Which lens you think took what photo of 4 lens from the one shown in the video, can you tell which is the Voigtlander 58 1.4, Otus 1.4/55, Milvus 50 or 85 1.4. Does the Otus 1.4/55 image quality have that medium format look?
@@castieldiallo2945I kept J.Wray and Nephew for my cold medicine mix, lol! Not a rum head but, it certainly helps to sweat out some cold, if you take it when you first feel sick.
Taking a guess at the four images, I would say: 1. Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 2. Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4 3. Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 Nokton 4. Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Image 1. 2. and 4 have the same colour, and Voigtlander isn't the sharpest lens wide open. When comparing Image 2 and 3, the background is more out of focus and looks a little closer, this would make me think it is the 85mm f/1.4. As for image 1 and 4, this is a total guess. The bokah in the first image is slightly smaller, which would suggest it is the 50mm and the subject is larger in the forth image. In reality whilst the Otus is a far superior lens, the advantages in sharpeness and better chromatic aberration control are hard to see in this image. As for Zeiss lenses having a medium format look. It is hard to say. The first question I have to ask is what is the medium format look? Are you talking about images straight out of camera or with minimal editing, printed out and compared to a 6x4 medium format camera, or a digital medium format camera? I currently own 6 Zeiss lenses (Milvus 21mm f/2.8, 25mm f/1.4, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, and the non-Milvus 135mm f/135mm f/2, which is my favourite lens) Certainly, none of these lenses (even the 135mm) is optically as good as the Otus 55mm, 85mm and 100mm (the 28mm is more complicated) but comparing the Otus lenses, to my Fujifilm GF lenses, I would say the GF lenses are equally as good, but they do not go down to the same apertures as the Otus line of lenses, with the closest being the 85mm f/1.7, though optically the 110mm f/2 is better. When comparing to my best Nikkor lenses, 105mm f/1.4e, my 85mm Milvus is optically superior, but I bought the 105mm, because it is just more practical, and the difference isn't dramatic. So the Zeiss Otus series of lenses probably the best lenses designed for DSLR cameras, but if you compared them to the Nikkor 50mm or 85mm f/1.2s I am not sure the difference would be extreme and in certain areas the Nikkor lenses will be better. with my Zeiss lenses. I didn't buy them for their optical look, I bought them because they are fun to use (more so with mirrorless, than DSLR's). Certainly, I would say they can't compare to some of the Hasselblad prime lenses (the 80mm f/1.9 is incredible (superior to the Fujfifilm 80mm f/1.7), with the Fujifilm 55mm f/1.7, I would say that lens is superb but mounted on medium formate it becomes a 43.5mm f/1.35 lens.
@@MichaelLaing71 You're correct on the order and the Nikon 50 and 85 1.2, maybe one day I'll look into those, mainly as they are AF but, I like the 135 Plena, and may consider that first. Being retired, have to consider the need as I'm also traveling around and the extra weight adds up. Thanks for watching and sharing!
Hello, you speak from my soul. Unfortunately, many people don't understand the Otus series. I have owned the Otus 55 for 10 months and have never regretted the purchase. A few days ago I photographed a silver wedding anniversary with my Nikon Z 7 and the new Nikon Z 85mm 1.2 that I rented for it. The lens is good. But: It doesn't come close to the overall image quality of the Otus. For me, even after 10 years, the Zeiss Otus series is still the best you can buy in terms of image quality. I'm now saving for the Otus 100mm 1.4 for my Nikon Z 7. Glad you're someone who also appreciates the Otus lenses.
I have Zeiss Otus seven lenses. Out of which Otus 55 f1.4 three. 28mm, 55mm, 85mm and 100mm Milvus 15, 18, 25, 35, 100, and two 135mm f2. These are great lenses. Love them!
@@irfanomer5331 That’s quite a collection. I’ve been tempted to pick up some of the Milvus lens as they are on sale at the camera shop but man, those things are heavy. Would be nice if they made some Z mount versions.
Zeiss really did a great job with the Otus lens, happy to be able to experience the results. Would be nice if they made some autofocus Z mount versions.
I was talking to a friend just a few days ago, and I was saying the same. This Otus Range takes you into medium format territory indeed! The quality is through the roof and there's even a video where Matt Granger attaches an Otus to his Hasselblad (small) medium format! They are on a whole new level, probably the best third party lens out there! And when combined with Nikon's quality files...
The Otus line of lens are some of the best made on the market, with a price to match. Were you able to discern which of the 4 photos was taken with each lens mentioned?
@@waynerm002 I am able to despite RUclips's compression. I own 3 Otus lenses and I am very well aware of the 'feel and look' of Zeiss glass. Make no mistakes these are the best optics for a 35mm out there - hands down. You indeed step into medium format territory when it comes down to optics, as it's next to impossible to discern between a Zeiss Otus and a Hasselblad lens. The ONLY difference one might notice is the 16 bit processor on a Hassy that will give you better file quality and image quality (that too is noticeable). Other than that, the Glass is World-Class. No doubts. A quick question: how do you feel it's working out with your Z8? The reason why I'm asking is because a friend of mine (who has both Z9 and 8) feels that these files are a bit too 'electronic' i.e. the quality (especially on high ISO) falls a bit apart with loss of details. I still keep my D810 and D850 and with these Otus they produce unbelievable results!
@@enricomarconi8358Good to know some are able to see that even with YT compression. I included that photo John took of my wife with the Hasselblad, as that was my first time seeing the results first hand. Really high ISO performance on the Z8 isn't as clean as the Z6/6II I owned, I imagine the Zf would be even better. I did take some night shots and with some noise reduction they were fine however, I had to reduce the ISO and increase the exposure time to get less noise. I haven't tried it with people, it was a handheld city skyline shot. I have thought about picking up a Zf but, I want to see what the Z6 III brings first. I much prefer the look and feel of the Df to the Zf however, the Zf uses the same battery as the other full frame, non professional body cameras, with a host of updated, useful features. Just holding out until the Z6 III.
Sorry, I have not used the Nikon 50mm 1.2, I cannot offer a comparison. I've seen Matt Irwin's video of the Nikon Z 50 1.2, he mentioned the lens gives a sort medium format look, much the same as Zeiss states about their Otus line of lens. I suspect the Zeiss may end up still being a tad better. The Nikon lens cost about 1/2 of what the Otus costs, brand new and it also has auotofucus. The Otus and adapter should bring the weight to about the same as the Z 50.
Hi Wayne. I unloaded a couple handfuls of F-mount lenses when I bought first the Nikon Z9, then the Z8. One of the last F-mounts I sold was a Zeiss Milvus 100mm f2M ZF2 Macro lens that I used on my Nikon D850 and Nikon Z7ii. Yes, manual focus was not my favorite thing, but the rendering!! While I did use it for some macro work, I also enjoyed using it for portrait work and landscapes. Eventually, I added the Nikon Z 105mm f2.8 Macro lens. It's a better fit for me because most of my use case involves shooting movement, especially at dog shows. The Z 105mm f2.8 isn't as special as the Zeiss Milvus, but the autofocus and IBIS capabilities mean that I use it far more than I did the Zeiss lens. And while I love all my Nikon Z lenses, the rendering of the Z 105mm Macro is quite lovely. But now your video has me thinking about picking up a Zeiss 85mm lens. I had sold a Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art Lens during the Z9/Z8 purposes and I really did love the rendering of that lens and that focal length and I don't have an 85mm Z lens. I will definitely consider looking for a nice used Zeiss lens because of the memories that your video has stirred regarding my Zeiss experience. And, yes, the Zeiss build quality is stellar. Take care, Wayne. Once again I am impressed with your eye.
Hi John, thanks for watching and the kind comments. There are some lens that you love the images they produce and want to keep long term. The Voigtlander were my favorites from the DSLR days, as mentioned, I kept them until recently. I’m tempted to get more Zeiss glass but, I’ll have to wait until I’ve settled someplace before doing so, a couple of those will add significantly to my travel load. The Nikon Z 105 macro is also a great lens and I’m considering getting a new version as it’s going to be much lighter than the Zeiss 100 macro and it has VR. I did some videos with the one I had and worked well, there were some misses when filming ducks and it could have been due to the Z6II’s AF system. With the Z8 AF being so good, the experience should be a lot better. It would be great if Zeiss would make some lens for the Z line of cameras, Sony’s partnership netted them 3 different lines, with 2 being AF. The Batis line is easier to adapt to Z cameras, with the Megadap ETZ21/Pro adapter and much lighter overall but, they didn’t make any 1.4 versions in that line.
My main dog show lens is the Nikon Z 70-200mm f2.8 VR S. Often, if it's outdoors I'll have the 70-200mm on the Z9 and have the Nikon Z 24-120mm f4 on the Z8 (both much better than their Nikon F-mount counterparts). Indoors, I do use the Z 105mm f2.8 Macro because it's good in low light, but I'll probably pick up the Z 24-7-mm f2.8 for the second camera indoor body. That allows me to shoot from a wide shot to a reasonably long 200mm depending on what I'm trying to capture.@@waynerm002
@@johnforbes4795 Nice setup. The 24-120 is my favorite everyday, everything lens. I've been using it indoors as well and bumping the ISO, when needed. These new software can clean things up pretty well. I've used the 70-200 to take photos of insects and lizards, almost macro like. Still debating if I really need to get the Z 105 MC VR S.
I don't have as many lenses as I did when I was shooting F-mount, but I have six Z's at the moment. It's funny, my first Z lens was the Nikon Z 24-200mm f4-6.3 and I've thought that it's "not good enough" and considered selling it. But, then I see people like Nigel Danson capturing beautiful images with it and I realize that it's more a question of my working on my craft than having the "very best". @@waynerm002
@@waynerm002 a jamo. i thought so. i still use the d850 for film look photos. as for the z system, it a z7ii, 50mm f1.8 and a 24 - 120mm f4. the z8 will purchased later this year.
@@castieldiallo2945 Thought you picked up a Z8 already. You are going to love it. It reminds me of shooting with a DSLR, just feels good in the hands. Pairing it with that Zeiss Otus, produces some great images. Makes me want to get a couple more Zeiss lens.
@@hankdinardo4308 I have a link to used version on Amazon in the description area. They have 2 more (NIkon version) here in Malaysia, they have a couple for Canon, 28 1.4, debating I should grab that one but, I’ll need an adapter to use it. If I can find the adapter, I’ll leave it alone.
For Filmmaking instead, both the Otus and the Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon Primes are great optics! The Otus being more exact in every way (colour rendition, sharpness etc) but the Schneider being more 'cinematographic and poetic"... these are the optics to have, everything else is noise, really. Even Nikon that makes great glass, but only the top tier (600 f/4, 800 PF, 50&85 f/1.2 etc, you get my point).
I did see that about the Milvus line, in addition to the blue gasket they have. I've seen the Milvus 1.4/25 and 35 and the 2/35 available on clearance here. The 1.4's are heavier than the Otus 55 and are roughly the same dimensions! I agree these optics are certainly worth owning if a person cares about image quality. If Nikon could make some AF lens with similar performance of the Otus line, at a not too expensive price, there would be some takers. The 135 1.8 Plena is a great performer, I am thinking about one of those in the future.
@@waynerm002 I hear you Wayne, well let me start by saying that at Zeiss the development of the Otus range started with a 'blanc cheque' (or blanc check depending where you are...). Literally Zeiss gave its engineer a signed cheque telling them "get us the best lenses in the world. Period - and why you're at it, write the number you need to carry out R&D". I doubt that this will ever happen at Nikon or Canon to be honest. Having said so, Nikon and Canon (unlike Sony) gave Zeiss the license to produce an F and EF mount lenses STRICTLY manual (or else all the CaNikon production would have end up in the trash). Yes, the trash, because this is precisely what I feel every time I review images shot with the Otus range. I feel like going home and selling everything else that isn't Zeiss... Sorry but they are THAT GOOD! The only advantage with Nikon glass is AF at this point and some focal lengths that aren't available on the Zeiss menu (so to speak). Plena is a great lens bro' get it, absolutely get it! I tell you what gets close (but doesn't quite match the micro contrast nor colour rendition) to the Zeiss monsters: the upper line at Nikon such as the Noct f/0.95 (but it costs an arm and a leg) the 800 pf the 600 f/4 with TC and these lenses along this line... every other optic, yeah they're good but they disappear when placed next to a Zeiss Otus (or Milvus for that matter). Camera wise, yeah the New Z6 iii is promising, let's hope that Nikon this time won't give us a half-baked camera like the Z6 and Z6ii were. Yes, these sensors? Amazing and not so noisy at all (also given the scarse pixellation on a 35 format sensor) but I suspect that the mechanical shutter might have something to do with that as well. Their problem? AF... still unresolved to this day, sadly. Shame on you Nikon as I'm a Nikon shooter and I deserve a working AF!!
I really like the results, makes me want to get a few of them. Hopefully them make some updated versions for the Z line, with autofocus. This way more Nikon users can experience it. Not many people like manual focus.
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HiCxoDeo0hc/mqdefault.jpg)
Which lens you think took what photo of 4 lens from the one shown in the video, can you tell which is the Voigtlander 58 1.4, Otus 1.4/55, Milvus 50 or 85 1.4. Does the Otus 1.4/55 image quality have that medium format look?
Yes, my man. I understand patois and I have a bottle if bay rum in the house. Lol.
@@castieldiallo2945I kept J.Wray and Nephew for my cold medicine mix, lol! Not a rum head but, it certainly helps to sweat out some cold, if you take it when you first feel sick.
Taking a guess at the four images, I would say:
1. Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4
2. Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4
3. Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 Nokton
4. Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4
Image 1. 2. and 4 have the same colour, and Voigtlander isn't the sharpest lens wide open. When comparing Image 2 and 3, the background is more out of focus and looks a little closer, this would make me think it is the 85mm f/1.4.
As for image 1 and 4, this is a total guess. The bokah in the first image is slightly smaller, which would suggest it is the 50mm and the subject is larger in the forth image. In reality whilst the Otus is a far superior lens, the advantages in sharpeness and better chromatic aberration control are hard to see in this image.
As for Zeiss lenses having a medium format look. It is hard to say. The first question I have to ask is what is the medium format look? Are you talking about images straight out of camera or with minimal editing, printed out and compared to a 6x4 medium format camera, or a digital medium format camera?
I currently own 6 Zeiss lenses (Milvus 21mm f/2.8, 25mm f/1.4, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, and the non-Milvus 135mm f/135mm f/2, which is my favourite lens) Certainly, none of these lenses (even the 135mm) is optically as good as the Otus 55mm, 85mm and 100mm (the 28mm is more complicated) but comparing the Otus lenses, to my Fujifilm GF lenses, I would say the GF lenses are equally as good, but they do not go down to the same apertures as the Otus line of lenses, with the closest being the 85mm f/1.7, though optically the 110mm f/2 is better.
When comparing to my best Nikkor lenses, 105mm f/1.4e, my 85mm Milvus is optically superior, but I bought the 105mm, because it is just more practical, and the difference isn't dramatic.
So the Zeiss Otus series of lenses probably the best lenses designed for DSLR cameras, but if you compared them to the Nikkor 50mm or 85mm f/1.2s I am not sure the difference would be extreme and in certain areas the Nikkor lenses will be better.
with my Zeiss lenses. I didn't buy them for their optical look, I bought them because they are fun to use (more so with mirrorless, than DSLR's). Certainly, I would say they can't compare to some of the Hasselblad prime lenses (the 80mm f/1.9 is incredible (superior to the Fujfifilm 80mm f/1.7), with the Fujifilm 55mm f/1.7, I would say that lens is superb but mounted on medium formate it becomes a 43.5mm f/1.35 lens.
@@MichaelLaing71 You're correct on the order and the Nikon 50 and 85 1.2, maybe one day I'll look into those, mainly as they are AF but, I like the 135 Plena, and may consider that first. Being retired, have to consider the need as I'm also traveling around and the extra weight adds up. Thanks for watching and sharing!
Hello, you speak from my soul. Unfortunately, many people don't understand the Otus series. I have owned the Otus 55 for 10 months and have never regretted the purchase. A few days ago I photographed a silver wedding anniversary with my Nikon Z 7 and the new Nikon Z 85mm 1.2 that I rented for it. The lens is good. But: It doesn't come close to the overall image quality of the Otus. For me, even after 10 years, the Zeiss Otus series is still the best you can buy in terms of image quality. I'm now saving for the Otus 100mm 1.4 for my Nikon Z 7. Glad you're someone who also appreciates the Otus lenses.
@@Testprinz These lens are awesome from the beginning, I’m happy I was in a position to pick one up. Thanks for watching.
I have Zeiss Otus seven lenses. Out of which Otus 55 f1.4 three. 28mm, 55mm, 85mm and 100mm
Milvus 15, 18, 25, 35, 100, and two 135mm f2.
These are great lenses. Love them!
@@irfanomer5331 That’s quite a collection. I’ve been tempted to pick up some of the Milvus lens as they are on sale at the camera shop but man, those things are heavy. Would be nice if they made some Z mount versions.
Great Story Telling Wayne. Cheers!
Thanks Randall! Really great lens.
Beautiful photos and great videos. Awsome lens!
Zeiss really did a great job with the Otus lens, happy to be able to experience the results. Would be nice if they made some autofocus Z mount versions.
I love you man I also Zeiss Otus and Milvus each in three. I am also hobbyist like your goodself.
I was talking to a friend just a few days ago, and I was saying the same. This Otus Range takes you into medium format territory indeed! The quality is through the roof and there's even a video where Matt Granger attaches an Otus to his Hasselblad (small) medium format! They are on a whole new level, probably the best third party lens out there! And when combined with Nikon's quality files...
The Otus line of lens are some of the best made on the market, with a price to match. Were you able to discern which of the 4 photos was taken with each lens mentioned?
@@waynerm002 I am able to despite RUclips's compression. I own 3 Otus lenses and I am very well aware of the 'feel and look' of Zeiss glass. Make no mistakes these are the best optics for a 35mm out there - hands down. You indeed step into medium format territory when it comes down to optics, as it's next to impossible to discern between a Zeiss Otus and a Hasselblad lens. The ONLY difference one might notice is the 16 bit processor on a Hassy that will give you better file quality and image quality (that too is noticeable). Other than that, the Glass is World-Class. No doubts. A quick question: how do you feel it's working out with your Z8? The reason why I'm asking is because a friend of mine (who has both Z9 and 8) feels that these files are a bit too 'electronic' i.e. the quality (especially on high ISO) falls a bit apart with loss of details. I still keep my D810 and D850 and with these Otus they produce unbelievable results!
@@enricomarconi8358Good to know some are able to see that even with YT compression. I included that photo John took of my wife with the Hasselblad, as that was my first time seeing the results first hand. Really high ISO performance on the Z8 isn't as clean as the Z6/6II I owned, I imagine the Zf would be even better. I did take some night shots and with some noise reduction they were fine however, I had to reduce the ISO and increase the exposure time to get less noise. I haven't tried it with people, it was a handheld city skyline shot.
I have thought about picking up a Zf but, I want to see what the Z6 III brings first. I much prefer the look and feel of the Df to the Zf however, the Zf uses the same battery as the other full frame, non professional body cameras, with a host of updated, useful features. Just holding out until the Z6 III.
How would you compare the image quality, and sharpness between the otus 55 and Z 50 1.2 from the Z8?
Sorry, I have not used the Nikon 50mm 1.2, I cannot offer a comparison. I've seen Matt Irwin's video of the Nikon Z 50 1.2, he mentioned the lens gives a sort medium format look, much the same as Zeiss states about their Otus line of lens. I suspect the Zeiss may end up still being a tad better.
The Nikon lens cost about 1/2 of what the Otus costs, brand new and it also has auotofucus. The Otus and adapter should bring the weight to about the same as the Z 50.
Hi Wayne. I unloaded a couple handfuls of F-mount lenses when I bought first the Nikon Z9, then the Z8. One of the last F-mounts I sold was a Zeiss Milvus 100mm f2M ZF2 Macro lens that I used on my Nikon D850 and Nikon Z7ii. Yes, manual focus was not my favorite thing, but the rendering!! While I did use it for some macro work, I also enjoyed using it for portrait work and landscapes. Eventually, I added the Nikon Z 105mm f2.8 Macro lens. It's a better fit for me because most of my use case involves shooting movement, especially at dog shows. The Z 105mm f2.8 isn't as special as the Zeiss Milvus, but the autofocus and IBIS capabilities mean that I use it far more than I did the Zeiss lens. And while I love all my Nikon Z lenses, the rendering of the Z 105mm Macro is quite lovely. But now your video has me thinking about picking up a Zeiss 85mm lens. I had sold a Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art Lens during the Z9/Z8 purposes and I really did love the rendering of that lens and that focal length and I don't have an 85mm Z lens. I will definitely consider looking for a nice used Zeiss lens because of the memories that your video has stirred regarding my Zeiss experience. And, yes, the Zeiss build quality is stellar. Take care, Wayne. Once again I am impressed with your eye.
Hi John, thanks for watching and the kind comments. There are some lens that you love the images they produce and want to keep long term. The Voigtlander were my favorites from the DSLR days, as mentioned, I kept them until recently. I’m tempted to get more Zeiss glass but, I’ll have to wait until I’ve settled someplace before doing so, a couple of those will add significantly to my travel load. The Nikon Z 105 macro is also a great lens and I’m considering getting a new version as it’s going to be much lighter than the Zeiss 100 macro and it has VR. I did some videos with the one I had and worked well, there were some misses when filming ducks and it could have been due to the Z6II’s AF system. With the Z8 AF being so good, the experience should be a lot better. It would be great if Zeiss would make some lens for the Z line of cameras, Sony’s partnership netted them 3 different lines, with 2 being AF. The Batis line is easier to adapt to Z cameras, with the Megadap ETZ21/Pro adapter and much lighter overall but, they didn’t make any 1.4 versions in that line.
My main dog show lens is the Nikon Z 70-200mm f2.8 VR S. Often, if it's outdoors I'll have the 70-200mm on the Z9 and have the Nikon Z 24-120mm f4 on the Z8 (both much better than their Nikon F-mount counterparts). Indoors, I do use the Z 105mm f2.8 Macro because it's good in low light, but I'll probably pick up the Z 24-7-mm f2.8 for the second camera indoor body. That allows me to shoot from a wide shot to a reasonably long 200mm depending on what I'm trying to capture.@@waynerm002
@@johnforbes4795 Nice setup. The 24-120 is my favorite everyday, everything lens. I've been using it indoors as well and bumping the ISO, when needed. These new software can clean things up pretty well. I've used the 70-200 to take photos of insects and lizards, almost macro like. Still debating if I really need to get the Z 105 MC VR S.
I don't have as many lenses as I did when I was shooting F-mount, but I have six Z's at the moment. It's funny, my first Z lens was the Nikon Z 24-200mm f4-6.3 and I've thought that it's "not good enough" and considered selling it. But, then I see people like Nigel Danson capturing beautiful images with it and I realize that it's more a question of my working on my craft than having the "very best". @@waynerm002
@johnforbes4795 I agree both being better than their counterpart. Impressive glass those two you mentioned.
An interesting review. By the way, are you of West Indian descent?
Yep. Jamaican. Thanks for watching, do you have an idea of which lens was used for each of the 4 photos?
@@waynerm002 a jamo. i thought so. i still use the d850 for film look photos. as for the z system, it a z7ii, 50mm f1.8 and a 24 - 120mm f4. the z8 will purchased later this year.
@@castieldiallo2945 Thought you picked up a Z8 already. You are going to love it. It reminds me of shooting with a DSLR, just feels good in the hands. Pairing it with that Zeiss Otus, produces some great images. Makes me want to get a couple more Zeiss lens.
@@waynerm002 i flipped it.
There is still kinks in the Z8 camera. Hopefully by July they will be ironed out. Then I will get another Z8. Skeen?
Beautiful lens Wayne
Thanks Hank. I feel like I won the lottery with this lens. The image quality is really impressive.
@@waynerm002 I searched for one used I couldn’t find one!
@@hankdinardo4308 I have a link to used version on Amazon in the description area. They have 2 more (NIkon version) here in Malaysia, they have a couple for Canon, 28 1.4, debating I should grab that one but, I’ll need an adapter to use it. If I can find the adapter, I’ll leave it alone.
For Filmmaking instead, both the Otus and the Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon Primes are great optics! The Otus being more exact in every way (colour rendition, sharpness etc) but the Schneider being more 'cinematographic and poetic"... these are the optics to have, everything else is noise, really. Even Nikon that makes great glass, but only the top tier (600 f/4, 800 PF, 50&85 f/1.2 etc, you get my point).
I did see that about the Milvus line, in addition to the blue gasket they have. I've seen the Milvus 1.4/25 and 35 and the 2/35 available on clearance here. The 1.4's are heavier than the Otus 55 and are roughly the same dimensions! I agree these optics are certainly worth owning if a person cares about image quality.
If Nikon could make some AF lens with similar performance of the Otus line, at a not too expensive price, there would be some takers. The 135 1.8 Plena is a great performer, I am thinking about one of those in the future.
@@waynerm002 I hear you Wayne, well let me start by saying that at Zeiss the development of the Otus range started with a 'blanc cheque' (or blanc check depending where you are...). Literally Zeiss gave its engineer a signed cheque telling them "get us the best lenses in the world. Period - and why you're at it, write the number you need to carry out R&D". I doubt that this will ever happen at Nikon or Canon to be honest. Having said so, Nikon and Canon (unlike Sony) gave Zeiss the license to produce an F and EF mount lenses STRICTLY manual (or else all the CaNikon production would have end up in the trash). Yes, the trash, because this is precisely what I feel every time I review images shot with the Otus range. I feel like going home and selling everything else that isn't Zeiss... Sorry but they are THAT GOOD! The only advantage with Nikon glass is AF at this point and some focal lengths that aren't available on the Zeiss menu (so to speak). Plena is a great lens bro' get it, absolutely get it! I tell you what gets close (but doesn't quite match the micro contrast nor colour rendition) to the Zeiss monsters: the upper line at Nikon such as the Noct f/0.95 (but it costs an arm and a leg) the 800 pf the 600 f/4 with TC and these lenses along this line... every other optic, yeah they're good but they disappear when placed next to a Zeiss Otus (or Milvus for that matter). Camera wise, yeah the New Z6 iii is promising, let's hope that Nikon this time won't give us a half-baked camera like the Z6 and Z6ii were. Yes, these sensors? Amazing and not so noisy at all (also given the scarse pixellation on a 35 format sensor) but I suspect that the mechanical shutter might have something to do with that as well. Their problem? AF... still unresolved to this day, sadly. Shame on you Nikon as I'm a Nikon shooter and I deserve a working AF!!
@@enricomarconi8358how would you compare the Otus 50 & 85 to the Z 50 1.2 & 85 1.2 with regards to overall image quality and sharpness?
Zeiss is killer
I really like the results, makes me want to get a few of them. Hopefully them make some updated versions for the Z line, with autofocus. This way more Nikon users can experience it. Not many people like manual focus.
Look good, nice lens. Beautiful wife.😊
Yes.