Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Zeiss Otus vs Master Prime

Eric Z

Eric Z

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Israel
Hi guys,

This is an interesting topic to discuss, and I'll bet only very few of you had the chance to evaluate the MP and Otus side-by-side.
But I figured, if anyone has done this, it would probably be professionals here on RedUser (I'm looking at you, Phil).

So, without factoring-in the different housing, as MPs were designed for Cinema work, which is better?
I mean - if we look at sharpness (center / mid / corner), vignetting, chromatic abberations, etc...will the Otus lenses win this competition?

Another question that I have is: Do you guys think that Zeiss actually designed the new Otus glass from scratch, or did they simply rehouse the MPs into the Otus body (with a few tweaks here and there)?

I'm asking these questions, because no one has actually done this comparison, as far as I know. Sure, the MPs are very expensive, heavier and a bit larger due to the Cine housing and gearing.
However, they were designed a few years ago, and maybe Zeiss did not take into account 6K+ sensors when they made them.
The Otus line is said to resolve plenty of resolution, and I've seen results of both the 55mm and 85mm, but I hold the MPs as the kings of glass. Can the Otus line dethrone the MPs, regarding pure image-quality?
And yes, I know the MP line consists of 50mm, 65mm and 75mm lenses (in this particular range), so not exactly matching the focal lengths of the Otus line, but we can still compare them by re-positioning the camera/target.
 
Eric Z said:
Hi guys,

This is an interesting topic to discuss, and I'll bet only very few of you had the chance to evaluate the MP and Otus side-by-side.
But I figured, if anyone has done this, it would probably be professionals here on RedUser (I'm looking at you, Phil).

So, without factoring-in the different housing, as MPs were designed for Cinema work, which is better?
I mean - if we look at sharpness (center / mid / corner), vignetting, chromatic abberations, etc...will the Otus lenses win this competition?

Another question that I have is: Do you guys think that Zeiss actually designed the new Otus glass from scratch, or did they simply rehouse the MPs into the Otus body (with a few tweaks here and there)?

I'm asking these questions, because no one has actually done this comparison, as far as I know. Sure, the MPs are very expensive, heavier and a bit larger due to the Cine housing and gearing.
However, they were designed a few years ago, and maybe Zeiss did not take into account 6K+ sensors when they made them.
The Otus line is said to resolve plenty of resolution, and I've seen results of both the 55mm and 85mm, but I hold the MPs as the kings of glass. Can the Otus line dethrone the MPs, regarding pure image-quality?
And yes, I know the MP line consists of 50mm, 65mm and 75mm lenses (in this particular range), so not exactly matching the focal lengths of the Otus line, but we can still compare them by re-positioning the camera/target.
Click to expand...


Resolving power goes to the Master Primes and even the Ultra Primes. Lateral Chromatic Aberrations are pretty wrangled on the Otus line due to the more modern coatings and aspherical design. The Master Prime 50mm T1.3 wouldn't fair that well against the Otus 55mm f/1.4 as it's the odd duck in the bunch and exhibits a good amount of CA. A solid set of MPs or Ultras though don't exhibit much CA overall though.

The Otus line was designed to cover FF35 coverage where the MPs and UPs are designed for S35, though over designed handsomely and most do a nice job covering Dragon 6K FF and resolving decently across the field into the corners, though that's where the Otus primes could show their strength really.

I will say MPs and UPs are a bit dated these days and the newer coatings and aspherical designs manufacturers are exploring can overall out perform them. Otus is using an alarmingly similar coating to the Compact Zooms and a few of the more recent CP.2 primes (135mm and 15mm) from what I can tell.

What does the Otus line up outperform? Zeiss CP.2s and Canon CN-Es pretty well.

The Otus focus mechanism sort of shows you these were a bit "designed for motion". So they do rather well on pulls compared to other still lenses. One day when the time comes these well be shoved into a line of properly housed primes that will be very interesting. The curious question is what will that cost? And are we talking 2 or 3 years? I'm privy to a bit of information on the Otus line-up and future lens releases, but there's still a few large question marks ahead as it stretches a bit beyond what's currently planned. I'm guess they will land in the $7,000-$8,000 price range per lens with the more cinema minded housing and they will likely have a 95mm thread at that point.

One thing that Zeiss did though is design the Otus 55mm f/1.4 to essentially trounce their 50mm f/1.4, which is oddly not so lovely in a few ways.

I dig the Otus Primes a lot. They are the best still lenses Zeiss has ever made really and they more or less out perform everything else directly competing with them. They are designed to have a rather nice bokeh, clean plane separation, and extremely wrangled CA. Which makes them very desirable for a lot of shooters.

Oh and the MPs aren't the "king of glass" for me. The Leica Summilux-C Primes are currently the highest quality cinema primes on the market when it comes to technical prowess. Aspherical, bloody sharp, extremely minimal breathing, and very good coatings as well. But these are again designed for motion and a heck of a lot more money per lens.



















I have been thinking hard about grabbing the 55mm and 85mm myself.
 
Thanks for your (lengthy) input, Phil.
Very informative.

Do you, by any chance, have a side-by-side comparison for some of these aspects (Otus vs other line)?

EDIT:
BTW, I have seen this comparison posted by Matt Ryan (and you, Phil).
But now that we have the Otus line, I wonder how they would compare.
And yes, the Leica Summi C are killer as well.
 
Last edited:
By the way, Phil.

I've watched that Salt III WFO shootout at 4K, grabbing stills and comparing them, and I have a few observations:

1. For some reason, I kinda like the warmth that the Optica Elite introduces to the image.
I realize this is something that might not be desirable at the acquisition stage, and should be added in post, if desired, but it gives the image a "warm fuzzy" feeling.

2. Those Leica Summi-C are sharp as hell, and have contrast in spades. Bokeh is superb. And CA...what CA?
But! they seem to introduce a bit of a yellowy-green cast, especially evident on skin tones. It's very subtle, but it's there.
This is not flattering at all, and kind of makes faces seem flatter and bit less lively. I imagine this color-cast would be hard to get rid of in post.

3. Overall, I still think Zeiss Master-Primes are kings of glass. :thumbsup:
I'll leave my signature the same, for the time being.
 
Last edited:
So, if you start with the Otus 55mm and 85mm, what would you use with them to extend the set?
 
the MP are a bit faster. The Zeiss Otus transmission is a T1.7. If you step down the MP to 1.7 the sharpness increases ect; I don't think its apple to apples to compare both lenses wide open
 
Dan Kanes said:
I would go sigma 18-35 with the otus 55 and 85 for now, but of course focus pulling won't be as delightful.
Click to expand...
Interesting choice.

I'm not so sure about how good they match, but i agree, the 18-35 fills a big gap and you get away with it for not much money. It's a great lens on its own for sure.

There are some ZE/ZF/CP.2 lenses which are really great and would probably be a better match. The 15, 25 and 135 comes in mind, but we know there are more Otus-lenses coming and for me that makes it a bit difficult to invest in those.
 
Eric Z said:
By the way, Phil.

I've watched that Salt III WFO shootout at 4K, grabbing stills and comparing them, and I have a few observations:

1. For some reason, I kinda like the warmth that the Optica Elite introduces to the image.
I realize this is something that might not be desirable at the acquisition stage, and should be added in post, if desired, but it gives the image a "warm fuzzy" feeling.

2. Those Leica Summi-C are sharp as hell, and have contrast in spades. Bokeh is superb. And CA...what CA?
But! they seem to introduce a bit of a yellowy-green cast, especially evident on skin tones. It's very subtle, but it's there.
This is not flattering at all, and kind of makes faces seem flatter and bit less lively. I imagine this color-cast would be hard to get rid of in post.

3. Overall, I still think Zeiss Master-Primes are kings of glass. :thumbsup:
I'll leave my signature the same, for the time being.
Click to expand...


Disregard the color cast you are seeing in those tests. There's a litany of reasons why you are seeing it and most of it comes to down to ambient light of a different temperature and type of source. They used my lights, but I didn't drive that ship fully. Rather than the SALT III Test look at every single film shot on Leica Summilux-C Primes and you can clearly see they are color neutral. They have replaced the Master Primes for many of us when the budget allows.

I ended up buying the Schneider Cine-Xenar III Primes because of that particular test. I'm still rather smitten with the Illuminas as well.

Optica Elites are "all over the place". I would lean on Super Speeds or Illuminas first these days. Though there's a few shooters here on RU who use them and use them well.
 
I did side by sides of the MPs and Otus 55 and Sigma Art 35/50, and previously shot and did tests with the Summilux-c.

As a result, I bought a set of Master Primes.

Summilux-c have much less CA, but corner sharpness goes to the MPs in my tests.
The SX-c do not cover 6k FF, except the 100 and 75.
That pretty much killed it for me, I see one of the main advantaged of Dragon is to be able to re-frame in post
The SX-c have poor sealing, it is very easy to get dust in the lens, and it is a very pricey cleaning fee.
They are not something you really want to own personally, and if you rent them - check them very thoroughly for dust globs.
Not that it doesn't happen with MPs, but much rarer.
I also love the Master Macro and like the 135 and 150 which are not available in the summilux-c range, so maybe that biased me towards the MPs.

So I would agree with your signature Eric.

On the wide end, the SX-c has a 16, while the MPs go down to 12. The 12 is insanely expensive, pretty awesome low distortion, but does not cover 6k FF.
I prefer the Nikon 14-24 2.8 over both, rarely need to pull focus on landscapes, and the Nikon is sharp in the corners.
You could get the much more expensive rehoused Ruby version of the 14-24, but I don't really see the point.

There are obviously trade offs in lens design, with the MPs and the Summilux-c there is 0 breathing, while still lenses will have plenty, but are much more compact.
With still cameras like the D810/A7s I'm sure still lenses in the near future will over take cinema lenses in resolving power

Sigma 50 vs Otus 55, sharpness is very close, Otus has a little nicer bokeh I think.
I would go with the Sigma, much lighter and throw it on a still camera for portraits and the AF is good.
 
Thanks for your input, Chris.

By the way guys, Shane Hurlbut did a Leica Summi-C vs Cooke S4.
Here's the video on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/90168989
 
Thinking of getting the Otus 55 and 85 in to test for an upcoming film. I would need to figure out the wide end. I would need to test the Sigma 18-35 and perhaps some of the Zeiss ZF lenses. Anyone try to match the 18-35 to the Otus to see if they can cut together? I could probably get away with the 21mm ZF and these two OTUS lenses.
 
I am still amazed how rehousing companies have not jumped on the Otus yet - I think they would sell heaps if the price is right.
 
The 55mm Otus is quite amazing. You only need to stop it down to f/2.0 for near-perfect performance. Have a look at this comparison, which includes the Sigma Art 50 and the Leica Summilux ASPH:

http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?optio...tid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2&limitstart=4

Note that the Otus is clearly better than the Art. That's why it costs four times as much. Not only is it technically superior in every way to other 50mm photo lenses save for the Summicron APO, but it has lovely bokeh, too. The Leica loses out by a long way, though I suspect it will do a bit better with film. The Art is no doubt superior to any 50mm lens by Nikon or Canon at this point, and makes much more sense than Nikon's current 58/1.4 (which is what I call a 'placebo' lens - its prices makes its owner feel special about using it, despite its mediocre performance).

And as a bonus, look how well the Zeiss FE 55/1.8 performs. Better than the Sigma, more compact, about the same price and only about half a stop slower.

Zeiss could make f/2.0 versions which would be somewhat smaller and would arguably give better performance. Though a lot of people, particularly inexperienced filmmakers, have a terrible hang-up about anything slower than f/1.4. I could go on and on about that... but I won't.
 
Yep, the Otus 55 owned that test.
Thanks, Karim.

I'm looking forward for a UHD video we can download which compares the Master Primes, Leica Summilux C and Otus lenses...all in one test at various apertures.
 
Last edited:
Steve Sherrick said:
Thinking of getting the Otus 55 and 85 in to test for an upcoming film. I would need to figure out the wide end. I would need to test the Sigma 18-35 and perhaps some of the Zeiss ZF lenses. Anyone try to match the 18-35 to the Otus to see if they can cut together? I could probably get away with the 21mm ZF and these two OTUS lenses.
Click to expand...
From my experience OTUS and Art can be cut together nicely. Actually that combination you just described is currently my preferred kit to use on my Scarlet.
Keep in mind the 18-35 doesn't fully cover 6k-Dragon at the wide end.

The newer Zeiss Z* should match just fine.
 
Maik Müller said:
From my experience OTUS and Art can be cut together nicely. Actually that combination you just described is currently my preferred kit to use on my Scarlet.
Keep in mind the 18-35 doesn't fully cover 6k-Dragon at the wide end.

The newer Zeiss Z* should match just fine.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that info.

I'll be using it on R1, so won't have to worry about 6K for this. :-)
 
I guess a large difference between the Otus and the Master prime really is that the Master Prime are a fully realised family of lenses, with uniform sizes, weights (for the main part), focus and iris locations and stops - there's 12 - 150mm all T1.3, the Otus I have seen rated at T1.6/T1.7. It is still a stunning lens by all accounts but it is one lens, not a total range.

Also, how is breathing with the Otus?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top