Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 lens review (Full-frame & APS-C)

A legendary lens takes the podium today. But newer high-grade 50mm lenses have been coming out and nipping at its heels for the past seven years; is it really worth its astonishing asking price today?
Find it here (Amazon affiliate links - be sure to purchase the right lens for your camera system!):
geni.us/zeiss55otus
All pictures taken by me on Sony a7R II, Canon EOS R, and Canon EOS M6 ii cameras.
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonEOSR5Body
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonEFtoRF
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma50mm14Art
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonRF35mm18Macro
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/MarumiFitSlim77
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020USBPlusMic
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSmartLavalierPlus
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC3MicAdaptor
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1nMiniRecorder
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMini2FlyMore
Music:
'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...

[@luigsfilms]

The otus lineup has the best IQ i have ever seen. I own the 28, 55 and 85. Also i own a massive collection of Sony nearly all GMs except the 35, 400, 600. The otus is another Level. Sharpness and contrast is Not everything. The Transmitted depth and the dimensionality is World class. You pull a few Millimeters on the focus ring on the lens and it is a complete other rendering of the for and background. It is fun to learn how to work with the otus. But i think it needs more than a few weeks to fully "understand" the lens to be able to use its full Potential. Greetings ❤️

[@analogdesigner]

Remember, that the last 10% perfection cost the other 90%!

[@AQUPAS]

I have used this lens for both photography and cinematography with both my Canon 5DS R and Blackmagic Production Camera 4K. I was never let down by the results!

[@ChimaChindaDev]

Thanks for reviewing this lens. The price today is unjustifiable.

[@mikes1984]

Justifiability is highly individual dependent.

[@oliverlison]

No, it is is. The price went down a bit A lot of research went in there and many lenses are based on this design today It is made of premium and long lasting materials It still beats the competition Image quality is second to non. Image circle could be as big that i can be used on a Hasselbald MF camera.

[@helisoma]

I own many premium normal lenses and the way this renders an image cannot be put into a review or described in words. It's easy to dismiss this it out of hand based on price but it's essentially a bargain basement Zeiss cine lens.

[@helisoma]

There are actually very good condition second hand ones available. I have most of the significant 50mm lenses along with this, and the way this one renders an image at f1.4 is just so unique and magical. What's interesting is that wide open it's almost like looking at an 85mm f1.4 image because of how it's able to separate the subject from the background, which just melts away. So for portrait work it's amazing because you almost don't need to switch between 50 and 85mm.

[@matijasajko1]

Thank you for a Zeiss lens review!!! very refreshing :)

[@vhateg]

Me looking at reviews of lenses I can't afford and even if I could in the future I wouldn't buy them because of the performance per cost: *sips from soda can* ~INTERESTING~

[@smaakjeks]

Nothing wrong with attaining knowledge for its own sake :-)

[@Testprinz]

You are very save about Sigma! But Christopher: The Otus lenses from Zeiss have a look as medium format and differ from many other lenses.

[@fandyus4125]

Unacceptable performance for the price. If I pay this much for a lens, I expect it to cook me dinner and clean my house as well as be completely distortion and aberration free no matter whatever I mount it on. Call me crazy but it's fair for 4k GBP.

[@JetBen555]

I agree

[@christopherfrost]

That's a funny way of putting it :-)

[@joshuatatro4503]

It is perhaps a bit disappointing, but then one doesn't buy something like a Leica M-series camera because it provides the best possible image quality/features for the price, do they? It's really just a different category of product altogether - something meant for an entirely different kind of working professional than your typical wedding/event shooter (speaking as one of the latter myself). I don't get the allure, personally, but some do; I understand it's more about prestige than anything.

[@MatBaconMC]

@@joshuatatro4503 Right?! Imagine calling yourself a professional and getting a Leica...

[@ReviewGuy01]

its made in germany. german labor is super expensive and can skyrocket the price of a $500 item to $5000. Only buy this lens if you want to support german labor.

[@djspecialpaul]

Nice and good video. I use this on my A7R IV and love this much. It is expensive but has an amazing quality.

[@christianvolkner2028]

I bought this lens two years ago for less than half the price. I never regretted it one bit. I did own the Sigma Art 50mm and other 50mm before. From what I can say the Sigma an the Otus are equal in terms of sharpness. The difference in performance at this level doesn’t really matter. What I really like about this lens however is how it draws the image. It has a very nice color reproduction and delivers punchy images. It’s not the measureable performance that is attractive. Currently I‘m waiting to get a used 100mm Otus:-) Also Cine lenses for movies cost between 6-100k are not much sharper than your typical Sigma Art. It is just another class of product not aimed at mainstream. Also I think these types of lenses are not produced in masses and each lens is inspected from a Zeiss Employee.

[@projectssap1]

This is the part that people don’t understand. The 3D rendering and saturated color pop is better than most.

[@warrenbarnes9653]

The color saturation of this lens is superb, IMHO, and really shows effects of the Zeiss coatings. You can see this clearly in Father Chris’ portrait of Katie, whose hair and skin tones in that portrait are noticeably deeper and with more micro contrast than with other portraits Chris has done. This is the reason one might pay the $4,000; there is a certain type of rendering with this lens that enhances images in a way not possible on the computer. My only complaint is that many of the images seem slightly underexposed, but that is part and parcel to achieve the extreme saturation. Still, I will be content with my excellent Sigma 56mm F1.4, rather than parting with a good chunk of my savings!

[@onegrapefruitlover]

I also noticed something different about those sample pictures, they look rich in color and contrast. I don't really know why, but they look great.

[@smaakjeks]

Nobody has ever shown me what micro contrast is. Any time I ask, someone sends me the same opinion article. It's just sharpness.

[@smaakjeks]

@@aceflibble If you can't decouple micro-contrast and resolution as independent factors of sharpness, you can't know how much sharpness is due to one or the other factor, or if there even are two factors. Thus you have created an unfalsifiable (i.e. useless) definition of micro-contrast. So, then it's merely sharpness, until you can show me a low resolution high micro-contrast image, or vice versa.

[@RealRaynedance]

Another competitor for the sharpest 50mm lens might be the Voigtlander 50mm f/2 on the E-mount. Apparently it's not even bothered by the a7RIV and its apochromatic marketing isn't misleading like the marketing for this one.

[@helisoma]

I'm curious about the purpose of testing the Otus on an APS-C camera such as that, when the 55mm Otus is designed specifically for full frame DSLRs.

[@nickgeorgel1163]

Great review Chris! Love your channel and wanted to see you review the Otus 55. Have always considered this lens for a while, but I think other lenses makers have caught up. I own the Sigma 40mm Art (I know not the same focal length), and I compared this with your review of that lens, and the 40 is indeed sharper wide open.

[@christopherfrost]

The 40 will be sharper, yes

[@andreyisakov9663]

Is there any lens which looks perfect on canon new 32 mp aps-c??

[@future62]

How does this compare to the Samyang 50 1.2 XP? I recall it being sharper wide open. I can't afford this lens but a no-holds barred fast manual 50 sounds appealing.

[@artemisfowl9002]

i literally just purchased this on amazon for £1150! like new with very little use 😭

[@Archmage1809]

This (and/or the 85) can cover 645 format. The vignetting on 645 is totally acceptable for portrait works. Also, Zeiss is never known for the sharpness, if you want extremely sharp, sharp like a blade, then Zeiss isn't for you. Zeiss is known for the stability in color temperature. The whole Zeiss lineup outputing the same color. This is critical for video works. You can keep the custom white balance on the camera and switch between another Zeiss lenses and it still outputing the same shade of color.

[@MegaShapin]

Hi, can you test some medium format retro lenses, such as Sekor 80 1.9?

[@joshuatatro4503]

5:55 - Those T* coatings are no joke! Still isn't something I'd pay $4K for, but my gosh that's impressive.

[@MassimoTava]

If you take pictures at dawn (when it’s very cool/blue out) you may notice how many lenses have difficulty with this spectrum of light. It’s a unadvertised benefit high cost lenses have.

[@nealrichmond4588]

I bet Simon didn't miss it one bit, and imagine you didn't consider buying it from him. Emperor's clothes, makes the Canon 50mm Rf look great value.

[@burritobrosvideos8060]

Thanks simon!

[@philamenriquez]

How can you compare this with the Samyang 50mm f1.2 XP?

[@jvsuryanarayana]

I have a Zeiss 100 MM F 2 and it very very smooth though it is not an Otus.

[@vaibhavpisal]

I have never seen images like this irrespective of sharpness. Quiet a special lens.

[@mikemalloy1681]

I am interested in purchasing a Zeiss Otus 55mm F/1.4. I would like to be able to order those test pages you used. Do they have a name?

[@stang8913]

Manual focus for the price?

[@sussar]

I thought you would recommend the Sony 55mm 1.8 for alternative choice.

[@christopherfrost]

That certainly is another alternative, yes

[@helisoma]

For the comments about price, Zeiss actually doesn't make that much per lens as this is such a complex design with expensive rare glass elements plus it's based off a modified (ie: more elements) Hasselblad Zeiss and produced by their Cine division, and their Cine lenses are like $8000-30000 each so yes this is a bargain if you know about lens design.

[@0ooTheMAXXoo0]

It has a unique rendering and sharpness combination. I guess it has a niche as a special, rare, lens.

[@lalitdewangan7830]

Plz make a full review for New Tamron 28-200 zoom lens

[@aklaasvandalen207]

Nice to know the difference between good enough, perfection and price/quality........

[@classicboy97]

The fans clamor for an Otus 100mm f1.4 review!

[@zethiel]

Hi Chris, first off, thanks a lot for the review. I'm a huge fan of your videos and content. I couldn't avoid to notice that on your brief 'comparison' to the other 4 lenses you mention the Sony Planar FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA. Are you going to review that one too? I'm super eager to see that. I was looking for your review of it but I couldn't find it anywhere in your KZbin channel. Any estimate on when is that going to be available?

[@christopherfrost]

A review is coming :-)

[@zethiel]

@@christopherfrost omg super excited, and looking forward to it!

[@christopherfrost]

@@zethiel I've been testing both the Sony Zeiss 35mm and 50mm 1.4 lenses. The 50mm was pretty great actually...the 35...less so...

[@JamesClark1991]

@@christopherfrost Awww yea!

[@Pramoduncan]

Damn that 4000 price.. Happy with my zeiss 55 1.8

[@haydar9004]

Fair enough, just get sigma art Exelence value for money glass that deliver great result

[@PeacePham1991]

True! The Sigma art series is pretty sharp enough and they have auto focus

[@helisoma]

I shot with the Sigma Art for years and it's wonderful but the Zeiss is still something very unique...it dares you to shoot wide open but with the Sigma i'm always shooting at f2 or f2.8....f1.4 on the sigma just doesn't have the same contrast.

[@nicolask.3825]

Really, this lens's test results show to me that optical design standards have gone way up in the last couple of years. It may win out slightly in sharpness, have a wider aperture and produce smoother bokeh, but put this behemoth next to the Z 50mm f/1.8 S, itself among the most favorably reviewed Z lenses, and it's hard to make a case for.

[@stefan_becker]

There's a much cheaper and smaller alternative that is also crazy sharp and even apochromatic - the Voigtlander Apo Lanthar 50mm f2.

[@mengzaa55]

focus aid function of eors r work with this lens?

[@christianvolkner2028]

It does

[@Paul_anderson_creative]

Pressed stop at the £4000 point, I have a 7artisans 55mm f1.4, £78, that will do fine....

[@smaakjeks]

You can take a trip to a country anywhere on the planet and get amazing shots with the lens you have there, or pay 4 grand to buy the Otus and take pics of your cat in the garden.

[@Axonteer]

@@smaakjeks I prefer to take nice pictures of my country ;-) sooo many things yet unseen and people prefer to fly elsewhere ... (live in switzerland , many swiss prefer to go outside of the country and neglect its natural beauty)

[@Paul_anderson_creative]

So true... Cheap lenses, camera and 81 countries travelled so far... !

[@smaakjeks]

@@Paul_anderson_creative awesome!

[@RichardsWorld]

What a bargain. This would be great for the "Leica crowd".

[@costascosta273]

Manual focus and questionable sharpness wide open for 4 grand. Canons RF 1.2 is a better choice and sharper I'm sure.

[@christopherfrost]

I'm not sure about 'questionable sharpness' - it's a great result, really

[@rickhatch4793]

@@christopherfrost The sharpness for the Zeiss great, but it does show the law of diminishing returns. the difference between a $500 lens and a $1000 lens is much greater than the difference between a $1000 lens and a $4000 lens, especially due to the different production scales. I think the Canon RF 50 1.2 is probably better, but it is also very big and expensive. Additionally, the production scale of the Canon is much larger than for the Zeiss, so it makes sense that it could be better.

[@joeymccallion]

Kudos to Simon

[@rarza87]

voigtländer 65mm f2 macro apo-lanthar test Please

[@nobutoneme1325]

At that price I want an apochromatic lens, to be honest until now I was under the impression that the otus line was in fact made of APO lenses, but apparently they are not

[@metropolis3775]

@@aceflibble What has Makro to do with APO?

[@helisoma]

It is, which is why they went with a distagon design, and why it handles fringing so well.

[@nobutoneme1325]

​@@helisoma Apochromatic lenses, by definition, don't show any fringing at all, if it just handles fringing well it's just a well corrected achromatic lens. My laowa macro lens doesn't show fringing even if I try my hardest, the only instance when chromatic aberration showed up was in a near-burnt highlight and those were like a couple of pixels. Here instead the chromatic aberration is plentiful, unjustifiable for the price

[@simonc4764]

I think colour rendition and micro contrast shoulde be taken into consideration.

[@JamesClark1991]

Any plans to re-test the Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 on a 42MP body? I'm hoping Sigma release a smaller version for mirrorless.

[@christopherfrost]

Yes, that test is coming

[@JamesClark1991]

@@christopherfrost ❤️❤️❤️

[@hzubovi1]

Still waiting for the perfect 50mm :D

[@ianng9915]

finally... the otus

[@eliaspap8708]

Give us the Sigma anyday! No AF?? No weather sealing? Rubber parts? Sharpness only being average??

[@mikewhiles4635]

Canon R 50 1.2 can eat it's breakfast and still afford a decent holiday.😎😎😎

[@VaughnDoyle]

a manual focas lens that breathes?

[@Sembilan_Benua]

with that price i can get almost all prime lens that i need ,from wide to zoom lens

[@mcmoose64]

The only problem with ultra razor sharp fast lenses is the frustration they engender when you fail to absolutely nail critical focus .

[@helisoma]

You'd be surprised how useable this lens is. It's so bright and contrasty with precise focus throw so in model photography i find it very useable although yes one has to shoot more slowly and thoughtfully.

[@peterebel7899]

This lens makes the RF 50mm1.2 a bargain! Thank you Zeiss!

[@user-mj2yo7fc1q]

안녕하세요 Hello It’s an expensive lens that has a lot poor performance for the price.

[@metropolis3775]

Ever tested the lens by your own?

[@FinalLugiaGuardian]

So how did this lens work with your Canon 6d Chris?

[@christopherfrost]

No idea, I didn't really test it - I just used the 6D as a full-frame DSLR for the shots at the beginning. It should be ridiculously sharp, considering that the 6D only has a 20mp sensor

[@billzidis2656]

Body won't matter as long it's full frame. It's manual focus so newer or older body makes no difference

[@abhignansai8313]

Bill Zidis but new bodies with focus assist can really save your time!

[@billzidis2656]

@@abhignansai8313 That depends. For example if you mean mirrorless cameras that have Focus Peaking etc yes it may be helpful but even there you need to zoom 100% to check focus,you don't just trust it.

[@MrPriceMonroe]

Sigma crushed this lens.

[@TheJudge064]

Whoa. I expected it to be so much more amazing compared to other lenses going by other reviewer's reviews.

[@Herblenny]

Meh.. seems focusing wasn't done correctly initially to compare wide open sharpness. I've own this and many other and when focus was locked in, its extremely sharp. That said, I own this not because of pure sharpness but its rendering of color and joy of using it. My counter AF lens is Sigma Art. minus 28mm which is Nikon 1.4e

[@RajKumar-pp4gx]

👍

[@rawalkiran1]

I m not even watching the review after knowing the price...

[@eberduran]

To me is one of the best lenses ... After trying this lens I decided to sell my RF 50 mm... I also have the Milvus 135 I guess I just preferred manual focus

[@Robin_Polarstern]

I‘m a big Zeiss Fan Boy 😅but as a sigma 40mm 1.4 Art lens user , I can say … no chance Zeiss 😂

[@ruelapas6240]

😂😂😂 You can compare it with nikon Z 58mm noct with also having a jaw dropping price tag. 😂😂😂🇵🇭

[@Sohnem4tz]

but that one is actually somewhat justified by by having a unique selling point considering it's sharpness at 0.95

[@rchrdsn]

if you buy a zeiss, just make sure you're using it at the right places with the right people, so you can be properly seen and recognized, otherwise it's like buying an expensive car and driving it where people mostly have cheap cars. some of them won't even know what the car represents in terms of value, some of them will know it and will be impressed, but most of the two groups will criticize you for spending so much for that car.

[@helisoma]

I shoot with it outside a lot and no one knows what it is lol...

[@UncleMichaelable]

Today they are about $2200. Doable now.

[@Axonteer]

Mmmhhh - as someone that is very shortsighted (hah) and has to wear glasses - Manual Focus in everyday shooting is an impossible task and lowers the value of a lense greately when its only MF . I use MF in landscape or Astro when i can set my camera up on a tripod and use the rear screen zoomed in 10x but not trough the VF in normal "quick and snap shooting" ... thats just impossible for me - looking trough the glasses into an optical VF (wonder how it would be with a EVF) is basically a diceroll if i hit focus. Add in the 4000$ pricetag i even would rather get the canon than this. Rationally i would buy the Sigma but since i already have the Canon 50mm 1.8 im happy with it :-)

[@johnxantoro5511]

Another example why FF lenses are sub-optimal for APS-C. This should be much more widely known for all those consumers who get tricked into buying expensive and heavy FF glass for their APS-C bodies. Don't buy APS-C from manufacturers who don't respect you enough as a customer to give you proper APS-C lenses (e.g. Nikon)

[@bar1721]

@@aceflibble What he meant was that you shouldnt buy ff lenses, because they wont be as good on an apsc.

[@johnxantoro5511]

@@aceflibble I don't think it is just pixel density, there are other things going on. I think Tony Northrup did a video on that once. Anyway, the point that matters is this: E.g. f1.4 lenses are usually really expensive on FF. The Canon EF 35/1.4 costs 1700 bucks for instance. And of course it's large and heavy. The Canon 32/1.4 for EF-M on the other hand costs just 480 dollars (!). And the crazy thing is this: The 32/1.4 is not only massively cheaper, lighter, smaller, it will also give you *better results* than the FF version. Consumers who are tricked into believing they should use FF glass on crop bodies are basically screwed over.

[@jpm_drums]

Conclusion, get the Art. It's $700, it has auto focus, it's the sharpest 50mm lens he's ever tested. It's better.

[@future62]

This lens isn't about Costco style spec sheet value. If the price made you scoff or you're comparing it to lenses 1/5th the price you were never going to buy it in the first place.

[@fandyus4125]

@@future62 I guess Zeiss nowdays is the Gucci of lenses lmao.

[@christopherfrost]

The Sigma lens isn't quite as sharp as this Zeiss option in the corners (although it's very close)

[@smaakjeks]

@@future62 "This lens isn't about Costco style spec sheet value." There are people who do not compare the features of a product with its price. I guess this is the lens for those people? "If the price made you scoff or you're comparing it to lenses 1/5th the price you were never going to buy it in the first place." What if the lens cost £6000? Or £8000? At what point should one scoff at the performance for its cost?

[@future62]

@@smaakjeks "There are people who do not compare the features of a product with its price." Yes. This is a luxury good, not the final word in performance/$. And in any case it's still the best performing ~50mm for the money. Again if the price gives you heartburn or makes you feel like it should achieve god like performance it's not for you. It's definitely not for me, but I understand who and what it's for.

[@aliefabdurrahman3302]

Why you not try out this lens on 24 megapixels Sony a5100/a6300 and Canon eos m3 Christ?

[@Shadow81989]

he wants to test the quality of the lens, so why would he use a lower resolution camera!?

[@christopherfrost]

I would do, but I like to keep the length of my videos down a bit - if I test on every possible resolution camera then all those test chart pictures will drive both me and my viewers insane

[@l.k.9459]

It looks a little like a thermo mug to be honest.

[@fandyus4125]

I'd go as far as saying that for being 4k GBP it's pretty ugly.

[@dannygo4230]

It is much more than for photography, as it is a cure (illusion at least) for MIDLIFE CRISIS, and many other feeling of deficiencies.

[@JoelRiveraMD]

Why would a 32mp camera would devour more the lens than a 42mp sensor! That statement confused me

[@jayminwoodcock2863]

because the amount of pixels per unit area is greater on a 32MP crop sensor than a 42MP FF sensor. More pixels/area means more resolving power required of the lens

[@JoelRiveraMD]

@@jayminwoodcock2863 thanks

[@anbar5675]

Too expensive; the 55mm f,18 Sony Zeiss, would be more than enough. Unfortunately, cannot afford it.

[@billzidis2656]

Great review as always but £4000? Seems to me a £700 lens... Especially today...Focus breathing is very obvious so even for video this lens is not justify the price...Sigma ART lenses are by far superior value compare to anything

[@Shadow81989]

You do have to take build quality into account, so a bit more than the 700 of the comparable lenses might be justified (it will probably last a lifetime!), but anything above 1k is indeed overpriced.

[@qassemaleid9774]

i tried rf 50mm 1.2 and this , the rf is superior in every regard wiith half price !!

[@smaakjeks]

@@Shadow81989 Anything lasts a lifetime if you mollycoddle it. And, mollycoddle you will with anything at that price.

[@Shadow81989]

@@smaakjeks haha, true! I would probably not even take it out of the box, out of fear that I might drop it! xD

[@billzidis2656]

@@Shadow81989 I didn't doubt about the build quality but I think the roof here is just about £1000. No more. If it was a lens that had no focus breathing then yes,it can be used for production but this one is far from "perfect"

[@drcover]

Everything about this review sounds nice, except for the part when you said "4000$".

[@aldomariaibello8220]

Every review of yours is a little gift.

[@ZoneTelevision]

Zeiss attempting to Compete with Fujinon. LOL.

[@gesskay6626]

I think for mirrorless it is easy to desing such high performance glass.Back in the day it must've deen relatively difficult to design such high performance optics for dslrs. But today these lenses are easily outmatched by both canon,nikon and sony's mirrorless lenses.

[@robertcudlipp3426]

Frankly, even were I to win some obscure lottery & actually be able to purchase this lens, even the Zeiss branding would not see me part with the small fortune required. The lens is 7 years' old and Zeiss appear to be resting on past laurels way too much. There are other brands, such as Sigma Art which have narrowed the gap. Also,for the price it should have AF- end of story. And I fail to understand why a 1.4 lens ,at this price point, cannot be shot wide open. If shooters purchase a 1.4 lens, they will ,justifiably, want to shoot at 1.4, not F4. Same comment applies to that Canon 1.2 lens that Chris cherishes, but gives sub par performance at 1.2 despite very hefty price tag. Wonder how many of these lens will actually be sold?

[@christopherfrost]

'cannot be shot wide open' - ? Both this lens and the Canon RF 50mm f/1.2 are extremely sharp when shot wide open. Just because they get a little sharper at f/2 or whatever, doesn't mean they're somehow unusable at their maximum apertures

[@robertcudlipp3426]

@@christopherfrost Chris, maybe a little confusion at my end. Maybe the best part of a year ago, you tested an iconic Canon ,think it may have been the now not so new, 85 1.2. Certainly, it was not the virtually brand new RF 50 1.2.

[@jaiethylene]

:) awesome.. wondering if u start testing high-end mobile camera performance.. would be a tiny bit more intriguing

[@Mionwang]

No.

[@aguywithananimeprofile8950]

How about no?

[@JeffSpeers]

NO! You must be new to his channel.

[@adhi_atma]

90d & M6 mk ii is really a nightmare for every lens

[@bar1721]

ef-m 32mm 1.4 :)

[@benni1015]

Just asking, i kinda don't understand why a highres aps-c sensor projects more softness than a highres fullframe sensor. Why is this so ? Because of the crop ?

[@christopherfrost]

They're much more demanding because the pixel density is so much greater

[@benni1015]

@@christopherfrost Thanks for the explanation.

[@katasiapa]

My dream lens

[@ReviewGuy01]

to people who complain at the price, do notice its made in germany. german made products are super expensive and its priced at a value where the profit can properly pay for the workers who built the lens. german average wage for factory workers is $20 per hour and making this lens takes 500 work hours so do the math how much european labor it cost to make. you need to be a german to understand why this lens has people paying for it.

[@ViaromanaLeather]

It's made in Japan. Says so on my otus

[@dima1353]

samyang 50 1.2 is also natural competition to this lens.

[@christopherfrost]

Oh yes, that's a good point - I forgot about that

[@untouchable360x]

This lens costs more than my car.

[@rsmith_aus1371]

And 3x more than mine. Least mine as Auto though 😉

[@peterebel7899]

Just the car lacks smooth bokeh.

[@brugj03]

The artistic rendering of this lens is beyond compare, there are many sharp lenses but they are no comparison. They don`t give you magic like this one does. It`s expensive but worth every cent if you want the best. The comparison made with some canon lenses in this video is ridiculous, those lenses are only sharp and have nothing of the artistic impression of this lens.

[@edowijaya8603]

Interest only if less than $10

[@philippebernard8987]

interesting information

[@milkman100001]

too expensive by far.you dont to spend that kind of cash to get great rusults.i have the sigma 50 f1.4 and i find it to be perfect.

[@oliverlison]

As if the Nikon Noct would better? I would have rather 2 Otus than one Nikon Noct. Zeiss set a benchmark and everyone tries to beat it without success or only come close in optical perfomance. I wonder why people are ranting. You can have a Skoda that goes 155mph or an Audi that goes as quick, yet they perform differently. Zeiss does not have the sales volume than Sigma- thus Sigma can make things a lot cheaper. How many people do you know use Zeiss lenses? I stay with my classic and Milvus lenses - performance is good and expensive enough

[@henrikbridger8213]

I am no expert when it comes to camera lenses reviews, but I will question this review, which I would consider extremely poor. Are shooting flat test charts the way anyone actually determines if a lens is good or bad? I would think not. I have owned the Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 for three years, and I have used it extensively at all apertures ranging from 1.4 to f/16. This lens performs perfectly at all apertures, but it is absolutely magical at f/1.4 in any situation. Shooting a silly test chart with this lens is simply a really and extremely inadequate and uneducated way of reviewing this wonderful lens! Very disappointing!

[@gregoryrogalsky6937]

The lens is Fugly . No aperture ring ...Sorry I would rather have a Nikkor 58 1.2 AIS Nocturnal

[@laurencemoss8049]

Buy a second one .

[@AoCabo]

Tf, Sigma has better performance

[@SunnySoCal]

i would never buy this even if it was a fantastic performance that price point you could literally buy a semi professional or professional camera for that price

[@metropolis3775]

This is a lens and not a camera, why should Someone by a camera if needed a lens?

[@rock3times]

Too pricey, and price elicits emotion, too... I pass...