In Why It's Expensive fashion, we'll have a comment thread discussing our opinions on whether the lens is straight up overpriced or simply priced out of reach. So, which one do you think it is?
I don't think it's overpriced given the optical quality. If it truly is corner-to-corner sharp at max aperture, that's pretty damn impressive. I'd go so far as to say unheard of for most still lenses.
around 2 months in Hong Kong if you live in the countryside, barely covers 1 in the city if you are really good at bargaining, might afford a toilet in the luxury sector
I love the lens library concept, but I don't know how happy I'd be to have all these cameras and lenses sitting out while someone glides in and out and around them on futuristic roller blades! 4:08
I think one of the most important points are left out, colors! I have an older planar 50/1,4 and the colors are so perfectly natural. I normally find myself fiddling with everything in post production but with my Zeiss it’s just ready from the start, what an easy work flow. Why waste any Money on lesser lenses, Zeiss is the way to go!
I own it and I guess it comes really close but I do get very visible chromatic abberation sometimes, though I only use an A7. Today I'll buy an A7 III, maybe it'll help a bit with the stabilisation etc.
@@dallatorretdu The ART 40mm is so sharp from centre to edge that its FF edge performance wide-open at F/1.4 is sharper than the OTUS 55mm in the centre stopped down to F/2...! :-) These are on different albeit comparable systems so the scores aren't precise, but the ART superiority is decisive despite a significantly more challenging FOV, and being a third of the price: OTUS-55 www.lenstip.com/390.4-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Otus_55_mm_f_1.4_ZE_ZF.2_Image_resolution.html ART-40 www.lenstip.com/548.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_40_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html D3Xvs5D3 www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/nikon/d3x/vs/canon/5d-mark-iii/ Resolution isn't the only factor, of course, but it is telling. I'm definitely getting the ART40mm in L-mount when I can (mostly adapting, however, a couple of native lenses is always good.)
My girlfriend is not a photographer but she was able to see the difference with no error. Sigmas lens is optimiced for near distance. If that works for your style ok.
People pay $4,000 to get perfect MTF chart performance, and corner-to-corner sharpness, then shoot it 90% of the time at f/1.4 where only a single eyelash is in focus. Bwahahaha.
ummm, yeah - well you don't get a 1.4 to shoot it 90% at f/5.6 do you? There are many 50 ish lens out there, I would think most people buying this one would be shooting normaly somewhere between 1.4 and 4. Otherwise there are plenty of cheaper, slower alternatives available...
@@shepsbarbershop I think you missed my point- f/1.4 is a very shallow depth of field, correct? It will leave only a small portion of the photo in focus. At that point, does it make sense to worry about "soft edges" and corner sharpness? If they are blurry anyway from shallow DOF?
Yeah, new age photography Gear > Technique I guess. Do people take photographs anymore? Or just test their kit 🤔 gear matters to an extent... but exploring your creativity is sooooo much more important.
A good start for the series, but actually the high price is determined by many more factors other than actual optical and build quality. First - the market for this lens is extremely small, they are expecting to sell this in very limited numbers, so price has to account for that. Second - Zeiss is marketed as a premium brand and this is segmented into the premium section of the already premium brand - that means the marketing department is estimating the price the customers of this segment will be *willing to pay*, as opposed to deriving from actual production costs. It's similar to the reason every coffee shop has several sizes of cups - so that customers that can afford to pay more - will have the option to pay more. That means if they calculate they can sell this lens for $2500 to make it financially viable, but the research shows the customers are willing to pay up to $4000 for such a premium product - they will market it at $4000.
Interesting to note though, in the automotive world, it takes far more engineering from design, to sourcing, production, assembly and 100 other factors, MORE to design a Toyota Corolla than a Rolls Royce Ghost or Porsche 918... So yes everything you said applies, in terms of volume, and average reliability for something at base bottom price top tier product vs highly branded limited production opulence.
Good to see your elightening analysis which is spot on, two major factors that determine price are brand positioning and psychology-willingness of the customer to and how much to pay based on brand perception, in some cases, cost of production comes as a last consideration.
This would be really amazing for making archival pictures of artwork and other flat media. Slap a super high-res DSLR behind that and you'd do some serious damage.
My most sold photograph is of an old lady in the rain taken at night, she is blurred, people love it was taken on a cheap film camera about 1958, an Halina 35X also one of a blurred saxophone player sells well.
@@mikedixonphoto If you want/need the corner-to-corner sharpness, there are very few options you'll have. This is not primarily meant as a sports shooter's lens, obviously!
It's all about perspective, as a doctor, I always get a good laugh when people complain how expensive camera gear is, the same company that makes your camera and lenses, Canon, Leica, Zeiss... so on, also makes medical equipment, and the price of those things makes these look like pocket change (talking about hundreds of thousands to millions), and on paper, for the price, the specs are horrible compared to your standard camera gear, but they're build for a different purpose
Yeah not like having 40 of the $150 lenses will give us that picture. Whether that level is necessary is really up to the owners I guess. IF we are shooting for Vogue or National Geographic. Sure. For instagram, heck no. LOL
Thank you Cheng! Btw I think it's really amazing that it is a 12 MP camera and you still see an amazing difference (Canon 5D, right?) . Think what will be in a 50 or 100MP camera, printed on a huge paper
When they say 3 years to design are they talking about 26,280 man hours? or They started in 2016, left in in a drawer for 2 years and then finished it in 2019? 🤔
Just seeing this comment about 12-hour work weeks in Europe 😆 ...in Germany at least, 40 hours are standard (35 at Bosch) and only due to Corona and the current economic situation are people forced to work a fraction of that. 😅
Kindly advise Lens Library that there is a market for their business in Brooklyn, NY. Hey, what are the elements in this or any lens that is more costly than gold. Fantastic, crisp job with this video ZY Productions, thanks.
I was shocked when I found out the Otus series is not made by Zeiss itself but made by Cosina, located in Japan. But, I think 'made in somewhere' is not important in nowadays.
it uses the correction equation discovered by hector chaparro-romo that solves chromatic and spherical aberration. but if you you try to see the analytic equation, getting a diamond cutting machine to cut that is the challenge
Compare it to the Super Sears 55mm 1.4..M42 mount....which is a tad radioactive but it costs less than 100.00 on the used market....and super sharp with awesome bokeh at 1.4
It is expensive not because it is either good or well made. It is because the cost of R&D, tooling and production have to be shared between a low number of units expected to be sold.
I was just thinking though, these lenses have a long focus throw, the nikon mount versions have an aperture ring and you can get gears for follow focus, and these lenses work perfectly on medium format without much vingetting at all, these are basically the most perfect and versatile lenses money can buy. If only canon and nikon allowed Zeiss to have an autofocus system it's versatility would be unparalleled.
Also, Hate to be that guy, But for my shooting type, i actually prefer the canon for the look I enjoy. Since I only print to sizes of about 17x25, I actually see superior images from the Canon 1.2 L still compared to the Otus 55. If you look carefully, yes the canon suffered from global resolution loss, but the canon has a wider tonal range, brighter whites and darker darks. it's very very hard to see when the canon is opened below f1.6 though, After 1.6 the canon clears up. Or if your like me, I use flash everywhere and in which case you can shoot at 1.2 without this problem.
Voigtlander has the same build quality and optics as the Zeiss since they are made by the same manufacturer in the same location in Japan. Voigtlander is a quarter of the price tho.
The best lens to compare this lens to is the new Pentax 50mm HD FA f1.4, not the Canon f1.2. The Pentax lens is also a massive lens (almost 1kg), but it DOES have autofocus and comes in under $1,000.
Lenses from $300-3000 seem to be negligible in image quality. It’s only when they take it to these extremes that it’s worth it. I had a 1.2L. Yeah it was better than the 1.4, but not enough for such a huge price difference.
Yan Yu Leung Exactly cause I have the RF50 and this thing is razor sharp and I’m pretty sure the new RF is the new standard being that it’s new technology and Canon. The EF 50f1.2 been out for 15 years
So. Can u explain why dxo think, that sony 50 1.4 has around 40 mp res and otus around 35 only? Ofc canon 50 1.2 is under under under that resolution. So i cant understand why u comparing such blurry lens to zeiss. And sony has af, wight, price.
dxo mark has already shown and proven to have discrepancies in their technique ( which they do not release nor discuss). Unfortunately speaking from personal experience, you can't find any reliable way to evaluate a lens true performance with any resource currently available online. Even The-Digital_Picure which shows "sample" images taken of a black lines test chart, has proven to be unreliable. My 50 1.2L looks like trash on it compared to my 70-200 2.8 L II, however, if taking a picture of something 3 dimensional and especially with color, the 50 L blows the 70-200 away and it is not even a subtle difference. resolution of a lens is a carefully thought out dance of engineering that is affected by many different lighting and subject situations.
Most still lens even the most modern ones will only get you sharpness at the center while moving away from the center to the edges it quickly loses resolution. A good lens is even sharpness across the field and most lens can only do that around f4-5.6. To do that wide open at f1.4 remains pretty unique and that is were the practical worth comes into it for the Otus. Some of the best and most expensive Zeiss cinema lenses has even sharpness across the field at wide open shallow depth of field, the Otus does that too so if you think of it in terms of cinema use then it is a bargain.
Unless this lens is bulletproof, can take a heavy soaking and can be regularly updated it isn't worth the price. Do you know how much Kevlar i could get for the price of this lens?
In Why It's Expensive fashion, we'll have a comment thread discussing our opinions on whether the lens is straight up overpriced or simply priced out of reach. So, which one do you think it is?
Nos vemos en el siguiente video!
Why does it cost $4000, because camera companies know that there are a lot gear whore dicks that will pay that money, that’s why it costs $4000.
This one is simple, it's overpriced
Put me down for two.
I don't think it's overpriced given the optical quality. If it truly is corner-to-corner sharp at max aperture, that's pretty damn impressive. I'd go so far as to say unheard of for most still lenses.
Gotta love those corners - thats $1,000 per corner
Best comment yet!!
ROFL 😅😅
🤣
Stylish Asian guys with charming British accents run this business don’t they
hahhaah yesss!! this comment
Hah, nice :D
Hahahahahahahha so true
I was about to say...dafuq is going on?
Rich version of Kai. 😂
That lens better be able to see the tears of my wallet for that price
Now imagine those in $30,000 each, used for this video... th-cam.com/video/kExpfgFW_sI/w-d-xo.html
Hahahahahaha
For that price if I drop it , it better have self healing powers,and be able to make me coffe in the Am.
well said!!
@@ajproart2 which lenses used for this?
“ Affordable price “ 😂
For those who makes money on studio photography? Yes.
When I converted it to Canadian, it came to just over 5 1/2 months rent on my apartment.
Less than 2 months in Los Angeles, and pretty much one month in San Francisco or Manhattan... But still, yeah! Ex-Pen-Sive.
it's close to year and a half in my home country (for apartment with living room, kitchen and one bedroom)
around 2 months in Hong Kong if you live in the countryside, barely covers 1 in the city if you are really good at bargaining, might afford a toilet in the luxury sector
I love the lens library concept, but I don't know how happy I'd be to have all these cameras and lenses sitting out while someone glides in and out and around them on futuristic roller blades! 4:08
Yeah, good catch! What the heck were those?
I would like to see comparison with Sigma Art 50mm instead of Canon lens.
Exactly. No point comparing it to the Canon.
kasparov9 why?
I think one of the most important points are left out, colors! I have an older planar 50/1,4 and the colors are so perfectly natural. I normally find myself fiddling with everything in post production but with my Zeiss it’s just ready from the start, what an easy work flow. Why waste any Money on lesser lenses, Zeiss is the way to go!
Compare it with the Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART lens
The sigma 40 f/1.4 seriously contends this
I own it and I guess it comes really close but I do get very visible chromatic abberation sometimes, though I only use an A7. Today I'll buy an A7 III, maybe it'll help a bit with the stabilisation etc.
@@dallatorretdu The ART 40mm is so sharp from centre to edge that its FF edge performance wide-open at F/1.4 is sharper than the OTUS 55mm in the centre stopped down to F/2...! :-)
These are on different albeit comparable systems so the scores aren't precise, but the ART superiority is decisive despite a significantly more challenging FOV, and being a third of the price:
OTUS-55 www.lenstip.com/390.4-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Otus_55_mm_f_1.4_ZE_ZF.2_Image_resolution.html
ART-40 www.lenstip.com/548.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_40_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html
D3Xvs5D3 www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/nikon/d3x/vs/canon/5d-mark-iii/
Resolution isn't the only factor, of course, but it is telling.
I'm definitely getting the ART40mm in L-mount when I can (mostly adapting, however, a couple of native lenses is always good.)
My girlfriend is not a photographer but she was able to see the difference with no error.
Sigmas lens is optimiced for near distance. If that works for your style ok.
People pay $4,000 to get perfect MTF chart performance, and corner-to-corner sharpness, then shoot it 90% of the time at f/1.4 where only a single eyelash is in focus. Bwahahaha.
ummm, yeah - well you don't get a 1.4 to shoot it 90% at f/5.6 do you? There are many 50 ish lens out there, I would think most people buying this one would be shooting normaly somewhere between 1.4 and 4. Otherwise there are plenty of cheaper, slower alternatives available...
Baruch Cohen in the video he stated it was sharp even at 1.4 so......
@@shepsbarbershop I think you missed my point- f/1.4 is a very shallow depth of field, correct? It will leave only a small portion of the photo in focus. At that point, does it make sense to worry about "soft edges" and corner sharpness? If they are blurry anyway from shallow DOF?
Yeah, new age photography Gear > Technique I guess. Do people take photographs anymore? Or just test their kit 🤔 gear matters to an extent... but exploring your creativity is sooooo much more important.
@@Clownconspirator Hell yeah Brutha. I agree.
A good start for the series, but actually the high price is determined by many more factors other than actual optical and build quality. First - the market for this lens is extremely small, they are expecting to sell this in very limited numbers, so price has to account for that. Second - Zeiss is marketed as a premium brand and this is segmented into the premium section of the already premium brand - that means the marketing department is estimating the price the customers of this segment will be *willing to pay*, as opposed to deriving from actual production costs. It's similar to the reason every coffee shop has several sizes of cups - so that customers that can afford to pay more - will have the option to pay more. That means if they calculate they can sell this lens for $2500 to make it financially viable, but the research shows the customers are willing to pay up to $4000 for such a premium product - they will market it at $4000.
Interesting to note though, in the automotive world, it takes far more engineering from design, to sourcing, production, assembly and 100 other factors, MORE to design a Toyota Corolla than a Rolls Royce Ghost or Porsche 918... So yes everything you said applies, in terms of volume, and average reliability for something at base bottom price top tier product vs highly branded limited production opulence.
Good to see your elightening analysis which is spot on, two major factors that determine price are brand positioning and psychology-willingness of the customer to and how much to pay based on brand perception, in some cases, cost of production comes as a last consideration.
Finally someone doing why it's expensive, I mean cameras and its accessories have always been expensive and I don't know why
well, considering the fact, that Zeiss anamorpic cine lenses can cost 10 times as much, yeah, that's relatively affordable in comparison
Exactly what I was expecting to see.
Great content, Zy. Thank you
Excellent narration and production quality from Malaysia! Well done!
I like the way you put things together bro... Funny and still truthful. Nicely done!
This would be really amazing for making archival pictures of artwork and other flat media. Slap a super high-res DSLR behind that and you'd do some serious damage.
this lens is mind blowing! i use mine on my RED Scarlet-W and i can upscale 5k to 8k because this lens is so ridiculously sharp
My most sold photograph is of an old lady in the rain taken at night, she is blurred, people love it was taken on a cheap film camera about 1958, an Halina 35X also one of a blurred saxophone player sells well.
Would love to see links to your pictures.
Congrats!
Sure, it's incredibly sharp, but without AF its uses are extremely limited.
You’re right-action and event photography began with the invention of autofocus
@@alvareo92 Yeah, but for $4000 for a manual focus lens? $4000!!!
This lens is for collectors/gear hogs, not photographers.
@@mikedixonphoto If you want/need the corner-to-corner sharpness, there are very few options you'll have. This is not primarily meant as a sports shooter's lens, obviously!
Really? Only if you cannot focus manually. You know, the technique used by many a photographer for over a century...
Well.. its really near my house.. never heard of lens library before, thanks for letting me know!
I don't know who you are but TH-cam suggestions brought me here, this is the first video i watched and i'm subbing!
It is a fair price considering the Master Primes are $25K each. I do wish it were all three for $4K.
It's all about perspective, as a doctor, I always get a good laugh when people complain how expensive camera gear is, the same company that makes your camera and lenses, Canon, Leica, Zeiss... so on, also makes medical equipment, and the price of those things makes these look like pocket change (talking about hundreds of thousands to millions), and on paper, for the price, the specs are horrible compared to your standard camera gear, but they're build for a different purpose
Quality may not be 44 times better than a nifty-fifty but damn it looks good!
Yeah not like having 40 of the $150 lenses will give us that picture. Whether that level is necessary is really up to the owners I guess. IF we are shooting for Vogue or National Geographic. Sure. For instagram, heck no. LOL
Thank you Cheng! Btw I think it's really amazing that it is a 12 MP camera and you still see an amazing difference (Canon 5D, right?) . Think what will be in a 50 or 100MP camera, printed on a huge paper
Wonder how this lens holds up to the Leica Apo-Summicron 50
Good job! I enjoyed this production.
When they say 3 years to design are they talking about 26,280 man hours?
or
They started in 2016, left in in a drawer for 2 years and then finished it in 2019? 🤔
That's a very, very valid question 🤔🤔🤔
Just seeing this comment about 12-hour work weeks in Europe 😆 ...in Germany at least, 40 hours are standard (35 at Bosch) and only due to Corona and the current economic situation are people forced to work a fraction of that. 😅
All went on a holiday driving a top-Benz adn billed that to the project.
It is laughable nonsens.
4000 $ to take picture of a wall and and a lens
he probably wasn't allowed to leave the lens library but should have brought a model with him
To take pictures of brick walls and then study how the lines are all straight and shit.
great fast vid with plenty of practical info
Great work. Very informative! Thank you!
I'd like to see IQ comparison between Otus 55mm f1.4 (EF mount) vs Sigma 56mm f1.4 (E-mount)
Kindly advise Lens Library that there is a market for their business in Brooklyn, NY. Hey, what are the elements in this or any lens that is more costly than gold. Fantastic, crisp job with this video ZY Productions, thanks.
Nicely done video
Really nice review. Thank you!
I was shocked when I found out the Otus series is not made by Zeiss itself but made by Cosina, located in Japan. But, I think 'made in somewhere' is not important in nowadays.
That's probably because japanese sand produces superior glass
Same thing with Hassie optics, Made in Japan, shipped to Germany, and placed in a camera, Made in Germany: Hasselblad.
it uses the correction equation discovered by hector chaparro-romo that solves chromatic and spherical aberration. but if you you try to see the analytic equation, getting a diamond cutting machine to cut that is the challenge
Compare it to the Super Sears 55mm 1.4..M42 mount....which is a tad radioactive but it costs less than 100.00 on the used market....and super sharp with awesome bokeh at 1.4
Jack McKechnie or the super takumar 50mm 1.4...
A lens library? Like, you can borrow these? Omg that's so cool... Wished I had this in France
Wait, did test the sharpness with iso 500 and jpeg?
How does it compare to the current summilux 50 M or SL?
im going to love this series!!! Great video!! Is it really worth 3x more than the canon one though?
Indeed.
Yes absolutely, is an outstanding lens
Try the Leica one.
On the close-up of the logo of the 1DX the Otus image looks three-dimensional. Great review! You got an extra 4 grand?
How this lens compare with voiglander ?
4:08 I don't think it's any safe to use whatever he is using to walk around in a place full of glass...
pin this 😂😂😂😂😂
How is it compared to summilux 50mm?
It is expensive not because it is either good or well made. It is because the cost of R&D, tooling and production have to be shared between a low number of units expected to be sold.
I sometimes do wonder how often you need perfect resolution zoomed in to the corners in a photo ... and also a Leica f2 costs half as much
keep it coming.. i like your vid
which is best nikon 85 mm1.4 or zeiss 85mm1.4
.
Just here to comment here that the pictures I take with my d5600 and the OTUS 28mm is great!
I was just thinking though, these lenses have a long focus throw, the nikon mount versions have an aperture ring and you can get gears for follow focus, and these lenses work perfectly on medium format without much vingetting at all, these are basically the most perfect and versatile lenses money can buy. If only canon and nikon allowed Zeiss to have an autofocus system it's versatility would be unparalleled.
Also, Hate to be that guy, But for my shooting type, i actually prefer the canon for the look I enjoy. Since I only print to sizes of about 17x25, I actually see superior images from the Canon 1.2 L still compared to the Otus 55. If you look carefully, yes the canon suffered from global resolution loss, but the canon has a wider tonal range, brighter whites and darker darks. it's very very hard to see when the canon is opened below f1.6 though, After 1.6 the canon clears up. Or if your like me, I use flash everywhere and in which case you can shoot at 1.2 without this problem.
You can get it now mint condition in sh market for around 1500€
A great video! I did subscribe.
I just want to know what’s the watch you wearing
Why its expensive from build term beside metal body. What are the 4 elements more expensive than gold. I see the vid lacking more info
Compare to NOCT Nikkor 58mm 1.4?
May be this lens is from Wakanda
nah it's from the moon
Just recently discovered your channel and love your videos. Looking forward to more
Series 2 please!!
because it fits well in my 13k luisvuitton backpack 🔝
Voigtlander has the same build quality and optics as the Zeiss since they are made by the same manufacturer in the same location in Japan. Voigtlander is a quarter of the price tho.
I would like to see this compared with the Sigma 55mm /1.4 lens...
1:52
you need another test to adjust your lenses in your glasses.
this isnt in focus at all.
WTF
Not sure if "metric ton" was a joke...
would it be cheaper if they added auto focus?
Why didn't you compare it with a RF 50mm 1.2?
The best lens to compare this lens to is the new Pentax 50mm HD FA f1.4, not the Canon f1.2. The Pentax lens is also a massive lens (almost 1kg), but it DOES have autofocus and comes in under $1,000.
Id buy it if it was auto focus. I think its a portrait lens mostly. Perhaps its ok for landscapes too.
You should do one on why the Sony GM 400mm f/2.8 costs 12,000 USD. :-)
You understand what professional sports lenses are? They are not mean for joe6pack
Is this Kai W?
Did i miss it or why does it lag the autofocus?
You should do a comparison with the Canon RF 50mm 1.2L. That lens is unforgivably sharp and “affordable”
Lenses from $300-3000 seem to be negligible in image quality. It’s only when they take it to these extremes that it’s worth it. I had a 1.2L. Yeah it was better than the 1.4, but not enough for such a huge price difference.
mkbhd be like "shup up and take my money"
Anybody who owns this lens is pure savage
how was it comparing to RF 50mm f/1.2
Yan Yu Leung Exactly cause I have the RF50 and this thing is razor sharp and I’m pretty sure the new RF is the new standard being that it’s new technology and Canon. The EF 50f1.2 been out for 15 years
So. Can u explain why dxo think, that sony 50 1.4 has around 40 mp res and otus around 35 only? Ofc canon 50 1.2 is under under under that resolution. So i cant understand why u comparing such blurry lens to zeiss.
And sony has af, wight, price.
dxo mark has already shown and proven to have discrepancies in their technique ( which they do not release nor discuss). Unfortunately speaking from personal experience, you can't find any reliable way to evaluate a lens true performance with any resource currently available online. Even The-Digital_Picure which shows "sample" images taken of a black lines test chart, has proven to be unreliable. My 50 1.2L looks like trash on it compared to my 70-200 2.8 L II, however, if taking a picture of something 3 dimensional and especially with color, the 50 L blows the 70-200 away and it is not even a subtle difference. resolution of a lens is a carefully thought out dance of engineering that is affected by many different lighting and subject situations.
Very impresive!
You should compare it with the new RF50mm f/1.2L, which is a much better competitor.
1:51 that looks like a 8k Minecraft texture.
Great video! Subbed👍 Now please, compare it to the Nikkor S 1.8/50 which is stellar even wide open
Great series and i am no where near Malaysia
Love this ep
This one is Baby of ARRI Lense.(in price of course).
But Still Hell Expensive as 55MM.🤑
Most still lens even the most modern ones will only get you sharpness at the center while moving away from the center to the edges it quickly loses resolution. A good lens is even sharpness across the field and most lens can only do that around f4-5.6. To do that wide open at f1.4 remains pretty unique and that is were the practical worth comes into it for the Otus. Some of the best and most expensive Zeiss cinema lenses has even sharpness across the field at wide open shallow depth of field, the Otus does that too so if you think of it in terms of cinema use then it is a bargain.
It is NOT even made in Germany.
"designed" ? lol.... like Apple products designed in Cupertino
jlwasmer this lens is made in Japan, not China. Quite a difference.
@@jlwasmer design yes ... Kind off... But not made apple products are straight up Chinese products
Can you do Leica next time?
Leica Noctilux 50 f/0.95 is $12,000. So Otus 55mm with the extra 5mm at the much slower speed is cheap.
subscribed because of Malaysia
Unless this lens is bulletproof, can take a heavy soaking and can be regularly updated it isn't worth the price. Do you know how much Kevlar i could get for the price of this lens?
Very nice video
lens library? does it means we can rent the lens?
Yes! They have a membership program that lets members take the lens home for a small insurance/maintenance fee.
Do people actually travel with a bag of lenses where one might cost $24k !?? Plus all the additional lenses that cost the typical $2k
How much it cost ?
Owner’s are very satisfied indeed
Thanks ZY Prod.
Nice review; thanks. Now I have a bad case of GAS. :-)