[joachim]

You hardly can blame a lens for a photographer's mistakes! :blink:

Not sure we are on the same or different hymn sheets here. I sense some irony in your reply, assume we are on the same sheet and leave it there. J.

[thxbb12]

The lens in question is an MF lens. 

 

Ah, I haven't realized it wasn't an AF lens. Its modern look made me think it did...

[A64]

That is of course silly to say. The Zeiss 55mm f1.4 will be also a great lens on a 1D-X, a 5D mk II/III, or even a 6D. Or a D600, or a D4.

 

And of course the AA-filter-less Sony A7R  Nevertheless, the new Sigma seems to be a far better option regarding price/value ratio, not to mention the aufofocus capability.  :lol: 

 

Zeiss can sweat.. they're totally off the track imho  ^_^

 

They just needed to make the ultimate fullframe DSLR glass in order to increase sales of their rest mid-performance lenses for those laics who never heard about chromatic aberrations, MTF charts or LoCa-s etc. 

 

I'm not a big fan of Zeiss. Over-hyped lenses with not that hyper performance. And all without AF of course. Ever tried to shoot portraits in the short tele region open with MF handheld ?  :blink:

[JJ_SO]

That is of course silly to say. The Zeiss 55mm f1.4 will be also a great lens on a 1D-X, a 5D mk II/III, or even a 6D. Or a D600, or a D4.

And a lot other FF, yes - but still the D800E is currently the only very high resolving FF (another one with vibrating shutter doesn't count, blurred 36MP without AA filter still remain blurred) - so what good is that high price lens for, if the sensor remains below it's quality? And maybe the next D800S will offer a bit more and come really without AA filter.

Nonetheless, I also reserved a Sigma and am hoping to get it within the next 3 months.

@A64: No, Zeiss is not off their track - they just have not much of a traffic on that track, few hardcore manual focus clients make it difficult to develop a really well working AF. And if they had one, the next lot of people would wail about lack of vibration reduction.

They try to talk their weakness in not offering AF into advantage and for manual focus they are better than those short turning kit- or "standard"-zoom lenses.

Yes, 25 years ago I used a Planar 85/1.4 for portraits and I liked the look very much - it was in my eyes better, more neutral and less aggressive than a Nikkor 105/2.5 from a friend. For action portraits painfully slow to focus because of grease damping, but for normal portraits in a more relaxed atmosphere I didn't had much more blurred photos than these days when AF and hand tremor decide for another point of interest.

[peterottaway]

And denial I suppose is a river in Africa. Still looking for the MLU on the Sony cameras are we ? It can't be a poper camera without MLU,

 

Kind of strange that so many people don't get blurred images but you must be right speaking with so much conviction.

[JJ_SO]

I'm just repeating Klaus' findings. Would you mind to explain MLU for non-native speakers?


How many people don't get blurred images? The ones who never use a tripod? Which is not a bad thing, but if the camera's vibration can shake a sturdy tripod, one could get a wobbly one, no kidding.


There are motorised camera heads like the one for CamRanger panoramas. It's really wobbling, cheap and plastic. But the shots are sharp, no matter which shitter speed. I was really amazed because I expected the opposite. I guess it's because the mechanic doesn't resist the shutter impulse at all. After all, it's only damping the shutter's energy.

[borisbg]

"Nonetheless, I also reserved a Sigma and am hoping to get it within the next 3 months."


How about next month?

[JJ_SO]

I'm one of the poor Nikon peanuts   and therefore have to wait until the fellow Canonites finished their test rides  B) From May on it should become available for Canon and 950$ cash, afterwards maybe in Switzerland and at the very end of a long road with tons of increasing anticipation, maybe I'll get one of the first copies here.

 

And it's really hard not to say, "Otus...who?"

 

I get comfort in the thought the Otus would be too monstrous to carry around, I saw it and didn't like the size of. For Zeiss it's really hard to compete when the word spread, one can get similar performance at 25% of the price with AF as bonus. I'm kind of sorry for them.

[borisbg]

Well, Zeiss are trying to maintain royal status... The price is crazy... On othar hand LensTip just post their usual round of images and they look great. I couldn't spot any traces of bokeh fringing.

[JJ_SO]

So far not many people have seen sample pictures of the Sigma - so we're talking a lot and knowing a really tiny bit for sure, aren't we?

 

I understand the Zeiss price as I think they won't produce 1/4 of Sigma's quantity, maybe not even 1/40 but that's just not even a tiny bit of knowledge. The Zeiss is so very special and so very limited - I don't think it will be produced in more than 1000 copies. As for LensTip, in an earlier sample gallery I found some shots out of focus. That always can happen but why putting such a picture into a sample gallery?

 

I see it that way - even if I could afford the Otus, I'd go for the Sigma and buy with the savings - in case I see improvements - a D800S or whatever the successor of the D800E will be named.

 

Or go on a nice holiday trip to a region I always wanted to visit and still have money left. To get a Sigma DP1 Merill quattro as a nice side dish for landscapes and walks with not much weight.