like this" (simply called a follow focus, but that's not the point) because there are no notches to do the smooth focus. So maybe it's not even meant to shoot with video." - That statement in itself sum up the complete ignorance you guys have towards video production in general. Just to comment on that statement, yes it's meant to be used as a cine lens and yes you are able to put a follow focus on it since you put a belt (notches) on it or many other types of follow focus systems, just because it doesn't have notches on it doesn't make it a non-follow focus able lens and yes it IS meant to be used to shoot video. Video production and photography are two COMPLETELY different things. I've been a working photographer for 6 years before venturing into video production and having 5 years of professional experience, I do see past a lot of bullshit that photographers pass along when they themselves are venturing into video. Producing video with DSLR's these days is pretty easy due to the technology advancement, but it's not about the gear. It's about the mentality, knowledge and feel for moving pictures which is something you don't have and don't develop as a stills photographer. There's a lot of other qualities that can translate over, but there's important ones that don't. You don't just simply jump from being a photographer to a videographer. When you offer clients the possibility to produce a music or even wedding video, and you show up on set with a bunch of middle - high end DSLR's, they'll probably don't know that you are a rookie in videography but that's how you look to professionals in the field. Sure everyone have to start somewhere, but what you did with this video was a premature move. As a professional freelancer for 5 years working with a 10+ crew every day producing commercials on Sony F55's, being that I also did video in the glorious 5D MkII days, I get where you are coming from. But please, don't rush into making stuff like this about products you have little clue about. That $4000 lens is not meant to be compared with those stills lenses. They are meant to be use on two different types of cameras. Sure it has a Canon EF mount, but that's also what the Canon Cine (C100 - C500) and a handful of other professional video cameras use.
@AP points well taken but stills photographers also like Zeiss lenses for their nice cine/3D/artistic rendering capabilities that makes the stills stand apart from the rest. I whole heartedly agree that this video was a bit of joke .. I think today, in 2020, a more relevant comparison should be between the Sigma 1.4 and the Milvus 1.4.
@Ricky Anthony it's a 5 year old comment and an even older video - boasting was never the intention, though I might have been young and angry, for that I apologize. But the whole point of my comment was that I was a regular viewer of Fro for quite a while, but got frustrated when he made comments or videos about video related subjects and perhaps made fun of things in his own humorous way which may have offended some including me at that time. However, I have no problems with Fro now, even though I stopped watching his videos - but he did get a lot more into mirrorless cameras and film photography since then which I think is good.
The Otus 55mm is probably a lens I will not buy, I have the Otus 85mm and will buy the 28mm once it becomes available. 50-55 is a focal range I rarely shoot and I have the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 which is brilliant for the cases I need a 50. Autofocus is not an issue, for most of my life, from 1972 and onward, we all shot manual focus so no biggie.
OTUS is a future proof lens for the next 30 years. When sensor quality increases, sensor size increases and when 8 K is normal, Zeiss OTUS will still retain it's value where as the Sigma will fall apart. For cinema, the Zeiss OTUS is perfect. It is manual focus and will be perfect for the RED cameras, etc. All aspects of the lens cannot be exploited by today's cameras.
For slr thpe yes. But for mirorless and rangefinder that has short flange distance: No. Check out the review and check test forum on nikon z 50mm f1.8s.
I don't see the problem with Otus being MF - on an AF body, you select the AF point you want, half-press the shutter, and when the focus point lights up you win. I do it all the time with macro because the AF hunts so much in those conditions it's worse than useless.
Yes but the image won't be as sharp because the light isn't focused so the camera has to try and compensate for it so it won't be as sharp as if you did focused manually on the lens
So, how does manual focus on the Sigma work? Does it have a nice long travel or, like a lot of autofocus lenses, is the control much too fiddly to use? I don't like autofocus, I want a lens that I can manually focus well and quickly. Also, I can't tell how sharp either one of these is without downloading the test images. Come on, how about ONE enlarged section so we can see what it looks like in there. --scott
The Sigma has a very short throw for manual focus and is by wire. It is not designed to be used manually full time. The Zeiss lens has actually a cinema focus gear kit and can also be declicked with a simple tool in seconds. They are of different worlds. The Sigma can be had for very very cheap which is great. The Zeiss Otus or Milvus are in different leagues but can also be had on the used market for quite cheap especially if you are good at “winning” on eBay hehe. I only have the 50 1.4 Milvus but it is an outstanding lens regarding colours and how it renders contrast and even aberration control. I looked at both the sigma art and the Milvus and after much debate chose the Milvus as I shoot portraits and motion. The which i do NOT use auto focus for. Nice to be able to use the lens on both of my cams.
back in the day, cameras didn't have auto focus or a touch screen. People had to take photos using manual focus on moving subjects and know what to keep their settings at just by looking at the scene. cameras now days has made it so anyone can claim to be a photographer
That Zeiss looks tough enough to hammer a nail into a 2x4. Jared since you do have access to prime Zeiss lenses how about a look at their 15mm 2.8 for the Nikon? It also is manual focus but how much do you need to focus with a 15mm lens on a full frame camera? LOL
if you look at DxOMark the samyang 14mm 2.8 manualfocus lens is way sharper than the zaiss 15mm 2.8 in resolving megapixels and it smokes the canon and Nikon 14mm out of the wather but it has other problem than sharpnes if you shooting buildings or brickwalls it is useless every thing is bending
This comparison is so bad that i can't believe i am commenting on it. My man, sharpness is not the only image quality factor, it's not the only characteristic of a lens that make's it the best of the best. Image quality factors are:exposure accuracy,tone reproducing,dynamic range,sharpness,noise,artifacts,lens flare,color moire,LCA,contrast,distortion. All of these characteristics makes a good image but when you want to make one of them better (let's say sharpness), you can't do it without raising the costs or lowering other characteristics. Zeiss has simply cut no corners with it's Otus line so stop bitching around about it's price. You can't even imagine how expensive would Nikon/Canon lenses would be if they had the same performance as Zeiss. Lens prices are based on production costs (material quality,etc) given at a certain moment of time. For who is Zeiss Otus line for? in any way not for you beginners and "enthusiasts" or "pro" photographers, those lenses are for top of the line photographers in fashion, lifestyle and documentary world. From what i seen, most people talk shit about this lenses only because they can't afford them and they never will. It's those frustrated "photographers" that simply cannot live out with the fact that there are other photographers with better equipment than them. People, cameras and lenses are only tools and the better they get, you must understand that it will only make your job easy but as a photographer, they will not make you better. Buy and use the tools you need and if you can't afford them, you must work harder with your current tools.
I really love the Sigma 35mm which I own, and the old version of the Sigma 50mm for under 400 bucks is a steal as well, it isn't AS sharp as the new one, but it does the trick and I like the bokeh that the old one produces as well.
Oh im sorry I am wasting your time. If you can't make it past that fun stuff to get to the fact that I am giving you the tools to decide wether or not the lens is for you than don't watch. I am not changing who I am or what I enjoy doing in videos to make you happy.
i'm choosing to watch this video because I think it could give me some good information about these two lenses... But hey when you guys think is funny or really want to know how these things smell, then go for it
djaxup That's only half the problem though: the sole correct past participle of go is gone. And English is not my mother tongue. Does it mean some native speakers say the likes of "I should've did" or "I should have was"?
The Zeiss Otus lenses are directly based off their Cine lens line. You are buying Motion Picture lenses. Dunno if they are worth $4k+, but I'm sure they are amazing tho.
Get my Otus soon. The Sigma isnt bad, but the otus is gigantic i all disciplines! The sigma is the supermarket pizza, the zeiss like fresh pizza in napoli. The camera sensors gives you 100% exact fokus feedback. Set one point than Turn the smooth ring slowly, beepbeep-shot, sharp!!! So quick so precise so easy. Dont try this style of using with a normal canon lens. Forget it, better thrust the autofokus.
In my opinion the Otus would be amazing on something like the Sony a7 series. Mirrorless cameras have a very short flange distance so with an adaptor you can essentially add a "proper" Canon or Nikon mount to it. Since it has no AF you wouldn't even lose anything. Most mirrorless cameras also have a fokus peaking mode so manual focus would be easier than on a DSLR! Also, the bokeh of that lens is just phenomenal... But 4000 bucks for a lens like that? I dunno... I think I'm gonna stick to my 50mm f1.8 D and G.
Yeah, but on the other side the native FE 55 F1.8 Zeiss E-mount lens is actually nearly as good in picture quality as its bigger brother, the Otus. And similar price to the Sigma. So on the A7 series, we dont need the expensive Otus fortunately :))...
So why did you buy a Nikon D4s for 6k and not a Nikon D610 for 2k? It's the same (4k) price difference. The D610 (or now the D750) has even a higher resolution than your D4s. Your D4s has better weather sealing, a higher burst rate and is more reliable. Enough to spend 4k more? If you need exactly these features, then yes. Same with the OTUS. Sharpness, contrast, colors and bokeh are as good as it gets. While the SIGMA is also sharp, the bokeh is quite ugly. If you shoot a portrait, your subject is usually not moving. AF is not necessary. Besides, the only realistic way to get your focus on a human iris at f1.4 is manual focus or spot AF. Shooting a portrait at f1.4 is like shooting a macro.
Unless the Zeiss lens is made by hand and by a single person, the price is just ridiculous! Autofocus aside, the difference (if we can talk about real difference) in the quality on these shoots certainly doesn't justify the difference in price. I'm sure some Zeiss purist would say my comment is stupid and not educated and would find 100 reasons why 4000$ for that lens is the right price, but I can't really imagine the real benefit here even for giant hyper super pro photographers.
this may sound like a stupid but if you have had trouble with manual focus why dont you invest in a Sony camera that uses focus peaking personally ive found that to be the most useful feature while manual focusing
Not only peaking but also manual focus magnification where the camera zooms way into the shot to see exactly the focus. That way even others saying focus peaking is not always accurate and blah blah will have another benefit to "deal" with😂
If I had $4000 to spend on a lens I'm sure I could have a focus screen with a split image rangefinder installed. I use my manual focus Nikkors on my D5000 all the time. You can set the meter scale in the viewfinder to work as a focus scale. This if very helpful but doesn't work in manual exposure mode which is irritating sense the meter doesn't work with these lenses anyway. But as long as you're not shooting action you can focus in A mode then switch to M to shoot.
Jared Polin I guess you can't generalize it like that. I bought a 60€ tripod from Hähnel. It's almost all metal, even the head, the legs aren't flimsy and it's got a good weight to it for traveling and indoor stuff. It supports my D7000 with the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF attatched, let's put it like that. It does everything I need so for me it is a good tripod. There are better ones, sure. But this thing was in my budget and it is reliable.
Mathias How long it'll last is the real question. My friend has had his tripod for 15 years and it's still going strong, but he spent a decent amount on it knowing it'd be a better long term investment. I personally wouldn't want to cheap out on a tripod when I have a few grands worth of gear sitting on top of it, but it's all relative I guess. If you're using a point and shoot or a MFT system then the weight is going to be much lower so you can get away with a less expensive option.
TalesOfWar As I said, it is currently the best option for what I do with it. I don't regularly use heavy lenses on it, I just tested if it can hold it. I usually use it for my D7000 with either a small 40mm macro lens or my 12-24mm wide angle lens, which isn't very heavy as well. If I would regularly use it with multiple kilos of gear that also happens to be worth a few grand I would definitely buy a better tripod as well! That is a no-brainer. But right now I don't use it like that. So a light and cheap-ish tripod that is also travel-friendly is the better option for my style of shooting.
breaking news Zeiss lens dont AF on Nikon and Cannon.......how many times you need to repeat that......you really think thats a negative.....I dont think so....
I have done this test also some years ago and I have come to these conclusions. Shooting stills of any kind of action at f/1.4 with the Otus is impossible. Getting a sharp shot of a moving subject is almost science fiction. Regarding optical performance, I can't tell that the Otus is just better than the Sigma. The Otus is sharper from f/1.4 till approx f/4 and than the Sigma starts to get better than the Otus. The Sigma has few stops less vignetting than the Otus wide open. If You shoot in low light at high ISO and need to correct vignetting, than You may not get a usable image. When shooting video, getting rid of such a massive amount of vignetting of the Otus can be a problem, as video has usually much more compression. So that is my conclusion. The Otus is a nice collectors lens, which has a very questionable use. At least for myself ...
Hats off to you, Mr. Polin. Your energy never fails to impress, and your thoroughness (well, lets be blunt, who else in the WORLD does a better wind tunnel test?) is of utmost superiority. I find the effort you put into these videos, the quality of, well, everything something the world and I should strive to represent. and yes I agree the sigma is the cats meow. Thanks, and hats off. Jay Sullivan
I think there is no "real" use for that otus lens. It is not wide enough landscape, not long enough for tele (could be worse for tele: get never focus right). It is just one of those nifty fifty, very very expensive nifty fifty but just one of the "millions".
Go for a while without wide angle lenses, and you'll find that many focal lengths from 50mm and above work just fine for landscape. Landscape is far from only wide angle. I went for over a year without a wide angle lens, and now that I do have wide angel again, it's not my most used or favorite thing for landscape.
I think you should do a video of Fujifilm XT-1 as well, its such a famous mirror less camera. I am a Nikon full frame shooter but still consider that camera
For mirrorless where you can have focus peaking, the Otus would be awesome. When Metabones comes with the EF-to-Fuji X speedbooster, I will test the Otus on my X-T1 (I have a friend who owns the Otus).
Then again at least for Sony mirrorless (which is the only one with full frame - or "real" 50/55mm - anyways today) there is the fabolous FE 55 F1.8 from Sony/Zeiss. And there it is a no-brainer decision, also due to the fact that that one is not more expensive than the Sigma :)...
Yeah, but a speedbooster is another optical element and changes the picture quality. And since we are talking about extremely expensive high-end lenses here, that cost much more than their normal counterparts, I would not use a speedbooster here, that will drop the quality ;)... In that case I am 100% sure that the native lens will win any comparison. And Fuji does have great lenses :).
Lofote Yeah, but the quality of Metabones' optics are very high, and they've now released even better ones :) I doubt it will be a problem. Fuji does have the 56mm which is extremely good of course.
No doubt it is very good, I also heard very good things. But still, it is one more optical element. And every optical element can only make a picture worse. (That is why simple designs in lenses usually are better). And since the difference between Otus and Sigma is only small you still don't want to make it worse, even if it is high end optics you are adding ;)... Thats why I would never add a glass protection filter element or a UV or any filter at all in front of an Otus - it just makes no sense if you are going for that small optical advantage of such an expensive lens and then ruin it again ;)
The big question - for $4000, what are you going to photograph it with ? if you're going to photograph another bug on a flower do you need to use a $4000 lens?
It's a portrait lens so if you're a pro portrait photographer who shouldn't you invest in good glass ... Wildlife lenses are also about 8k if you want a really good one
Zoom can be as good or better that prime. It's about production cost end engineering costs. There is nothing that say zoom must be worse that prime. But zoom with it's huge number of lenses would cost astronomical amount of cash if it would be as good as prime. Well Leica made such zooms for their pro SL camera instead of making line of primes, also Canon end Sigma as i remember have some great zooms.
This guy's videos always show up in my feed and I had to say something. My question always was: How seriously do you take a guy with that shirt on? I shoow RAW, what the fuck you want, a cookie? "I eat with a fork" and I don't shout about it. It saddens me seeing 460.137 people taking this clown seriously smh
Wow, are you seriously that stupid? You can't take a man seriously because he's wearing that shirt? So if your pants are a bit dirty no one should be taking you seriously either, because that means you're probably a fucking stupid hobo, or? I wear the same type of shirt as him. I also wear the 'STAY FOCUSED" shirt from Tony Northrup. This just proves that it's YOU there's something wrong with if YOU can't take a person seriously because he's not wearing what you want him to wear. You may have your own opinion on things, but I don't think anyone would change because you don't like their style.
+Alex D. Would like to take a historical example here. If you had to judge Albert Einstein based on his looks, his hair would definitely make him look like a clown from a circus!!! Do I need to continue or are you smart enough to get what I am saying here?
+Ritz Haque Yeah but Einstein didn't wear a t-shirt saying "I solve complex multi variable equations" or "I devise unified theories", so your comparison not really a valid comparison, is it?
tjseid This is not a video about the 18-35mm lens. The 50mm f1.4 Art is for full frame, and will look its sharpest and best on a full frame camera (more light, more bokeh). The person asking the question could get the Sigma lens and a boss full frame camera for the same/less money than just the Otus lens alone.
The real winner would be the Zeiss FE 55 F1.8, if you would add it to the test. It has the autofocus, it has nearly the picture quality of the Otus and it even has the price of the Sigma. You'll lose 2/3 stops of light however. And: it is only available for Sony E-mount, not for the legacy DSLR camera systems...
Interesting. I've been pointing to this channel since I was active in photography years ago. I lost the appetite since digital came. Can't explain why exactly. Started with a Praktica B200 a winder, a long range flashlight at the side and a variety of lenses and many filters. One may laugh but with Sigma lenses made for the typical B series bayonet, the 35mm results were awesome at the time. Sharp, contrast, perfect white balance for me. I switched to a Canon EOS 1N when I was in LA with the idea of buying a real camera, but for some reason I never really could embrase the results. They always came out too blend with too much white whatever I tried... Changing from Kodak to Fuji made little difference... The Canon didn't come with Sigma or Zeiss lenses at the time and I could clearly see it. Clearly, despite perhaps a bit lagging DDR design of the B200, it had all it needed in terms of features. It did lack multi-exposure though but I found a way around. Was heavy as a tank but great pictures with those Sigma lenses. Meanwhile digital became popular and it never has been my thing. I just bought a simple Sony DCS cybershot WSX60 16.2 megapixels for occasions. First question I asked... does it have a Carl Zeiss lens, because one can have the most expensive camera in the world but without proper lenses... all the investments for great pictures are essentially nullified. And it has a Zeiss lens. Pictures are awesome again. Of course I can't dial all professional settings like the EOS, B200 or any professional DLSR, but it's fine for now. Of course there so many other factors, however, I swear... no camera without a Zeiss lens for me, or at least a Sigma. But it's a personal choice of course.
The RAW are useless. Why a desaturated f5 foto? A color(!!!) f1.4 "high contrast" foto please! I hate manual focus, but the image quality is worth the extra work. The price is crazy but ok for what i seen. I want it after testing it. It is "the one lens" to go with.
None of the standard Nikon, Canon or (non-Zeiss) Sony 50s stand a chance against these two lenses. Every test on tis planet shows this, I doubt, Fro would get something different here, but of course it would be interesting to see, if for him the Sigma Art is that much more worth to pay 3x the price of a standard Canon/Nikon/Sony 50 F1.4 ;)...
The 50 F1.2 L from Canon has a light advantage of course and gets a special bokeh due to extreme low DOF in F1.2. If you want that extreme low DOF that is the lens to go for :). In terms of sharpness in the corners etc. it however has no chance. So the F1.2 is a specialist lens :)...
LOL $995 and $4000. Sigma just turned Otus to a joke (in term of price). Cost 4 times the price and how about the image quality difference? Can't even reach to 0.5
Polin never touched on something. First, I'm getting a Milvus, for 95% the lens, at less cost. But photography needs to be more than "how much money?". Granted Sigma is good for the money. But realize, Zeiss doesn't come with a "Dock" ... it doesn't need to return back from "out to sea" ... there's just something right about adding a touch of craftsmanship once in a while. Cheers, MDV / www.mdvaden.com/redwoods.shtml
I don't trust Sigma any more... My Sigma 17-50mm's zoom ring jammed up today. It's also a known issue, apparently a screw deep inside wiggled loose and is jamming the zoom ring. This happened not long after the 2 year warranty expired. It was an awesome lens...
I shoot exclusively with Zeiss glass, and there all manual focus thats how they are. And I have no problem at all with it. Practices makes perfect. And zeiss will tell you to get a split prism micro prism mattglass for your Dslr. If you shoot canon they even make it for there high end camera's. And if you are on Nikon zeiss will tell you to get one from katzeye. Google it. Before autofocus days all the slr's had it in there camera so you can focus. Today's Dslr's have bright screens that wont show DoF so it's hard to see your focus, thats why it's hard to use manual lenses. But get the right mattglass and it's easy. And you miss out on so many great lenses just because you are afraid for manual focus lenses.
He could save us a couple of minutes showing us what he's gonna show us instead of telling us what he's gonna show us before he shows us...y'a know !! Otherwise, I like Jared's reviews better than most.
fred weber the you haven't seen the guy who compared the canon 50mm f1.8 and compared it to the rokinon cine 35mm t1.5. Look it up an cringe you eyes out
Personally (and I knew this before watching your video), I would definitely go with the cheaper Sigma. On many other comparisons (as well as yours), the Sigma is AS sharp, if not sharper. The build quality is great on both, probably the Otus beats it a little bit, but not by too much. The Bokeh is not important to me, so I don't care which is better, and the fact that the Sigma can autofocus (even though I don't use it that much) is good to know when I DO need to use it. Overall, even if I had $4000 burning a whole in my pocket, I would still rather get the Sigma. It is pretty much the same as the Zeiss except in name and build quality, and that's it (don't forget price, but in my example that's not an issue). In my opinion, the Zeiss is for people who literally just want to say that they have a $4000 lens (that is the same as a $1000 lens).
I am loving the fact that not too long ago people weren't taking third party lenses like Sigma serious. Now they are being compared to much higher priced classics like Zeiss. Win for all photographers because we get more awesome gear to choose from.
MeisterYodarkus : I'm still not taking Sigma seriously. Their lenses are cheap and generally lacking the quality of major camera manufacturers' native lenses.
Madeline Mantiss Have you tried any of their Art series lenses yet? I would agree with you on their other lenses, but the Art series is pretty amazing in my opinion. I have used the 18-35 1.8 for quite a while and it is probably one of the best lenses you can get for APSC cameras. And from what I have heard the 35 and 50 are great too, even when you compare them to L-glass.
See my comment up top. Ever notice that Zeiss doesn't come with a "dock" ... lol ... as if a lens needs to return from sea !!
Don't forget the Otus is an investment graded lens, it will keep its value during the next decades.
Maybe that's true but it's around half of its retail price on used market now
Why ?
No one took into account DSLR’s would fade away
85mm 1.4 Otus is selling brand new for $2,500 USD right now, so not sure if you prediction was accurate.
Are you kidding me!?
Fro, if you see this please read it and take it as constructive criticism.
Those are two COMPLETELY different lenses (not the 5mm focal difference). The Otus series are "cheap" cine lenses. They are meant to be used on stuff like RED, Sony FS700, F5, F55 etc hence no auto focus system. They are manual lenses because we (who's in the video production business) RARELY use auto focus.
This is a really, really bad comparison, I'm sorry Jared. I like your stuff and watch every single video but sometimes you guys do stuff that you have no / very little background knowledge about.
At 5:43 "But, maybe this lens could be used for cine, maybe it's a good cine lens, but the only other thing is you are not gonna be able to put "one of those cine thingys that you spin like this" (simply called a follow focus, but that's not the point) because there are no notches to do the smooth focus. So maybe it's not even meant to shoot with video." - That statement in itself sum up the complete ignorance you guys have towards video production in general. Just to comment on that statement, yes it's meant to be used as a cine lens and yes you are able to put a follow focus on it since you put a belt (notches) on it or many other types of follow focus systems, just because it doesn't have notches on it doesn't make it a non-follow focus able lens and yes it IS meant to be used to shoot video.
Video production and photography are two COMPLETELY different things. I've been a working photographer for 6 years before venturing into video production and having 5 years of professional experience, I do see past a lot of bullshit that photographers pass along when they themselves are venturing into video. Producing video with DSLR's these days is pretty easy due to the technology advancement, but it's not about the gear. It's about the mentality, knowledge and feel for moving pictures which is something you don't have and don't develop as a stills photographer. There's a lot of other qualities that can translate over, but there's important ones that don't.
You don't just simply jump from being a photographer to a videographer. When you offer clients the possibility to produce a music or even wedding video, and you show up on set with a bunch of middle - high end DSLR's, they'll probably don't know that you are a rookie in videography but that's how you look to professionals in the field. Sure everyone have to start somewhere, but what you did with this video was a premature move.
As a professional freelancer for 5 years working with a 10+ crew every day producing commercials on Sony F55's, being that I also did video in the glorious 5D MkII days, I get where you are coming from. But please, don't rush into making stuff like this about products you have little clue about. That $4000 lens is not meant to be compared with those stills lenses. They are meant to be use on two different types of cameras. Sure it has a Canon EF mount, but that's also what the Canon Cine (C100 - C500) and a handful of other professional video cameras use.
@AP points well taken but stills photographers also like Zeiss lenses for their nice cine/3D/artistic rendering capabilities that makes the stills stand apart from the rest. I whole heartedly agree that this video was a bit of joke .. I think today, in 2020, a more relevant comparison should be between the Sigma 1.4 and the Milvus 1.4.
@Ricky Anthony it's a 5 year old comment and an even older video - boasting was never the intention, though I might have been young and angry, for that I apologize. But the whole point of my comment was that I was a regular viewer of Fro for quite a while, but got frustrated when he made comments or videos about video related subjects and perhaps made fun of things in his own humorous way which may have offended some including me at that time. However, I have no problems with Fro now, even though I stopped watching his videos - but he did get a lot more into mirrorless cameras and film photography since then which I think is good.
The Otus 55mm is probably a lens I will not buy, I have the Otus 85mm and will buy the 28mm once it becomes available. 50-55 is a focal range I rarely shoot and I have the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 which is brilliant for the cases I need a 50.
Autofocus is not an issue, for most of my life, from 1972 and onward, we all shot manual focus so no biggie.
OTUS is a future proof lens for the next 30 years. When sensor quality increases, sensor size increases and when 8 K is normal, Zeiss OTUS will still retain it's value where as the Sigma will fall apart. For cinema, the Zeiss OTUS is perfect. It is manual focus and will be perfect for the RED cameras, etc. All aspects of the lens cannot be exploited by today's cameras.
For slr thpe yes. But for mirorless and rangefinder that has short flange distance: No. Check out the review and check test forum on nikon z 50mm f1.8s.
I don't see the problem with Otus being MF - on an AF body, you select the AF point you want, half-press the shutter, and when the focus point lights up you win. I do it all the time with macro because the AF hunts so much in those conditions it's worse than useless.
Yes but the image won't be as sharp because the light isn't focused so the camera has to try and compensate for it so it won't be as sharp as if you did focused manually on the lens
Thumbs up for Kai reference ;D
+Echtvergoldet when ?
Maher Baba have to watch it again, comments is over a month old.
+Maher Baba At the 8:29 mark
Lexi Jayne on behalf of my whole village, thank u
+Maher Baba Wut das ich dich hier wiederfinde xD hast mal ein Video von mir kommentiert xD
So, how does manual focus on the Sigma work? Does it have a nice long travel or, like a lot of autofocus lenses, is the control much too fiddly to use? I don't like autofocus, I want a lens that I can manually focus well and quickly.
Also, I can't tell how sharp either one of these is without downloading the test images.
Come on, how about ONE enlarged section so we can see what it looks like in there.
--scott
The Sigma has a very short throw for manual focus and is by wire. It is not designed to be used manually full time. The Zeiss lens has actually a cinema focus gear kit and can also be declicked with a simple tool in seconds. They are of different worlds. The Sigma can be had for very very cheap which is great. The Zeiss Otus or Milvus are in different leagues but can also be had on the used market for quite cheap especially if you are good at “winning” on eBay hehe. I only have the 50 1.4 Milvus but it is an outstanding lens regarding colours and how it renders contrast and even aberration control. I looked at both the sigma art and the Milvus and after much debate chose the Milvus as I shoot portraits and motion. The which i do NOT use auto focus for. Nice to be able to use the lens on both of my cams.
Which lens is sharper, the Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 apo planar or Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200mm f/2g ED VR II????
back in the day, cameras didn't have auto focus or a touch screen. People had to take photos using manual focus on moving subjects and know what to keep their settings at just by looking at the scene. cameras now days has made it so anyone can claim to be a photographer
Whats the difference between this sigma 1.4 for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens ?
Jared, do you know if you'll be at Photokina yet and if so, on which days? Would be cool to meet you. :-)
That Zeiss looks tough enough to hammer a nail into a 2x4. Jared since you do have access to prime Zeiss lenses how about a look at their 15mm 2.8 for the Nikon? It also is manual focus but how much do you need to focus with a 15mm lens on a full frame camera? LOL
if you look at DxOMark the samyang 14mm 2.8 manualfocus lens is way sharper than the zaiss 15mm 2.8 in resolving megapixels and it smokes the canon and Nikon 14mm out of the wather but it has other problem than sharpnes if you shooting buildings or brickwalls it is useless every thing is bending
I wonder how the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 stand against Otus 55 1.4?
Jared Polin which one would you pick for still life studio shoots?
for pure quality, ignoring the prices and the fact that the Zeiss is manual focus, how would you rate the Sigma if the Zeiss was a 10 ?
Hey Jared what do you think of the Sony Planar Zeiss E mount 50 1.4? Please do a review on this glass 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
i have a few zeiss manual focus lenses for my d810. I have no problem. I just use the focus-conformation light
How does these compare to Canon 50mm F1.4 USM?
Doesn't Otus gives us a green light when subject is in focus?
Now this video needs to be redone with the Zeiss Milvus 50mm f1.4.
I guess if Zeiss put a focusing motor on it, it would cost $2,000 more than it is already....
That looks like a PERFECT day to shoot, Jared.
are you ever gona review the sigma art 24-105 F4 os?
This comparison is so bad that i can't believe i am commenting on it.
My man, sharpness is not the only image quality factor, it's not the only characteristic of a lens that make's it the best of the best.
Image quality factors are:exposure accuracy,tone reproducing,dynamic range,sharpness,noise,artifacts,lens flare,color moire,LCA,contrast,distortion. All of these characteristics makes a good image but when you want to make one of them better (let's say sharpness), you can't do it without raising the costs or lowering other characteristics.
Zeiss has simply cut no corners with it's Otus line so stop bitching around about it's price. You can't even imagine how expensive would Nikon/Canon lenses would be if they had the same performance as Zeiss. Lens prices are based on production costs (material quality,etc) given at a certain moment of time.
For who is Zeiss Otus line for? in any way not for you beginners and "enthusiasts" or "pro" photographers, those lenses are for top of the line photographers in fashion, lifestyle and documentary world.
From what i seen, most people talk shit about this lenses only because they can't afford them and they never will. It's those frustrated "photographers" that simply cannot live out with the fact that there are other photographers with better equipment than them.
People, cameras and lenses are only tools and the better they get, you must understand that it will only make your job easy but as a photographer, they will not make you better.
Buy and use the tools you need and if you can't afford them, you must work harder with your current tools.
I couldn't agree more in every regard Jared, and see things just as you do here.
I really love the Sigma 35mm which I own, and the old version of the Sigma 50mm for under 400 bucks is a steal as well, it isn't AS sharp as the new one, but it does the trick and I like the bokeh that the old one produces as well.
was that a canon 5d mark iii?
it would be nice if you could take it a little bit more serious and stop with stupid blowing and smelling test just wasting my time
Oh im sorry I am wasting your time. If you can't make it past that fun stuff to get to the fact that I am giving you the tools to decide wether or not the lens is for you than don't watch. I am not changing who I am or what I enjoy doing in videos to make you happy.
i'm choosing to watch this video because I think it could give me some good information about these two lenses... But hey when you guys think is funny or really want to know how these things smell, then go for it
Duck Moore He's refering to go_alex
Jared Polin I don't care. I have been sniffing my electronics since my Sony Cassette Walkman. Always best on the first opening :D
Jared Polin Everybody loves you & your videos keep doing what you're doing! i enjoy every seconds of your videos.
I really want a Sigma art lens bad but haven’t purchased due to the lack of weather resistance.
i think the sigma should of went against the Nikon 58mm 1.4 much more comparable
and similar price
Should of went?
Mica GBM I´ve read this "Should/could of" so often here on youtube the last couple of months x.x
djaxup That's only half the problem though: the sole correct past participle of go is gone. And English is not my mother tongue. Does it mean some native speakers say the likes of "I should've did" or "I should have was"?
i should of said "gone against" but means same thing
connor taylor *Should've. May I ask where you're from, Connor?
I'm thinking sbout dropping 4 grand on a lens and I'm watching a muppet doing wind tunell tests - give me a friggin break.
you seem like someone who's a blast to hangout with
The Zeiss Otus lenses are directly based off their Cine lens line. You are buying Motion Picture lenses. Dunno if they are worth $4k+, but I'm sure they are amazing tho.
Get my Otus soon.
The Sigma isnt bad, but the otus is gigantic i all disciplines!
The sigma is the supermarket pizza, the zeiss like fresh pizza in napoli.
The camera sensors gives you 100% exact fokus feedback. Set one point than Turn the smooth ring slowly, beepbeep-shot, sharp!!! So quick so precise so easy. Dont try this style of using with a normal canon lens.
Forget it, better thrust the autofokus.
you might try the zeiss against the Samyang? (they are both manual focus)
Lorenzo Tds : Yes, but one uses glass and the other uses plastic.
Madeline Mantiss umm no they don't use plastic... except for the lens hood
In my opinion the Otus would be amazing on something like the Sony a7 series. Mirrorless cameras have a very short flange distance so with an adaptor you can essentially add a "proper" Canon or Nikon mount to it. Since it has no AF you wouldn't even lose anything.
Most mirrorless cameras also have a fokus peaking mode so manual focus would be easier than on a DSLR!
Also, the bokeh of that lens is just phenomenal... But 4000 bucks for a lens like that? I dunno... I think I'm gonna stick to my 50mm f1.8 D and G.
Yeah, but on the other side the native FE 55 F1.8 Zeiss E-mount lens is actually nearly as good in picture quality as its bigger brother, the Otus. And similar price to the Sigma. So on the A7 series, we dont need the expensive Otus fortunately :))...
So why did you buy a Nikon D4s for 6k and not a Nikon D610 for 2k? It's the same (4k) price difference. The D610 (or now the D750) has even a higher resolution than your D4s. Your D4s has better weather sealing, a higher burst rate and is more reliable. Enough to spend 4k more? If you need exactly these features, then yes. Same with the OTUS. Sharpness, contrast, colors and bokeh are as good as it gets. While the SIGMA is also sharp, the bokeh is quite ugly. If you shoot a portrait, your subject is usually not moving. AF is not necessary. Besides, the only realistic way to get your focus on a human iris at f1.4 is manual focus or spot AF. Shooting a portrait at f1.4 is like shooting a macro.
How did people shoot moving subjects before the miracle of auto focus?
Unless the Zeiss lens is made by hand and by a single person, the price is just ridiculous!
Autofocus aside, the difference (if we can talk about real difference) in the quality on these shoots certainly doesn't justify the difference in price.
I'm sure some Zeiss purist would say my comment is stupid and not educated and would find 100 reasons why 4000$ for that lens is the right price, but I can't really imagine the real benefit here even for giant hyper super pro photographers.
I will have to sell my whole body parts to purchase one of those lens :(
Great timing! Right in time for the 85mm Otus. ...
Too expensive but I'm almost sure it's meant for video. You add the spikes yourself, it doesn't have to have them on it.
Yes, you do just the thing what i was thinking yesterday ... I have thinking to buy that Sigma 50mm Art f/1.4
Love your videos! They meke me lough at times but I learn so much from you is crazy...
this may sound like a stupid but if you have had trouble with manual focus why dont you invest in a Sony camera that uses focus peaking
personally ive found that to be the most useful feature while manual focusing
Not only peaking but also manual focus magnification where the camera zooms way into the shot to see exactly the focus. That way even others saying focus peaking is not always accurate and blah blah will have another benefit to "deal" with😂
yeah i dont mind that feature but id admit it shits me sometimes
wish u would do a comparison with the sigma and the voitlander 58mm f/1.4 nokton
If I had $4000 to spend on a lens I'm sure I could have a focus screen with a split image rangefinder installed. I use my manual focus Nikkors on my D5000 all the time. You can set the meter scale in the viewfinder to work as a focus scale. This if very helpful but doesn't work in manual exposure mode which is irritating sense the meter doesn't work with these lenses anyway. But as long as you're not shooting action you can focus in A mode then switch to M to shoot.
They're both phenomenally sharp. When I looked at images side by side I couldn't tell you which is the Zeiss and which is the Sigma.
sigma is crazy sharp. no doubt.
Solid review! instead of saying they're both good like many reviews, you give solid suggestions!
Whats a good brand for tripods on a $60 budget?
TheSqueakGeek no such thing. You will have to spend a little more for something that will be reliable and last. Save up.
Jared Polin Fine :( What do you suggest?
Jared Polin I guess you can't generalize it like that. I bought a 60€ tripod from Hähnel. It's almost all metal, even the head, the legs aren't flimsy and it's got a good weight to it for traveling and indoor stuff. It supports my D7000 with the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF attatched, let's put it like that.
It does everything I need so for me it is a good tripod. There are better ones, sure. But this thing was in my budget and it is reliable.
Mathias How long it'll last is the real question. My friend has had his tripod for 15 years and it's still going strong, but he spent a decent amount on it knowing it'd be a better long term investment. I personally wouldn't want to cheap out on a tripod when I have a few grands worth of gear sitting on top of it, but it's all relative I guess. If you're using a point and shoot or a MFT system then the weight is going to be much lower so you can get away with a less expensive option.
TalesOfWar As I said, it is currently the best option for what I do with it.
I don't regularly use heavy lenses on it, I just tested if it can hold it. I usually use it for my D7000 with either a small 40mm macro lens or my 12-24mm wide angle lens, which isn't very heavy as well.
If I would regularly use it with multiple kilos of gear that also happens to be worth a few grand I would definitely buy a better tripod as well! That is a no-brainer. But right now I don't use it like that. So a light and cheap-ish tripod that is also travel-friendly is the better option for my style of shooting.
breaking news Zeiss lens dont AF on Nikon and Cannon.......how many times you need to repeat that......you really think thats a negative.....I dont think so....
The Otus with manual focus is a great Studio lens and portrait lens!
I have done this test also some years ago and I have come to these conclusions. Shooting stills of any kind of action at f/1.4 with the Otus is impossible. Getting a sharp shot of a moving subject is almost science fiction. Regarding optical performance, I can't tell that the Otus is just better than the Sigma. The Otus is sharper from f/1.4 till approx f/4 and than the Sigma starts to get better than the Otus. The Sigma has few stops less vignetting than the Otus wide open. If You shoot in low light at high ISO and need to correct vignetting, than You may not get a usable image. When shooting video, getting rid of such a massive amount of vignetting of the Otus can be a problem, as video has usually much more compression. So that is my conclusion. The Otus is a nice collectors lens, which has a very questionable use. At least for myself ...
YAY! a little Easter egg for all the DigitalRevTV fans! Bokehlishous!
iv got milvus lenses ..theyre awesome . quality sigma goes in the bin
Hats off to you, Mr. Polin.
Your energy never fails to impress, and your thoroughness (well, lets be blunt, who else in the WORLD does a better wind tunnel test?) is of utmost superiority.
I find the effort you put into these videos, the quality of, well, everything something the world and I should strive to represent.
and yes I agree the sigma is the cats meow.
Thanks, and hats off.
Jay Sullivan
I think there is no "real" use for that otus lens. It is not wide enough landscape, not long enough for tele (could be worse for tele: get never focus right). It is just one of those nifty fifty, very very expensive nifty fifty but just one of the "millions".
Go for a while without wide angle lenses, and you'll find that many focal lengths from 50mm and above work just fine for landscape. Landscape is far from only wide angle. I went for over a year without a wide angle lens, and now that I do have wide angel again, it's not my most used or favorite thing for landscape.
Awesome comparison thank you. But the first 6 minutes of this video are rubbish. Thanks man
Thanks for making this video, it helps me a lot. More vs kind of videos please.
I think you should do a video of Fujifilm XT-1 as well, its such a famous mirror less camera. I am a Nikon full frame shooter but still consider that camera
It will be great for video cinema, you'll just need a strip to be able to use a follow focus.
Great, best lens comparison I've seen
For mirrorless where you can have focus peaking, the Otus would be awesome. When Metabones comes with the EF-to-Fuji X speedbooster, I will test the Otus on my X-T1 (I have a friend who owns the Otus).
Then again at least for Sony mirrorless (which is the only one with full frame - or "real" 50/55mm - anyways today) there is the fabolous FE 55 F1.8 from Sony/Zeiss. And there it is a no-brainer decision, also due to the fact that that one is not more expensive than the Sigma :)...
Lofote
There are always speedboosters ;)
Yeah, but a speedbooster is another optical element and changes the picture quality. And since we are talking about extremely expensive high-end lenses here, that cost much more than their normal counterparts, I would not use a speedbooster here, that will drop the quality ;)... In that case I am 100% sure that the native lens will win any comparison. And Fuji does have great lenses :).
Lofote
Yeah, but the quality of Metabones' optics are very high, and they've now released even better ones :) I doubt it will be a problem. Fuji does have the 56mm which is extremely good of course.
No doubt it is very good, I also heard very good things. But still, it is one more optical element. And every optical element can only make a picture worse. (That is why simple designs in lenses usually are better). And since the difference between Otus and Sigma is only small you still don't want to make it worse, even if it is high end optics you are adding ;)... Thats why I would never add a glass protection filter element or a UV or any filter at all in front of an Otus - it just makes no sense if you are going for that small optical advantage of such an expensive lens and then ruin it again ;)
The line of Sigma is really great. I have the 24-105mm and it's fantastic in every aspect.
Could you do a video on Zeiss Milvus Lenses? Thanks
it's actually Cosina who makes the glass, Zeiss just designs them.
Unequalled Zeiss, at best lens in all senses!!!
I endured 3:10 of this. Muchas respect to those who managed to watch it til the end.
The big question - for $4000, what are you going to photograph it with ? if you're going to photograph another bug on a flower do you need to use a $4000 lens?
It's a portrait lens so if you're a pro portrait photographer who shouldn't you invest in good glass ... Wildlife lenses are also about 8k if you want a really good one
so do you need a 8k 600mm if you can get a 150-600mm for 1k?
a prime 600mm always beat a 150-600mm
it also depends on what you plans to shoot that 600mm prime. most 150-600mm zoom is just too soft
Personally, for portrait - I would prefer Nikon 85mm f1.4 or Nikon 105mm DC rather than the 50mm
Zoom can be as good or better that prime. It's about production cost end engineering costs. There is nothing that say zoom must be worse that prime. But zoom with it's huge number of lenses would cost astronomical amount of cash if it would be as good as prime. Well Leica made such zooms for their pro SL camera instead of making line of primes, also Canon end Sigma as i remember have some great zooms.
This guy's videos always show up in my feed and I had to say something. My question always was: How seriously do you take a guy with that shirt on? I shoow RAW, what the fuck you want, a cookie? "I eat with a fork" and I don't shout about it. It saddens me seeing 460.137 people taking this clown seriously smh
Wow, are you seriously that stupid? You can't take a man seriously because he's wearing that shirt? So if your pants are a bit dirty no one should be taking you seriously either, because that means you're probably a fucking stupid hobo, or? I wear the same type of shirt as him. I also wear the 'STAY FOCUSED" shirt from Tony Northrup. This just proves that it's YOU there's something wrong with if YOU can't take a person seriously because he's not wearing what you want him to wear. You may have your own opinion on things, but I don't think anyone would change because you don't like their style.
+Alex D. Would like to take a historical example here. If you had to judge Albert Einstein based on his looks, his hair would definitely make him look like a clown from a circus!!! Do I need to continue or are you smart enough to get what I am saying here?
+Ritz Haque Yeah but Einstein didn't wear a t-shirt saying "I solve complex multi variable equations" or "I devise unified theories", so your comparison not really a valid comparison, is it?
jtan163
Even if he did, that would be something to actually brag about compared to this ape's "I eat with a spoon".
+Alex D. So your problem is that you don't like the shirt?
which one is better for apsc sensors
+Ch Chand Tanha Do you want to spend like 4k on an otus though?
+Ch Chand Tanha Get the Sigma and a full frame camera. You'll take better pictures than an APS-C camera with the Otus.
***** sigma 18-35 doesnt work on full frame cameras. But other then that yes thats true
tjseid
This is not a video about the 18-35mm lens. The 50mm f1.4 Art is for full frame, and will look its sharpest and best on a full frame camera (more light, more bokeh). The person asking the question could get the Sigma lens and a boss full frame camera for the same/less money than just the Otus lens alone.
i just realized that I was having a conversation with someone else about the 18-35 my bad. And that is very true, if only I could afford it haha
The real winner would be the Zeiss FE 55 F1.8, if you would add it to the test. It has the autofocus, it has nearly the picture quality of the Otus and it even has the price of the Sigma. You'll lose 2/3 stops of light however. And: it is only available for Sony E-mount, not for the legacy DSLR camera systems...
I’ve been looking high and low for a Jared Polin review on the 50mm 1.4 zeiss 😭
Hey fro do drop test of otus...
Interesting. I've been pointing to this channel since I was active in photography years ago. I lost the appetite since digital came. Can't explain why exactly. Started with a Praktica B200 a winder, a long range flashlight at the side and a variety of lenses and many filters. One may laugh but with Sigma lenses made for the typical B series bayonet, the 35mm results were awesome at the time. Sharp, contrast, perfect white balance for me. I switched to a Canon EOS 1N when I was in LA with the idea of buying a real camera, but for some reason I never really could embrase the results. They always came out too blend with too much white whatever I tried... Changing from Kodak to Fuji made little difference... The Canon didn't come with Sigma or Zeiss lenses at the time and I could clearly see it. Clearly, despite perhaps a bit lagging DDR design of the B200, it had all it needed in terms of features. It did lack multi-exposure though but I found a way around. Was heavy as a tank but great pictures with those Sigma lenses.
Meanwhile digital became popular and it never has been my thing. I just bought a simple Sony DCS cybershot WSX60 16.2 megapixels for occasions. First question I asked... does it have a Carl Zeiss lens, because one can have the most expensive camera in the world but without proper lenses... all the investments for great pictures are essentially nullified.
And it has a Zeiss lens. Pictures are awesome again. Of course I can't dial all professional settings like the EOS, B200 or any professional DLSR, but it's fine for now.
Of course there so many other factors, however, I swear... no camera without a Zeiss lens for me, or at least a Sigma. But it's a personal choice of course.
The RAW are useless.
Why a desaturated f5 foto? A color(!!!) f1.4 "high contrast" foto please!
I hate manual focus, but the image quality is worth the extra work.
The price is crazy but ok for what i seen. I want it after testing it.
It is "the one lens" to go with.
you should add canon 50's to the mix , it would be interesting see those two against canon .
None of the standard Nikon, Canon or (non-Zeiss) Sony 50s stand a chance against these two lenses. Every test on tis planet shows this, I doubt, Fro would get something different here, but of course it would be interesting to see, if for him the Sigma Art is that much more worth to pay 3x the price of a standard Canon/Nikon/Sony 50 F1.4 ;)...
Lofote what about 50L f1.2 .
The 50 F1.2 L from Canon has a light advantage of course and gets a special bokeh due to extreme low DOF in F1.2. If you want that extreme low DOF that is the lens to go for :). In terms of sharpness in the corners etc. it however has no chance. So the F1.2 is a specialist lens :)...
I'm surprised you never did any Tamron lens review :-/
tamron in the bin
LOL $995 and $4000. Sigma just turned Otus to a joke (in term of price). Cost 4 times the price and how about the image quality difference? Can't even reach to 0.5
The more expensive lens the less difference there is. Price go exponential while perfomace go quite linear.
Tomasz Huber IT is so true man.
If you had a Sony camera you won't have to worry about manual focus because of focus peaking.
Fuck money, I love my 55mm otus. :)
Polin never touched on something. First, I'm getting a Milvus, for 95% the lens, at less cost. But photography needs to be more than "how much money?". Granted Sigma is good for the money. But realize, Zeiss doesn't come with a "Dock" ... it doesn't need to return back from "out to sea" ... there's just something right about adding a touch of craftsmanship once in a while. Cheers, MDV / www.mdvaden.com/redwoods.shtml
Jared, you should do the sniff test BEFORE the wind test... ;)
13:01 - Who would want to have a lens named Otus? He was the fat, goofy side kick of Lex Luthor in the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. :P
I want that Tetris light!
I don't trust Sigma any more... My Sigma 17-50mm's zoom ring jammed up today. It's also a known issue, apparently a screw deep inside wiggled loose and is jamming the zoom ring. This happened not long after the 2 year warranty expired.
It was an awesome lens...
Im so sorry for telling you this, but I was so distracted by your hair! :P
You could have made the same framing by just putting the 50mm a bit closer than the 55mm....this way it's really crapy look.
oh my god jared, what are doing the people 50 years ago without autofocus? it’s terrible that your are can’t use the manuel focus!
I shoot exclusively with Zeiss glass, and there all manual focus thats how they are. And I have no problem at all with it. Practices makes perfect. And zeiss will tell you to get a split prism micro prism mattglass for your Dslr. If you shoot canon they even make it for there high end camera's. And if you are on Nikon zeiss will tell you to get one from katzeye. Google it. Before autofocus days all the slr's had it in there camera so you can focus. Today's Dslr's have bright screens that wont show DoF so it's hard to see your focus, thats why it's hard to use manual lenses. But get the right mattglass and it's easy. And you miss out on so many great lenses just because you are afraid for manual focus lenses.
best of Billy Joel sheet music in the back, yes.
Jared from the past, I will tell you. I will not let some robot shift the gears in my Porsche GT3, I will not let some robot focus my camera.
None of them, i got the 85 1.4 and i'm broke
The otus is designed for studio use, where MF doesn't matter that much. The Sigma is obvioulsy better for every day use.
He could save us a couple of minutes showing us what he's gonna show us instead of telling us what he's gonna show us before he shows us...y'a know !! Otherwise, I like Jared's reviews better than most.
was this a review or a commercial? looked like a promotional speech to me..
most useless review/comparison i have ever seen
+fred weber - you should see "The Angry Photographer" then.
Useless and void of charisma or production value.
That guy knows more about photography than you and everyone you've ever met
fred weber the you haven't seen the guy who compared the canon 50mm f1.8 and compared it to the rokinon cine 35mm t1.5. Look it up an cringe you eyes out
Personally (and I knew this before watching your video), I would definitely go with the cheaper Sigma. On many other comparisons (as well as yours), the Sigma is AS sharp, if not sharper. The build quality is great on both, probably the Otus beats it a little bit, but not by too much. The Bokeh is not important to me, so I don't care which is better, and the fact that the Sigma can autofocus (even though I don't use it that much) is good to know when I DO need to use it.
Overall, even if I had $4000 burning a whole in my pocket, I would still rather get the Sigma. It is pretty much the same as the Zeiss except in name and build quality, and that's it (don't forget price, but in my example that's not an issue). In my opinion, the Zeiss is for people who literally just want to say that they have a $4000 lens (that is the same as a $1000 lens).
Why so many dislikes? I liked your review, besides smelling the lenses! :P
When you can’t afford even Sigma while Jared complains about Zeiss
The Otus does look 3050 dollars better I have to say... Beautiful colors, bokeh and sharpness