Quote:You either didn't read the article or you are scoring on a different system.
According to the articles:
<p style="margin-left:40px;">"A high score means there is little variation between copies. If a lens has a variance number of over 7, all copies are pretty similar. If it has a number less than 4, there's a lot of difference between copies. Most lenses are somewhere in between."
<p style="margin-left:40px;">
<p style="margin-left:40px;">"Most of the 50mm lenses were above 6, which puts them in what we consider a good range of consistency. "
<p style="margin-left:40px;">
<p style="margin-left:40px;">"I think some people expected the Zeiss Otus, given its higher price, to have almost no sample variation. Given the complexity of its design, with more elements in more groups and including a difficult-to-manufacture double-sided aspheric element, it does quite well."
<p style="margin-left:40px;">
So according to LensRentals, the Otus (at 6.5) is in a good range of consistency and does quite well.
According to you, it's a particularly disappointing!
Nope. I confirm my statement: it is indeed disappointing given the price point and the marketing message conveyed by Zeiss. Their very site states "The best standard lens in the world". Slightly pretentious isn't it?
Now, by reading this, you would expect their QC to be unmatched, especially given the ridiculous price they charge for it. However, it's not quite the case. The last 3 lenses below are easily ahead of it while being much much cheaper:
- Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus => 6.5
- Nikon 58mm f/1.4 => 6.7
- Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro => 7.3
- Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art => 7.5
- Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM => 9.3
From a customer point of view, if I pay extra for "the best" quality, I'd also expect premium QC, better than any other lenses. Clearly, it's not the case here.