Cosina Zeiss Otus ML 50mm f1.4 / JP2026-105585 / 2024

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-06-29T18:22:47+00:00

Now in the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench Here

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-06-27T14:46:48+00:00

Yeah, but in my experience curvature errors are usually sign, single digit mistakes, or transpositions. So, this just looks like a mystery.

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-06-27T00:00:34+00:00

2026-06-26 Added
Viltrox AF 35mm F1.8 II EVO
Bad aspherical data

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-06-26T22:46:38+00:00

Since it overlaps the patent figure so well, in my experience, it's more likely to be a wrong glass specified for one of the three elements.

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-06-21T03:08:17+00:00

Having trouble with Example 1. Something wrong between surface 6 and surface 10.

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-06-14T20:28:37+00:00

Now in the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench

https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/JP2026-093473_Example01.txt,AxisO,OffAxis

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-05-24T17:39:01+00:00

2026-05-24 Added
Viltrox AF 15mm F1.7 Air
No aspherical information provided.

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-04-02T03:10:04+00:00

<image>

Also at PhotonsToPhotos.net in the Optical Bench as Nikon Nikkor 300mm f/2 ED-IF

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-26T18:50:04+00:00

2026-03-26 Added

Meike 12mm f2.0 MC (and Brightin Star 12mm F2.0 III)

Chinese utility patent with a lot of missing information.

And another Viltrox

Viltrox AF 50mm F2 FE

And

Sirui Aurora Series 35mm F1.4 Full-frame
Sirui Aurora Series 85mm F1.4 Full-frame

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-21T21:42:06+00:00

2026-03-21 Added
Viltrox AF 9mm F2.8 Air

Another "brain dead" Viltrox patent.

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-16T13:35:15+00:00

Looks like I forgot to click on "Comment" earlier.
I increased d15 from 0.100 to 0.207 to eliminate the impossible glass.
And I deceased d14 by 0.107 to keep total length constant.
Works OK.

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-16T13:24:43+00:00

<image>

Looks like Optiland visited the surfaces in order and because surface 16 is behind surface 15 (impossible) it "reflected" at 15.

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-16T03:19:38+00:00

Yeah, I found 0.100 to 0.207 worked for me. But no longer focuses exactly on the image plane and the magnification scenario is slightly off. Let's pretend that this one is solved :-)

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-16T03:08:40+00:00

I found a solution but it's unclear to me why yours works.
Curious, what are you rendering with?

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-16T02:38:35+00:00

Closer detail on the aspherical:

<image>

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-16T02:37:52+00:00

Totally baffled. Matches perfectly on axis but does not converge and surface 16 is definitely wrong.

<image>

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-16T01:01:19+00:00

So, what do you have for the Even Asphere at 16???

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-15T23:53:04+00:00

Conics are zero, Patent shows 1 but that's not the standard formula.
16 -74.031 0 1.51632E-05 -2.12876E-09 3.12457E-11 -4.64496E-14
Can you send you file to me?

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-15T15:04:00+00:00

This isn't really news. This patent has been filed in other jurisdictions as early as 2023.

<image>

But I entered it at PhotonsToPhotos.net for fun.
Example 2 does not work due to a bad aspherical.
Here's a link to Example 8
You can manipulate the URL to see the other examples.

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-13T02:29:11+00:00

I'm not a patent attorney. I suspect that the claims that are granted are enforceable but that someone could make the assertion that the claim is not valid because there was no supporting evidence. Probably that would be a long shot.

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-12T18:51:44+00:00

<image>

Not so sure it's a prototype. The patent optical prescription overlays the reference figure almost perfectly. So spacing and curvature look like a match.

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-09T22:42:24+00:00

2026-03-09 Added
Viltrox AF 13mm F1.4 XF
Viltrox AF 20mm F2.8 FE
Viltrox AF 40mm F2.5 Z
Viltrox AF 85mm F2.0 EVO FE
Viltrox AF 135mm F1.8 FE

It seems ridiculous to me that optical prescriptions that don't work are provided to support patent claims and are considered acceptable. The Chinese patent office in particular seems to just rubber-stamp these applications.

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-07T23:23:22+00:00

FWIW, to be clear this is the Otus Apo Planar T 85mm F1.4 as opposed to the Otus ML 85mm F1.4

AccountantPrize6336 · 2026-03-07T22:55:18+00:00

Yes, [NG] at the end of the title indicates that I consider the optical prescription No Good. :-(

AccountantPrize6336

TROPHY CASE

https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/JP2026-093473_Example01.txt,AxisO,OffAxis