Login at opticallimits.com

thxbb12 · 07-13-2015, 11:55 AM

A very interesting article from Roger Cicala about the variation of various 50 and 24mm lenses across various manufacturers:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/...slr-lenses

Results for the Otus are particularly disappointing. Unsurprisingly, 24mm lenses show more variation than 50mm.

dave9t5 · 07-13-2015, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Results for the Otus are particularly disappointing.

Only to you!

popo · 07-13-2015, 09:14 PM

The Canon 50mm 1.8 STM! I'd bet most people who buy it do so due to the price so wouldn't care so much, but it is nice to know they can make them well consistently.

JJ_SO · 07-13-2015, 09:15 PM

Quote:Only to you!

Nope, to me as well. At this price tag being less reliable than a 1/30 costing f/1.8 is simply unforgivable, sides of all other qualities of the Otus. This lens has to be perfect and each copy of it should not vary that much.

thxbb12 · 07-13-2015, 10:19 PM

Quote:Only to you!

It is hard to get more high end/premium that the Otus. One would expect impeccable quality control. If anything, given the price they charge for it, QC should be better than any other lens below that price point.

Unfortunately, as shown by Roger Cicala, it's not the case at all.

These findings are very revealing (and disappointing): the common wisdom to think that high grade lenses have better QC than entry-level consumer ones is simply not true.

**Klaus** · 07-13-2015, 10:50 PM

If you think these are bad ...

dave9t5 · 07-13-2015, 10:53 PM

Quote:It is hard to get more high end/premium that the Otus. One would expect impeccable quality control. If anything, given the price they charge for it, QC should be better than any other lens below that price point.

Unfortunately, as shown by Roger Cicala, it's not the case at all.

These findings are very revealing (and disappointing): the common wisdom to think that high grade lenses have better QC than entry-level consumer ones is simply not true.

You either didn't read the article or you are scoring on a different system.

According to the articles:

"A high score means there is little variation between copies. If a lens has a variance number of over 7, all copies are pretty similar. If it has a number less than 4, there's a lot of difference between copies. Most lenses are somewhere in between."



"Most of the 50mm lenses were above 6, which puts them in what we consider a good range of consistency. "



"I think some people expected the Zeiss Otus, given its higher price, to have almost no sample variation. Given the complexity of its design, with more elements in more groups and including a difficult-to-manufacture double-sided aspheric element, it does quite well."



So according to LensRentals, the Otus (at 6.5) is in a good range of consistency and does quite well.

According to you, it's a particularly disappointing!

thxbb12 · (This post was last modified: 07-13-2015, 11:15 PM by thxbb12.)

Quote:You either didn't read the article or you are scoring on a different system.

According to the articles:

"A high score means there is little variation between copies. If a lens has a variance number of over 7, all copies are pretty similar. If it has a number less than 4, there's a lot of difference between copies. Most lenses are somewhere in between."



"Most of the 50mm lenses were above 6, which puts them in what we consider a good range of consistency. "



"I think some people expected the Zeiss Otus, given its higher price, to have almost no sample variation. Given the complexity of its design, with more elements in more groups and including a difficult-to-manufacture double-sided aspheric element, it does quite well."



So according to LensRentals, the Otus (at 6.5) is in a good range of consistency and does quite well.

According to you, it's a particularly disappointing!

Nope. I confirm my statement: it is indeed disappointing given the price point and the marketing message conveyed by Zeiss. Their very site states "The best standard lens in the world". Slightly pretentious isn't it?

Now, by reading this, you would expect their QC to be unmatched, especially given the ridiculous price they charge for it. However, it's not quite the case. The last 3 lenses below are easily ahead of it while being much much cheaper:

Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus => 6.5
Nikon 58mm f/1.4 => 6.7
Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro => 7.3
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art => 7.5
Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM => 9.3

Ironically, it's the cheapo Cannon 50 STM that leads the packs.

From a customer point of view, if I pay extra for "the best" quality, I'd also expect premium QC, better than any other lenses. Clearly, it's not the case here.

thxbb12 · (This post was last modified: 07-13-2015, 11:17 PM by thxbb12.)

Quote:If you think these are bad ...

Indeed it is, especially in relation to its ridiculous price. Check my message above.

07-14-2015, 03:33 AM

Quote:If you think these are bad ...

No being surprised about the variation here, but.......................................................................................

it is interesting to get an overall evaluation on the difference in IQ from lens example to lens example, but it doesn't indicate the extremely high IQ of the Otus just by it's variation score.

As my experiences of lens buying and lens decentering has played a large part in augmenting my aging process of my greying, now dyed hair, I am more surprised by the lack of variation, and the fact the lenses resembled one another as well as they did!

My guess is the badly decentered lenses were rejected and exchanged before the tests, leaving only briefly checked aligned samples to be tested!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124690178@N08/