Are the Zeiss Otus primes TOO good?

JPNola

JPNola

Veteran
I found an excellent review of the Milvus line and in that review the author states the following:

"The 85mm Milvus carries almost the same optical design as the Otus 85, but minus one aspherical element. Again, this results in some secondary LoCA, lower apochromatic performance and slightly lower micro contrast at wide apertures, but an unexpected benefit. The drawing style is somewhat smoother than the very ‘crisp’ Otus 85 and the fully spherical design means very smooth bokeh without any texture in highlights – this is the one limitation of the Otus 85, and actually a reason to own one for portraits and other similar subject even if you have the Otus. I would say it reaches 95% of the Otus’ performance. "


https://blog.mingthein.com/2015/09/12/a-visit-to-zeiss-and-thoughts-on-the-milvus-line/

This suggests that for shooting interviews the Milvus is actually preferable to the Otus. And possibly also "better" than the Otus for shooting people in general if not generally better for video overall. Currently there is a counter-trend to the super-sharp glass. As you are likely aware Leica just came out with a "Thalia" line of cinema primes that are in part a response to the criticism of the Cron's and Lux's being overly sharp and absent character.


http://www.fdtimes.com/2017/03/28/leica-thalia/


"The look is artistic, smooth, not too sharp, with a gentle focus roll-off. I like to paint in what little free time I have when not designing lenses or working. The Thalia project was like painting, to create images that are beautiful. I received some inspiration from Umberto Eco’s History of Beauty and his discussions about the form and meaning of beauty in our culture.

“I’m not a fan of super, super sharp, and the Thalia lenses embody that philosophy. In some ways, an almost perfect lens can be easier to design than a lens with character. A perfect lens has a mathematical target. With the Thalias, we actually had to work a lot harder at the optical and mechanical design to achieve the combination of imaging functions that are inherent in these lenses. It’s a cinematic, beautiful image—the result of CAD design, adjustments, coatings, filtering, optical elements. I think the best description would be ‘iconic.’”

-Dr. Aurelian Dodoc, Co-Managing Director for Development and Production at CW Sonderoptic


This super-sharp and lacking character criticism is a reason that many portrait photographers have said they actually prefer the lowly and plasticky Sony 85mm GM to the Otus 85mm. It would follow then that for shooting interviews on video the Sony 85mm GM is going to be more flattering to your subjects than is the Otus 85mm and result in an image with more character.


So Ben Scott, if you are reading this, dare I ask if / suggest that your beloved Otus's are TOO sharp and technical? I have heard of DP's softening the Otus primes with filters and to me it seems a bit daft to spend $5k on a prime that you then soften to make look more like a $2k prime. I'm not shooting architectural still photography or technical still photography where I need high resolution and complete elimination of CA.

Is there a preferable middle ground between vintage and super-technical modern? And if so, what prime set constitutes that middle ground?
 
JPNola said:
I have heard of DP's softening the Otus primes with filters and to me it seems a bit daft to spend $5k on a prime that you then soften to make look more like a $2k prime.
Click to expand...

As you noted earlier in the post, "Currently there is a counter-trend to the super-sharp glass." That is indeed the current trend, which means at some point it will probably not be the case. Manual lenses are a long-haul investment. All of my lenses are modern, and yes I too use filtration to "knock them down", but sometimes I do need the clarity and shoot clean.

Trends end. Seen a lot of them come and go. Some take longer than others, but it happens eventually.
 
Last edited:
You can make a sharp, clean, contrasty lens soft and ***** if you want to, but it doesn't work the other way...

"We" finally have what we have been clamoring and wanting and begging for for decades- super high resolution, super clean cameras and sharp-as-a-tack, clean lenses with little to no distortion and now "everyone" wants it to look like the soft images of decades past.

Let the hipsters spend their money on old, beat-up, soft lenses no one wanted 20 years ago. And when the trend passes and falls out of fashion, they'll be stuck trying to off-load the same lenses that no one wants, AGAIN. History repeats itself. Just ask anyone who has lived longer than two decades. I never thought I'd see them again, but "mom jeans" are back. I'd rather see a hipster running around with a 75 gagillion dollar RED Raven Weapon Helium Oxygen Nitrogen Scarlet Oh My God It's White edition camera with a $12 Russian radioactive pos lens, than "mom jeans", AGAIN.

BTW: I've got two Betacams in my office closet. When are they gonna be in vogue and worth something, again?
 
Last edited:
JPNola said:
Is there a preferable middle ground between vintage and super-technical modern? And if so, what prime set constitutes that middle ground?
Click to expand...

JP, have you used the Canon CN-E primes? I still say they're underrated. Some people knock them and some of the gripes are legitimate: not enough focal lengths(maybe for the narrative guys) and the speed isn't the same through the whole set. But I think the biggest thing that keeps them from being more widely acccepted is that they are only available from Canon in EF mount. If you can live with the EF mount or want to spend some $$ and have Duclos retrofit them with PL mounts, then you can have a beautiful set of lenses. They are sharp, no doubt, but they make people and skin tones look great. Heck, I couldn't even use my own lenses earlier this year, because a friend rented my set for over four weeks for features for The Super Bowl and The Daytona 500.
 
Ming Thein made a strong stand a few years back where he claimed that any modern camera is better - and, by that, he meant tons better - than anything before and thus any self-respecting photog could go easily around with an inexpensive consumer camera and create gorgeous images. Which is what he did.

Then Hasselblad got in touch with him and he became a Hasselblad Ambassador. And now a lot more than that.

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/31/interview-ming-thein-new-chief-strategy-hasselblad/

As to Otus, it's a high end glass with the higher end characteristics and is designed, in the video realm, with 8K in mind (or its equivalent in stills 33 MPX and up).
 
Most discussion of sharp lenses is entirely illogical when we are shooting on cameras that resolve 2 or 3k and aquiring focus with a monitor of 1k resolution

Imo nearly any glass out resolves video mush.

Sharp lenses only expose moiree filters weaknesses by inducing moiree
 
Gimme perfect glass errday over these silly old lenses with no contrast and aberrations. I'd much rather have control over my images with filters, gags and grading.

Otus are great, they just need to offer them with a cine housing (ala CP.2s) so that I can use them for motion work.
 
Old argument. Back in the 1920's & 1930's some lenses were designed to have aberrations that produced a more "pictorial" image. Usually those lenses were designed to be sharp when stopped down.

On the other hand there were extremely sharp lenses in the past. Anyone here familiar with the Kinoptik Apochromats? Even back in the 1960's they were incredibly sharp. Never have seen a comparison of them to modern lenses though.
 
Guess I am the only one who wants to carry JP's supposition to camera resolution. Same argument, who the hell wants to photograph people in 8K? Guess I am just more a film guy and miss shooting 35mm but digital cameras and lenses, to me, are often too sharp for shooting people in the most flattering representation. Seems as if a lot of DPs I work with are breaking out their old school Tiffen Black Promists, Glimmer Glass and other diffusion and softening filtration and or doing it in post. Think about that for a moment, we are paying huge amounts more for technology that we are defeating at the source, it's a dumb proposition for most programming needs and even theatrical needs. I still stand my my opinion that the resolution wars should have ended a few years ago. Even 4K is NOT flattering to normal humans, although some genetic freaks with perfect skin and bone structure paired with a talented MUA can carry it off. I think we are all shooting in extremely high, ever increasing resolution because we are all suckers who will continue to support the camera and TV manufacturers in their continuing quest for planned obsolescence. The bottom line is that we are all brainwashed as far as ever increasing camera resolution.

As far as lenses, like many people, I tend to view lenses like we used to view film stocks, there are ISO 50 super tight grain stocks for ultimate clarity and resolution with little to no grain and there are ISO 1600 stocks for the grainy, impressionist look. How are shooting with new, state of the art lenses versus old technology lenses any different? Lots of directors and DPs like to shoot with older, higher flaring and lower contrast lenses. Not really much different than those who shoot anamorphic when their film/project will never be viewed in very wide screen, it's an effect that evokes an era. I don't even own cinema lenses but if I was to buy them, I would tend to buy the most modern, sharpest, state of the art coated lenses and then just rent older lenses with more distortions for projects as needed, not much different than the way most DPs are nowadays.
 
CharlesPapert said:
As you noted earlier in the post, "Currently there is a counter-trend to the super-sharp glass." That is indeed the current trend, which means at some point it will probably not be the case. Manual lenses are a long-haul investment. All of my lenses are modern, and yes I too use filtration to "knock them down", but sometimes I do need the clarity and shoot clean.

Trends end. Seen a lot of them come and go. Some take longer than others, but it happens eventually.
Click to expand...

Yup. This. I'll take super-sharp and aberration free any day of the week. I can always dirty it up when needed. But I can't clean up and sharpen up a crap lens no matter what. GIGO.
 
As previously stated in this thread, sharpness is greatly overrated for video, including 4k. I think it will matter more when we get in the realm of 5k++

The most important aspect of lenses to me is flare resistance (cant fix that in post), distortion (kind of fixable in post but not that much) and color fringing/CA.

There's also another factor that im certain will change a lot in the next 10 years - autofocus. While it is still not seen in high end video camera, it is becoming very very good. Lens with electronics will be very useful in the future
 
Bruce Watson said:
Yup. This. I'll take super-sharp and aberration free any day of the week. I can always dirty it up when needed. But I can't clean up and sharpen up a crap lens no matter what. GIGO.
Click to expand...


Maybe I should have asked if the Otus is too clinical. The Sigma Art 50mm has also been criticized by some as being too clinical and as a result lacking in character. Yes, you can take the bite out of the resolution with filtration, but you are still softening an image that inherently lacks character. You are just adding a "faux" character to the lens. The equivalent of using a blue-streak filter to produce a faux anamorphic flare.

An Otus with filtration doesn't produce the flaring and other qualities of "character" that you get with a Superspeed or a Cooke. It's still an Otus with filtration. An Otus with some of the bite taken out of it.
 
There is validity to saying that we are artificially shoehorning character onto a clean lens by adding filtration, but I'll take that logic further and suggest that we are also shoehorning character onto visuals by using old lenses. It's like using handheld to cover up mediocre writing, performance or directing. It's trendy, and everyone is doing it. Eventually it won't be a thing any more.

In 2012 we started the first season of Key & Peele with three Super Speeds on top of our zoom package, which we used for certain sketches where we wanted a shallow look (and yes, we faked anamorphic a few times with these and blue streak filters). I constantly battled erratic flaring which was downright vicious in a few instances. See the sketch below for an example of an ugly flare like a mis-shaped hexagon. Didn't like it then, don't like it now. I still stay away from Super Speeds. But who knows, that could become a prized look at some point.

https://vimeo.com/channels/keypeele/39112128
 
puredrifting said:
Guess I am the only one who wants to carry JP's supposition to camera resolution. Same argument, who the hell wants to photograph people in 8K? Guess I am just more a film guy and miss shooting 35mm but digital cameras and lenses, to me, are often too sharp for shooting people in the most flattering representation...
Click to expand...
But that was the same when the TV biz switched from SD to HD and lots of folks began to freak out over it. Then everyone got used to it. The HD-to-4K step is far more gradual in terms of the resolution aspect, as discussed many times before. And wide shots and nature/landscaping look fantastic in 8K (or so I will assert once I see an 8K sequence). The high end portrait photography has been in the 50 MPX range too. And you don't even need medium format for it anymore.

PS. Yesterday, I caught a Facebook cross-post of someone taking portraits on a 35 film camera. Whoptie freakin' do. It looked so soft, as if it was shot through a million gels and screens. Most new smartphones are better tools now and will be much, much better if that new Oppo periscope design takes off.
 
adaptation said:
As previously stated in this thread, sharpness is greatly overrated for video, including 4k. I think it will matter more when we get in the realm of 5k++
Click to expand...

If you are referring to my quote then it is worth maybe expanding a little.

-I absolutely like sharp image making tools that can be degraded on set or in post if that is the desired look, I consider most intentional use of 'crappy' tools to be conceited frippery.

-There is no value in having glass that out-resolves ones sensor as one cannot see any difference. Obviously buying glass that has enough resolution for your future sensor is wise. It is my opinion that most video acquisition, or certainly delivery, is at lower resolutions than that can be resolved by an old nikkor or FD lens somewhat making sharp glass irrelevant to the current acquisition and delivery tools.

-If the anti moire filter in a camera is incompetently designed or non existent then a sharp image hitting the sensor will cause moiree and artifacts. Use of softer glass or filters can bypass this effect and actually therefore deliver a 'better' image than a sharper lens.

-It is my personal belief/observation (on set not in a lab) that my FS7 with Canon Cine glass is much more prone to moiree and fringing than with my nikkors, a fine example of the above concept. I have also seen artifacting with CP2/F5 camera that was not present with my somewhat wooly 28/2 nikkor.


In summary I would therefore suggest that sharp glass with appropriate diffusion filtration, where appropriate to the sensor/AM filter is technically the best method of shooting. A similar effect may be gained with todays cameras by using cheaper softer glass.
 
JPNola said:
An Otus with filtration doesn't produce the flaring and other qualities of "character" that you get with a Superspeed or a Cooke. It's still an Otus with filtration. An Otus with some of the bite taken out of it.
Click to expand...

If by "character" you mean "flaws" (and lens flare is very definitely a design and coating flaw), then sure. You can use a more flawed design if you want. Not a problem for me. And you can call lens aberations "character" if you want. I get it, but I don't want it myself. I want better lenses, not worse. I'll take a sharper and better corrected lens with better coatings any day.

This debate has raged for many decades in large format photography. There are those who love their "vintage" Dagors, and those who love their new Schneider Super Symmars with their aspheric lens elements and razor sharp fully corrected design (I own two at different focal lengths; they are astoundingly good lenses).

And in audio, the exact same debate has been going on since (at least) the 1940s. They even use your own terminology of "character" when they talk about vintage Neumann U47s (what Sinatra used at Capitol records) vs. "clinical" for modern mics. They wax poetic about the old Neumann M50s as the pinacle of tube microphones, but conveniently forget that Decca replaced the tubes with FETs for their all of their fabled classical recordings in the 1960s.

I get the longing for nostalgia, a simpler time, all that. But what I don't get is the argument that lenses are "too good". I like the look of old movies. But I like the looks (and especially the sound) of new movies even more.

And if I really need "character" in my image, that is, this "character" actually will be used to support the telling of the story, I'm perfectly happy to create that in post. Yes, it will be different than if I'd used an older lens with more flaws, but in general if you're looking at the lens flaws while you're watching a movie, I have to question the abilities of the director and the script writers. But I realize that might just be me.
 
Casino Royale is the only film that comes to mind that has used te artifact of a non-round iris to artistic use. In this case the opening scene was shot on Cooke primes with their 7-blade iris specifically to create off out of focus highlights. It was meant to appear unsettling and odd, as the scene was the lead up to Bond's first assassination.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_Ha9Bh_lk...38/s1600/Casino_Royale_pre_title_sequence.gif

In general, the complaint of any lens appearing "too good" smacks to me of food being "too tasty."
 
Many good points made here.

I have enjoyed the sharpness of Zeiss Ultra Primes on certain studio portraiture work where hard lighting was going to be paired up with a sharpening effect in post. Also for certain more graphic product shots.

However, for drama, I find myself shooting more on Cooke Speed Panchros, Zeiss Super Speeds and the likes. Specially when shooting on the F65. I'm not a master Cinematographer by any means, but I know what I like. Perhaps I'm just caught in the trend, but I find digital sensors a bit sterile. This can be great at certain times, but for drama I am loving the vintage lenses and the fact that they introduce some more organic qualities back to the image. Specially on high resolution sensors.

I'm thinking of popular examples such as Arrival, The Neon Demon, Ex Machina come to mind as films that used vintage lenses. They looked great, but not necessarily "soft". I think thinking about vintage glass and filters as just as ways of softening the image is a bit limiting.
 
Last edited:
I would be very interested in someone doing a blind "taste test" clip that compared a series of lenses on a single setup, from modern/"boring" through to vintage "creamy", etc. Not so much interested whether viewers could identify the specific lens used, but how they felt about the results. Listing out qualities just like a wine tasting. And indicating their preferences. I strongly believe that there would be many surprises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top