Unpleasant people, Zeiss. I mean, I’d been getting along quite perfectly with my Elmarit-M 90/2.8, ’til now. More than getting along, in fact. I’ve used it little but produced an abnormally high keeper-rate with that little jewel.

And now this has arrived !

Ah …yes! Problem (apologies for the lousy smartphone shot)

Let me be clear about one thing: unlike the uber-fab ZM 35/1.4 I reviewed recently, I have no interest whatsoever in this lens. Not my focal length, not within reach of my pocket-money and slightly too large for my bag … More importantly, I’m not interested in a studio-only technical showpiece of a lens with no soul.

At least, that’s how I felt yesterday morning. After only a hours of (temporary) possession, my only thought is “Heck, is it good!!!” Much more so than I had anticipated, I must say. Lab tests are one thing, but few of the photos published on the web had stirred any interest in me. Now, though …

But let’s rewind!

A bagful of issues

Unboxing videos are the most boring footage you can think of and should be punishable by hanging-by-the-toes. Yet, I almost made one for this lens, so impressive is the double-layer box and interior. The Zeiss-blue heavy foam protection is cut very accurately and makes room for a little white document box containing such niceties as an individual test card, stamped and signed.

Lift the impressive work of art out of that box, mate it to your camera and take a first photograph. Then you have tangible proof that Heaven exists and that it is manufactured in Germany.

The heavens open up – OTUS 85/1.4 @f/1.4

But immediately, there’s a problem. Several, in fact:

The size. It’s simple. Even without its hood, it won’t fit in my regular bag. To haul it around, I had to reach for my much larger ThinkTank Retrospective 7 and get rid of all interior separators in order to fit the combo in. It’s ridiculously large, for a travel lens. Not to mention conspicuous.

The weight. When the lens was delivered, I escaped from work for 40 minutes to walk around. My arms were killing me by the end of the walk. That’s not figurative talk. My muscles literally ached and at all times I had to carry the thing with both hands. It’s not that heavy in absolute terms, but over even brief periods, working with it does become difficult. And no way can you let this hang around your neck and rip off your mount.

The price. Not only is the financial outlay considerable, but – unlike the ZM 35/1.4, this could never be my only lens. Every minute with the OTUS is stressful. I’m worried about falling, about scratching it on the metal zips of my bag, about someone nicking it … Worried enough to just want to send it back immediately …

Chairs and flowers. OTUS 85/1.4 @f/1.4 on Sony A7r. Straight out of camera!!!

About that weight. Arm pain is one thing, but I do wonder what camera it was designed for. After just a few minutes on a tripod with a Nikon adapter, it becomes obvious any such use for extended periods will turn my A7r into a permanently down-tilted view-camera. The camera just isn’t strong enough for that level of torque. Which leaves the A800e and family. Yeah, except I used an OTUS 55 on my Nikon D800e a couple of years ago and live preview was so badly implemented that it was all but impossible to focus accurately.

Catch 22 ?

Maybe recent Canon and Nikon generations have improved live view, I don’t know. But for use on the Sony A7x range, I would strongly recommend the Metabones adapters with tripod mounts, over my Novoflex and Voigtlander adapters.

Practical issues aside, the lens is stellar!

Pure cream!

Yes, the lens can do this. Perfectly creamy bokeh and millimeter-deep depth of field (click, click, come on click !!! Sharp and sooo smooth )

‘you talking’ to me ? (f/1.4)

It may have been born from the slightly egotistic goal to show the world that unrestricted Zeiss engineering cannot be beat, this strange child turns out to be a lens that lets you choose aperture solely on artistic considerations, which has a lot going for it. Particularly when the aperture dial is essentially a cream volume control.

But that’s not all, cream-wise. because there’s also the construction and finish ! It’s not so much built (and designed) like the Batmobile, as what Bruce Wayne would have wanted the Batmobile to be built like. It feels unburstable. And yet, all controls are so incredibly light and delicate, it’s uncanny. And that’s a good thing as focusing has to be quarter-millimiter accurate.

Yes, I’m in love

I shouldn’t be. I really shouldn’t. This just isn’t a lens for me. Not by any intelligent reckoning.

I don’t know how to use it properly. Every second with it contributes to my vertebral compression and opens up a world of worrying and pain that sends my blood-pressure through the roof.

But that’s precisely why it has taken only a few hours to change my opinion so radically: that lens makes me feel special. Not in the way a Patek Philippe on my wrist would. I don’t feel rich. I feel like making real efforts to explore new boundaries of my photography.

Think of Ansel Adams climbing El Capitan with a view camera and glass plates on his back. Think of all large format photographers adjusting their tilts and swings to the millimeter in search of the perfect image. Think of interior design photographers setting-up 20 lights in a room and inspecting the live image from their visual back pixel by pixel.

To a lesser, but very real, degree, walking around with an OTUS 85 makes me feel that way. Digital photography has made us lazy. Convenience has both enabled creativity and allowed laziness to ruin it for most of us.

This OTUS is the absolute antidote to the high-ISO, high-amplitude zoom, high burst-rate, highs-speed AF, get-the-picture-at-all-cost myth slash lie that has rendered tens of millions of photographers so incapable of producing anything of creative value. It is the counter-measure to passive shooting.

You need to work it. You need to focus it properly and focus your mind on what the viewfinder is showing you. Be lazy and you’ll wonder why you’re damaging your spine and forfeiting your children’s future. Nail it and you’ll instantly undertdand where that look, that some of the masters managed to create, comes from.

Every quarter-millimeter of focusing ring movement produces a noticeable shift in focus plane. It is actually addictive to set the aperture to f/1.4 and focus with peaking enabled and watch the plane of focus move back and forth through the frame with astounding precision. Set the lens at the infinity stop, then aim at a distant mountain and star focusing. Minute changes on the focusing ring will change what you see from OK to OMG!

Blurred (not on purpose …) OTUS 85/1.4 @ f/8

Every change in aperture produces a very noticeable change in-depth of feel and mood. You have to think when using this lens. My head hurt as much as my arms after my short walk and I felt myself like a beginner again, while using the lens. That distinct more-beautiful-than-life look it gives to every scene … I don’t know how to handle it. Yet!

Which leads me to …

What shall I do with it ?

One does not :

• Simply walk into Mordor
• Share food with Joey
• Write a technical review of a perfect lens

Elvish bridge – Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4 @ f/1.4

And this is an essentially perfect lens. A technical review would then amount to attempting to trick it into making mistakes. I don’t much see the point of that. The corners of the first picture will show you how much vigneting the lens suffers at full aperture. The picture below will show you traces of bokeh fringing on a dark branch against pure white snow, again at full aperture. Unlikely you’ll find much else …

Chinese shadows – OTUS 85/1.4 @f/1.4

So let’s summarise the technical review like this : if, in the course of my brief tenure, some of my photos are unsatisfactory, the fault will lie with me. 100%.

And that’s an intimidating fact. No excuses for failure. Everyone who judges lenses on lab test results should own one of these. Working an OTUS means working alone. Combined with a Sony A7r, you’re essentially using the best photographic equipment money can buy, this side of a hundred grand. If your photos don’t cut it, it’s back to the drawing board.

Sobering thought, right …

So here’s the plan: the OTUS has been with me 2 days. Some of my pics so far have made my jaw drop, others have been bitterly disappointing. Within the 10 days I’m allowed to keep the lens, my goal will be to understand what conditions bring ot the best from it and how to use it to its best potential. Tall order, but unless I manage that, I won’t allow myself to (sell a ton of gear and) keep it. It is on

And because I’ve ranted so much about how sharpness doesn’t matter, here’s a little present : f/8, full size photo. Scary sharp

Sainte Baume (DearSusan’s sharpness test bench ) Sony A7r & OTUS 85/1.4 @f/8

Conclusion, for now

I began my review of the Distagon 35/1.4 ZM by asking the question “Is this the missing OTUS 35″. Thing is, my misconceptions about what the OTUS range is all about ran deep.

To me, an OTUS was all about showing the world what Zeiss can do when size, weight and monetary constraints are lifted. An analytical beast with little soul. Couldn’t have been more wrong!

What (I think) this OTUS 85 really does is let you tune the perception of presence in every image to your exact liking, while adding that little pinch of fairy powder to make everything prettier than life. As such, it is not for the fashionable photographer seeking to shoot the misery of the world and putrefaction in every corner of the land. It is a magnificent tool for the creative artist with strong arms and solid nerves!

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

I should have know better. The beast has a soul.

Shooting for the Stars – Otus 85/1.4 & Sony A7r

People lucky enough to indulge in the most exotic Hi Fi equipment money can buy soon come to a surprising realisation: perfection is very subjective. Choose a silver-wired 2W triode amp feeding ultra-high sensitivity wall-sized horns and your sound will light up a very different reality than ultra-fast silicon poking electrons into electrostatic ceramics.

Better components only serve to reveal the genius – or lack thereof – and tastes of the designers responsible for these costly devices. Why should it be any different with high-end optics?

And yet, I came to the Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4 expecting technical perfection revealing reality in the way an electron-beam microscope does : highly detailed and totally detached.

Silly, silly, silly me.

What I don’t like

Without being the snob who likes to fault the best lens on offer, I’d like to point out a few aspects of the OTUS that don’t fall on the positive side of my reviewing fence. And, since the rest of my impressions are so overwhelmingly glowing, let’s get rid of these niggles as a preamble to the real fun part.

In Chislehurst – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

In no particular order, here are specific aspects of the lens that could be improved:

• Focus is achieved using a big rubber ring running around the main barrel of the lens. This provides a very pleasant tactile experience and a lot of space to work with gloves on. But the barrel itself rotates under an exterior layer of metal and can let in grit and humidity, close to where the focus distance scale is read. (see product photo below). Not that it actually has happened to me. It’s just a diffuse fear.
• The focus can easily shift if you don’t hold the lens correctly, while switching from horizontal to vertical framing, for instance. This lens is all about the precision of focus. Focusing is very satisfying and easy, but also very sensitive to minute adjustments. Once you’ve achieved critical focus, it’s important to get your fingers off the rubber ring so as not to alter the setting. Even 1/2mm makes a difference. More of an observation than criticism and I don’t have a solution to offer.

OTUS 85 ZF2 (c) Zeiss

• The circular sunshade creates a weird flaring cutoff when sun is just on the edge of the frame. Maybe rectangular would have been better, though that would have been very large. Given how good flare control is, in those situations it’s simply best to get rid of the sunshade.

• In the day and age of the iPhone shooter new normal, walking around with this bazooka makes me feel very conspicuous. Plus it takes up a whole lot of room in the camera bag.
• Film! It’s a very personal thing, but I think that the type of photograph the OTUS excels at most often looks better on film. Ooops.

“La Science”, Paris – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

That’s it! The rest is as close to perfection as I’ve ever used or dreamed of.

What I’m not saying I don’t like

Yes, here are 2 obvious nasties that I don’t find objectionable.

The price. Value for money is not how you should look at it. There’s nothing comparable on the market today. Nothing that can give your images a similar look. So the reality is: you can either afford it, or you can’t. The lens itself is worth every single penny.

Today, this lens is unparalleled and you can’t find it second-hand. If you want one, buy it now, knowing it will be providing equal pleasure and quality in 50 years. It is bound to become a timeless classic.

The reader – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85

The weight. My first encounter left me with sore wrists after just 40 minutes of walking. Now, I simply cradle it on my left arm like a newborn and have walked long hours with in in town and country without a second thought. It all balances well and weight is no longer an issue at all.

But that’s just me. I love to walk around with a system that inspires me. It doesn’t bother me to be missing a lens, so I never carry many of them at any given moment. Since the OTUS 85 has been in my home, 90%+ of my photographs have been made with it, because I’m more attracted to a specific way of drawing than a specific focal length. If you’re someone who needs to haul around 5 lenses for your livelihood, your point of view will be very different.

What I really (really) like

Where do I begin?

The look created by this lens is what makes it so special to my eyes, but that look is a bit difficult to describe. So let’s split it into several sections.

The drawing

First and foremost for me is the way this lens paints the world on a sensor. Never before have electrons been born from more elegant photons.

My long-suffering friend Philippe knows of my unhealthy infatuation for Mandler-era Leica lenses. Great resolution hidden under a romantic veil. I own 5 of them, one of which in both M and R mounts (the glorious Elmarit 90/2.8 which Ken Rockwell rightly names Leica’s best ever 90mm). All of these are now for sale because of the OTUS.

Compared to the OTUS 85/1.4, my (excellent) Mandler jewels somehow feel like they are taking too many liberties. The OTUS seems to construct a scene with the exactitude of an architecture blueprint then covers it in a thin coating of noble rot. Less Liebfraumilch and more Trockenbeerenauslese.

It has a strong signature than merely diminishes slightly at smaller apertures yet always feels as righteous as a 3D rendering from a computer. Negligence and sloppiness are never a part of its vocabulary but neither are harshness or dryness.

The gentlemen above and below a testament to this. Both are photographed at f/1.4 but in very different lighting conditions. The first is more or less SOOC (except for obvious B&W conversion and graduated filter on the sky). The second has received a *huge* boost in contrast and clarity. Yet both show the same photo DNA and the OTUS’s style is present in both in spite of the post processing differences. Just like a great guitar would shine through different amps, to continue with my recent analogy.

Keeper of Trinity – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

Ironically, this look couldn’t be further apart from the “Mini-OTUS” the Sony-Zeiss FE 55/1.8.

The OTUS fits the A7r like a glove. And the FE 55/1.8 seems far better suited to the Sony A7s. If you’ve seen photos from that pairing, you’ll know what I mean. Edges seems etched and contrasty, in all situations. That’s the sort of look that makes me run for cover but thousands of others have fallen in love with it and it works well on some types of photos. In contrast to this, the OTUS 85/A7r couple seem to be taking it easy, letting their gobs of detail paint the world in a more mellow, see if I care, manner. That suits me better and is very subjective.

So this OTUS is a gentle giant. Gentle and laid-back but never lazy.

Colour

Take this very pedestrian view of Oxford, by Merton college. Colours are natural and well differentiated. The photograph looks like a mild dose of polarizing filter was used or a slight haze diffused the highlights. So there is no harsh contrast to dilute hues and the general impression is one of restraint and delicacy rather than anything over the top. This look is ever-present and gorgeous to my eyes. Those after a grungier style will be happier with other designs.

Merton college, Oxford. Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 8/1.4

Same story in this little village of Provence. Colours are true to life, with nothing spectacular to write about, no cast, no shift and no feeling of washing-out. Just honest accuracy.

Provence colour chart – Sony A7r & OTUS 85/1.4 @f/5.6

Even in extreme lighting condition, colours seem true to life.

Eye in the Sky – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

To me, lenses like the ûber-fantastic ZM 35/1.4 display even greater nuance and subtlety in their rendering of colour. Maybe the numerous optical elements take their toll, maybe that’s a design choice, but the OTUS 85 does seem to mute colours a tiny fraction compared to the best in class. Still, a solid 9.5/10 on this count.

Colour at f/1.4, stragiht out of camera. Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

Chislehusrt cafe – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

Blenheim gardens – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

Black & White
Nonetheless, to me, B&W is where the OTUS really sings. No amount of torture to the image will make it lose its charm. Frontlighting, backlighting, sidelighting, low contrast, high contrast,out of camera, crazy PP. It’s impossible to make a B&W photograph look bad. If the subject is interesting and you nail focus, the B&W output will be stunning.

Boeing porn – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

This is as much due to the Sony A7r’s amazing sensor. But even on that dream machine, some lenses are not really suited to B&W. For instance, I enjoyed using the Sony/Zeiss FE55/1.8 in colour but never liked it for B&W. The OTUS suits my B&W tastes because of its restraint. You can push files as hard as you like and they never feel harsh.

Pont au double – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

It’s hard to explain why, but my guess is that the OTUS 85 serves a lot of shadow information and retains the highlights very well. Its naturally soft rendering and vast information transmission mean you can push up the sliders when you feel like it but it is also possible to remain on the low-end of the contrast range when that suits the picture better. Other lenses have that “always on” nature that can quickly get tiring.

Feeling high – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

And, for street photo (where B&W often rules), that constant sense of 3D realism is a marvelous asset.  Street photography may actually be where the Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4’s copacetic-couple act is the most useful: the sensor’s dynamic range combined with the lens’ incredible realism let you create shots that are simply impossible with other combinations.

In the photograph below, the top part was almost pure white while the open-air shop (next to Notre Dame, by the Seine, in Paris) was in darkness.  The result is stunning.

Hidden Bouquinistes, Paris – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

The all important figure-to-ground composition principle is particularly well served with that pairing.

Crouching bouquiniste, Paris – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

Midday Jussieu, Paris – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

Bokeh

Is this the ultimate portrait lens ? 85mm is a flattering focal length that slightly flattens facial features yet the OTUS maintains the sensation of volume rendering a model’s hair beautifully. Ask sweetie, she’s lovin’ it!

Gissa hug – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

Even less professional models stand out and the cappuccino background and soft touch both help turn any amateur shooter into a semi-pro portraitist.

A patient daughter – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

Macro is another discipline in which the lovely bokeh helps features stand out. I added a micro-nikkor extension ring to the OTUS to obtain a 20cm focusing distance and easy handheld flower shots.

Hellebore – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

F/1.4 (below) results in pretty extreme shallowness of field (f/5.6 used, above). But, in spite of MTF charts (pdf brochures) that indicate a sharp decline in optical quality at close range, the level of detail in these conditions is still ample enough to convey a sense of realism and volume, while the background simply becomes an abstract decor.

A pink thingy (gardener’s help welcome ) – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85 @f1/4

Interestingly, bokeh is most useful in less obvious conditions, with this lens.

Closing down the aperture doesn’t change the lens’ rendering or bokeh at all. More structure from the background finds its way to the sensor, but the lens always retains the same look.

Imagine starting off from a perfectly sharp image from your nose tip to infinity, then being able to add amounts of Gaussian blur directly proportional to distance from the focus plane. This is what the OTUS 85 feels like. It acts more like a mathematical model than a real object subject to laws of physics of build tolerances.

Ugly chromatic aberration in bokeh – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

Actually, that’s not absolutely true. In this photograph of a black branch on a pure white snow background, I was able to find traces of chromatic aberration (purple fringing) in the out of focus areas, at f/1.4. Shame on you, Zeiss

But, to all intents and purposes, the OTUS 85’s bokeh is essentially perfect. And, ironically, that may be what makes the lens challenging to use successfully!

My goal, during this extended review, was to find the recipe for using the lens to its best potential. What I’ve come up with is this. Exploiting the OTUS look to the full hinges on two imperatives:

(1) Nailing focus, to the nearest micron. I can’t overstate this. Areas in sharp focus serve as anchoring points for your composition. This is far more important with this lens than with any other I’ve used before.

(2) Choosing the correct aperture for the intended feeling of volume. Using f/1.4 all the time, because I can, is a big mistake. For every subject distant / background distance / intended volume scenario, there is one aperture that works best. The scene below was photographed at f/2.8 and may have been better at f/4. While very pretty, it has a slightly gooey feeling that could have been avoided. F/1.4 would not have worked at all, as I learned the hard way for many weeks…

In fact, it’s my opinion that this lens is a tremendous learning tool for young photographers. Since its price puts it out of their range, all photography schools and clubs should own an OTUS and have it on loan for all intermediate photographers to work on understanding the role of focus in composition.

Resolution

Resolution is silly, at all apertures.

Here’s a handheld photo of the Moon, at f/5.6. I’ve seen worse results from expensive white 200mm glass.

The dome of half-Moon – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS85/1.4 @ 100%

These abilities are retained at full aperture into the corners. Not 100% as sharp, but still scary sharp.

Until the OTUS 85 came along, my dream setup was an Alpa camera with Rodenstock Digaron glass and a 60Mpix monochrome back by Phase One. The itch is still there, but it is just so easy to stitch two frames made with the OTUS and get the same results for 15% of the cost, that the OTUS 85 and Sony A7r seem like the medium format bargain of the decade. Plus you get the f/1.4 abilities.

The photograph below is an example of this process. An almost perfect 50mm equivalent lens in a square format 50Mpix frame. Is there a more fitting spiritual successor to the Hasselblad 500?

Noble Cotswold tree – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4 (2-frame panorama)

Until the OTUS 85 came along, I longed for Foveon sensors. Not any more. Pixel quality is so amazing with the OTUS that Bayer no longer feels like such a handicap (I still think the Foveon is a brilliant idea. Go Sigma).

Notre Dame in high-res, Paris – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85 ZF2 (click for 100% view)

The photograph above is a full-size 25Mb JPEG. You can click it to judge for yourself (keeping in mind the original is considerably smoother and sharper than this compressed jpeg output). It’s likely to send the moire brigade into orbit. Moiré is everywhere in the frame, particularly on balconies on the right hand side.

Focusing

It’s hard to put images on this, but here’s a fun experiment: switch focus peaking on and play with the focusing ring at f/1.4. Watching the plane of focus materialize as a razor-thin red slice of the scene is so much fun.

The combination of an excellent EVF, excellent focus aids and excellent lens make focusing 100% failsafe. For really critical focusing, simply enlarge the image and enjoy. I have found that centering the focus zone then recomposing works really well 95% of the time, which avoids having to move the focus window across the frame.

Simple, efficient and brilliant.

The amazing realism of depth

Notice how often I used the word depth or volume in the text, rather than 3D ?

Paris, Borneo – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4 @f/5.6

As with all good Zeiss lenses, the sensation of 3D is brilliant. But this doesn’t feel like a 3D lens in the same sense as the unparalleled ZM 35/1.4. The ZM draws you into a scene in a way that can create vertigo on the right image (not joking!). The OTUS feels more distant. Again, the best description I can come up with is the 3D model. The OTUS seems to reconstruct a scene in like a very advanced special effect computer program would.

With a different lens, even an excellent lens such as the Loxia 50 or an Apo-Summicron 90, the photograph above would look more like a collage. Here, the 3 layers are palpable. So much so that co-author Philippe feels this is too much and that the barge edge looks a little over etched.

In the scene below, from the fountain next to Beaubourg, in Paris, there is a sensation of 3D on the curvaceous statue. The background is flat and, again, feels like a distant layer.

Jeff’s secret – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

Same story here, where the buses clearly stand out from the wall (also: notice how true the colours look, while not being very saturated ?)

Oxford buses – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4

On subjects with a greater range of depth, the feeling of depth is largely governed by the aperture setting. At f/1.4 subject isolation can be so strong that it kills the sensation off. Whereas even at small apertures where everything appears to be sharp, the sense of depth is very present.

Is it for you?

Forget about optical quality for now.

You already know whether you can afford this lens. And you already know whether you like the aesthetics it imparts on the photographs you make.

If you need to carry many lenses with you, forget about the OTUS 85. All by itself, it eats up 80% of a reasonably large camera bag (ThinkTank Retrospective 7).

Provence Sunset – Sony A7r & Zeiss OTUS 85/1.4 – Horizontal stitch of 2 frames

Chosing a lens of this price is necessarily a very personal decision. You will sell it back in an instant if you don’t get along. But my guess is that if you’re not dying to get one after seeing these photographs, you’re simply not drawn to the style it creates.

I’ve tried to include many photographs of varying subjects at varying apertures and light conditions. Colour and B&W. I’m happy to provide more if you want them.

Concluding thoughts

This lens makes me happy. It is close to perfect in itself. But – more importantly – the Sony A7r and it are symbiots.

To me, Zeiss’s ZM 35/1.4 is as much a landmark lens, possibly even more. It’s the best 35 I’ve ever seen by a big margin, and I’ve seen a lot. It’s even more transparent than the OTUS, and has even better colours. But somewhere at Zeiss HQ, someone decided it was better to optimise it for a declining Leica range of cameras than for a booming Sony range. And, in some situations, it shows.

There is no such “yes, but” with the OTUS 85/1.4, on the Sony A7r. It may be an absolute pig to focus on a Canikon camera (the OTUS 55 certainly was on my D800e). But on the A7r, it’s simply perfect. Its permanent control on light, matched with the Sony’s fabulous sensor, means it’s almost impossible to blow highlights (I use my A7r between +1 and +2 EV all the time, occasionally +3EV).  Focusing is just so easy and pleasurable (on static objects) it’s also impossible not to get it right 100% of the time.

Lothlórien – Sony A7r & OTUS 85/1.4

Lab rats will probably be perplexed. While the OTUS measures unlike anything else before it, the otherworldly technical abilities are bottled up as ever-present potential and never really brag as you’d expect them to, in photographs at usual sizes. Intricate detail is present everywhere but serves the sense of realism more than it flatters the owner. It really is the proverbial iron fist in a velvet glove.

I may have painted myself into a corner when assigning cars types to lenses in previous reviews. If the Loxia 50 is a Cayman S and the FE 55 a first-gen Nissan GTR, what’s left for the OTUS range ? It’s much too discreet and easy for a Ferrari, Pagani or Lambo. Too mature for an Ariel Atom. What do you think my attribution for the OTUS 85 should be ? McLaren MP4 or BAC Mono ? In both cases it a driver’s car and a formidable teaching tool. If you’ve ever considered lenses in that price range, you really owe it to yourself to try one. Just make sure to keep it long enough to really get used to it. You can thank me later

More samples

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

Remember the time when choosing a sports car was a purely Italian “thing”, separating the world’s aficionados into the irreconcileable clans of Maranello (Ferrari) and Sant’ Agata Bolognese (Lamborghini)? That time is gone. In line with the growings ranks or the überwealthy, a wealth of übercars (or hypercars as they are called, as opposed to the previous, merely supercars) have emerged, like the Pagani, the Königsegg, the Glickenhaus, the Bugatti, the Mclaren. Ferrari and Porsche have taken up the challenge and produced their own hypercars.

And so it goes with lenses. It used to be (not so long ago, say 5-6 years ago) that, excluding professional equipment and MF lenses, the only really, really expensive “normal” (in focal length terms) lenses were designed for the Leica rangefinder, peaking at 3000€ for some Summilux. If you weren’t into Leica, excluding some very rare exotics, like the Coastal Optics 60mm, there was always Zeiss, the “other” German lens maker. Cheaper, like Posrsche to Ferrari.

That time is gone. Leica themselves have shown that überlenses can be designed and sold, like the 50mm APO Summicron, at double the price of the previous King of the Hill, the faster Summilux 50, itself no giveaway at 3000€.

Now Zeiss, like Porsche, have decided to show show that they too can play this game. One entry you are already familiar with is the ZM 35 f:1.4, smack in Leica territory, because it is designed to be used on Leica cameras. Still, it is cheaper than its rival (sorry, rectify that, less expensive), the 35 Summilux, and that, in the hallowed world of übergizmos, makes it suspect.

But it is in the segment of DSLR lenses that Zeiss have staked their ground, with the no-holds-barred Otus. First, a very large, heavy and expensive 55mm f:1.4, and then Pascal’s new heartthrob, the 85 f:1.4.

Having been inducted to the breathtaking beauty of the ZM 35, I was pained not to have a 50mm lens (my favorite) that could match it, and even considered using the ZM on my NEX 7 so as to get 53mm out of it without cropping the image. So, with Pascal’s glowing reviews of the Otus 85, I just had to try out the 55, which the Zeiss distributors in France were good enough to let me do.

Now that the jury is in, what is the verdict: is this the Holy Grail of normal lenses?

First let me say that the performance of the Otus 55 is beyond flawless. It carries flawless to a new dimension, because not only does it not exhibit the slightest flaw, it performs to an unprecendeted quality level when it comes to eliminating anything spurious or untoward.

For example, I have gotten CA out of every lens I have owned, even the Leica Summilux 50 or APO Summicron 75, even the new Zeiss ZM 35 f:1.4. But not the Otus 55. No CA.

Extreme corner sharpness, a very tricky subject on the A7R. Not for the Otus, where, by chance, I caught the edge of a metal lamppost on the outer pixels of an image. Ouch! They are so sharp I just cut myself. Wide open performance is always less good that stopped down a couple of stops, right? On ordinary lenses, wide open can be downright bad. On better ones, it is degraded, but useable. On really good lenses, it is really useable, but, of course, you make allowances for the fact that it isn’t quite as good as one stop down, a worthy compromise in order to get minimal depth-of-field and lovely, creamy out-of-focus background. Did I just write “of course you make allowances”? Already the ZM 35 f:1.4 belies this “rule”, because wide open is so good there hasn’t been yet a single shot where I felt the performance to take away from what might have been a splendid image. But as good as f:2.0 or f:2.8? Not quite. But with the Otus, you just dial in your aperture and get Otus performance. Asking yourself if wide open performance will be good enough to enable a shot is like asking the chef of a 3-star restaurant which is better, the fish or the meat… And so on, and so on….

So, with the above in mind, what can stop the Otus from being crowned the new überlens? I see 3 question marks

The first and most obvious one is: it is useable? Now, I hate heavy lenses, and have never found a single one endearing. I have returned otherwise fine enses just because they were too heavy. I have switched away from DSLRs in part because they were too heavy. Plus, it is ridiculous to mount a heavy lens like the Otus (1kg, or 2.2lbs) on a light body, right? Well, all I can say is I haven’t found it problematic. Either I want it so bad it warps my judgement, or, because the body is light, it lets the combo remain below the threshold of unbearable weight.

Another canard I am happy to denounce is that the Otus is so sharp and has such resolution that it can only be used on a tripod. My experience is, so far, that I can use it exactly at the same shutter speeds as my 50mm Loxia and get the same type of missed shots. Yes, I often use a tripod, but in the tests so far, the majority of the pics are handheld. Loss of resolution? I don’t think so, you be the judge.

Another potential pitfall: focusing such a demanding lens. Actually, very easy, because the focus throw is very long, so it can be done very accurately thanks to the magnification. But not on running dogs, of course…:-). Strike one of the questions.

The second one is: what is its rendering ? That is a very tricky one, because rendering is not a matter of quality per se, but more of personal taste. Now, I am in love with the rendering of the ZM 35 f:1.4, and Pascal, also a big fan, has asked me repeatedly how is the Otus in that respect? My answer: I don’t know, it doesn’t seem to have any discernible character, or personality. It is just like it is not there, with one exception, it vignettes wide open, like other fast lenses, and that is easily cured in post, so it is hardly worth calling that “character”.

If I try to think what the Otus 55 rendering reminds me of, it is the Zeiss ZE 25, itself very close to the ZE 35 f:1.4 (it is no surprise that these 3 lenses are Distagon designs by Zeiss). A rendering which “lays it all out for the viewer to see”. No emphasis on detail over contrast, or colours over lighting. It is just all there, in a way that I would call “professional”, as opposed to “emotional”, or “clinical”, somewhere in between these two. Come to think of it, my Leica APO Summicron 75mm was like that as well, in terms of rendering at least.

The third question has to be: does owning an Otus let me take better pictures than I would have otherwise, meaning with the excellent-but-not-in-Hyperlens-territory Zeiss Loxia 50 f:2.0? That is, in effect, the definitive question, because owning a shockingly expensive lens which gives you no better results than you would have gotten out of a lens 3 times cheaper would be the epitomy of snobbery and waste.

The answer, in a word, is: yes, and I don’t mean by that only pictures at f:1.4, although, coupled with the Otus’ incredible performance wide open, that is obviously the case. The fact is, when I look at my pictures with the Otus, which I have had for a week now, they are not only striking, they are different. There is something to shooting “the biggest gun there is out there”, mated to the best 35mm sensor, that changes what I do and how I do it.

Switching from heavy DSLRs to the NEX, then staying there with the A7 has changed my style. From committed (meaning I have to decide if I take my camera bag with me, which often I didn’t), to systematic. And once I have my camera with me, I could, and would, pretty much try anything once. A sort of light-heartedness about the process, because, with nothing waged, there could be no loss if the shot didn’t turn out to be interesting. Much in the same way as shooting on my way to work can be light-hearted, because missing an opportunity just means I will have to look for it some other time, but missing a shot in Patagonia is a whole other story.

Plus, shooting with the Otus, the weight reminds you that what you are handling is no toy. You know that, whatever you are shooting, the Otus will show everything, the good, the bad, and the ugly. And, because I don’t want to see the ugly, I simply take more care. And, guess what, it pays off.

Conversely, when mounting another lens back on the A7R, I feel like it is another camera altogether. Light, almost playful. Like switching from Meryl Streep to Audrey Hepburn, from Stanley Kubrick to George Cukor, from a Ferrari 365 GTB/4 Daytona to a Lotus Seven.

Thus it is an incredible good fortune to be able to have at my disposal both a ZM35 f:1.4, a tremendous lens in its own right, and King of the Light Realm, and an Otus 55, the Big Bertha of them all. If I had to own just one lens, two weeks ago, I would have said the ZM 35 is perfect for the part, except it isn’t 50mm. Now I know, it would have to be the Otus, which has something of the order of the inevitable and relentless to it. And, when an opportunity presents itself, happy little me can just pick and choose the ballerina or the elephant. The Degas or the Goya. I, of course, thought about returning my ZM 35 if the Otus turned out to be “simply better”, because then there would be no point in owning two very expensive lenses with one almost never used. But, because they litterally change the camera and how I use it, I am delighted to keep it and keep using it.

Last point, before I sign off this long rambling of a post, comparative pictures. Pascal, ever DearSusan’s Iago, suggested I post some comparing the FE55 “mini-Otus” to the Real Thing. I decided not to. Many people are fully happy with their FE55, Loxia 50, Summilux 50, and many other lenses, be they primes or zooms, old or new, and rightly so. Showing them exactly what their lens doesn’t do would be quite unkind, needlessly taking away from their enjoyment without many of them buying an Otus. Let me just say that I have compared the Otus to a number of other lenses, including some very respected ones at the same price level, and not one has matched it or outperformed it in any one criterion, let alone all of them. Except maybe, just maybe, the ZM 35 f:1.4 with its incredible colours. Though I suspect that the Otus is more neutral, and the ZM just a tad more beautiful.

And, with that, I leave you. Gotta go out and shoot. Yes, the Otus.

Posted on DearSusan by philberphoto.

GAS warning! Do not let this lens grow on you …

A week ago, having finally gotten to terms with the fact I no longer owned an OTUS 85, I received this C-Sonnar 1.5/50 ZM lens from Zeiss. And what a joy that was: finally a lens I really didn’t like. Finally an opportunity to say something bad about Zeiss and not sound like the born-again fanboy.

Jewel lens

Out of the box, it looks drop-dead gorgeous. More jewelry than optical instrument, particularly with the lens hood attached. Perfect weight, perfect size, perfect looks. It matches the purposeful design of the Sony to a T. So unbearably Fab.

But on the camera, oh joy of joy … It. Was. Terrible.

Overly firm and gritty focusing, lack of contrast, overly long minimum focusing distance, poor corner compatibility with the A7r, dark and dull images. Review over, that was easy: Zeiss please remove this rubbish lens from your catalog, this is 2015.

Mood

I shared my concern with the French importer, who explained: this 1930’s design was updated in the early aughties but aesthetics have not been altered at all in the process. He told me how the design was similar to the crazy f/0.7 lens used by Stanley Kubrick to film Barry Lyndon and how CNES uses this lens in space.

His recommendation: Not your average look, not your average lens. Think it through.

I did. And there goes my reviewer’s neutrality cred, right out the window.

I’ll get to the real review shortly but, before that, let me explain what’s so interesting in this lens. My love for the OTUS came from the control that lens offers its owner over highlights and atmosphere. It’s nearly impossible to burn a highlight using an OTUS and I used my sample between +1 and +3 stop all the time. The 50/1.5 ZM is quite the opposite. It has a strong signature that can be  hard to work around, burns anything vaguely bright faster than toast and focuses much more on mood than on perfection. It is both low(-ish) contrast and high in colours. And the natural tendency of the lens is to create slightly dark images. However, this needs to be qualified:

• Now that I’ve taken the time to make a few more photographs, it’s possible to alter the mood to light and airy, while retaining the soft natural rendering of the lens. I’m not sure about all photographers, but models are likely to prefer it to the ruthless OTUS.

Fresh

• The C-Sonnar absolutely shines in low-light. Unlike the night-owl OTUS that sees through the abyss and makes it look like daytime, the C-Sonnar creates low-light photographs that look like low-light, but with great clarity, colour and 3D. Really lovely stuff if that’s your style.

Dark

But I’ll get back to both points later. On with the formal review.

Ergonomics

Jewel-like build, good looks, 1/3 stop click aperture ring, a focus ring that smoothed out after a few hours … what more need I say ?

This is the result of many years of evolutionary design and it feels good in hand. For some reason, new designs such as the BATIS do away with essentials such as an aperture ring. Go figure.

3D and bokeh

Here’s a scene at f/1.5, f/2, f/2.8 and f/2.8.

3D is spectacular and subjectively feels better at wider apertures. Brilliant.

Swirly & bubbly bokeh is not my cup of tea, but it’s not too bad here. There are traces of agitation at wider apertures that get in the way of perfect smoothness, but it’s no big deal. Some actually prefer bokeh with a presence. What matters more is that this lens relays a lot of structural information in its out of focus areas, much like the Distagon 1.4/35 ZM and OTUS 55/1.4 but unlike the OTUS 85/1.4 and my Leica-R lenses.

My sincere apologies for now breaking the implicit code of lens reviewers by including cat pictures. But this one does illustrate the slightly bubbly nature of highlights that can often be objectionable and isn’t too bad here. f/1.4 at night. Again, note how soft this image looks but how clear and natural it appears in very low light.As you can see in the chromatic aberration section enlargements below, f/2 is a lovely sweet spot (between aperture, aperture shape and correction), particularly for bokeh. f/1.5 displays some bubblyness, probably due to undercorrected optics. f/2 is very nice, with no bright outside edge to out of focus highlights.

From f/2.8 to f/5.6 the 10 iris blades draw dents in the otherwise perfect aperture circle, which appear in oof highlights (see below f/2.8). Avoid these apertures for pics in which highlight bokeh is really critical. Above and below these points, aperture is almost perfectly circular. Nice!

Silent race @f/1.4

But, even at f/1.4 the bubbly bokeh never intrudes when the background isn’t too crowded.

Chromatic aberration

These 100% enlargements speak for themselves.

At f/1.5, some chromatic aberration is present (top). It’s easy to correct and less than what the flagship Distagon 1.4/35 ZM exhibits at similar apertures (compare this in my review of the 1.4/35 ZM)

f/2.0 is excellent and a sweet spot for bokeh as well (middle).

Correction is almost perfect at f/2.8 (bottom).

Flare and glare

With the sun in the frame, there is very little trace of flare, even at f/1.5

Flare at f/1.5

f/1.5 uncorrected

f/5.6 uncorrected

f/5.6 is obviously better than f/1.5, showing better contrast and clarity. But the small flare at center is more visible and more difficult to suppress.

Note that these images are worst-case scenarios (sun flaring on a very dark foreground). Below are two real-life examples that show how good the performance really is.

Sharpness

A tricky one, sharpness. The lens isn’t designed for perfect corners at wide aperture, a fact compounded by the relative incompatibility with the A7r,  and it shows abundantly.

Just kiddin’

At longer distances, you really need f/8 for a sharp photograph.

At closer range, this is one sweet lens in portrait scenarios or to enhance near-far relationships.

Atmosphere, Atmosphere

And what’s wrong with that ?

The best tools are those designed with a clear purpose in mind. A generic car isn’t designed for carrying many people, wading in the mud, screaming  round a track, shining chrome at an exhibition or spinning doughnuts. That’s a utilitarian and boring car. A 67 L-88 Corvette is terrible off-road and no one would criticise it for it. A Porsche 918 won’t take your 4 kids to school in great comfort. And who would blame it for it? Both are fantastic cars in their own right.

Yet, it seems the consensus, when it comes to photographic lenses, is that they should perform flawlessly at every aperture in any conditions. Not so. The shortcomings in a lens can indicate poor design (as in too many cases) or a clear purpose.

It takes only a few seconds of looking at the C-Sonnar’s MTF curves to realise the use case for this lens is not ultimate corner sharpness at infinity.

(c) Zeiss. Click to access technical documentation

This is what Zeiss’s website says about the C-Sonnar : “The standard focal length offers special qualities, which make it well suited for portraiture and documenting authentic events and people.” Which makes sense, when you use the lens. It really is all about atmosphere and documenting mood and people.

So, it’s a specialized lens, in which corner sharpness doesn’t play a major role. That being said, it’s very decent closed down between f/2.8 and f/8. And pretty good, even at f/1.5 in the center. See photo below, and 100% enlargement.

Praying Mantis

Here’s a full-size image (at f/5.6) to download for pixel level inspection. You might recoil at what you see or be satisfied that, at 12″-16″ print size, it’s every bit as sharp as the FE55/1.8 (which has nowhere near as much character). Horses for courses …

King-size Cedar (click for 100% file)

Distortion

Distortion ? What distortion ?

Colour

Excellent. Lovely colours, although not quite as subtle as the Distagon 1.4/35 ZM, probably the world’s best in that respect.

The moody nature is evident and responds well to post-processing that enhances that feeling.

Hay Hay Hay

Porker pie

Fountain dew

The lens seems to express itself much better in low contrast situations, where it extracts every last drop of natural colour and reproduces it with an earthy pastel quality. More Gibson than Fender.

Here’s a variety of colours in gentle light.

Waiting

Red diagonal

Mauve at night

Attention

The C-Sonnar excels at creating somber atmospheres. If the Distagon 1.4/35 ZM is Mozart, then this is more Beethoven. Colours seem “dense”. Think of the density of Chateauneuf du Pape, of vinyl played through tubes and Spendor speakers, as opposed to rosé with ice cubes or YouTube played through earplugs, which is what you get with some lenses more focused on resolution.

Unfortunately, the C-Sonnar stumbles in bright, high-contrast scenes (see below).  Highlights seem muted and unnatural in these conditions, so it’s best to underexpose and salvage shadows in post-processing.

High-contrast

With that in mind, it’s possible to work the image out of the somber-mood register, but it’s probably best to use the lens for what it does best: atmosphere.

Torn

Gold Vador

Bokeh bulb

Backstage

Greens

Place des Prêcheurs

Black and White

Provence, copping it again …

As I hope this photograph demonstrates, the C-Sonnar 1.5/50 ZM is a brilliant lens for black & white.

Brilliant, with minor reservations.

As discussed previously, the natural tendency to blow highlights means you’ll often be shooting at “darker settings” (less exposure) and adjustments in PP will become visible a that much earlier.

Compared to a no-compromise design such as an OTUS, the C-Sonnar offers less tone control. You’re left to play with a “smaller dynamic range”.

Still, the low contrast feel is again wonderfully atmospheric and, when the exposure range isn’t too wide, produces lovely tones. The photograph above is a perfect illustration. Just 3 roofs catching the evening light. The photograph in colour is totally uninteresting. Converted to B&W with little or no digital work added, it just sings Provence.With a yellow filter on yellow flowers and a little clarity enhancement, it’s possible to make the look more modern and peppy. But the look remains natural and laid-back with no harshness anywhere.

So there you have it. Less incisive than the Distagon 1.4/35 ZM and less in control than the OTUS, it produces files that hint at Douasneau more than Adams. I feel that fits the marketing claims rather aptly.

Cloud slices

Quirks

Let’s see. Focus shift. It won’t bother you on a Sony A7x but will be a pain on rangefinder cameras (so much for the purity argument).

Blown highlights. This one puzzles me. The lens feels distinctly low-key, soft and low-contrast (in a good way) but acts high-contrast in that it blows highlights like a 1990’s digicam … See the tree trunks at bottom and sunlit walls in the fountain photograph above.

Focus breathing. It’s one of the more pronounced cases I have ever seen. Almost comical. For the price of a prime, you actually get yourself a zoom that breathes so much it seems alive. But that will only matter to videographers with no sense of humour

Weird bokeh artifacts. By the same principle that creates bubbles around out of focus highlights, f/1.4 can play strange tricks along contrast edges. In the second cat photo, above, my wife’s nose is literally cut in half by the bokeh if any contrast enhancement is added. Who does that to innocent women? A little more irksome, but entirely avoidable by aperture choice.

That’s about it and it matters little compared to what the lens does perfectly.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, this is a lens with a strong personality. Not really my style, but gorgeous nonetheless.

Last drops of light

I particularly love the way it clings to clarity and colour in low-light situations and makes them come alive.

My only real criticism is that controlling highlights is a real pain in some situations and photographs in high-contrast situations aren’t that great. Highlights, even when kept in check aren’t  anywhere as beautiful as darker areas.

Also , in spite of the official claims to great bokeh, I don’t always enjoy it. Definitely not as obtrusive as others, it has a slightly gritty quality that occasionally spoils the ambiance that other aspects of the lens conspire so brilliantly to create.

Okay bokeh. Just Okay.

Apart from that (and the design that’s not all that happy on a Sony sensor) it’s all excellent news.

And, in spite of all that talk about darkness and strong personality, the C-Sonnar 1.5/50 isn’t a single trick pony. Close it down and you have yourself a very competent landscape lens.  It’s also a beautifully designed lens, built like a little jewel that brings with it a strong and endearing personality (that tight focusing ring loosened up and became firm but silky smooth after a little while).

It’s a mature lens for a mature shooter. That is anyone taking the time to know the lens and learn to use what it does best and avoid the known idiosyncracies, and favours atmosphere over test results. Add points for M-camera owners. If that describes you, the C-Sonnar will put an endless smile on your face!

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

If I had one word to define Japan, I would say: “relentless”. The Japanese have no choice, they need to be relentless, in order to survive what is a very difficult set of natural circumstances. Volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis…

Yet, there is a more delicate side to Japan. Think delicious “toro” (bluefin tuna) melting in your mouth. Think wonderful calligraphy. Think haiku, and noh, and kabuki. Think geisha. Think maybe last of all, the yearly viewing of cherry blossoms’ ephemeral beauty.

That is the delicate side that the Sony FE 90 Macro lens definitely shines at reproducing. I found that out during a brief loan when I could use the lens in one short walk-about.

Let’s get the hardware details out-of-the-way first. Size-wise, it is pretty much what you’d expect of a 90mm f:2.8. And it is rather less heavy than its bulk might indicate, though build quality is as high as you’d expect from a premium lens.

It has one unusual feature: the reach is divided in 3 steps: full reach, from close-up (0.28m) to infinity, or longer reach (0.5m to infinity), or close range (0.28m to 0.5m). The advantage of the last 2 positions is to get faster and more accurate AF than in full range. Similarly, you have a switch to turn off the stabilisation, in case you are using a tripod.

Let me also say that changing over from a manual-focus-only set of lenses to AF wasn’t that easy, but I still got a reasonable keeper rate, with focus placed pretty much where I wanted it. But don’t expect  the autofocus to do all the work in your stead. If the wind moves the flowers around, you are on your own! All the more so with the A7R, where, frankly, the autofocus totally sucks at tracking fast movements at close range, and I couldn’t get a single sharp shot this way. Hopefully the A7 II and soon A7R II are better (or less bad) at it. To get some keepers, I stopped focus tracking, and used DMF to switch from AF lock to focusing manually. This is, BTW a focus-by-wire lens. Some aren’t huge fans, but this one isn’t particularly objectionable, and the long throw lets you place focus exactly where you want it. Obviously not the case in the shot below…

Another feature of hardware is the stabilizer. I had neither the time nor the inclination to establish exactly how many stops it gets you, but the fact is, not a single of my shots shows movement blur. That even led me to sloppy one-hand shots, just to see how far I could go down the slippery slope, and still no blur, even at 1/50s. My guess is that is worth 3 stops, maybe even a little bit more.

I had high hopes for the IQ of this lens. It is the second one in the “G” range, indicating premium but not Sony-Zeiss, after the 70-200 f:4.0 OSS. I had seen fine pictures from that lens, confirmed when I tried it out. Very delicate and beautiful colours, poetic even. And the first samples I saw, months ago, from the FE 90 seemed to be in that same vein.

So what is the lowdown on this lens’ IQ? Fully as expected, very beautiful, dreamy, easily poetic. Hugely detailed, much more “leica-esque”, like the Leica R Makro Elmarit 60 reviewed by Pascal than like the Zeiss Makro-planar twins (Z* 50Mp and Z* 100 Mp). Probably even more so than the Leica.

The FE 90 seems particularly at ease, even remarkably so, with delicate, pastel colours, and gentle, soft materials. It isn’t so eloquent with hard, gritty, grotty surfaces and crude colours, as you can see with the picture up top, or the ones above and below this.

Lots of creamy bokeh, even when the lens is closed down to f:5.6, with a very fast transition from in-focus to out-of-focus. Plenty of 3D too, as you can see from the metal bracket above.

This affinity with pastel colours is also evidenced by shots at longer range, where the FE 90 acquits itself very honorably indeed, but does not offer anything that other premium lenses can’t do, such as the forthcoming Zeiss Batis 85 f:1.8.

The last picture is one of a similar, but not identical fixture (but colours and materials are the same) which I also shot, on another day, with the formidable Zeiss Otus 55mm with a 8mm tube (lower picture). I’ll let you decide for yourselves.

In conclusion, the Sony FE 90 macro f:2.8 OSS is a fine lens indeed, definitely worth its not inconsiderable price (let’s not forget it is almost 50% more money than the identically specced Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L macro IS usm). But worth it if your taste leans more towards the mild, the sweet, the delicate than the hard-core. More towards Japanese cherry blossoms than Icelandic lava and ice blocks.

Now the question: will I buy it? Is it good enough at enough “things” to earn itself a place in my bag? It could fill 4 spots, actually. That of short tele, that of autofocus lens (I haven’t got one any more, and there are times when it is helpful, that of portrait lens, and that of macro. Remember, too, that for yours truly, a lens is measured by how good its best shots are, and not by how many are good enough.

Its competitors? The Zeiss Batis 85 f:1.8, the Zeiss Otus 85 f:1.4, the Zeiss 135 f:2.0 APO. Strike out the Otus 85. Too large, heavy and expensive for the few breathtaking shots it does deliver in my not-so-expert hands. Strike out the Batis 85 f:1.8, where the preview shots leave me nonplussed (the 25 is another matter, though). The 135 f:2.0 APO is definitely a producer of Wow! shots, but is not easy to use at all (I am still waiting for that loaner, MM. Zeiss, anyone listening?).

But maybe its closest competitor is simply the Otus 55. Sure it’s “only” a 55, but it is so good, and I have so many pixels (36 Mp today, 42Mp tomorrow, hint, hint) that cropping is not an issue. Sure the 8mm tube does not bring me close enough, but I just need to buy a 20mm…

So, what remains? Autofocus, yes, definitely, for some situations. Stabilizer, yes, definitely. This gentle, romantic, poetic look. That is the key. If I feel that this alternative to the rather more stern  and imperious Zeiss look is worth it, I need to open my bag and checkbook. If not…

Posted on DearSusan by philberphoto.

This is a guest post by Boris Buschardt, whom you will have seen mentioned in this blog a few times. Boris is a world class landscape photographer who runs wild-places.com. Be ready to be awed when you visit that website.

In June I spent two weeks in Namibia. It was the first real test for my recently acquired Zeiss Apo Sonnar 135mm lens. Normally I use wide-angle or standard lenses for my landscape images, but Namibia is a location where a short tele lens works really well for landscapes.

Technically the 135mm Apo is a nearly perfect lens. Color, sharpness, micro contrast and build quality are top-notch. I would even rate it slightly higher than the great 55mm Otus.

Contrary to many other lenses you could use it wide open even on a 36 MP camera (in my case a Nikon D800E) without making any compromises. It can for example be used for landscape images with limited DOF and a very pronounced background separation. The following images were all shot wide open at f/2.

Sossusvlei (c) Boris Buschardt

Blutkuppe (c) Boris Buschardt

Moon Valley (c) Boris Buschardt

But even this lens improves stopped down. Modern aspherical lenses which are calculated for great sharpness wide open nearly always show a slightly nervous bokeh with artifacts in high contrast OOF areas. Even lenses like the Otus or the 135mm Apo can’t avoid this completely. But stopped down to f/4 – f/8 these artifacts are gone with the 135 Apo and the bokeh smoothens slightly while still keeping an interesting structure.
Often the 3D effect of an image is also improved by stopping down to f/5.6. The main object gets more definition and slightly more texture while the separation from the background is still very good. The following images were shot at apertures between f/5.6 and f/8.

Sossusvlei (c) Boris Buschardt

Sossusvlei (c) Boris Buschardt

Deadvlei (c) Boris Buschardt

Sossusvlei (c) Boris Buschardt

Sossusvlei (c) Boris Buschardt

Moon Valley (c) Boris Buschardt

Welwitschia mirabilis, Welwitschia Trail (c) Boris Buschardt

Blutkuppe (c) Boris Buschardt

Blutkuppe (c) Boris Buschardt

Stopping further down is not recommended. This lens gets significantly less sharp even at f/11 due to diffraction. The 55mm Otus is at bit easier in this regard. While f/11 is fully useable with the Otus it should really be avoided with the 135mm Apo.

Of course the 135 could also be used for wildlife photography although you have to get pretty close to your subjects and a longer lens is often preferable. The following images are slightly cropped.

Sossusvlei (c) Boris Buschardt

Flamingo colony, Walvis Bay (c) Boris Buschardt

Cape Cross (c) Boris Buschardt

The biggest problem besides size and weight of the 135mm Apo is the keeper rate. More than 90% of the images I had shot handheld in Namibia with this lens were unsharp for two reasons:

Motion blurring: even with exposure times as short as 1/500 sec about 50% of my images were blurred, at 1/250 sec nearly all images were blurred, 1/1000 sec is pretty safe to use.
Misfocus: if you use this lens wide open or slightly stopped down perfect focusing is mandatory, otherwise all your images will look unsharp. If for some reasons precise LV focusing is not possible (one reason could be that you are using some kind of old fashioned DSLR like me stop down to at least f/8 or forget it.

Even some of my images shot from a tripod were unsharp due to motion blur. I used a Gitzo Series 2 tripod with a BH55 head in Namibia which was apparently not sufficient for this lens in windy conditions. The 135 Apo in combination with a 36 MP camera is extremely demanding regarding your technique. A very stable tripod, mirror lock-up and LV focus are a must with this lens.

But despite this I really love this lens and it will be from now on part of my standard landscape kit (together with the Otus 55mm and the Zeiss 21mm).

If you want to read more about my travel experience in Namibia take a look at my blog:
http://wild-places.com/2015/07/06/namibia-first-impressions/

Boris

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

This Sony A7rII review guest post by Bob Hamilton is summary of recent email exchanges between Bob and myself. For those who do not know him, Bob is a very talented Scottish photographer with a passion for Saga Islands (see his website here). 2 things you need to know about Bob to put the following comments into perspective:

1. He is a Leica S owner and expert. The photographs he has sent me made using that camera are mind-bogglingly good.
2. He owns a Sony A7r and, like me, has experienced the exhilaration of total camera failure (and abysmal Sony after-sales service) at the very worst moment (in a once in a lifetime remote location)

So be assured that Bob definitely isn’t a Sony fanboy and that his comments are 110% objective !

With that said, let me stress the first impressions aspect of this review. No need to start a flame war is something in the following lines doesn’t please your expectations or match someone else’s findings!

First impressions are that it is a grade better made and much more robust than its predecessor – especially the lens mount which shows no real movement now.

From having one of the worst shutters I have heard, Sony have transformed the camera into having one of the best – a marvellous little “snick” and no more.

It now feels almost like a professional tool.
It’s early days yet but this has a different feel to it than the “old” model – a much more solid and capable camera and one more like the RX1r which is why I was lured into buying the A7r in the first place. If, as I suspect, its performance with legacy rangefinder lenses (especially the wides) is significantly improved, it will be a complete game-changer and signal the end of the Leica M for all but the rangefinder diehards.

The camera is extremely responsive now and there is no longer the really worrying clunking noise on turning it off or on. They really do seem to have sorted the shutter.

Kirkton Glen – Sony A7rII and Leica Tri-Elmar-M at 21mm (c) Bob Hamilton

A minor miracle appears to have occurred in that two of my favourite M lenses – the 18mm Super Elmar and 24mm Elmar – appear to show no colour fringing, whereas they were simply awful on the original A7. The 18mm Super Elmar and 24mm Elmar still have some problems (vignetting and softness at the edges) but are much, much better than they were on the A7r1. I would think anything from 35mm on will perform well.

The performance of the 28-90 Leica R lens is maybe not the best on the camera, especially at the wider focal lengths. The Tri Elmar seems to behave well as it did on the previous model.

Jury still out on non native lenses but the general impression is one of impressive general improvement.

Balquhidder and Loch Voil from Creag an Tuirc – Sony A7rII and Sony Zeiss FE 55/1.8 (c) Bob Hamilton

I have to say that I find focusing manually quite difficult (the EVF is nowhere near as good as the Olympus one in this respect) . It’s strange, but I find it quite easy to manually focus native or A mount lenses on the A7r2 but not so easy, in fact downright difficult, to focus legacy lenses, even when the lens is opened right up to the widest aperture. The subject matter makes quite a difference – buildings are easier than landscapes – but the native lenses are easier regardless of subject.

I do use focus peaking, but don’t totally trust it and I find the 5x magnified view of the EVF not to have sufficient detail to focus accurately, especially as the line between being in and out of focus is so fine. I must learn to trust the peaking facility but, like you, dislike the distortion it brings to the viewed image – a bit like the blinking zebras which must be capable of bringing on epilepsy in a susceptible person…!!!

Loch Voil from Creag an Tuirc – Sony A7rII and Leica Vario-Elmarit-R ASPH 28-90/2.8 at 90mm (c) Bob Hamilton

I tried the A mount Sony Zeiss Distagon 24mm (used via the latest A to E adaptor) both in auto and manual focus modes and the auto focus was way off with the manual focus being spot on which was the same experience as I had with the A7r1 – infinity focus was almost impossible with the lens continually focusing on about 5 metres instead.
The sensor stabilisation is good, if not as good as the Olympus offering and is probably round about 3 stops as opposed to 5 which not surprising given the difference in sensor size.

Red Squirrel, Kirkton Glen – Sony A7rII and Sony 70-200 FE (c) Bob Hamilton

The resolution is greater than the Leica S type 006 but the image quality, although excellent, is not quite on a par – I don’t know whether it’s the CCD sensor (16 bit colour as opposed to ?) or what must be among the finest lenses ever made but the S still holds the crown for me. As I said, though, early days yet and I need to print something decent to get a real flavour of the camera’s capability. What I do know is that yesterday’s walk was a lightweight pleasure with camera, Tri-Elmar, 35mm, 55mm and 70-200mm lenses…!!!

I’ve ordered the Batis 25mm lens and look forward to its arrival.

Image of red squirrel attached taken with the 70-200mm FE lens – couldn’t have taken it with the Leica S – enough said.…!!!

I printed one of the waterfall images, taken with the Tri Elmar at the 21mm setting, at the largest my printer is able to do – 620mm by 430mm (328dpi) – and I have to say that the resulting print is quite impressive with pretty good tonality and plenty of detail across most of the frame with only the very (and I mean very) extreme corners being slightly less sharp. That bodes well for future Batis lenses.

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

Pre(r)amble

This post started as a semi-rant as you’ll soon see.

While I was dithering whether to click the post button, an e-mail conversation sprung-up between myself, Scottish photographer and friend Bob Hamilton and DS’ own Pascal Jappy. Predictably, they were both rhapsodising about their new A7RIIs, making my decision process quite a lot more difficult than the original (first) part of this post might suggest.

Later… for those remotely interested, I’ve still not decided and sticking with what I’ve got for now. At least either camera choice (see examples below) will still slide surreptitiously into a pocket.

Wild Flowers, Dalzell Estate – Bob Hamilton – A7RII – Sony G FE 90mm f2.8 Macro

Wynd, Edinburgh – Paul Perton – Fuji X100T

Pascal Jappy – A7RII Zeiss C-Sonnar 1.5/50

I’m normal and it’s entirely predictable that as a photographer I’d want a Leica. I’ve even done some research and keep looking at the photographs I take and in most cases, can find a solid reason to justify a buy. But I don’t.

And, I’m not sure I ever will.

Parnie Street, Glasgow – Paul Perton – Fuji X100T

Column, Glasgow – Paul Perton – Fuji X100T

For street photography, an M should really lift the quality of the pictures I take – they’ll be the same subjects as I’d take with any camera, but the uptick in imaging quality on offer makes me feel that I could easily justify the extraordinary cost.

In the landscape, I’m increasingly finding myself shooting at 28mm, 35mm and 50mm – the optimum for a Leica and its lenses. So, I could retire (read sell) my D700 and D800e and concentrate on one set of kit for just about everything. At a time when I am less and less inclined to haul DSLRs around the world and the airlines seem hell-bent on making the traveller’s life as difficult as possible, Leica-based photography appeals more and more.

Oh yes, the M’s got a full frame sensor too and did I mention the IQ?

You can see that I’ve been plotting this awhile and had managed on several occasions to overcome the negative feelings that other bloggers generated with their stories of Ms that failed and had to be returned to the mothership in Germany, fell short of specification or generally disappointed.

Gallowgate bar, Glasgow – Paul Perton – Fuji X100T

Morning, Edinburgh – Paul Perton – Sony NEX-7, Leica 50mm Summilux f1.4

Then there is the recent spate of new cameras Leica has introduced; the X2, T series, the M, Monochrom and more recently, the Q. How could any company keep up with that product churn? Now, I find myself asking asking if I would I buy an M when the sensor in the Q is so clearly superior? When would Leica update the M with the Q’s sensor? On and on the questions go.

Despite all that, I had the credit card out and was ready to commit.

But I didn’t and now, probably won’t.

Colonies garden, Edinburgh – Paul Perton – Fuji X100T

It’s Thorsten Overgaard’s fault. In The Leica M 246 goes to Paris, he rhapsodises about both M and Monochrom, but then moves on to discuss the M’s performance against Ansel Adams’ Zone System.

I’ll save you 60-odd pages of reading and gazing longingly at beautiful black and white photographs; neither camera seems to function terribly well below Zone I and not at all at Zone X. Now, without wishing to get into a war of words here – this is my buy/no buy decision after all – my understanding is that around 80% of the light captured by a digital sensor is at the right hand end of the visual spectrum – roughly Zones VIII to X. And, if the M series sensor topples in Zone X, what the hell is going on?

In his post, young Thorsten spends a lot of time waxing lyrical about the M’s ability to render mid-tones – it does, they’re magnificent. He does admit having to work hard at the blacks though.

But Zone X? Nope. He prefers to shoot in European conditions; soft light, not too much direct sun and maybe even some rain. That’s maximum Zone IX territory which will artfully avoid the trap of the brights and makes a mockery of Michael Richman’s Expose To The Right (ETTR) theory.

Well, Mr Overgaard, I live in Africa and down here the sun blazes from moments after sunrise, to moments before sunset – hard light and pure Zone X land, so how do you propose I use my M then?

I suppose I should write to Mr O – I’m currently waiting to board an Emirates flight from Europe back to Cape Town and have just had (yet again) hassles with the airline about my photographic kit/computer bag – and wanted to get these words down before the irritation wore off. If I do and he responds, I’ll let you know.

Bah.

Pascal Jappy – A7RII Zeiss C-Sonnar 50mm f/1.5

Bob: You knew I wouldn’t be able to help myself, especially as I own several lenses for the system.

Took delivery of an A7RII yesterday – surprised as I only ordered it 2 weeks ago.

First impressions are that it is a grade better made and more robust than its predecessor – especially the lens mount which shows no real movement now.

From having one of the worst shutters I have heard, Sony have transformed the camera into having one of the best – a marvellous little “snick” and no more.

Not processed any images from it yet (merely used the rear screen) but a minor miracle appears to have occurred in that even two of my favourite M lenses – the 18mm Super Elmar and 24mm Elmar – appear to show no colour fringing, whereas they were simply awful on the original A7. I’m sure there’ll be an issue still with those lenses but the unprocessed image looks good.

Pascal: Early days yet but this has a different feel to it than the “old” model – a much more solid and capable camera and more like the RX1r which is why I was lured into buying the A7R in the first place. If, as I suspect, its performance with legacy rangefinder lenses (especially the wides) is significantly improved, it will be a complete game-changer and signal the end of the Leica M for all but the rangefinder diehards.

I’m going to experiment deliberately with the 2 M lenses – the 18mm and the 24mm – which performed so poorly on the A7R, despite their stellar performance on the M, and will report back. If the new camera performs well with those, it will perform well with anything – Nikon glass included.

I gave up too early and sold my M wide angles, there is that Distagon 35/1.4 which I bought on a bet that the A7RII would handle it better.

Bob: First “serious” snaps taken yesterday with the new toy.

First image taken with the Sony Zeiss FE 55mm, second taken with the Leica M 16/18/21 Tri Elmar at 21mm and final one taken with Leica R 28-90mm at 90mm or so.

I have to say that I find focusing manually quite difficult (the EVF is nowhere near as good as the Olympus one in this respect) and the performance of the Leica R lens is maybe not the best on the camera, especially at the wider focal lengths. The Tri Elmar seems to behave well as it did on the previous model. Jury still out on non-native lenses.

Kirkton Glen – Bob Hamilton – A7RII – Leica M 16-18-21mm f4 + Metabones Adapter

Bob: It’s strange, Pascal, but I find it quite easy to manually focus native or A mount lenses on the A7RII but not so easy, in fact downright difficult, to focus legacy lenses, even when the lens is opened right up to the widest aperture. The subject matter makes quite a difference – buildings are easier than landscapes – but the native lenses are easier regardless of subject. Tried the A mount Sony Zeiss Distagon 24mm (used via the latest A to E adaptor) both in auto and manual focus modes and the auto focus was way off with the manual focus being spot on which was the same experience as I had with the A7R1 – infinity focus was almost impossible with the lens continually focusing on about 5 metres instead.

Initial impressions are very favourable as I said yesterday. The camera is much more robust, the sensor stabilisation is good, if not as good as the Olympus offering and is probably round about 3 stops as opposed to 5 which not surprising given the difference in sensor size and the shutter is now magnificent – as I said a real “snick” as opposed to the cacophony of the A7R1. It now feels almost like a professional tool.

The resolution is greater than the Leica S type 006 but the image quality, although excellent, is not quite on a par – I don’t know whether it’s the CCD sensor (16 bit colour as opposed to ?) or what must be among the finest lenses ever made but the S still holds the crown for me. As I said, though, early days yet and I need to print something decent to get a real flavour of the camera’s capability. What I do know is that yesterday’s walk was a lightweight pleasure with camera, Tri-Elmar, 35mm, 55mm and 70-200mm lenses…!!!

I’ve ordered the Batis 25mm lens and look forward to its arrival.

Bob: Printed one of the waterfall images, taken with the Tri Elmar at the 21mm setting, at the largest my printer is able to do – 620mm by 430mm (328dpi) – and I have to say that the resulting print is quite impressive with pretty good tonality and plenty of detail across most of the frame with only the very (and I mean very) extreme corners being slightly less sharp.

Bodes well for future Batis lenses.

Pascal: I’m surprised you are having difficulties focusing legacy lenses. Are you using focus peaking or simply magnification ? Focus peaking works wonderfully, although it is a total pain for composition. I must learn to dedicate a custom function button to it to be able to switch it on and off at will.

Your findings on the printer are great news indeed (thanks a lot for keeping me informed like this). Though not entirely a surprise as the Tri-Elmar was one of the best performing Leica M lenses on the A7R. Have you had similarly good results with other M-mount lenses?

Pascal Jappy – A7RII Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 (2 frame pano)

One thing I’m curious about: how responsive is the camera? My A7R takes really (reaaaalllly) long to wake up and has cost me numerous shots and popped veins. Is the mkII version any better in that respect ?

Bob: I do use focus peaking, Pascal, but don’t totally trust it and I find the 5x magnified view of the EVF not to have sufficient detail to focus accurately, especially as the line between being in and out of focus is so fine. I must learn to trust the peaking facility but, like you, dislike the distortion it brings to the viewed image – a bit like the blinking zebras which must be capable of bringing on epilepsy in a susceptible person…!!!

The 18mm Super Elmar and 24mm Elmars still have some problems (vignetting and softness at the edges) but are much, much better than they were on the A7R1. I would think anything from 35mm on will perform well. The camera is extremely responsive now and there is no longer the really worrying clunking noise on turning it off or on. They really do seem to have sorted the shutter.

Pascal: Wonderful. If the wide angles have become usable but not perfect and the 35+ lenses essentially perfect, that will be a stellar companion. Cannot wait to use mine.

The responsiveness is very welcome too

Pascal: Hi Paul,

Have you decided to take the A7RII plunge, yet ?

If so, let me know what you find with the Biogon 25 and your Summilux. There’s a fair chance the Biogon will work a lot better than with the A7R and that would be mighty tempting to me

Mine should arrive on Thursday. Counting the minutes. It’s been a long time since I’ve been excited about a Sony. Could this be “The One”?

Paul: Pascal,

I haven’t made a decision. I really want an ILC the size of the Fuji X100 – a Leica would be a fair fit for my wants.

Meantime, Sony seem to be moving inexorably towards pushing Nikon and Canon aside in the FF marketplace – the exercise made significantly easier by the latter’s almost complete disinterest in delivering anything innovative.

There’s also the issue of cash – something you’ll understand having just got home from the US – I’ve just had to order a new Mac notebook – part of a plan I’ve been working on for a while – but way before I had intended. It’s been driven by my 1998-era desktop system, which has done extraordinary work, but is now crashing on a regular basis. It might be memory. It might be the video card, Whatever it is, a repair is going to be a significant portion of the cost of a new notebook, so…

The A7RII will have to wait (a while).

Pascal: Yeah, I do understand all too well

Pascal Jappy – A7RII Zeiss Distagon 15mm f2.8

Bob and I will let you know, but this iteration should last longer and keep its value better. I’m getting the 3-year warranty, because it’s Sony.

Getting a new Macbook is also a treat, I’m sure. The downside of larger files is longer processing time, so uping the ante in the silicon department is the clever move. My compter is the fastest I could afford 2 years ago but is still stuttering on A7R files, so the mind boggleth when it comes to the larger rII pics. We shall see. Any hardware purchase will have to wait until 2016. A new camera and an OTUS have dug a big hole in Vault Jappy. Crap.

Canon has at least produced a camera that has its flaws but will appeal to landscape photographers. Nikon’s immobilism is staggering and inexplicable. It’s like they’re already planning their way out of the market, which could happen by 2020 … A bit sad, as my D800e was a true pleasure and much more of a camera than the A7R. Just hoping rII fares better.

Bob: More from the A7R2 taken yesterday on a jaunt down the Cowal Peninsula – awful weather but suits the mood of the place I think.

Loch Voil from Creag an Tuirc – Bob Hamilton – A7RII – Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f2.8mm

The Sony Zeiss FE 55 f1.8 is a stunning lens. The micro contrast is quite superb and the autofocus works a treat. The picture of the wild orchid was taken with the new Sony G FE 90mm Macro and the first 2 images were taken with the Sony Zeiss 24mm f2.0 Alpha lens on the LEA4 Alpha to FE adaptor.

The resolution is excellent but the tolerances with manual focusing are so fine as to be unbelievable, particularly when using the 24mm f2.0.

Overall, very impressed so far.

Pascal: Oh WOW, Bob. These are absolutely stunning. All the stars aligned for those; scenery, weather, camera and photographer. Feels like being there, without the drips down my neck.

I find the colours really lovely on the A7R2. Some of my first pics are attached. There was not a lot of colour and a strong cast and I pushed everything hard to see how the file would hold. With my A7R, there would have been a horrible yellow dominant. Here, the files don’t do that at all. Nowhere near as nice as yours, but I’m happy at what manipulation the system allows when needed. Can’t wait to actually leave the house/village with that camera.

I couldn’t find much difference between the two in terms of dynamic range or resolution, but white balance is a lot better and I think the whole system looks a lot less digital.

Bob: Thanks Pascal.

Your images are lovely – I doubt I’d leave your village if I lived there….!!!

Early days yet but the feel of the images, especially those taken with the 55mm lens, is quite similar to the Leica S which is quite encouraging – as you say, quite “undigital”.

Do you have any experience of the Loxia 35mm lens? Reason for the question is that I find the FE 35mm f2.8 a bit disappointing in terms of its resolution and micro-contrast and always have.

And that’s where we are today. Bob is a happy man – usually is with a new camera. Pascal is just starting his discovery process and I’m at the beginning of the usual angst over what to take on my next trip (India). It definitely won’t be an A7RII – the South African Rand has plummeted to above R20 : £1 from around R11 : £1 a year or so back, effectively increasing the local price by about 40%

Sigh.

Posted on DearSusan by paulperton.

After Bob Hamilton’s first impressions in the glorious landscape of Scotland a few days ago, here are a few more notes on the Sony A7rII’s performance compared to its predecessor.

Sony A7rII (left) & Sony A7r (right) – – Samsung Galaxy S6

Before my A7r moves on to a new owner in a few days, here’s a comparison between the original superstar and its much anticipated offspring. On the menu: ergonomics, build, ease of use and image quality. Plus a more subjective discussion on aesthetics.

A7rII vs A7r: Image quality

Conclusion first: although image quality is significantly improved, the resolution increase doesn’t play much of a role in that. 42,2Mpx is a lot of data but, compared to 36Mpx, it represents a mere 8% linear improvement and the excellent per-pixel sharpness of the predecessor doesn’t seem to have changed for better or for worse. A7rII files can take significantly more sharpening, but that doesn’t make them immensely better resolution-wise.

Side by side resolution

Here is a sample test photograph made with a Zeiss Distagon 1.4/35 ZM at f/4 with the Sony A7rII (left) and Sony A7r (right). Both cameras on auto white balance and no exp compensation. As you can see, both are conservatively exposed to preserve highlights but vignetting is significantly reduced in the A7rII.  It’s possible my A7r’s AWB was not functioning properly, let’s ignore the yellow shift for now.

Below: after full auto correction by LightRoom (auto white balance and auto exposure). Vignetting is still a lot more obvious on the A7r photograph.

Center crop at 100%. You’re a better observer than me if you can spot any significant differences here. Small details may be a tad more discernible on the left, but none of this would be visible even in a 20″ print, not even with a loupe. Note the light variations in the background and roof, though. Volumes are more palpable in the background. Contrast is slightly lower on the newer camera.  In the bottom left zone, we have a similar story, with the welcome bonus of an image quality that is not mushy even in the out of focus and / or blurry areas. Colours and tones are more differentiated, the photo seems brighter and more lively. Resolution is also slightly better and holds sharpening better, too.What happens when you push the limits ? Not much. Here is a center crop at 100% using a Zeiss OTUS 85 at f/8. Few lenses match this resolution and the sensors are the limiting factor here. Differences ? Nope. (note that the A7rII is on the right, here). But, to my eyes, the background is a tiny bit less grainy and there is a tad more life in the leaves with the A7rII. Subtle nuances though.So that’s it. If a massive increase in resolution is your motivation, save 50% and buy an A7r. But there’s a lot more going on that does justify the added expense … And it’s visible both in colour and B&W.

Summer Evening in Provence – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Distagon 1.4/35 ZM

Berenice – Sony A7rII & Zeiss OTUS 85

Dynamic range

It takes more than a couple of photographs to determine the dynamic range of a camera, and more time than I’ve had so far. But I’m working on it and DxO will probably give us their verdict very soon. Still, here are two photos of the same scene made within seconds of one another with the Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2. SOOC (except white balance) and each with its histogram.

A7r:

A7rII:

Here, the difference in contrast in the sky is quite striking. The newer camera gives the whole picture much more exposure without blowing the brightest parts of the sky. I don’t think the dynamic range is any higher in the newer model, but it’s possible the roll off is more gentle. I chose a Nikon–mount lens over an M-mount to eliminate the possibility of large vignetting differences between cameras. But I’m not yet sure what is happening and am running tests to be published very soon.

Ergonomics

On ergonomics the A7rII takes a *big* leap forward.

The body feels better in hand, it is slightly heavier, feels beefier and more solid. My wife summarizes that as more masculine than the A7r.

The bayonet is a lot tighter.

Button layout is better on the top, and every bit as puzzling as ever in the back. Some small changes have been made to the photo review process but they don’t make much difference. However, reallocating the center button of the wheel to initiate the zoom would make it almost perfect. Nearly there.

Ergonomics

The stabilizer is a boon but requires fidly incursions into the menu system to specify the lens’ focal length whereas a dedicated button would have been appreciated for this repetitive task. Ditto white balance, which seems to have disappeared from the controls and is not relegated to the Fn button (a very minor thing, given how well white balances seems to perform and haw well thought out the Fn menu is).

Also, and this is my only other niggle, the EVF is a tad disappointing at first. It’s brighter in dark situations and its bigger. People always want bigger, I don’t know why. I’m now having to scan the scene as if placed too close to a widescreen TV, rather than seeing everything in one sweep. But people like bigger and people will be happy. No, what’s a little bit disappointing is the colour. It seems to me there is less colour differentiation in contrasty situations than before and that makes composition a bit less intuitive. Also, focusing manual lenses is (initially) a bit more difficult. But it all comes together after a few days.

All in all, the EVF feels like it’s been designed to win over Canikon clients who object to the EVF experience and it should go a long way towards that goal.

The in-camera stabilizer works really well. With alt lenses (M-mount, ZF 2 …) it feels closer to 2.5-3 stops than the official numbers. With my 35 Distagon, 1/13s is always great and I often pull off 1/6s. Brilliant for hand-held waterfalls, for example. And, coupled with a 1-2 stop in ISO management, that is a huge leap forward for real-life use!!

Keeping the best for the end, the camera is reactive (it wakes up in a second or so) and has the most sublime shutter. The button feel is great and the noise is so enthralling you want to erase to full-silent mode from the menu. As annoying as the A7r’s shutter could be on long sessions, this one just begs to be used again and again.

Sun + Water = Tree – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Distagon 1.4/35 ZM (vertical 2-frame stitch) (magenta water is my doing)

So let’s just pause for a second here.

When the A7rII was rumoured, users were divided in two camps: those who wanted better image quality, whatever the cost on usability. And those who didn’t care much for more megapixels but wanted a more professional feel to the camera. Sony didn’t choose. Sony did both. They addressed almost all the criticisms and made the files even more succulent than before.

So: Kudos and thank you Sony. That is a magnificent achievement. Having been one of the vocal critics in the past, I’m really happy to write these words today

Colour

Cat picture alert.

It’s not my fault. The A7rII’s arrival coincided with my arrival. 1 whole month in sunny Arizona and I have to re-adapt to work and ordinary everyday life on the day this wonder-camera turns up on my doorstep. Uh … So cats it is

So: “What does the mog say ?” (crazy song alert)

It screams “Super white balance”! That and the taming of the hue.

All those straight of out camera pics are spot on. White balance is perfect, colours are lovely. CCD lovely.

It gets better.

Close to home is a small waterfall that drops into a very deep pool where local authorities have fitted a floodlight. The water downstream appears an otherworldly blue, as in some underwater sea caves.

Blue, gone crazy – Sony A7rII, Zeiss Distagon 1.4/35 ZM & LSD.

Believable ? I hope so because, with the  story, I find the photograph plausible. And yet, this is the original file, SOOC (straight out of camera).

This to say that I’ve never used files that can take so much pushing around without going to pot. This will be one killer 500px (where many over-saturated photographs go to die) camera !

Throw it a curved ball (as in wild reds) and the A7rII laughs it off with perfect separation.

Reds and greens

Duller red

Duller still

Green’s not bad either

It seems that, through the combination of slightly lower contrast, better white balance and something else (see aesthetics discussion below), colours show better differentiation. Without being more saturated, they feel bolder and more balanced.

So far, I’ve only seen white balance slip slightly in very overcast situations where the resulting shot can err on the cold side a little bit.

Black & white

It’s hardly surprising that “purer” colours in the source file would produce better defined tones when submitted to digital colour filters. And they do. What I’m seeing is not only more clarity, notably in the shadows, but also better, smoother tonality. Even with contrast pushed significantly read way too much, as above ), photographs remain rich and smooth. This was not always the case with the A7r which could sometimes become grainy and harsh.

In a recent article about the Leica Monochrom M246, Thorsten Overgaard describes the issues met when dealing with the extremes of the luminance scale on that otherwise brilliant Leica camera. (note: like most of Mr Overgaard’s writings, that is a must read). With that in mind, I made a few photographs in high contrast situations and found the result very satisfying. As mentioned above, I don’t think the dynamic range has been extended compared to the previous camera, but it does feel like the highlight rolloff is more gentle and manageable. See below for a literal rendition of a strong evening side light. The grass was burnt, in camera, but came back well in post processing. This, however, is one of the situations in which I think the EVF could be improved with a more adaptive contrast management.

Aesthetics

This is the more important aspect and probably where Sony have worked hardest.

In my short time with the camera, it hasn’t felt like the sensor has measurably better performance (except possibly in the mega high ISO that matter not a lot to me) : dynamic range doesn’t seem improved, resolution is essentially the same and gamut is too difficult to measure without specific instruments, so I can’t comment on it.

But, if quantity is the same, quality sure seems a lot different. Sony have already explained that RAW is still compressed and hasn’t gained in bit depth. Yet, I would have believed the contrary, such is the sensation of greater purity and fluidity. The A7r was already a great performer, that felt less digital than other cameras. V2 is fantastic and a small but distinct notch better in this (probably unmeasurable but) essential aspect. Photographs, even when pushed hard, don’t get that slightly cartoonish look that happened on occasion with the previous camera and others (see my A7r Monument Valley photograph below).

We’ve heard about copper wiring being used to speed up the data transfer on the sensor. It turns out this probably has more beneficial effects than a simple speed boost. In HiFi, copper has a “low res” highly natural sound. If sounds organic, fluid and analog where other metals can sound shrill & brittle. The A7rII feels exactly like this. More airy, more atmospheric, more natural. As if 12 bits had been upped to 16 …

The camera probably won’t appeal to those in love with the A7s’ more “etched” look. It is smooth and understated and can be pushed hard but some will prefer the A7s or M43 styles.

Boissy Saint Léger, France. Sony A7rII & Zeiss Distagon 1.4/35 ZM. Aka Crokett & Audrey.

Me, I love it to bits.

Sony have done much more than improve the camera’s technical aspects. They have done what only film manufacturers bothered to do before them. They have crafted a look. A look that probably didn’t happen by accident, given how consistent it feels with lenses of the G range (such as the really lovely G 90 macro). A look that doesn’t superimpose on the scene but seems to add subtlety and delicacy, and lets the individual character of every lens used shine through with greater clarity than before (see contributor photographs, below).

So aesthetics are never in your face, even with slightly exaggerated post-processing as above. The soul of Minolta still stirs and has found very competent successors to move into. Sony have left the electronics appliance business stepped right into the creative photo arena. Can’t thank them enough.

In PP, I Find myself using contrast more often than before and far less of the clarity and saturation sliders.

The new look also means that lenses that seemed harsh to me in the past (the otherwise great Sony-Zeiss FE55/1.8, for instance) need to be revisited. As you’ll see in Bob Hamilton’s photographs, further down, that lens really seems to agree with the new sensor and livens up overcast skies like a stripper at a Strauss-Schumann lieder recital.

All this makes the A7rII excellent at reproducing atmospheres. Coupled with that naughty stabilizer and the saucy shutter, it amounts to a terrific night photography tool.

Others, proving the point

In order to show what the camera can do for other photographers using other lenses for different subject matter, here are images made by co-author Philippe and guest contributor Bob Hamilton (who signed the A7rII first impressions post).

Philippe shares flower portraits made using the Zeiss OTUS 55/1.4.

(c) Philippe Berend

(c) Philippe Berend

(c) Philippe Berend

(c) Philippe Berend

And from Bob Hamilton come 6 photographs made with the following lenses: Sony-Zeiss FE 55/1.8 (2 photos), Sony-Zeiss Distagon 24/2(2 photos), Sony G70-200 (1 photo) & Sony G90 Macro (last photo).

Conclusion

Sony’s A7r was a flawed masterpiece. Flawed in ways that triggered negative reactions along vastly different angles depending on the photographer. I, for one, was quite vocal about the incomprehenisble ergonomics, loud shutter and telluric wake-up times. Others vented about RAW compression and shutter vibrations (neither of which ever bothered me). Others still screamed about every single aspect simply because they feel good when bickering and really should get a life.

Monument Valley and the Sony A7r

The reality of the A7r, however, is that it has enabled vast numbers of photographers to produce *fantastic* images. And, sure, it got up our nose every now and then but what remains is the unprecedented image-making capabilities of that tiny monster.

Many of us expected (dreaded ?) Sony to serve more of the same. More res, more ISOs, more hair-raising frustration. But Sony managed to pull-off something quite different. While my informal and brief testing can’t let me conclude that anything in the quantity department is any better than before (resolution, dynamic range …) quality is a quantum leap ahead in the A7rII.

Build quality, usability quality and image quality.

Cassis (France) and the Sony A7r

The noise floor seems lower and images have even more of that lovely medium format look to them. They feel analog, as in the CCD cameras of old. The handling, though quite similar, is much improved where it needed to be. And, thank goodness, Sony have saved us from a mad megapixel rush which would have done nothing but clog up our disks and CPUs. They have managed to serve up better subjective image quality without falling into a number’s game.

One photo friend, who’s judgement I trust compares the level of performance to that of the amazing Leica S (006). Better in some departments, not quite as good in others. But comparable.

Equally important is the fact that, while my A7r and Philippe’s had wildly different white balance outputs, all the A7rII photographs from the various owners I know personally look very similar in tone and colour. Consistency now seems much higher.

Sony seems to have worked on aesthetics rather than numbers. That’s mature and bold and I hope they reap the rewards of that design strategy.

The Argonaute, in La Villette, Paris. Sony A7rII & Zeiss Distagon 15/2.8 ZF2

Sony also improved the shooting experience and the confidence in the camera’s quality. Details such as 3-year warranty a really nice to have.

This changes a lot of things.

First of all, forums beware. Rename your categories. Sony can no longer be called alt (alternative gear). They are dominating the image quality scene and, with the help of Zeiss, are releasing a steady stream of really excellent lenses. So good, in fact, that it probably makes more sense to buy native lenses than other lenses, even from very high-end sources.

Secondly, this camera makes me believe in the future. It makes me feel happy about building a system around it, which is not something I’ve felt of any camera in the past 5 years. To me, it really feels like the shift from one technology to another is over (’till next time ) and that we have arrived at a point which, although it will continue to improve, will not do so in unpredictable directions, making all the rest of the system redundant. This is a camera I want to use for a long time to come. The hunt is over and that feels so great.

Technology meets beauty – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Distagon 15/2.8 ZF2

Thank you Sony!

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

There are already plenty of Sony FE SEL70-200 f/4 G reviews online. But our feeling, here on DS, is that the new generation sensor on the A7R II interacts differently with given lenses than its predecessor, the A7R, did. So here are a few – straight out of camera – photographs made to illustrate the rendering of this very interesting zoom on Sony’s new flagship camera. These aren’t meant to be art, but they are very interesting from a technical point of view.

More specifically, the FE 70-200 f;4.0 G OSS was dreamy, poetic, ethereal on the A7R. Beautiful pastel colours, gobs of detail, but not much bite, even when needed. Very much like its stablemate the FE 90 f:2.8 G OSS macro, which, by the way, indicates that the designers of the Sony G lenses really know what they are doing, imbuing very different lenses with a “family” look.

So, what is the lowdown on the only high-end E-mount tele zoom, and, as such a very important part of the Sony lens lineup for its flagship A7 family?

Let’s start with the minuses:

• Performance above 135mm is gradually weaker, and AF at full extension and close range really sucks.
• Minimum focusing distance is longer than I’d like, feeling like 1.2m at the very least.
• Size and weight are no better than competitors, which, while in accordance with the laws of physics, doesn’t extend the advantage of the A7 body over DSLRs.
• Performance wide open is less good than stopped down, as with almost all lenses, which means it is really not that fast a lens for portrait, for example.
• Price is rather higher than its direct, identically specced and very well-respected competitor, the Canon EF 70-200L f:4.0 IS USM.

After this not insignificant list, are there any pluses at all? Enough to still punch this one’s number?

• Rendering is very classy. First impression is every bit as good as a top prime, up to 135mm.
• Awesome 3D. Maybe the best I’ve ever noticed. In the überlens category.
• Lovely colours, ranging from delicate pastels to fully saturated colour blocks.
• Gobs of detail. Small hairs that you can only spot on 42Mp shots magnified at 100%.
• Very nice bokeh. Neither totally creamy, nor very structured. Just the right blend of blur IMHO, even if the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus is a bit rough.
• Lovely mid-tones, with very fine and subtle colour separation giving pictures very nice clarity.

If anything, if that lens had been designed as a 70-135, it might not have been as commercial, but, slighter smaller and lighter, it would have been amazing. For that matter, zooms with narrow focal ranges like the Leica WATE (16-21mm), or the Contax and Leica 35-70mm are often very attractive mid-points between primes and conventional zooms. Anyone listening?

As it is, the SEL 70-200 is a no-brainer if you want a longer autofocus zoom. It is a lens that is every bit as good as a fine prime, and satisifies that one has scored a fine image thanks to a fine image maker. No sense of compromise whatsoever.

As to the rendering, it is a matter of taste, but the Sony is always balanced and classy, in line with its all-rounder target audience. That I show only straight-out-of-camera pictures is proof of its quality. I simply wouldn’t do that with any but the best lenses.

And, thanks to Bob Hamilton, 2 great landscape shots, showing the 70-200’s subtlety.

Posted on DearSusan by philberphoto.

Sony A7r2 & Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135/2

Remember Hattori Hanzo, the master swordsmith from the Tarentino movie Kill Bill? And Solingen, the German town specialised in the manufacturer of knives? Now, you have every reason to ask: what does this have to do with a camera lens? Well, Zeiss are a German company, and they get their lenses made in japan, by Cosina (who also make Voigtländer lenses). You still don’t get the connection between German knives, Japanese sabres and the 135 APO. Let’s say that this short tele produce images so sharp you can shave with them. Sharper than anything I’ve anything I’ve ever seen. Not with its obvious competitor, the older Canon 135L, nor with the more expensive Leica M twins, the Summicron 75 and 90 APO. And it’s not just me, because DXO test numbers concur. The picture above is wide open, without any treatment in post.

Sony A7r2 & Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135/2

Now the top range of lenses at Zeiss are called Otus. But I have it from them that, had the Otus program existed at the time the 135 APO was designed, it would have rated the Otus name. Hence its nickname of “Otus without the name” (and the weight or cost, though it is hardly light or cheap).

Sony A7r2 & Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135/2

Let’s get the package out of the way. A 135 APO will set your bag back almost 2lbs and you wallet by over 2K$. It is part of the ZE/ZF line for DSLRs (though you are welcome to use one with a mirrorless camera with the help of an adapter). As such it has the massive, heavy lens hood that stops you focusing the lens when not mounted for action. Loxia are the same, how awkward is that? (anyone listening in Oberkochen? ). The lens is heavy metal, very robust and well put together, in “Panzer” style. Aperture changes in 1/2 stop increments. Manual focusing is very smooth and quite accurate, but not as extraordinarily easy as with the Otus twins.

Sony A7r2 & Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135/2

So, to the IQ. Did I say it was sharp? As in “seriously sharp”. But that’s not all. Gobs of detail. A tremendous ability to differentiate colours, materials, surfaces. Colour and contrast-wide, it closely resembles its near-sibling the remarkable ZE/ZF 15mm f:2.8. Rich, saturated colours, and strong contrast. The result is testosterone-laden. The very opposite of the delicate, almost ethereal quality that can be coaxed from Sony FE  G lenses, whether it be the 70-200 G f:4.0 or the 90 f:2.8 macro. This strong contrast is what helps achieve manual focus despite the focal length and the narrow depth-of-field. If you happen to use it on a stabilised body,that helps as well. Otherwise, if you have questions regarding the IQ, think: Otus. Neutral bokeh, neither totally creamy nor very structured. Wide open performance so close to stopped down that you need to be told to know it.

100% detail – Sony A7r2 & Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135/2

How about the rendering? While the 135APO is super sharp (in case you hadn’t noticed) and offers gobs of detail, it does not highlight it in the way of a macro lens, like the Zeiss 100 MakroPlanar. But it is tremendously good at what I would call “orderly rendering”, keeping things in their place even in a cluttered picture. What it is not so good at, is 3D. While it is there, it is by no means outstading, certainly in comparison with, for exemple, the Sony G FE 70-200 f:4.0 OSS, which is so unbelievably believable.

Sony A7r2 & Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135/2

This bunch of qualities shows that the 135 APO is good for anything you throw at it: detail, architecture, landscape, flowers, close-ups with a tube, portrait. Yes, portrait. I don’t subscribe to the theory that some lenses are just too sharp, and I (and others) have spectacular results with Otus 55 to prove it.

Sony A7r2 & Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135/2

Overall, I come away from this test with 2 impressions. One is that, like with the Otus, when I shoot this lens, I can be sure that whatever is out there to be caught on the sensor will be on my picture, and with no shenanigans. Some peace of mind… The other one is: “how many heavy lenses do I need? How many can I afford to buy and carry each day?” because having the biggest gun out there gives peace of mind, but it does not mean I can’t lust for a lens with AF for fast(ish)-moving targets, or one with so-called portrait rendering for that old-style look, or…

Sony A7r2 & Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135/2

Now I understand I may not have actually demonstrated how sharp this lens is. Here are pairs of pictures, all straight-out-of-camera, the first one full size, the second one cropped to 100% on a 42Mp body. That I can post wide open SOOC 100% testifies to how good the lens is.

And a last shot, again wide open 100% crop, taken of my goddaughter over lunch. This shows that it can be done despite the MF. And we didn’t need or use knives for the whole lunch either; I sliced everything with the 135 APO.

Sony A7r2 & Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135/2

Posted on DearSusan by philberphoto.

The Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85. Probably the most anticipated lens we’d never heard about.

It was unveiled to the press and bloggers, including yours truly, in Oberkochen, a few days ago. The whole Milvus range was. And that has many stars, notably a very well transposed 50/2 Macro and a lovely 21/2.8. But this 85/1.4, this is what I would have wanted to try first had I been aware of the existence of that range (and need I remind you I sold my belongings and my kids to buy an Otus 85 …)

Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 @ f/1.4

Why ? Bokeh.

This new toy is made up of 11 lenses in 9 groups, uses no less than 7 special glass elements and no more than zilch aspherics. Yup, it’s an all spherical design, all that to avoid introducing any form of harshness in the out of focus areas.

Being a Milvus, it is designed with one specific use case in mind, one scenario in which it must excel to the level of über-lenses. In this case, portrait.

This is not a formal review, simply a quick glance at the lens’ performance during the portrait workshop held in Schwäbisch Gmünd during the Milvus range launch. I’ll test the lens more completely as soon as a review sample comes my way.

Does it work ? Rather well, if you ask me …

Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85

Try to direct your glance away from this beautiful person and look at the background.

– What background?

– Exactly!

All these photographs were made in the middle of town, in harsh sunlight and with a busy road and buildings all around us. Being the lazy grabber type, I just shot a few frames and counted on post-processing wizardry to work my way out of bother. No reflector, no nothing. Milvus unplugged. So portrait specialists with any sort of self-respect will undoubtedly use more appropriate gear and methods and get far better shots than these.

Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85 @f/2

Still, even in the hands of a total beginner, the lens really shines.

Son A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85 @f/4

After a few portraits, I turned to flowers, feeling sorry for the pretty ladies.

Being glorified by someone as gentle and talented as Drew Gardner (our instructor during the portrait session of the Milvus launch, and an utterly brilliant photographer, if you ask me) is one thing. Surviving the onslaught of dozens of middle-aged blokes pointing huge lenses up your nostrils is another. How these young girls handled it is beyond me. But they did and remained composed throughout the session while I turned to cabbages and bees to continue my testing. Kudos, ladies.

Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85 @f/5

You all want to know one thing: is it sharp?

It’s superbly sharp (warning: compressed jpeg ahead. It looks a lot better in LightRoom)

Here’s another.

Plus, this lens exhibits many of the characteristics that define the OTUS 85. Wide open, it layers planes while, closed down a little, it has interesting 3D. Colours are very strong and clean (all this taken around midday on a very sunny day).

Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85 @ f/2

Bokeh is, as promised, out of this world. Here the choice of spherical lenses really pays off. It makes the lens larger and heavier but the creamy out of focus zones make the results pleasing whatever the aperture. There is no mention of the number of blades in official literature but my guess is about 10 (see OOF hightlights in the last portrait, below), which helps as well.

Minimal focusing distance is a useful 80 cm, which equates to a 1/8 image ratio.

Perhaps as important as the bokeh is the apparent lack of fringing that keeps edges so clean and colours so clearly separated. Although not promoted as an APO lens, the Milvus appears to exhibit very high control of chromatic aberration. This is truly an optical jewel.

Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85 @f/1.4

So, a perfect lens, right ?

Well no, not for everyone. As much as the optics convince me, other aspects weren’t to my liking.

At about 1200g, it weighs in more or less exactly the same as the OTUS 85. Heavy, but very manageable in my experience.

Having no aperture ring (in Canon mount) is a deal breaker for me, however. Others like me, please speak up. The aperture ring is an endangered species. Still, the ZF.2 corrects that ill. So, no big problem here.

No, mostly, my lack of haptic joy is due to the issue I already brought up in the first article about the MILVUS range: the focusing ring is too stiff for my liking. While this wasn’t an issue at all with the short focal Milvuses (Milvi ?), namely the 21 and the two 50s – I didn’t try the 35,  the 85 and 100 did bother me in that respect.

Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85

If you take a closer look at those portraits, not one is in focus. The hair is sharp, the back of the head is sharp. The nose, the rear eye. You name it. But not the leading eye. It is simply too difficult to follow the movement of a model with the focusing ring.

However, this is me, a travel photographer. I am not the intended user for this lens. I am not a portrait photographer. Had I been, I’d have blasted 20 shots in burst mode while moving slightly back and forth to ensure one shot was in perfect focus, as in the case of the bee, above, or our model, below (both more by accident than design). Plus, I’m talking f/1.4 where depth of focus is tiny at close range. Close down and it all becomes a lot easier. I never had a problem for mid or long distance shots.

For landscape photographers (yes, this portrait lens can handle landscape with aplomb), the focusing mechanism will be great news. In fact, it was tightened specifically on their request. No more accidental changing of focus after 10 minutes of careful efforts. Anyone using the Milvus on a tripod will love it.

On the plus side, the metal housing looks modern and elegant and feels indestructible. It is also weather sealed! Build quality is superb.

So alles ist gut, rejoice.

Melting 10 guys with a look – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85 @f/1.4

Just for kicks, here is a 100% enlargement of the model’s eye (note that the artefacts in her eyes and around are due to the jpeg compression) :

Price ? 1800$. Totally worth it if the operational description above fits your needs. You already know if you want one.

And if you do, but really shouldn’t, direct your wrath towards this gentleman. Senior Product Manager for the photo line at Zeiss, he is largely responsible for that parting-with-your-money bit that will inevitably follow if you’re into portraits and happen to try this amazing lens.

Brains & looks – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85

So, well done guys.

Before I close: for those wanting to take a closer look at other aspects of performance, here’s a set of full-size jpegs from the A7rII. Again, bear in mind these are jpegs and not the sharper RAW. f/1.4 isn’t included because the subject is too oblique and there’s so much of it out of focus. So f/2; f/4 and f/8 it is.

You will see some purple fringing at f/2 as well as lowered resolution and a slightly lifeless character. The very slight softness that is so desirable in portraits tends to make this scene a little dull. Close down, as you should in landscape photography, and everything comes to life again. So the “portrait specialist” description is not just marketing talk. This lens, as announced, is a true specialist and excels at what it was designed for.

Milvus 85 @f/2

Milvus 85 @f/4

Milvus 85 @f/8

Optically, this is so desirable that it begs the question “why use aspherics at all ?” Part of the answer has been given in this article already: size. Aspherics let you shrink the lens (but there’s no free lunch). The other half is clearly explained in these MTF curves.

Milvus 85 MTF curves. f/1.4 at top, f/4 at bottom.

This might scare some away, but shouldn’t. My Distagon 2/25 ZF.2 is very similar and is magnificent.

Compared to the OTUS 85, performance is slightly lower at wide apertures (though it does give portraits a wonderful look) and corners crumble a lot more quickly. For one-third of the price, then, you get a lens with a slightly more limited range of uses and slightly less refined mechanics but 80% of the magnificence. Sounds like a fair deal to me.

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

As with the Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85 before, I took the opportunity of a workshop in Schwäbisch Gmünd during the recent Zeiss press launch to borrow a Batis 25 lens and make a series of test shots in the available time and location. As many of you know and lament, this is a hard lens to get your hands on, so I hope these few lines will prove useful for those of you still sitting on the fence and comforting for those having hit the button and still waiting for delivery.

Wladstetter Bach in the sun – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Batis 25

Haptics

This lens is light, very lightweight. Coming from a long session with a bulletproof Milvus 85 on the camera, switching to the Batis 25 felt like I’d forgotten to actually mount a lens. Scary, initially, but the lens feels very taut and solid with no rattle or shakes.

The design codes are inherited from the prestigious Otus range and suits the lighter brothers very well. The whole Zeiss offering is getting that new family look that brings a modern edge to a traditional build. Less steampunk,  more Apple. This to say the lens sports a very elegant body and, on an A7x camera, is something of a designer statement.

It’s not always black or white – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Batis 25

It goes just a little bit down hill, in use. At least for me.

Automatic focusing, on a wide-angle lens, and one that focuses as quickly as this one … why not? When traveling, it coud even be very useful. It’s true that AF imposes constraints on the glass weight and limits the designer in his optical optimisation. But since there is no shortage of quality in this Batis 25, I really can’t complain.

The lack of an aperture ring on the lens bothers me a bit more. Sure, you can set the camera to A mode and chose the aperture via a knob on the camera. It’s not intuitive after 4 dog-lives of doing otherwise, but you soon get use to it. What I really don’t like is not knowing what aperture I’m in. It’s part of my shooting process to choose the aperture as I approach the subject then reset the aperture to f/4 or f/5.6 (whatever is closest to the middle of the aperture range) when the photo is made. Just as I set the focus distance to infinity after a shot. Small things that mean you always know where you are and allow you to capture quick-moving subjects efficiently.

Flat tree – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Batis 25

But, again, this is just me. As with all of Zeiss’ range today, the Batis was imagined and designed with a use case in mind and the intended user clearly has fewer white hair than me. Younger generations will likely feel more happy with the equally fast and efficient point & shoot & turn the knob approach.

Objective “test”

This house along the Waldstetter Bach will serve as test scene. The following 3 photographs are made at f/2, f/4 and f/8 respectively with no profile correction in LightRoom. Click them to download a full size jpeg.

At 100%, f/2 is visibly less sharp than f/4. However, the subjective quality of the image doesn’t degrade as you open up. All 3 photographs below look almost identical at web resolutions and would probably continue to do so in 16″ prints. No sponginess or smear is to be seen anywhere at wider aperture, which is great on a wide-angle. Chromatic aberration is superbly controlled straight from full aperture (look for tiny green fringes along the roof).

Batis 25 @f/2

Batis 25 @f/4

Batis 25 @f/8

And this, well, fascinating scene, shows how well flare is controlled. The sun is just outside the field at top left.

It seems to me the limits of its optical quality are reached very close up. This bee, on the edge of the frame, at full aperture and at closest focus is not quite as sharp at 100% as more distant subjects (as befits a landscape oriented lens). Still, minimum focusing distance is very useful.

Bee nice – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Batis 25

Colours appear very clean. Possibly not as subtle as Zeiss’ very best, but full of life. 3D is very convincing, hardly surprising for a good wide-angle,  but the Batis 25 manages to maintain this illusion of depth in the out of focus areas, which is never a given.

A much longer test period would be necessary to evaluate the lens more thoroughly. I hope this can happen soon. But so far, so good

Subjective Test

My personal criteria and tastes for lens quality place neutrality to the front of the scene.

For me, the ability to post-process files in very different ways is a requirement. It’s surprising how many good lenses have a distinct look to them that glows when PP goes with the grain and deteriorate badly when your mood requires something different. My beloved Leica-R lenses are examples of this.

The three photographs below were made within 15 minutes of one another in the same location. The fact they can be made to look so different is a testament to the neutrality of the little Batis. This lens would make a really wonderful travel photography companion.

Water under the bridge – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Batis 25

Heavy lifting – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Batis 25

Afternoon walk – Sony A7r & Zeiss Batis 25

Subjectively, I don’t think this lens has as much bite and pop as my Distagon 2/25 ZF.2. It is much better behaved, though, and comes with that elegant “satin” rendering that seems to be the recent norm at Zeiss.

In conclusion

It’s easy to see why Zeiss ran out of these sweeties so quickly. In this short period of ownership, there was nothing but good stuff to write about.

In truth, the new AF and build place a question mark over long-term reliability, since Zeiss is a newcomer in that field. But having seen its test procedures, and given its numerous technical partnerships, I wouldn’t lose sleep over this.

Child’s play – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Batis 25

It would take much more time to get into the details and find possible faults but, from my short experience with the Batis 25 I’d give it the full thumbs up.

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2. These few words pack a whole lot of semantic value. But all I could think of when using mine during the first few days was that 15 part in the middle. This was not a review like any other.

Usually, Zeiss send along these lovely optical works of art, I make photographs with them over a period of 4 to 8 weeks, send the lens back and publish an article or two.

Biosphere 2, Arizona. Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.Z

This time, 3 weeks into the process, I didn’t have a single interesting picture to show. Oops.

15mm. Wide. Very wide. I used and loved a Leica Elmarit-R 19/2.8 for years and imagined the 15 would simply be a slightly larger variation. It isn’t. 15 is a lot wider than 19 and much more demanding as a focal length. At least for someone who’s eye gets trained almost exclusively by 25mm to 85 mm lenses.

Biosphere 2 main staircase – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.Z

Still, after some effort and enough self-pity for the universe to take notice and send me a variety of interesting subjects, I finally got into my stride and started producing photographs interesting enough to warrant an article.

So here’s the menu for this one:

• a brief technical review of the lens (there isn’t much to tell, it really is very good)
• some thoughts on how to use it in the field

Biosphère 2 artificial growth – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.Z

Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2. Brief Technical Review

What can I say? Technically, this lens is as close to perfection as can be hoped for such a wide angle. But that doesn’t mean it produces perfect pictures time after time. This needs a little explaining.

The Biosphère 2 lung. Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

From a purely technical point of view, there isn’t much wrong with this lens.

My main concern was distortion and there is very little of it. Zeiss state 2%, which is not negligible, but it is very rarely noticeable (see below and in final image on the page – both uncorrected) unless you are quite close to the subject.

Biosphere 2 / University of Arizona research platforms – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

Vignetting is likewise fairly benign. Quite visible on some subjects at f/2.8, it is mostly negligible at f/4 and easily corrected in post-processing.

Flagstaff reflection – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

More disturbing is the presence of very dark patches in the extreme corners at full aperture (see below). These occupy tiny surfaces and can easily be cropped out, but they are very difficult to remove if you can’t crop.

Dark corners and stretched bokeh – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

This same photograph illustrates the other unwanted characteristic of this lens that I find bothersome: “stretched bokeh“. This is also seen below, to a lesser extent. It is not a default in the lens design itself, simply the ugly effect of true out-of-focus capabilities and the stretched-out lines in the corners.

Flagstaff Cadillac – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

What this implies is simple: first of all, it’s actually very possible to use out-of-focus areas in your compositions, even with a 15mm lens but, secondly, when composing with strong lines in the corners, you will need to shut down to about f/5.6 for a more pleasing rendering.

Flagstaff mannequins – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

But perhaps the worst offence is field curvature. It doesn’t show up very frequently and I hadn’t noticed it until contributor Boris Buschardt mentioned it. But focus on a nearby object (say 2-5 meters) as you might for the foreground of a photograph, and it gets very difficult to get the background in focus. The center will be perfect but both edges are thrown out of the sharpness range. So this lens is definitely happier in situations that do not require overall sharpness in near-far relationships, which is a major downside for landscape photographers. No worries in architecture (infinity focus) or close-up work or street photography …

Flagstaff car sales – – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

Other than that it’s wide-angle perfection.

Flagstaff car sales II – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2. Life in the field

This lens does everything a good 15mm lens does. Tight places …

Besh Ba Gowah ruins – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

Inside the pueblo houses – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

… unusual tight places …

Only in France – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

Sore eyes – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

… broad panoramas …

Grand Canyon upstream – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

… broader panoramas …

… strong perspectives …

Cite de la Science – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

Approaching La Vilette – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

… even the odd bit of wide field astronomy.

LSD Milky Way – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

Compared to other lenses, this specific 15mm has strong contrast and low distortion. I think it makes it particularly interesting for architecture and indoor architecture.

Biosphere 2 grand staircase – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

La Villette stairs – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

Indoor architecture is particularly great as images always pop, even in dull or difficult lighting.

Hotel Biltmore – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

It is in urban environments I had the most fun, playing with near-far relationships, contrasts and exaggerated perspectives that allow to create shapes were there are none, get real close to people …

Puddle – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

Police – Sony A7rII & Zeiss 2.8/15 ZF.2

Top golf session – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

All is not as well in landscape photography, unfortunately. The strong field curvature creates background focus issues and the bokeh in corners can be ugly at wider apertures.

As an aside, I find this lens excels in black & white. Again, its super contrast makes it particularly brilliant indoors.

Cafe corso – Sony A7r & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

Stair graffiti – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

Conclusion

There are far cheaper options out there. For instance the Voigtlander 15 version III. Is this one sufficiently better to justify the  expense ? I honestly have no idea, as I’ve never tested the alternatives.

All I can say, is that 15mm is a difficult lens to use. And my feeling is that rigor is needed for a lens this wide to express its style. Mucky corners and bent lines would change the aesthetics completely.

Cite de la Science – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2

So, although I probably wouldn’t buy a 15mm lens altogether (that’s too wide for my abilities), I would buy the best my budget could stretch to if I wanted to go ultra-wide. And the fact that today’s gear allows us to create this sort of results, handheld, sure is a powerful incentive to do so.

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

The guys at Zeiss make no secret of their satisfaction with the Loxia 21. Many even claim it to be the company’s greatest achievement of 2015, which is saying a lot considering the quasi-simultaneous release of the Otus 1.4/28 and 6 Milvus lenses, which were sold out in a matter of weeks, in spite of stock building prior to the launch date.

I approached this lens with a little less enthusiasm and hope. Having loved my Elmarit-R 19/2.8 II (and sold it to finance the Otus 85 acquisition) and still owning the Distagon 2/25 ZF.2 which I consider(ed) the best wide-angle I’ve ever tried, the Loxia simply comes across as a convenient addition to the range. Small, treated by Sony like a legacy lens (meaning EXIF data and in-camera corrections apply to it) and affordable. But not compelling.

Always keen to help, Christophe Casenave (Product Manager) and Marco Auricchio (Sales Manager EMEA) kindly loaned us (co-author Philippe and myself) a personal sample to play with for a couple of hours with the usual thirst for first-hand feedback. Much appreciated, gentlemen.

So, what do I think ?

Well, having recently published a lens field-testing tutorial, I feel obliged to say a few works about sharpness, colour correction, and other technical aspects of the lens’ personality. But I don’t want to. In the train back to La South of France, I find it hard to resist going bonkers with post-processing the really, really, lovely files this lens and the ever-stunning A7rII delivered shot after shot.

Still, here are a few reviewer comments, based on the brief 20 minute period I managed to stay focused on the task

Colour correction
Let’s start with this as it seems to be the only detectable aberration.

Blue green fringes are visible in out-of-focus areas. Here’s a shot (from the top right of the photograph above) which illustrates this. Please note, this is 7 foot tall on your screen, and I increased contrast and saturation. Consider this a worse-case scenario, at full aperture.

And now, here is the same shot after some wriggling of the sliders in LightRoom. Good doesn’t begin to describe this kind result in the corner of a very wide-angle lens at full aperture on a 42Mpix sensor …

And that’s the worst I have to say about this little gem.

Distortion

Essentially non-existent, which I assume is due to in-camera correction (?) Whatever the cause, results are stunning and the Loxia will undoubtedly please architects.

Vignetting

Vignetting is low, as suggested by the technical brochure. Here’s a defocused white wall photograph. Only on DS do you find such high quality art

In real-life pictures, you have to look hard to notice vignetting. A great result, then, though this is “just” an f/2.8 lens and you’d expect reasonable performance from it. Still, un altra-wide with no vignetting is really good to own.

Field flatness

To be honest, I forgot to test this but this photograph of a leaf near the minimum focus distance and at full aperture shows no sign of problem (note: I added the strong vignetting in post-processing).

Sharpness

A is for astounding. Sharpness freaks are going to love this lens. It delivers a bitingly sharp image right into the corners at all useful apertures. Here is a full 42Mpix pic at f/2.8 (mainly SOOC with only darkening of the sky added) to download for you to judge this (it is a jpeg, so not quite as good as what I see on-screen). Focus is on the red tubes. What do you think of the rendering of these tubes? I expect lab test results for this lens to put it right up there with the OTUS and Sony G90 dream machines.

Moving into more subjective areas of lens evaluations, two things strike me: Colours are superb. Subtle but bold. Reminiscent of a Super-Elmar, possibly even better.

And the lens shines in dark situations, bringing a vibrancy to shadow detail.

In fact, it feels extremely transparent and direct. Compared to the Milvus 21 (based on the older, but legendary Distagon 2.8/21 Classic) the Loxia feels even more transparent and has more bite. The downside of this is that on some subjects, the Milvus feels more elegant, as if “draped in silk”. Both are superb lenses and the Sony user is fortunate to be able to choose between the two. Of the two, the Loxia 21 feels more modern, more edgy. Architects and landscape photographers will probably love it. Hopefully, we’ll be able to test one in the landscape in the coming weeks. When I do, I’ll compare it to the lovely Distagon 2/25 which I know to be less impressive in the corners but expect to feel a little more organic and natural. Coming from a set of retro-lenses, I must say I really love the rendering of this Loxia. It has a really modern feel to it, stark but not soul-less or clinical. It just lets you photograph things the way you want them to be without superimposing its own personality.

3D ? Good, very good. Although, on first inspection it doesn’t produce the same wormhole effect as the (Eath-shakingly brilliant) Distagon 1.4/35 ZM. When a strongly converging geometry leaves you no option but see depth, it delivers in spades. But in photographs to do not exploit the ultrawide drama, the feeling is less pronounced.

Bokeh is mostly good, but not great. Pixel peeping on very difficult subjects such as specular highlights through tree leaves will reveal some harshness at 100%. But if you’re going for bokeh and not printing to drape a cathedral wall, you’ll find the result convicing enough. I just don’t think this is a bokeh lens. In my limited experience, the lens is at its creative best with everything in sharp veracity. But bokeh is possible and quite convincing in most situations.

If past history is anything to judge by, Zeiss will sell every Loxia 21 they build. It’s a *superb* optical achievement in a package that feels 100% intuitive and a natural extension of the Sony. If you crave sharp, transparent and accurate lenses with the Zeiss knack of spatial placement, get in line right now (but subscribe to DearSusan before you do ) Make no mistake about it, there is already a long line. If you dig a grungier or soft-focus look , then it’s not the lens for you.

Me ? Writing this several hours after the test, still in love with my 25/2 and usually more in tune with lenses that trade a little technical purity for a little more soul, I find myself looking for ways to justify yet another acquisition … Sure, it’s a stop slower, but the native connection to the Sony add 2-stops of IBIS. Files require so little touching-up that I’ll lower my post-processing time. And the photos created in about 45 minutes of less-than-inspiring surroundings are just so damn good …

In fact, I’d go so far as to say I think this lens alone is a compelling reason to invest in the Sony A7 system ! It is every thing the much-loved FE55 proved to be with added class and subtlety.

Oh goodness me, not again!

PS: As co-author Philippe remarked after testing this Loxia, the lens is proof that the forum pundits were correct: it really is impossible to design a good wide-angle lens with the short flange distance of the Sony mount!

Philippe adds …

My considered opinion, after this brief walkabout, is as follows.

My initial impression was a bit “meh”. What are those Zeiss people so excited about? Nice and small, though, is it really a FF 21 f:2.8, it feels so compact? Part of that impression may have been due to prior testing of the humongous Otus 28, which really rattled my cage and rumbled my soul.

First pics showed that this lens does not emphasize fuzzy mid-tones, as is so easy on the eye with the A7R II (read: ZM 35 f:1.4, ZM 50 f:1.5, Leica R, most lenses from the film era). Lots of blacks and whites on either side, rather than just infinitely delicate and subtle B&W. The feeling is of a lens that is slightly clinical, verging on the cold (read: like a Makro Planar).

Then, as Pascal and I sat on a step munching on our sandwiches (oh what sacrifices we have to make for you, DearSusan reader!), I looked at the ground, and, in order to estimate MFD and see how the Loxia performs, I shot this leaf, and magnified the image. Wow! Great detail, great sharpness, and absolutely not clinical! remarkable short-range performance. Impressed with what I’d just seen, I then shoot a bit of tree bark. The same! Now wait… if a lens can be clinical in some cases, and not in others, then what? There can be only one answer. It is transparent. A quality I value very highly. Yes, it may not have the always-on charm of the ZM35 f:1.4 or ZM 50 f:1.5.

So, in a way, it is a very easy lens to use, because (a) it is so small and light, and (b) you don’t have to work around aberrations, quirks and idiosyncracies. But it also a lens that is not easy to use, because it leaves to you to your own devices. In a way, it is the opposite of a Leica Noctilux 50mm f:0.95 and other super-fast lenses (Mitakon, Hyperprime, Rayxar), where you have a “special-effects” position when you open them wide, at the expense of aberrations.

In a way, it is the next instalment in the history of Zeiss wide angle lenses. The original Distagon 21 was a landmark for sharpness across the frame. I owned one, and have fond memories and spectacular shots to show for it. Then came the 25 f:2.0. Less spectacular, less WOW! I traded my 21 for it, to many people’s surprise, because, in a direct face-off, the 25 showed it had less personnality and more subtlety, and therefore let me do more things with it. Neutrality won out, and I posit that this Loxia 21 is going further down that route. The legendary Mandler probably bristles in his grave and growls: “haven’t they learned anything from me?”, because he imbued his fantastic Leica designs with such awesome charm and personality… but at the expense of transparency and neutrality.

Oh, and before I sign off, as Pascal writes, this lens puts paid to the theory that you can’t design a great wide angle that is small and light for the Sony A7. I remember, a couple of years ago, when Leica were the “only” really top-end lens designer. Sure, “Zeiss” rhymed with “nice”, but not quite as upscale. The Otus twins were a nail in that coffin, beacuse their performance redefined what was/is possible. Complainers grudgingly conceded the point, but said “yeah, but Leica do it in a small format, as opposed to these Twin Towers”. Then Zeiss released the ZM 35 f:1.4, showing they could play the rangefinder game as well as anyone (you know whom I mean). Now the Loxia is one more addition to their display: small, light, transparent, great haptics, not stratospherically priced (but not cheap!). What’s not to love?

Interested in this sort of lens-testing ? Take a second to subscribe to this free tutorial.

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

When Zeiss first announced the Touit line of lenses, people thought “OMG, what sort of name is that?” For, after decades of hallowed technical names like “Distagon”, “Biogon”, “Sonnar” and “Planar”, Zeiss had decided that the best names for their lenses were bird families. Not only that, but they forsook the obvious “Condor”, which would have gone down easily alongside their previous names, in favor of more exotic, less known birds. One such case is “Loxia”, the range of manual-focus lenses dedicated to the wildly successful Sony A7 family of cameras, for still photography as well as video.

After two releases of warmed-over ZM designs in 35mm and 50mm focal ranges (Hmm that lovely Loxia 50mm. I still can’t think about it without seller’s remorse…), the Loxia 21mm f:2.8 is the first fully original design in the range and, frankly, the market reception has been very positive indeed.

There are 3 reasons for this:

• the Loxia 21 is the first native wide-angle prime lens for the A7 cameras
• it offers traditional Zeiss performance in wide angles, this from the company that set the standard for many years with its legendary “Distagon 21mm” lens
• it does so while combining this performance with a small form factor, further leveraging the mirrorless Sony’s small size and low weight compared to FF DSLRs.
• Most importantly, it got a rave review from DearSusan (yes, people, we were the first past the post with that one!)

The grumpy among you will argue that I announced 3 reasons and that there are in fact 4. Come on, give me a break! Haven’t you read “Les 3 mousquetaires”? (the 3 musketeers, who were in fact 4)

So, now that I finally own one, what is the low-down? Is it as good as (a) the 2 other Loxia, and/or (b) the hallowed Distagon 21 for Canikon DSLR?

In a nutshell, the Loxia 21 will be what you want it to be. It has very little personality of its own. Not grand and spectacular like the older Distagon 21, though it can do that as well. Not warm and lustrous like the ZM 35 f:1.4, though you can make it do that too. Not neutral and very slightly laid back like the Otus 55, though it can indeed take on this character. It is the opposite of a specialist lens, or a character lens. Much more Robert de Niro than Jack Nicholson. Much more James Cameron than Akira Kurozawa.

But, those of you that are still awake this far into the post will notice that all my pictures are very conventional wide-angle pics, exactly the opposite of what I am talking about. Your wish for me to illustrate what I say is my command! So, here goes!

For example, the Loxia is so good that you can crop your shots with unbridled sadism, and the 21mm focal length is then totally unrecognizable

Another 100% crop…

Then you can avail yourself of one aspect which separates this Loxia from the other 2 namesakes. Not having been originally designed for a rangefinder, it has a short minimal focusing distance (25cm, or 10″)

Here is one such example, above. So, if you can crop, and you can do broad landscapes and cityscapes, and you can do closeups, what else can you do with it?

Medium distance, of course. A few more in a rather different atmosphere…

But, to illustrate this little gem’s potential, here are my favorite 2. They combine very short-range, medium distance, as well as width and depth. In conclusion, in a nutshell, the Loxia 21 will justify whatever you expect it to be/do for you. If you expect Zeiss goodness, you will find it. If you believe that newer Zeiss lenses tend towards the clinical and characterless, you will find reason enough to justify this preconception. As for me, I am very happy with it, even more that I got an early copy, ahead of the long wait-list, because, as I said, not only is it a jewel of a lens, but it is the only game in town if you are in the market for a native wide-angle prime for Sony A7.

PS: you will note that I have studiously avoided any reference to any scientific or performance criterion. No mention of field curvature, or corner sharpness wide open, or the relative nervousness (or not) of the bokeh, or CA, or 3D. I find spouting of so-called truths by self-proclaimed internet gurus less and less sufferable. Hopefully my shots, plus the ones in our previous report, show and demonstrate what you can enjoy and/or suffer if you decide to use this lens. So let’s pretend that you are adults, and that you can make your own mind from real-world examples. And, if you can’t, the answers don’t matter, because what you won’t see won’t do you any harm… But, of course, if you have questions, don’t hesitate to ask…

PPS OK, maybe I have been just a bit too radical in not wanting to emulate the know-it-all sites. Let me give you my own impressions after a couple of weeks.

Haptics are excellent. Just the right size for this type of lens. Auto magnify as soon as you hit the focusing ring. The definite feel of a quality item (as well it should, after all it isn’t exactly a cheap lens). A couple of minor criticisms: focus throw between 2m and infinity is a bit short for my taste, and sometimes makes it trickier to focus than need be. Also the lens shade comes off altogether too easily.

Colour differentiation is remarkable. This lets the Loxia shots remain legible even when the subject is complex, diverse, chaotic. This helped by a strong micro-contrast, not unlike the latest additions of the Zeiss  Z* line (pre-Milvus, that is), the 15 f:2.8 and 135 f:2.0. That gives the Loxia a very slightly cool look (cool, as opposed to warm). Strong micro-contrast and great detail combine to give a rendering that tends towards the one displayed by the makro-planar twins (but only partially as strong).

As to how good it is, the answer is simple: there is no competition. The only other wide-angle native to the A7 system is the Sony-Zeiss FE 16-35 f:4.0 OSS. Obviously, it is stronger than the Loxia in the 16mm-18mm range. Just as the Loxia is the better performer at f:2.8. But, as with other lens ranges and camera manufacturers, if a prime can’t beat a zoom in sheer IQ, then it has no justification. And the Loxia can and does. Zeiss claim it is the best lens they designed in 2015. Check their other releases to see exactly how strong that claim is. They also claim it outperforms the legendary “classic” Distagon 21mm. Another huge claim. And yes, I agree.

As far as I am concerned, it is that good.

Posted on DearSusan by philberphoto.

Ever since the Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 (specs here) turned up on my doorstep, I’ve been meaning to compare it to my OTUS 85. It’s a natural comparison given the perfect match in focal length, aperture, size, weight and… huge price gap. And the clash of giants will indeed soon be published on these pages.

However, the more I use it, the more it becomes obvious the Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 has incredible qualities of its own that really should be examined individually, for what they are, and not within the narrow context of a value-for-money duel.

Chief among these is colour !

Crush’s Coaster, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

Could this be the lens with the best colour rendition I have ever used ?

Zeiss’ loan of this Milvus coincided with a 3-day Christmas present trip to Disneyland Paris, the perfect opportunity to try my hand at over-the-top colour shots.

Stripes, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

Is this over-the-top enough to prove my point?

What I’m seeing is (a tremendous sensor and) super saturated colours that feel very natural rather than boosted in post-processing.

The colours are very strong, with no cast and with a huge amount of subtlety to them. The tiny variations in hue and luminance across the sky and blue wall, above, make this photograph both larger than life and very realistic. The results are superb.

Ditto below, where the palette of blues and greens is gorgeous.

Shiny chimney, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7r & Zeiss Milvus 85

The beauty of all this is how very little PP is required to achieve this. In most photographs is was a simple matter of making the shadows less dark. 5 seconds. Done. No sweat, no pain, no screaming (unlike in the elevators below).

Can you hear the screaming? – ony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

Here are a few more examples, all from Disneyland Paris. What do you think?

Animation Gallery, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

Gossip column, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7r & Zeiss Milvus 85

Planet Hollywood, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

Cars & moon, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

Casa della tires, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

The photograph below sums up the lens’ performance beautifully: bold and perfectly differentiated colours, an ability to liven-up a very low-contrast scene, a slight veil at f/1.4 that makes that wand’s magic come to life, a satin-smooth medium-format look to the statue itself. Just perfect for the shot (handheld and grabbed in a second, à la DS).

Mouse Magic, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85 (at f/1.4)

All well and good, but what happens when you’re not living in a neon-infested cartoon world?

Let’s more to progressively more subtle and natural sources of lighting to see whether the festival continues or whether dullness sets int (spoiler: it don’t).

Disney village, Disneyland Paris, Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

(S)TEAKHOUSE, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

Once again, the colours are very strong and beautiful, but it’s the subtle changes in hue and delicate shadings (see inside the letters, above or on the hotel walls, below) that make these photographs pop.

Our Hotel, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

Four our third step into the natural lighting world, let’s examine what happens during the daylight. In this case a very overcast (and frigid) day. Look at poor Wall-e looking for warmth in Eva’s eyes. The shadings in his claws, on the green front-plate and in the rust-stained body are all first class.

Beauty and the worried beast – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

Outdoors and indoors, natural light is translated into a natural rendering with a very pleasant feeling of “airiness” and ease. Just like some power amps sound happy and free and natural. The images produced are elegant, smooth and just. None of the excess harshness found in some E-Mont offerings, no dull softness either. The Milvus feels effortless and relaxed.

Tea for 2, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

Cleaning up, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

Different cultures, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

A Milvus in Paris

And now, for something completely different.

Philippe and I have been busy scouting interesting angles and points of view for Ze coming “Spring in Paris” workshop. We were treated to varying light (read: foul weather in the morning and more vibrant brass-monkey weather later in the day) and this was great to put the Milvus 85 to the test when it comes to more heavily post-processed images.

Room with a view, Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

And, finally, covering the spectrum of lighting conditions, some slightly diffused sunlight bathing good ol’ La Défense, a part of the world I love to hate but has always treated me so right from a photographic point of view.

Again, subtlety and delicacy dominate the rendering of this (I hate to say, as the owner of a 125% more expensive OTUS 85) magnificent lens. The backlit humidity veil is well conveyed in the first and the subtle colours of the sidelit second just show how sensitive to light orientation and quality this lens is. Although big and heavy, I can imagine landscape photographers wanting to be out in the field with it …

Zeiss Milvus 85 for B&W photography

But what about B&W? Wasn’t there some promise of comparing colour to B&W with that lens?

I lied. Slightly. My usual B&W to colour PP ratio always favours the former. Not with that lens. If you get one for yourself you’ll be finding yourself using it for colour shots most of the time.

That said, tonal subltely undeniably makes a lens great for monochrome use as well. And here are some examples to prove it.

Like father and mouse, Disneyland Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

All the qualities described previously are present here as well, and the lovely 3D and great tones make for a very decent B&W photograph. Although, remembering the scene, I can’t help seeing the photograph in colour in my mind’s eye, I’m quite happy with the greyscale rendition above.

Prancing horse, Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

This is even truer of the final 3 photographs, where shape was far more important than colour. And here, files take heavy PP admirably. This (again) speaks volumes in favour of the remarkable sensor in the Sony, but there’s no denying the absence of harshness and profusion of detail rendered by the lens make the results very pleasing even without a colour component.

Charging hippo, Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

Even pushed hard for contrast, the photographs remain elegant and relaxed. 3D is very convincing and texture is lovely. Below, this low-contrast scene is made very wintry and dark without any dulness introduced. Darker than in reality, but alive.

Trees by the Seine, Paris – Sony A7rII & Zeiss Milvus 85

And in this final image, huge contrast enhancements maintain a very rich tonal range and the result never feels brittle or on the edge of introducing artefacts. Again, smoothness and elegance dominate. Very medium format like.

So, all is not perfect with that lens, as I’ll cover in a few days. But if richness of tone and colour, liveliness and delicacy are your thing, you’re going to find it so difficult to stay away from …

And if you like photographs of Paris, what are you waiting for ?!? Read this page, send us an email and come to join us in photo heaven. You know you want to

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

Silly me, I approached this review of the Zeiss Milvus 85 all wrong!

Excited by the prospect of comparing the newcomer to my almighty OTUS 85, codename Hubert, I devised a series of test to establish how close the Milvus comes to the performance of its older superstar brother. A very dualistic worldview, which shames me a little.

Time, then, to reboot this and find more interesting things to narrate. Oh, the comparison will be published soon, and – spoiler alert – it is not a clear cut affair. However, for the time being, why not focus on determining whether this Milvus, by itself, belongs to the select club of über-lenses instead?

And, that end, is it time to finally explain our codename system and out classification of lenses, maybe?

There are a vast majority of soulless lenses out there. The zooms designed to reduce the lab-tested flaws to a minimum at the expense of doing nothing brilliantly, for instance. Much like any commoditized product and the communications of so many brands, blandness seems a safer choice than flawed excellence. We don’t have a name for these lenses at DS, because we’re simply not interested in reviewing them. Life. Short.

Then, there are interesting lenses that fall short on some technical criteria. Think C-Sonnar 1.5/50 ZM, absolutely brilliant in some conditions, and slightly oh-hum out of its comfort zone. Or my beloved Distagon 1.4/35 ZM, probably the best 35 lens ever designed for 90% of its perimeter but unhappy in the corners of a thick-stack Sony sensor.

We have pet names for these lenses, meant to highlight the character of the lens. Audrey (Hepburn), for absolute delicacy, beauty and mischief, is the Distagon 1.4/35 ZM. Cesar is the C-Sonnar, short, mighty and ill-tempered.

Then, there are the über-lenses, the superheros of glass. Devoid of any serious flaws, whatever the conditions, they also have to wow us in as many possible ways as possible.

The OTUS 85, we call Hubert, because that sounds like über (in French) and that lens defines the essence of optical magnificence. Free of any sort of real-life nasties how ever you push it (yeah, you can find a few purple pixels here and there is you know how to light up the scene, flare is not totally absent and coma is quite plainly evident in the corners in astrophotographic conditions. We’re talking real-life photography niggles here, and the OTUS 85 simply doesn’t even understand the concept).

But beyond that, it has a way of collapsing the universe into sharp/gaussian unsharp and serving-up gargantuan doses of 3D that nothing I’ve ever used even comes close. See below (the only non Milvus 85 photograph on this page).

Is the Milvus 85 an über-lens ?

So our work is cut out for us.

Let’s not get into the technicalities of the Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4, you can find all of that on the official datasheet. But it is worth remembering that this new lens takes  the highly unusual fully-spherical design-path (compare that to the 9 aspherics in the Batis 25 from the same stable) and that its MTF curves at f/4 indicate the highest levels of brilliance right up to the very edge of the frame (though not quite into the corners).

Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 MTF @f/4 (c) Zeiss

The corners weren’t the first concern of the design team, given that the portrait-oriented tog used as design persona. And the following 3 photographs (made by myself, a definitely non-portrait-oriented photographer) serve to prove how well the team succeeded at this main goal.

But few of us, in the Zeiss marketing funnel, are going to spend 2 grand on a portrait-only single-trick pony. So how well does this Milvus 85 perform in other photographic scenarios? Is it a good B&W lens? Is it good for landscape? Can I use it on the street? Does it hold its own in architecture?

And, most-importantly, how neutral is the lens? We’ve all drooled over the capuccino look of a Noctilux. But, after a while, every Notcilux picture looks like a Notcilux picture. The lens very quickly dominates the look of the image. Which is OK for me when I’m buying a 200$ LTM, but not for a 10k behemoth. Cheap digital filters are fine for quick fixes but when I overspend on a lens it is to ensure it excels at the widest possible range of use scenarios.

To find out how neutral a lens, the simplest method is to create a set of photographs and process them freely in different ways to determine whether the lens always takes you in the same direction or, on the contrary, sets you free to explore.

So, I have separated my photographs from a quick shoot in my home village into colour and b&w to find out for myself.

The Zeiss Milvus 85 in colour

OK, all of this is subjective and labs will determine colour fidelity far better than my eye. But this lens may well produce the most pleasing colours I have ever seen. Not as subtle as Audrey (Distagon 1.4/35 ZM) but full-bodied, happy, non-diluted, differentiated, wholesome and true.

My previous post about the Milvus 85 already gave stunning examples of colour reproduction, but these were mostly made in the ultra-saturated wonderland of a Disney amusement park, mostly at night. The same can be said of the launch photographs we are seeing of the new Sony Master G lenses (which seem very appealing).

Real-life is different, though, full of subtle nuances and hard to reproduce hues.

So I took the lens for a stroll through my little hometown in mid-afternoon winter light on one of our signature cool and crisp mediterranean days, to see how well the lens coped with the faded colours of our narrow lanes in natural light.

And the lens doesn’t disappoint.

One tell-tale quality you can easily determine for yourself with your own lenses is that you do not want to touch the saturation slider in your post-processing software, or apply any filters, but simply alter the feel with contrast and luminosity adjustments.

The photograph above is a case in point. The marvelous dynamic range of the Sony A7rII made it possible to maintain detail in the shadows as well as in the brightest highlights of this scene, but the picture still looked a little dark and uninteresting. I increased contrast and bumped up the shadows, to a point where the orange on the corner wall almost seemed too saturated. So the saturation slider was indeed used, but to tone things down a little. And the result is both very colourful but also very believable.

This is made almost at the same spot but looking left. Again, lively but super natural. No hint of over processing or visible colour boost to compensate for a lifeless lens.

The Milvus uses special glass to mitigate the inevitable effects of dispersion and keep colours clean, surface coatings are probably top-notch. But, mostly, this is a medium contrast lens that doesn’t blow every detail into unnatural proportions. There’s a huge amount of information in the files (very high-resolution) but the focus wasn’t placed on super strong micro-contrast. This leads to more relaxed aesthetics and to more pronounced mid-tone colours. Very high contrast lenses often require a lot of post-processing help to boost colours. Not so here. Laid back and colourful is what life looks like through this lens

Nice!

The Zeiss Milvus 85 in monochrome

So, all well and good when it comes to life-like and relaxed colours. But shouldn’t that easy-going character make the lens a slouch in b&w ?

I have no easy answer to that because most B&W work is heavily edited and typically reflects more on the quality of the camera than on the lens’ abilities. And the Sony A7rII totally cured my Leica Monochrom itch, so the B&W pics on this page are inevitably helped by that tremendous imaging tool.

Still, though. My approach to evaluating a lens for B&W work is to provide various styles of post-processing so that readers can find a style that matches theirs and compare the results to what their own system provides. And few should be disappointed.

So, again, here are some samples form my brief walk through my village and a variety of inspirations from dark Antonioni to Adams to Foujita to local newspaper (for those of you old enough to remember the newspaper). 

What I’m seeing here is a personality almost entirely dictated by post-processing. The tendency is towards medium contrast. Compare this to the photographs made with a Loxia 35 just a few days before, just a few miles away. Clearly not the same imaging universe. But still the lens responds to all sorts of processing queues, from the very high contrast gentleman at the very top of this page, to the alarmingly precocious almond tree just above.

Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 bokeh

Bokeh, and the contiguous concept of 3D also play an important role in determining how splendid/uninspiring a lens ranks in our weird classification system. Personality is good, but distraction isn’t so I’m not overly fond of the swirly school of thought ot of high edge visibility in out of focus areas.

And on that score, I’m seeing an A, but not an A+.

On this most horrid of bokeh tests, the f/8 photograph feels a little agitated. Not because the bokeh is bad but because the main subject doesn’t benefit from the OTUS-like high contrast that ensures super crisp separation from the background, whatever the background looks like. Here competition between foreground contrast and background contrast isn’t the best I’ve seen.
At a more normal (for subject separation) f/1.4, things are a lot better. There does seem to be a small amount of swirl here, but I’ve not seen that manifest in many other photographs so it might just be a case of background subject matter.

In a non-studio portrait scenario (subject 1m50 – 2m away, busy background), things look rather good. At f/1.4, one could hope for a little more blurring of the background but subject separation is excellent. The concrete wall displays and odd stretching pattern reminiscent of the mini-swirl of the previous example. But the photo is technically pleasing.

F/2 might be the prettiest setting, with the background not that much more present and the oddities totally under control. At f/4 (bottom photo), some very minor stray colour on the dark tree (sphero-chromatisicm ?) is barely visible but the photograph is very clean and pleasant.

In this final duo, I have enhanced the visibility (luminosity + contrast) of our feline model and lowered the background highlights. In this situation, which reflects normal conditions with no background trap) the results are among the most pleasing I have ever seen. The cat doesn’t jump out of the screen as it would with an OTUS 85, but the sense of presence and depth is superb. Colours are rich and natural. Bokeh is perfect. Absolutely nothing get in the way of the little story being told. Abfab.

So, is it an über-lens ?

As you’ll have guessed, I like the Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85 a lot. Long-term readers know of my infatuation for Mandler-era Leica lenses. To my eyes, this Milvus is a well-behaved successor to these magnificent lenses. Every bit as appealing, but without any of the misbehaviour.

Compared to an OTUS, it provides a more “integrated” image, with less 3D pop and a more painterly style. Hopefully, we’ll be able to compare it to the Sony Master G of similar spec and price to determine how close or different the drawing styles of the two lenses are.

So, excellent performance all around and an absolute master achievement relative to price.

But that wasn’t quite the question, was it? …

How can I put this?

My gut reaction would be to call this is a minor masterpiece, but not an über-lens. As niggle-free as one could realistically hope for (yeah, lab tests will trash it in the corners at infinity and full aperture) as it is, it somehow falls short on the second über-membership condition. It somehow fails to take my breath away with any spectaculars in the way the OTUS so masterfully achieves.

Or does it?

While it may not grab you in the first seconds of viewing, the Milvus manages to maintain your attention a long time because of the subtlety of its imaging. Take the fuselage on the above two-frame stitch, for instance. This could be a studio shot made with a medium format camera but it’s a hand-held pic grabbed in between passers-by. Absolutely remarkable texture, 3D and colours make this life-like and more lasting than instaneously grabbing.

The Milvus’ super-power, then, might be its über-delicacy. So, maybe it’s time we rethink out classification system. There has to be room for the non-spectacular in the elite of photographic lenses. If so, this Milvus certainly belongs to it.

And let’s conclude on some spectacular imagery to prove this lens can and will misbehave when asked to ! Yeah baby

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

There are 3 reasons why this review of the Sony FE 90/2.8G is pointless

(1) Paul’s interview of Valerie Millet a few days ago has left me both gobsmacked at Valerie’s talent and ashamed at how much (over-)attention I give to gear. It’s just so obvious from her words that gear matters so little compared to shooting discipline. If, like me, you feel your addiction has gone too far, go back and read that interview now.

(2) I don’t review lenses I can’t immediately find a nickname for. If a lens doesn’t communicate a certain feeling (subtelty, sharpness, weight, …) it likely has no soul and is yet another product from the sterile lab rat school of thought. How can something called Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro G OSS have a soul. C’mon guys, couldn’t you have added a few more letters and symbols for good measure? An asterisk, at least?

(3) The review ends the second you understand the two missing letters in the name are actually the evil A & F holding the promise of a mushy focus ring and endless hunting for a focus point. Autofocus, in this day and age? When will they learn?

So yeah, now, I do have a nickname for it: Towser. Because it can only be a dog.

Sitting cool – Sony 90G

So, in the spirit of keeping pain to a minimum, let me just say quickly: I loved it !!! (every second of it)

Rewind, let me explain.

Sony FE 90G, the freedom fighter (the good)

AF sucks, there’s no denying it (particularly because I’m so biased and dishonest about it )

But in spite of its sucking, it does add a whole new dimension to the shooting process. It allows a complete left brain experience that allows you to make images you might not have considered otherwise.

Such as people in dynamic situations …

… or simply compositions you might simply not have thought about while labouring at focusing.

or

So, yes, life with an OTUS 85 is really great and the Milvus 85 is superb. But a short tele with a good AF is a liberating proposition.

Two caveats.

First of all, I do think this mind-expanding situation only works by contrast and it would be very easy to fall into a life-as-normal situation of reliance on the AF where laziness could easily push creativity out of the nest, cuckoo-style.

Secondly, notice the word good in good AF ? Yeah, about that …

Whatever way you look at it, AF is crap (the bad)

Two things are disturbingly wrong with the photograph below.

One is that someone apparently though it OK to defile the dignity of a wild animal in such a way.

The other is that focus is on the hair below the right ear (viewer’s right).

That’s bad, but not the worst.

The deep zenitude in which the lack of focusing routine had led me during this short review turned to vein-popping rage when the damn lens tenaciously refused to focus on multiple types of subjects.

Low contrast subject (not that low) didn’t fare too well. Here, the focus fell on the jewelery, not the man examining it.

Here, in dark-ish  conditions, well, there’s no here because the camera simply refused to shoot

(blank space intentional. Hey, it’s my blog)

Here, I wanted to focus on the writing in the reflexion but it was a no-go because a 28nm silicon brain decided otherwise.  And, yes, I know there is a manual override that probably requires fewer than 12 clics to operate and give you access to a delightfully soggy focusing ring but, when you’ve reach my stubbornness (who said ‘age’ ?), … there’s simply no way you’re going to read a manual to learn how to focus a lens.

One last thing. Facetious rant aside, and hugely important left-brain note aside, AF isn’t the miracle speed-booster many thing it is. On moving targets, yeah, there’s no real alternative. So for sports and possibly street photography, AF can be a life changer. In most other situations, I can focus faster and far more accurately with the superb ergonomics of a Loxia than with any AF I’ve seen up to this day (on the Sony camera).

This may not be the lens’ fault. It’s quite possible the camera (or my use of incorrect settings) is the culprit.

Steampunk ergonomics (the Ugly)

Trapped. In a cage.

We’ve already established that naming a piece of kit Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro G OSS (AF) bordered on lens abuse. Most vicars would have refused baptism and most kids afflicted with such a public denomination would have grown to become lens thieves, drug dealers or, worse, politicians.

As if the name wasn’t enough, Sony designers played the acne card to the max, cramming as many buttons on the barrel as conceivably possible without compromising shell integrity (user enjoyment and well established photographic practises ? Well, bollocks to that).

Imagine some crackpot car manufacturer decided the steering wheel was better hanging from the ceiling and the brakes had legitimacy inside the boot. We’d all riot. Heck, even flappy paddles have driven many purists up the bend.

But, in the photo world, it seems OK to assume that a universal ergonomic design (shutter release and speed on the camera, along with other controls such as ISO, focus and aperture on separate rings on the lens) that held for the best part of a century could be blown into the weeds for no valid reason.

To my retrograde tastes, having the lens controls on the lens and body controls on the body, placed where human fingers naturally fall, had a certain simple elegance that could/should have warranted survival.

But apparently, sprinkling random bits and bobs like candy on a frozen yogurt is all the rage among the cool kids. That alone is a major turn off for me and a definite no-go. But … not so fast, angry-Jappy.

Image quality (the Excellent)

But, but …

… young Towser here turned out pretty well. A fine young man, with style and poise, in fact. I don’t know how sharp the lens really measures. There are plenty of airbrush MTF curves on the Sony website and sites such as lensrentals.com have probably done a super job of determining its true performance.

What I do know is that, in many situations, the Sony FE 90G creates jaw-dropping beautiful images. The vertical pano below illustrates this well. In B&W textures play a more important role and many lenses tend to give surfaces identical looks. While a little hint of that is present in this photograph, there is still plenty of info and 3D is superb. And all analysis set aside, the photograph just looks lovely. With the great AF (outdoors, in good light) the possibility of creating photographs like that in a second or two really puts a smile on your face.

The 3D quality is also absolutely superb on lower level details such as in the two photographs below.

At 100%, the impression of realism and depth on the clock arms and in the little ceramic number plates is staggering. While Hubert (my Otus 85) wasn’t around to prove my bold claim, it’s my impression that it would not have done any better. This superb ability to structure an image in well-defined depth layers is evident in the photograph below. It has no strong composition and no subject other than the rich variety of little shops and the ambience in this arcade (one of the must-sees we will cover in our coming photo workshop in Paris). A lesser lens, even a sharp one, would have destroyed the meaning of this photograph, creating mush instead of order.

Colours are often excellent, with super differentiation, whether on colourful subjects …

… or more mundane ones.Does the wizkid do any wrong?

It’s a bit soft at wide apertures. Not just in terms of detail at 100%, but also in a slightly lifeless rendition. In fact, my brief spell with the lens left me the impression that it really comes alive at f/5.6. Not that it’s bad at wider settings, just not as lively and fun. At f/8, not much I know could stay with it. At 100%, my files are every bit as sharp as those from my Otus and the photographs are vibrant and fun.

F/4, below, seems to be the threshold for my tastes. Here the Otus 85 would create a much greater difference in acuity between the sharp zones and the others, giving the former more punch and the latter more creaminess. Here, the sense of depth is very real, but the photograph doesn’t grab your attention as much. Still, for 23% of the price and 50% of the weight, the FE 90/2.8 G delivers in spades. And when it gets into its peak rev zone, it’s utterly fantastic, with gorgeous colour, perfect 3D, sharpness to cut through adamantium and true personality that helps create memorable photographs of ordinary scenes. I LOVE IT !

Concluding thought: Towser is a keeper, oh yes!

Vernacular photography, when you’re neither Pee wee nor a forensic doc, usual involves a subtle balance between creativity and technique. Bring in too much left-brain button-pushing and inspiration dissolves faster than French employment. Sony and other manufacturers know that, but MTF curves and techno-features sell more lenses than the promise of creative enhancements to the customer photographic life.

Which leaves us traditionalists looking, puzzled, at modern lenses that evoke a NASA-bred sea cucumber and handle like pigs when you’ve come to expect the immediate response of full manual. Some of these lenses add insult to injury by packing as much soul and personal style as the love child of a lavatory blueprint and an Excel spreadsheet. Not our Towser here!

Great colours are … great. Super sharpness is … super. Triff 3D is … well, triff.

At the end of the day, what matters most is that the files produced by the lens / body pair recreate the pic that was in your mind’s eye at the moment of capture.

At that little game, the FE 90/2.8 G really pulls ahead of most competitors I’ve been able to use. It doesn’t force a style upon you (unlike the Loxia 35 I’m really struggling with, as the delay in my ongoing review may have revealed ), but it’s never bland. From f/5.6, it seems to strike a perfect balance (for my style) between impetuosity and the gentle touch. The photo above and the one below were made meters from one another and could hardly be considered similar.

All said and done, even a facetious old fart like me can get used to new-age ergonomics. Whereas no amount of digital trickery will revive a photograph left dead by a bad lens. So Towser comes with my highest recommendation for anyone interested in a short tele with no super-pop-out-subject-on-capuccino-bokeh-backround dreams.

Let me leave you with a few more photographs which, I hope, convey some of the possibilities of the lens. All those on this page were made in a couple of hours in a same area of Paris. What do you think ?

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

Quick update. A few days ago, using the Zess Loxia 35 in bright winter sunlight in black & white, I was impressed by resolution but somewhat miffed at the hardly manageable contrast. Inside, things took a definite turn for the better, leading me to think that this lens is better suited to interior scenes or overcast weather.

Several comments from readers in similarly bright areas of the world, mainly Australia in this case, suggested a shared experience. Others were displeased that I didn’t share their love of the Loxia outdoors.

Phase 2 of this ongoing review is devoted to colour photographs. Can this hard-contrast B&W mean-machine …

… be turned into a pleasant colour shot tool? (monochrome can work in high-contrast but colour is much more difficult).

It looks like three factors help significantly.

First of all, close-ups are rather nice because bokeh is pleasing and soft in those conditions.

Secondly, underexposure protects against harsh highlights. So I very often dial in -0.7EV (instead of my usual +0.7EV) and post-process if the image feels too dark. The example below isn’t the best photograph I’ve made of that scene by a long shot, but highlights are kept in check. Not all of the photographs on this page have been made in that way but every photograph thus exposed/developed seems far more pleasant than what my early results suggested (although harshness is never a long distance away).Highlights retain some punch but don’t overwhelm the whole photograph and mid-tones are a bit more colourful and rich.

Yet, even with some care, it’s easier to blow highlights with this lens than many others I’ve used in the past.For those wishing for a tamer style, a third ‘trick’ comes in handy : not only does exposure control minimize the harshness issue, at least partly, but wide apertures on the Loxia 35 produce a softer image due a thin veil that is not unlike the one seen on the Leica Summicron-R 50/2.

Not everyone will like the effect, which can appear to blur fine details, but I find it quite pleasing and gives the Loxia a second personality.  But, after a couple of weeks with the lens, I’m sticking to my original opinion: this lens absolutely shines in conditions that are enhanced by it natural high-contrast.

The series of photographs below were made during a storm in Catalunya, near Perpignan. This is where I grew up and is a sort of triangular rift valley with Pyrenean mountains on two sides and the Mediterranean on the third. The topology of the area can serve up fierce thunder storms with little in the way of warning and the light gets otherworldly within minutes.

When the sun finds a crack in the almost black sky cover, the landscape is bathed by a very directional and warm light that the Loxia 35 picked up quite well, in this instance (mostly at f/5.6).

Closer to (my current) home, in the undergrowth of the Calanques regional park, the combination of the lens’ contrast and soft-ish full-aperture produces this sort of result. Gone is the brute, some artistic sensitivity can be made to surface in these circumstances. This is very different from what an OTUS lens we do (less reliance on 3D and bokeh, less crisp focus plane, but still clearly separated in a softer manner).

So the Loxia 35 does appear to need a restricted dynamic range in the scene to show it’s best performance. Underexposure goes a long way towards mitigating the effect of harsh light otherwise. And some softness can be dialed in using wider apertures if that’s what your photograph needs.

All in all, I’m more positive about the lens now than when it first arrived on my doorstep. What appeared to be a slightly brutal single trick pony can in fact be used to create very different aesthetics. It remains a niche performer that will shine more easily in Denmark than in Death Valley, for most users, but an interesting one.

More formal tests and a comparison to my Distagon 1.4/35 ZM to come. Here’s a first glimpse into this, with my now-familiar office window scene imaged on the Sony A7r2 with the Distagon 1.4/35 ZM (top) and the Loxia 35/2 (below), both frames made within seconds of one another.

Provence test scene – Sony A7r2 & Zeiss Distagon 1.4/35 ZM

Provence test scene – Sony A7r2 & Zeiss Loxia 35/2

In the mean time, let me leave you with what the Loxia does best: livening-up a dark, dull scene.

Eurodisney’s 61 C1 ‘vette

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.