Matter of Taste (In Lenses)

I actually hefted the original Zeiss Otus 55mm at a trade show, when it was new. To me (please excuse me, if you own one), the thing was utterly absurd. It's a normal lens, but a bit too long at 55mm, and doesn't even have autofocus. But it's so overwhelmingly huge it made me laugh out loud when I held it in my hand.

Spare money
One of Mikey's little life lessons: I worked with a friend once who worked for the government, and he had an annual budget that was on that unfortunate "use it or lose it" scheme. At the end of every year he had to use up the remainder of his budget or his budget would be reduced the next. Without getting sidetracked on that (please), one year he bought an AIS Nikkor 135mm ƒ/2 with some of his leftover money. It was a huge lens and very heavy. He used it exactly once. The reason was that it was a brick—four inches long without the built-in hood extended, just shy of 30 ounces, and 72mm filter size, when most Nikkors, including the smaller 135mm, used 52mm filters. There never came a time when he wanted to lug the thing in his already-too-heavy bag. If he thought he might need a 135mm, he'd throw in the much smaller ƒ/2.8 version. Mike's camera-curious brain clicked a snapshot: people like fast and good, or at least they like the idea of fast and good, but they don't like to deal with heavy and big.

Glass! Glass! Glass! Currently for sale on eBay.

In 1988 I got to review a new Carl Zeiss Contax/Yashica zoom for Contax SLRs. The 28–85mm ƒ/3.3–4. Its 3x zoom range was generous at the time, as was its speed. But it struck me at the time as enormous. I couldn't wrap my head around any reason why somebody would want to cart it around, certainly not as an everyday, always-on-the-camera lens.

But nothing prepared me for the Otus in person. In 2013 it was getting a great sea-swell of street cred as the über-lens, the king of the hill, the boss of the yard, and everybody seemed to want one. And of course a big honkin' extended-range zoom from 25 years earlier would be larger, right? And a SotA-fast Nikkor 135mm telephoto that hefted like it was made of lead would be longer than any mere 55mm, obviously?

Think again, Poindexter!
No and no. The Otus is more or less five inches long without its hood, weighs as much as a cantaloupe, and whereas most fast 50's had six or seven elements, eight if you were picky, the Otus has 12. It's bigger than either of the old lenses I've just been discussing—the only parameter in which it is exceeded by them is that the old Contax zoom takes 82mm filters—the Otus uses filters the diameter of which are 5mm less.

All that for a normal?!? A simple normal prime? Ridiculous. Great photographs had been taken with 4-element Zeiss Tessars and Leica Elmars that were teeny tiny and wee (but not twee).

Although it's all a matter of taste, of course. Ansel Adams, when asked what kind of camera he used, would answer "the biggest one I can carry!" Although I would bet his Cooke Convertible was smaller than the Otus (and covered 8x10!). I've had friends who prefer big cameras, and of course I've known people who will put up with lugging stuff if the results are worth it to them. To each his or her own; YMMV; etc. I have strong personal tastes, but they're just personal, and I'm not judging.

Everything's relative
I'm bummed that CameraSize doesn't have the Otus 55mm in its library. I'd like to show it side-by-side with my idea of a perfectly nice normal lens in today's world: either of the 35mm lenses on Fujifilm APS-C. The Fujicron (ƒ/2), $400, is 1.81" long, takes 43mm filters, and weighs 6 ounces. The ƒ/1.4 (one of my faves, by the way), $600, is 2.16" long, takes a 52mm filter, and weighs 6.6 ounces. I compared them, and although I still think I see something special in the ƒ/1.4, in actual side-by side comparisons I couldn't really tell much of a difference at all. Both are close to ideal size on Fuji cameras.

The Otus 55mm is different sizes in different lensmounts, but for Nikon F mount it weighs 34.22 ounces, is 4.93 inches long, and requires 77mm filters. When I lifted it, honestly it felt better suited to be a dumbbell than a normal prime lens. That would be a $7,980 pair of dumbbells. One Otus is $3,990*.

For that matter, my current Sigma L-mount lens, $549, which covers full frame, is 1.82" long without the hood, weighs 7.58 ounces, and takes 55mm filters. Is it good, though? Very good. If I owned a Leica SL3 I would happily use that lens on it.

My normal lens for my old film Olympus OM-4T's was less than one inch long and weighed less than 5 ounces! And took 49mm filters.

Both Fujifilm lenses and my Sigma 45mm have AF, of course. (The old Zuiko didn't.) Lest you think I'm an AF snob, though, I normally have my Sigma set on manual focus. I didn't intend that, but Sigma's manual focusing setup is so nice I migrated that way once I experienced it. I use the AF occasionally.

Shelf queen...
However you bring this into focus, my own taste is clear: if I owned the Zeiss Otus 55mm, king of the hill or not, I would use it once and then leave it at home on the shelf from then on.

I know me.

Mike

*Then Roger C. at Lensrentals opined that the Sigma Art was even a little better, despite being a lot cheaper, kicking off a mass pivot by the herd.

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Andrew L: "The best Pentax K-mount 50mm lens ever is the same kind of beast."

Josh Hawkins:

"Your post today reminded me of a moment a few years back at a conference of photographers I was attending. I was having lunch with a friend who had a new Nikkor 50mm on their camera and I had an old Leica 50mm on mine. I know which one I preferred. And yes, the Leica lens fit under the Nikkor’s lens hood without touching the Nikkor’s front element."

Mike adds: The Z Nikkor is the 50mm ƒ/1.2 S. The Leica lens is a Dual-Range 50mm Summicron without the "eyes," which clip to the flat place on the top with the ball-bearing on it. As wonderful as this image is, yet another funny thing about it is that the little DR was actually quite a heavy little bugger for its day, built as solidly as a Tiger tank. You could use it as a paperweight. "Tanks" for the photo Josh!

Tony Gale: "As a Leica Guy™, size has always been on the forefront of my mind. Hell, I still prefer a diminutive Leica III over any of the Leica M series; I can comfortably slot a Leica III and a 50mm Elmar into a coat pocket and get just as good a photo in most situations as a comparatively large M3 and Summilux (or any of the late Nikon SLRs and that ridiculous beast of a lens). Despite this, I did recently cave and pick up an M240, and looked at some of the M lenses available now; that early desire for compactness has gone right out the window, it seems. I had a go with Voigtlander’s 35mm ƒ/1.2 in M mount and the finder blockage alone made me pass on it. It’s just too damn big!

"That said, weight, oddly, doesn’t faze me. I like my camera to weigh something; it’s reassuring and (to a point) helps with stability when hand-holding on slower speeds. One of my favourite lenses is a Canon LTM 135mm ƒ/3.5; considering it's just 10cm long and 5.3cm wide, the fact it comes in 580g makes me wonder if it’s made from pure lead…or plutonium."

Comments

[Rick Popham]

By all accounts, the new Otus is smaller, lighter and less expensive (I-was gonna say “cheaper”: it isn’t cheap). Back in the day I tried the Zeiss 135 f/2 on my D800. It wasn’t listed as an “Otus”, but it was impressive.

It will be interesting to see how these compare to the new OEM mirrorless lenses that have been getting rave reviews.

For me, these are fun to try for a weekend, but I wouldn’t buy one.

[Stan B.]

I laughed just looking at a picture of it!

[Steve Biro]

“…people like fast and good, or at least they like the idea of fast and good, but they don't like to deal with heavy and big when push comes to shove.”

And it’s not just big, heavy lenses. Most of the general population really doesn’t like to change lenses.

I have a niece who expressed interested in photography so I gifted her a Panasonic micro four-thirds camera and three lenses. You should have seen her using that camera - doing everything in her power to avoid swapping glass.

As with so many things, people like the idea of a concept much more than the reality.

[The initial idea for the early screw-on lenses was to customize a camera--you'd have one camera with a 55mm permanently mounted, one with a 35mm, etc. It was only later that the idea arose of using the same camera with different lenses and switching them during use. That's when the bayonet mount began to replace screwmount. --Mike]

[John Camp]

I'm awaiting delivery of the Fuji 27 f2.8 for my X-T5s. That's a 40mm equivalent, almost the perfect focal length. It's nine-tenths of an inch long and weighs three ounces. It'll make my camera look like a point and shoot. Good with me.

[Bill Tyler]

To be fair, the Ansel Adams comment related more to his chemically-based sensor size (4x5, 5x7, 8x10?) than a desire for heft for its own sake. He was also an enthusiastic Hasselblad user. One other point. It's a little unfair to compare SLR lenses to rangefinder lenses or, for that matter, to view camera lenses. Unlike rangefinder lenses, the rear of SLR lenses had to clear the moving mirror, which makes them inherently more complex

[Terence Morrissey]

Used versions of the Zeiss Otus are perfect for Nikon film cameras. I bought a Otus 55mm for my Nikon F3.

[Keith B.]

I presently possess a copy of the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo-Sonnar ZF.2. Once I acquired it, I sold off my Nikon 135/2. Compared to the Zeiss 135/2, the Nikon 135/2 is a dainty, easy-to-pack compact lens. I miss it, occasionally.

[Moose]

"... whereas most fast 50's had six or seven elements, eight if you were picky, the Otus has 12."

Essentially all of those lenses were designs based on the Double Gauss model. A gazillion variants have been made, adding to the original four elements as they got faster. Many of them are wonderful lenses, but they have an Achilles heel; bokeh.

Subject and background close to camera or both far, and things are usually OK. Subject close, background far, and it gets ugly:

Getting into bubble bokeh territory?

Olympus OM 50/1.8 (last version), Portra 160NC

At first, I ignored the recent-ish Oly f1.2 lenses. Then, I read about how the design goal was good (smooth) bokeh and smooth, gentle transition from in to out of focus. So I tried the 50mm eq, 25/1.2, and it does that. I then got the 45/1.2 and love that lens, too.

They are, of course, smaller and lighter than the FF ones you talk about. The do share the umpteen elements, many exotic designs. The 25/1.2 wins, with 19 elements, 3 HR, 2 ED, 1 E-HR, 1 HR, 1 Super-ED elements

Aaaannd, AF, EXIF and focus bracket/stacking.
Oh yeah, take really nice pix, too. \;~)>

100ish frame stacks, wide open, of deep subjects give a "look" not seen since old LFs, if then; deep focus, lots of detail without edginess and creamy backgrounds.

[John Krumm]

My largest standard lens was the 15 element Pentax HD* 1.4 50. I eventually sold it. The K1 body plus the lens added up to a very heavy experience. But it was sharp.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/hd-pentax-d-fa-50mm-f14-sdm-aw.html

[Frank Petronio]

FWIW that Nikon 135/2 AIS is a glorious lens that I found indistinguishable from my Zeiss Milvus 135 other than it was half the weight and size. Also had the Sigma 135 and the Nikon Z Plena 135/1.8... and the 40 year old Nikon was their equal (other than lacking auto-focus). Around $500 used and really not that heavy, far lighter than any 70-200/2.8 or comparable. It's a really nice portrait lens.

[Tom Stermitz]

I had the joy of carrying a Leica 3-lens package (24, 35 & 90) on an M6 & M9, before cashing them in for a Sony A7. Two things about the Sony could never match the Leica:
- Large lenses (auto-focus)
- Instant shutter (also auto-focus)

I lately came to the realization, that there are Leica M-to-E mount adapters; Thank you TTArtisan, and Cosina. I am now the owner of a Voightlander 35mm & 90mm for my street and landscape walkabouts.

I need to keep the heavy zoom 24-105mm for events, but the manual Voightlanders have given me back the Leica experience (to a great extent).

[David Aiken]

I have a Fujifilm X-Pro3 and the "Fujicron" f/2 23mm and 35mm lenses along with the "Fujilux" f/1.4 23mm and 33mm lenses. When it comes to handling I really prefer the much smaller f/2 lenses on the X-Pro3 but when it comes to image quality I have a slight preference for the f/1.4 lenses which are optically superior. If i go out to shoot street photography I'll nearly always take one of the f/2 lenses, for shorter walks and urban landscape sorts of shots I'll use one of the f/1.4s.

Size matters but so do other things so I swap between them according to what I'm doing but it's nice to have both and to have a choice. All lenses aren't equal but each has its virtues whether that be optical quality, size and weight, or price.

John Camp says he's awaiting delivery of a Fujifilm 27mm f/2.8. I've got one of them also and it's a really nice lens. It lives on my X-E4, a small lens on a small body, and it's perfect for that. I've also used it on my X-Pro3 quite happily but these days I tend to prefer the 23mm focal length on Fujifilm bodies to the 27 or 35 mm focal lengths. I'd really love to see Fujifilm issue an f/2 version of the 27mm lens but I suspect that they'd probably opt for an f/1.4 version if they were to release a larger sized 27mm lens. I'd probably order either if one were to be released, use it on the X-Pro3 and leave the f/2.8 pancake on the X-E4.

[HVJ]

Last summer I was randomly attacked on Kenmare in Manhattan. I used the K1 with HDFA50mm mentioned by Andrew L as defence, which blocked and by all accounts did enough damage to his hand that he gave up and moved on.

[Rick Neibel]

I for years regularly/almost-daily lugged around a Sigma ("Bigma") 50-500mm zoom, and this was an early one without IS. Overall, and especially zoomed-out, it was preposterously large, and not particularly fast. But for what I was doing (often hand-held), it was just too versatile to pass up, and with it I got some great photos that would have been lost had I had to take the time to switch lenses.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

“Shelf queen”. Love that term!
Yes, when I hear “Otus” I immediately think it might actually be a Latin name signifying large and heavy.

But this week, after long consternation, I finally got a medium-format digital lens that makes an Otus seem downright svelt, This honker is nearly 2,000g (4.3lbs). When in use it’s part of a camera rig that’s just over 9lb! After a day hefting it I feel like I’ve spent a morning on a weight machine. I justify this by the reasoning that it has sublime image quality, it “replaces” three primes, and I’ll almost never use it handheld. (Sounds lame, eh?). But that new Otus is about the same weight as this beast’s hood.

[Dan Khong]

The people who make the Otus obviously think that there are people who will buy the Otus. They don't really care if any of these people use it only once.

I wonder how many of them B&H has sold. You have a friend there who can share the information?

[Mike Plews]

Perhaps this is a good time to finally get the 50MM 1.4 Nikkor I bought on Okinawa in 1969 sent off to be a ai converted.

[Unless you think it's too soon. ;-) --Mike]

[Moose]

"[The initial idea for the early screw-on lenses was to customize a camera--you'd have one camera with a 55mm permanently mounted, one with a 35mm, etc."

Hey, I didn't know that bit of history!
I sure agree with that old idea. I've been living it for years.

I just hate changing lenses in the field. It's not just the awkwardness of juggling two lens and a body with only two hands in places with blowing dust, mud, etc. and no place to put anything down.

No, the larger problem is lost shots. By the time I change lenses, the subject has moved, the light changed, and so on.

Choose a lens, mount it at home to shoot the above Christmas Cactus, sure. Swapping lenses on the Carrizo Plain with blowing dust, in Scotland, with spitting rain, in Bhutan, before the Hornbill flies off (as it did, moments later), not so much.

Two minutes after a 32 mm shot.

I took 16 mm landscape shots between attempts to get great shots of these Blood Pheasants.

[Mani Sitaraman]

35mm cameras with interchangeable lenses have always struck me as a tad too heavy, with equally hefty lenses—even before the digital era. (The old Pentax M series was a praiseworthy exception.) Those of us with smaller hands never quite found them comfortable, and the trend seems to be that they’re getting even bigger and heavier.

I shot with a Leica M for almost two decades, using a silver Summicron like the one in your picture, Mike. Even that felt a bit heavy, though the lens itself was just the right size.

In the modern digital era, with ASA/ISO sensitivity levels that were unimaginable in the film days, why can’t lenses—prime or otherwise—be much more restricted in their maximum aperture? A shallow depth of field is nice, but how often does one actually need the extreme separation and slender in-focus zone provided by f/1.2, f/1.4, or even f/1.8? Standard primes limited to f/2.8 and zooms restricted to f/4 would be a welcome innovation. Lighter, less bulky lens casings would be, too—surely, the internal mechanics can be simplified and miniaturized?

[Christer]

It’s a good thing we are all different! My current everyday carry is a Panasonic S1 with a Sigma 35/1.2. I love a solid chunky camera and the output from this setup floors me every time I sit down to review images. And the lens is lighter than the Sigma 40 I used lug around at least.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I had that Nikkor AIS 135/2—and carried mine around and used it quite a bit. In my case the alternative was of zero delta weight (once I got an 80-200/2.8 zoom, which included 135/2.8), but I found that extra stop worth it sometimes. This was on film, so ISO didn't go much above 3200, and the grain was boulder size that high. And it was shooting musicians playing, mostly, which means they were in dimly-lit rooms and always moving, which means my shutter speeds were constrained there (blurred hands could be acceptable, even desirable, but blurred faces were less acceptable for me).

But...for these super-pricey super-lenses, I gotta say that I'm nowhere near convinced the optical benefits are worth the price (or the weight) for my uses. I'm much more willing to pay for fast apertures. (However, I don't want to take optical quality all the way down to the Zeiss 40mm f/0.33 Super-Q-Gigantar!)

[Hugh]

Two cameras (Canon RT), two lenses (EF 35/1.4L and EF 135/2.0L), one film (HP5), one developer (Perceptol), three years….. didn’t really miss other lenses. Then I added an 85/1.2L.

Still mainly using those three lenses 25 years later.

[Mark Sampson]

These ultra-lenses are really made to show what the manufacturers are capable of. Just like the 1000hp Bugatti Veyron is a showpiece for VW, rather than a transportation device.
It's great to be able to reach the theoretical limits- but those are far beyond the needs of most photographers, just as 200mph is far beyond the needs of any non-racing driver. Doesn't stop people from buying either though- and may they be happy with their expensive purchases.

BTW, the (1959) 50/2 Dual-Range Summicron is still my favorite normal lens, even though it lacks the contrast of a modern multi-coated optic. Some things don't have to be extreme to be right.

[David Lee]

I think size does matter. For me, the smallest the better. I got the second version of the Fujifilm 27mm lens when it came out and it’s been on my camera since then.