Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art Vs Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4

[@Proctie1]

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.

[@melodychest9020]

@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.

[@Proctie1]

​@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.

[@echtvergoldet]

Thumbs up for Kai reference ;D

[@MaherBaba]

+Echtvergoldet when ?

[@echtvergoldet]

Maher Baba have to watch it again, comments is over a month old.

[@lexijayne2999]

+Maher Baba At the 8:29 mark

[@MaherBaba]

Lexi Jayne on behalf of my whole village, thank u

[@uwoya1able]

+Maher Baba Wut das ich dich hier wiederfinde xD hast mal ein Video von mir kommentiert xD

[@bertiewooster4043]

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.

[@tomhughes5123]

iv got milvus lenses ..theyre awesome . quality sigma goes in the bin

[@ConnorTaylor17]

i think the sigma should of went against the Nikon 58mm 1.4 much more comparable and similar price

[@AnPrionsaBeag]

Should of went?

[@djaxup]

Mica GBM I´ve read this "Should/could of" so often here on youtube the last couple of months x.x

[@AnPrionsaBeag]

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"?

[@ConnorTaylor17]

i should of said "gone against" but means same thing

[@AnPrionsaBeag]

connor taylor *Should've. May I ask where you're from, Connor?

[@k0pix]

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

[@froknowsphoto]

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.

[@k0pix]

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

[@williammetzger1992]

Duck Moore He's refering to go_alex

[@flipicaneze]

Jared Polin I don't care. I have been sniffing my electronics since my Sony Cassette Walkman. Always best on the first opening :D

[@kosuphot1163]

Jared Polin Everybody loves you & your videos keep doing what you're doing! i enjoy every seconds of your videos.

[@TheRcEngineer]

Don't forget the Otus is an investment graded lens, it will keep its value during the next decades.

[@PeacePham1991]

Maybe that's true but it's around half of its retail price on used market now

[@chicobraz4335]

Why ?

[@joeensley3912]

No one took into account DSLR’s would fade away

[@joseph-the-seventh]

85mm 1.4 Otus is selling brand new for $2,500 USD right now, so not sure if you prediction was accurate.

[@alexfiftyem]

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

[@juliusalexander2275]

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.

[@reezvi394]

+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?

[@1337flite]

+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?

[@alexfiftyem]

jtan163 Even if he did, that would be something to actually brag about compared to this ape's "I eat with a spoon".

[@socas_nic]

+Alex D. So your problem is that you don't like the shirt?

[@OgiVanKenobi1984]

you shoot raw and talk too much, zero content, waste of time. Can't really understand why you are so popular and why youtube is suggesting you videos for me all the time!

[@skipad4306]

yt suggests cuz you keep comming back. eyes dont see, heart dont feel

[@TheNisgaa]

+OgiVanKenobi1984 Yup, I unsubscribed months ago because this guy just doesn't do the same as he used to anymore.

[@sigmaoctantis_nz]

What's wrong with shooting raw?

[@marriedwithtech2823]

so much trolling lol

[@conradsenior5843]

Nothing, but he was right about the rest of it.

[@DanijelTurina973]

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.

[@yakuza_suske3189]

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

[@YoniSherman]

Fuck money, I love my 55mm otus. :)

[@sadenb]

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.

[@cryptobyt2403]

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.

[@MeisterYodarkus]

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.

[@blackclavish]

MeisterYodarkus : I'm still not taking Sigma seriously. Their lenses are cheap and generally lacking the quality of major camera manufacturers' native lenses.

[@MeisterYodarkus]

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.

[@TallTreesClub]

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 !!

[@rioandashley]

Awesome comparison thank you. But the first 6 minutes of this video are rubbish. Thanks man

[@tykhoon]

most useless review/comparison i have ever seen

[@1337flite]

+fred weber - you should see "The Angry Photographer" then. Useless and void of charisma or production value.

[@chrisholden2844]

That guy knows more about photography than you and everyone you've ever met

[@BrianNguyenIHASDACANSER]

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

[@temporarymomentary]

4000 $ for a manual focus lens.... ahahahahaha give me a F... break ! These days manual focusing is much slower than auto-focusing.

[@cryptobyt2403]

I dont think so. Large Manual lens has 1 major disadvantage. Difficult to focus on moving target. Thats why i limit MF lens up to 50mm. Above 50mm must be AF lens. I own fm2n im used to mf. Yes old manual cam focus much faster than modern camera. (Split prism). Why noone except fuji create microprism simulation?

[@GrantUchida]

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

[@my9demons]

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.

[@Stark1ller]

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.

[@GC2TEJJ]

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.

[@bdkbaz1]

Boy was that an "un-biased" comparison. And so scientific too!! Don't you think you designed the criteria of the tests to the strengths of the sigma? Why even post this worthless dribble. No facts just emotion. Oh oh one fact. You cant afford the ottis. Well you know what jarred? On that criteria we would have to not like Lieca or Hassleblad or a lot of other cameras because you cant afford them. In the future give a scientific sharpness and distotion and vinietting at different aperature test and if you have to do a sniff test at least let it be funny.

[@ubg43]

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.

[@destinationsanonymous2617]

you seem like someone who's a blast to hangout with

[@ManyDoors777]

I guess if Zeiss put a focusing motor on it, it would cost $2,000 more than it is already....

[@silvergts1998]

Zeiss Otis line is so much better than sigma. Zeiss is also great for video, sigma...blah. I wouldn't put a sigma on my Red Epic W.

[@brentparker9527]

*Sigh*. This is the first time I've watched your videos. I think you overdo the humor. A little bit sprinkled in is cool, but this wind tunnel and sniff test is a waste of time.

[@JonasEklundh]

Weight and "wind tunnel"... Sorry, this has gone on long enough. Unsubscribe.

[@nharneet]

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....

[@joeblow9931]

i have a few zeiss manual focus lenses for my d810. I have no problem. I just use the focus-conformation light

[@burblingbarbacoa4944]

YAY! a little Easter egg for all the DigitalRevTV fans! Bokehlishous!

[@GarryBurgess]

Now this video needs to be redone with the Zeiss Milvus 50mm f1.4.

[@kludgeaudio]

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

[@anthonyrock5039]

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.

[@goommenter]

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".

[@Alexandra-Rex]

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.

[@TallTreesClub]

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

[@radimpalus]

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 ...

[@cmurphylife]

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

[@alexlanza79]

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.

[@Kprawl291986]

I will have to sell my whole body parts to purchase one of those lens :(

[@PossMcLeod]

Respect for anyone who can make good marketing and branding beat good content. It's a gift. Seriously though, maybe spend a little more time recruiting a real model (instead of a bobblehead toy...seriously? #jarjarbinks) and less time blowing or sniffing the subjects of your reviews?! I'm not a hater, used to love your vids, but I'm gonna have to side with most of the negative reviews here, I just wasted 10 minutes of my life and learned nothing from this vid. Would have been longer but I got bored and fast forwarded. Bring back the old Jared before he sold out.

[@RoesMeister]

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.

[@photographerjonathan]

the newest Nikon 58 f1.4 is more money then the Sigma and still not as good, so to say it's twice as much money as the name brands is not true, and the Canon 50 f 1.2 L is more than twice as much money as the Sigma, and that is also not as good as the Sigma 50 Art, and as far as the Otus goes, I would only use the Otus on a camera with focus peeking, like a Sony A7r, but I would never actually buy the Otus no matter how good it is without auto focus, if I was looking for the ultimate image quality, I would rather put the $4000 dollars toward a medium format camera, and as far as this review goes, it smells and blows like Jared, other than the actual images to look at, but almost everyone has already seen comparison images of these two lenses before, so this video was put together just to gets allot of hits, and even though I don't watch this channel anymore, the title suckered me into watching

[@socc3r7k1ng]

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.

[@MattisProbably]

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.

[@Lofote]

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 :))...

[@MatSjo]

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.

[@DLCSpider]

I prefer MF over AF but you really want an EVF for this lens (= no Canon, Nikon, Pentax). Otherwise it's just wasted potential.

[@shawnmanh7707]

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

[@CzornyLisek]

The more expensive lens the less difference there is. Price go exponential while perfomace go quite linear.

[@shawnmanh7707]

Tomasz Huber IT is so true man.

[@drguffey]

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.

[@Bredddi]

This title cracks me up. It might as well say fat video game player vs Michael Jordan in his prime. Sharp is not everything. Zeiss owns sigmas ass at pop/microcontrast.

[@gustavo_if3042]

Which lens is sharper, the Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 apo planar or Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200mm f/2g ED VR II????

[@vedadrokkor]

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.

[@dennishumbla5431]

I wonder how the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 stand against Otus 55 1.4?

[@Testprinz]

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!

[@hammerhead2325]

If you don't capture your audience in the first 7 seconds they flee. And while your opinion may have real value I am not interested in sticking around to find out.

[@yoshicatgod]

The otus is designed for studio use, where MF doesn't matter that much. The Sigma is obvioulsy better for every day use.

[@convict6326]

You're a joke, sniffing and blowing? Then again how you meant to take a guy serious when he don't know his own identity and hate that afro knows bla bla that he says

[@alfredsmith6039]

531 dislikes. I know why. What an annoying voice this bloke has.

[@carlosparra6867]

I know, great review and to the point.

[@vipersrt30]

good info, i've always thought that sigma had a crazy performance but wow even against the best of the best? aside from the video content. what's more funny than the sniff test is the controversy in comments Some people looooove to argue. 1: HEY STOP SNIFFING! ITS WEIRD! GROSS 2: Calm down bro, he can do whatever he wants. 1: Why the heck is he even sniffing electronics? useless information and waste of time! 2: It doesn't hurt you, does it? nobody is forcing you to watch too! "someone out there does a scientific research about sniffing electronics looking at psychological benefits, health risk and/or effective use of time"

[@Nurg1982]

+MyOwnSoul apart from that, the sniff test took 5-10 seconds of the 13 mins of this video......people are not only pixel peeping but focusing too much on the littlest of parts of the video. As for the wind tunnel 'test' people complain about, it's more for outdoor windy conditions. I bet they'd cry if their precious overpriced piece of manual focus crashes on the rocks with a gush of wind. He could've mentioned the weight distribution of the Zeiss is worrisome but he left that out. I am worried when looking at the thickness of the front of the lens so that's something people need to consider. All in all, Zeiss is a waste of money with Sigma having made the new benchmark in sharpness.

[@Majed750]

Zeiss Otus Price = 4 Lens of Sigma , which is mean dose the outs 4 times better then sigma ? the answer is NO

[@necrodh]

like 40 times better

[@skipad4306]

+Necrodh ndh lol. realy? sarcasm or ignorant

[@AgnostosGnostos]

Zeiss is the best lens money can buy. Jared is blaming Otus for not having auto focus. This is unfair and he knows it. Simply Zeiss has so superior lenses that Canon and Nikon don't allow Zeiss the rights for autofocus. Both want to have the advantage. In other words, no Zeiss lens for canon and Nikon mounts has auto focus. Jared compared oranges with apples. The Zeiss Otus is crazy sharp lens with virtually no distortion and chromatic aberration. Zeiss didn't bothered to make it affordable, light, small or with stabilization. Those parameters kill the quality of photos. Zeiss proved that it is above the Nikon and Canon oligarchy. Zeiss produce also great lenses for medium format cameras like Hasselblad and cinema lenses. Zeiss cinema lenses differ from photographic lenses from their yellow letters. Otus lens has yellow letters and there is a reason for that. Videographers spent more money on lenses than photographers. And actually the Otus is highly appreciated by videographers.

[@mohamadabdelrida2866]

such things can neither be approached accurately using a rational mind. you have to look at it rationally. on top of that... some people really need such sharpness and they do have the budget for it so yeah thats yoyr answer mate.

[@christosphillips3568]

Achilleas Labrou the only reason why Zeiss doesn't produce auto focus and or VR for Nikon and Canon is because they have not been issued the permit by these two companies. It does make them for Sony since Sony has been in collaboration with Zeiss. I have no doubt that if Zeiss wanted to make an auto focus VR lense for Nikon for instance it would have been second to none....you never own a Zeiss lens , you merely look after it for the next generation. And comparing a Zeiss Otus to a Sigma in my mind is a Joke . like comparing a Rolls Royce and a Toyota Camry.

[@Gus-px7hd]

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 ?

[@S.Creations1]

I really want a Sigma art lens bad but haven’t purchased due to the lack of weather resistance.

[@Windiguana]

What a waste of time... Just go away... You give photography a bad name by existing

[@Nat.ImagesLarge.F.Photographer]

Unequalled Zeiss, at best lens in all senses!!!

[@christosphillips3568]

Hey Jared ....guess what....the Otus is the cheapest lens ....now you go figure this out and come back and tell us why.

[@carlosparra8976]

why dont you just save us the trouble and tell us yourself.

[@christosphillips3568]

Carlos Parra You have never ever been close to an Otus before have you?

[@carlosparra8976]

Christos Phillips no...again, enlighten us and stop answwering questions with questions.

[@christosphillips3568]

LOL let Jared figure this one out and tell us bro have patience .

[@carlosparra8976]

maybe because it will last so much longer than the other? you ve as helpful as a customer service agent from verizon

[@WomackPhotoKCMO]

That looks like a PERFECT day to shoot, Jared.

[@lokatpic]

Last year at the photo show in Los Angeles. I got to play with the Sigma.. Soo Nice. I am not interested in the Otus. Too much money. I don't need the name. Sigma is sharp.

[@blackclavish]

Don Jones Sigma is a bit inferior compared to Zeiss. That's just a fact.

[@dimstamat]

Why so many dislikes? I liked your review, besides smelling the lenses! :P

[@NotoriousSEG1]

How did people shoot moving subjects before the miracle of auto focus?

[@AlfredThomaz]

Doesn't Otus gives us a green light when subject is in focus?

[@gcardinal]

lol and some ppl might actually think this review is not a joke. It is.

[@GC2TEJJ]

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.

[@SauliusJukn]

was this a review or a commercial? looked like a promotional speech to me..

[@Razor2048]

Seems pretty lazy of Zeiss to forget throw in a focusing motor especially when charging so much money for their lens. Since there is no auto focus, they should knock a few dollars off of the price and charge $400 for it.

[@Proctie1]

Razor2048 Simple answer: Because it doesn't need a focus motor since it's not meant to be used with auto focus since its not meant to be used as a stills lens. Long answer: Try to find my other post, I got a little carried away but to sum it up, this Otus lens isn't what Jared portrayed it to be. It's a "cheap" cine lens that is meant and targeted towards the semi-professional users that shoot video with full manual focus (no one hardly ever uses auto focus when doing video). It's meant to be used on cameras like a RED Epic, Sony FS700 / F3, F5, F55 and so on. They don't have native support for auto focus (except some cases when using specific Sony lenses for documentary work etc) but the fact is that this is not a lens that should ever be mentioned to people like you (photographers). You have no use for it, unless you do video production with +$20.000 camera systems. So all in all, no they should not put focus motors in their Otus or any cine series for that matter and no they should not knock $ off the price and certainly not charge $400 for it....

[@zagan1]

Proctie1 video with a f1.4 lens? lol you'd be right in the people's faces. It's for hardcore portrait photographers, like fashion houses, magazine advert photographers etc that want super sharp results. You wouldn't want a manual focus lens for a video you'd have to alter the lens all the time but also have to do it that it never went out of focus either. It's $4,000 because it's got 12 elements / 10 groups of glass in it with every coating under the sun put on them all. The sigma is a lot cheaper because it's less glass and doesn't have all the coatings on the glass. So sigma's picture while great won't compare the same to the otus. AT the end of the day it's always a case of what you have to spend and what you want, if you want an auto focus lens then a otus won't be on the list simple as that.

[@JunJun238]

Well it took them 3 years to create this lens. Stuffing it with a focus motor will just decrease their consideration of making it more sharper.

[@Proctie1]

zagan1 Have you read my big comment here: Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art Vs Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 It's quite a rant however I explain how you'd use that lens. Also this f/1.4 isn't "a big deal" when used on professional video cameras. Their sensors aren't full frame so the depth of field is smaller. I work with Super 35mm sensors which have a crop factor of 1.39 (cvp.com/images/uploaded/sensor_table.gif) effectively making it a less shallow depth of field than you'd have on a full frame sensor.

[@UCreations]

zagan1 The difference between the Sigma and the Zeiss isn't the number of elements or the coatings. The Sigma even has 13 elements in 10 groups ;) And the coatings on the Sigma are working great against bright sunlight (I own this lens for a few months now). The difference is in the bokeh and in correction for Chromatic Aberration. The Zeiss has much smoother bokeh (the Sigma can be quite harsh with busy backgrounds) and is truly an APO lens, which the Sigma is not. The old Sigma 50/1.4 (which I had a few years) had smoother bokeh, but wasn't nearly as sharp as the Art is. If I want smooth bokeh, I use my Minolta 58/1.2 (with a Canon mount) or my Zeiss Makro Planar 100mm f/2.

[@julioestebanperezescudero6246]

Do you think it is a serious review by any stretch of imagination? 👎

[@angelisone]

since so many shooters rely on raw and photoshop to cheat & correct mistakes. just buy a cheap 50/1.8 kit lenses and cheat using photoshop for contrast & sharpness. beside if you can't sell a 16X20 at $1,600.00+, a cheap plastic kit 50/1.8 or the biscuit lens would be fine. many today shooters will not buy nor do they know how to focus a lenses manually. just like sport photographers, they can't get it right on the first shot. they have to set the camera to shoot like a machine gun & pray that one or two will be close.

[@BlownMacTruck]

angelisone Are you seriously comparing a sub-$200 lens to a lens close to $1000 and saying you can fix it in post? Right…

[@angelisone]

BlownMacTruck i see you also cheat and have adobe photoshop/lightroom or capture one on your computer. if you can't sell 8X10 print for $1,000.00, then any cheap lens will do. slow lenses are always sharper than fast lenses.

[@BlownMacTruck]

That's breathtakingly ignorant. Even an 8 megapixel camera shooting at web resolutions can resolve discernible detail with a faster, higher quality lens versus a slower, lower quality one. If you cannot see the difference between the Canon 50/1.8 and the Sigma 50/1.4, you're delusional. Contrast, color, fringing, bokeh... and that's just the beginning. Post can't help pull detail out that isn't there.

[@NCSTalkid]

Otus is too expensive for me. I plan on getting milvus 50s.

[@shogenx]

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

[@socas_nic]

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😂

[@shogenx]

yeah i dont mind that feature but id admit it shits me sometimes

[@Spawn666949]

You would need a camera with EVF so can Focus Magnify. I can manually focus 200mm and get sharp photos. So, a 55 would be no problem. BUT, $4000, no thanks!

[@blackclavish]

Spawn Brimstone : I don't need a EVF to precision-focus manually. It's really not that hard and not that big of a deal to focus manually.

[@Spawn666949]

Madeline Mantiss , yeah right. I'd like to see you manually focus 50+/85+mm f1.8 consistently, quickly, and accurately.

[@aaronjonellhall1937]

+Spawn Brimstone I thought the same thing. This lens is made for studio photography or videography. Not every day use.

[@ceconevis1380]

If Otus was auto fucus than wouldn't be the best in the world.

[@alestbest]

Im Nahbereich geht das Sigma ja noch. Aber dafür ist das Sigma auf weite Entfernungen eine Katastrophe.

[@MorganBergqvist]

are you ever gona review the sigma art 24-105 F4 os?

[@Lofote]

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...

[@miljo2146]

Better manual focus than shitty sigma misfocus...

[@OGconstrictor]

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).

[@chingy1788]

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...

[@swistedfilms]

Dude, over 6.5 minutes until you get to any review that I would find truly useful. And even then you repeat to us what you already told us about how you're going to review the lens. If this is your brand when it comes to reviewing a $4K Zeiss lens then count me out. I love your 3 shot exposure builds and your critiques can be very useful for learning composition. But KZbin time is precious; use it wisely. You don't need to pad a review like this. I was truly interested...and then you started blowing on and smelling lenses and I'm thinking that you can't be serious! If you're going to tell me about the weight of the lens then get a scale. Fine, that's part of the review. But what I really want to see is controlled shots compared side by side. It's not that I mind the color commentary, but it has to be tempered with the content of what the title of the video is. I don't know if you edit your own videos but if you do then I suggest getting an editor. Too often a KZbin personality can get caught up in the "cult of personality" side of their videos and forget that the audience isn't necessarily enthralled by every bit that comes out of your mouth. In fairness to you, this is an old video (almost 4 years as of this writing) and you may have grown as an editor since then. I haven't seen a video recent enough (that I'm aware) to make a fair comparison. But if you have this piece of video then you might consider re-editing it and uploading that instead. I'm looking at this video in 2018 because I'm interested in the Sigma lens you're reviewing, and so it might be relevant another 4 years from now and you wouldn't want someone to see this video and be put off by shenanigans like smelling a lens, as if that has any bearing on its quality. You make great content, you really do. Don't ruin your brand with things like this.

[@blanc087]

I heard that Zeiss autofocus better than Sigma's

[@dinein1970]

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.

[@tjsnaps]

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.

[@JohnPham2015]

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?

[@uwoya1able]

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

[@uwoya1able]

so do you need a 8k 600mm if you can get a 150-600mm for 1k?

[@JohnPham2015]

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

[@JohnPham2015]

Personally, for portrait - I would prefer Nikon 85mm f1.4 or Nikon 105mm DC rather than the 50mm

[@CzornyLisek]

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.

[@elr2141979]

If you had a Sony camera you won't have to worry about manual focus because of focus peaking.

[@Strikeshotz]

I try not to touch it lol , I'll be all over it :)

[@Yzzo21]

the only lens is worth to change from sigma 50mm 1.4 is the new rf 50mm 1.2 if you OWN R body :D if not sigma remain the best 50mm

[@cristianobevilacqua6181]

I can't understand so many dislikes ,it is an interesting video!

[@raipe76]

Yes, you do just the thing what i was thinking yesterday ... I have thinking to buy that Sigma 50mm Art f/1.4

[@BULLSHXTYT]

Save the money and buy another S 30.4 Art

[@fuji3164]

It's like comparing rolls Royce to a corolla

[@michellegasmildon9760]

Hey Jared what do you think of the Sony Planar Zeiss E mount 50 1.4? Please do a review on this glass 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽

[@rowancox5575]

Cut out the crap and just give the details.

[@StephanEilert]

Whats the difference between this sigma 1.4 for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens ?

[@PumaM90]

5:17 Subscribed for more life advices.

[@mjm9328]

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

[@GabrielVaiPanepinto]

I don't think in a real wind tunnel test the sigma can win against the zeiss: the zeiss have, yep, bigger surface, but also more aerodynamic shape!