This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2015Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
p.11 #1Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
check here.
http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/zeiss_milvus_50mm_f1_4_photos/Wow, Zeiss did definitely leave "color correction" to Otus-only. For example on this photo the curve on wall in background glows green no matter how small the image is resized, and when looking close (e.g. her right hand, underneath) there is very strong "defocus color fringing" (terminology from Toothwalker's post from last page), and strings in the instrument glow red when not in focus. When these things happen in boke, there is no way of correcting it in post processing. The f/5.6 samples looked much better.
Hopefully they come usable on larger aperture than ZE/ZF/CY 1.4/50. Having this large lens and still limited shooting f/2.8 doesn't get me interested, but if it's improved so that f/2.2 becomes usable it might become interesting.
Hopefully there will be samples, in which really usable apertures like f/2 and f/2.8 are used. I just don't see the any point shooting 99% lenses wide open, as the improvements closing down even one stop are usually gigantic.
SamuliI guess you are looking at it all wrong (at least according to Lloyd/ Digilloyd).
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150913_1450-SLOCA.html
Guess I will stick with the less corrected - and cheaper - lenses that avoid this issue myself as I do find this effect visually more troublesome than some of the other abberations that apparently mask the problem.
That's an interesting development and totally unexpected. So lenses that are better corrected may be visually less pleasing. It could be the reason why I didn't like the FE 55/1.8. I agree with you Tariq that I personally would prefer more classic designs that are a bit soft wide open but with pleasing rendering, that sharpen up considerably when stopped down. In this respect, the old planar 50/1.4 will become a classic, especially if it's discontinued.
Samuli Vahonen wrote
bushwacker wrote
it appears that Zeiss decided to remove the dreamy effect at 1.4 on 50/1.4 milvus. or maybe because there are no background details involved?check here.
http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/zeiss_milvus_50mm_f1_4_photos/
Hopefully they come usable on larger aperture than ZE/ZF/CY 1.4/50. Having this large lens and still limited shooting f/2.8 doesn't get me interested, but if it's improved so that f/2.2 becomes usable it might become interesting.
Hopefully there will be samples, in which really usable apertures like f/2 and f/2.8 are used. I just don't see the any point shooting 99% lenses wide open, as the improvements closing down even one stop are usually gigantic.
Samuli
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150913_1450-SLOCA.html
Guess I will stick with the less corrected - and cheaper - lenses that avoid this issue myself as I do find this effect visually more troublesome than some of the other abberations that apparently mask the problem.
That's an interesting development and totally unexpected. So lenses that are better corrected may be visually less pleasing. It could be the reason why I didn't like the FE 55/1.8. I agree with you Tariq that I personally would prefer more classic designs that are a bit soft wide open but with pleasing rendering, that sharpen up considerably when stopped down. In this respect, the old planar 50/1.4 will become a classic, especially if it's discontinued.
Sep 13, 2015 at 10:03 PM
p.11 #2Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
I personally would prefer more classic designs that are a bit soft wide open but with pleasing rendering, that sharpen up considerably when stopped down. In this respect, the old planar 50/1.4 will become a classic, especially if it's discontinued.
I'd prefer sharp centers falling off a little - no need for centrally soft images wide open.
I personally would prefer more classic designs that are a bit soft wide open but with pleasing rendering, that sharpen up considerably when stopped down. In this respect, the old planar 50/1.4 will become a classic, especially if it's discontinued.
I'd prefer sharp centers falling off a little - no need for centrally soft images wide open.
Sep 13, 2015 at 10:43 PM
p.11 #3Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I guess you are looking at it all wrong (at least according to Lloyd/ Digilloyd).
We have quite long discussion of this in email with Lloyd. For me the question is how much stopping down is needed to get rid off this = make it smaller so that it won't show up in final size of image - I don't care how it looks 1:1, but resized to 3840px wide (=for UHD-1 television) it can't show any on pixel level. Print is anyhow more forgiving than UHD-1 display (e.g. 60 inch TV).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Guess I will stick with the less corrected - and cheaper - lenses that avoid this issue myself as I do find this effect visually more troublesome than some of the other abberations that apparently mask the problem.
One thing which I find weird that I get this kind of issues solved using most other Zeiss normal lenses (CY1.7, CY1.4, G45, ZE/ZF1.4, ZM2.0, Loxia) by closing down to f/2.2-2.8 depending on lens and shooting distance. I don't assume that Milvus 1.4/50 would be usable for me @ f/1.4, but if it also needs to be closed down to f/2.8 I fail to see what is the point of carrying 3x weight and 3x volume(or more?). But more samples needed to understand the behaviour, if the Milvus performs @ f/2.0 as well as other Zeiss lenses @ f/2.8, I most likely will get Milvus as well - can't have too many normal lenses
edwardkaraa wrote:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150913_1450-SLOCA.html
Guess I will stick with the less corrected - and cheaper - lenses that avoid this issue myself as I do find this effect visually more troublesome than some of the other abberations that apparently mask the problem.That's an interesting development and totally unexpected. So lenses that are better corrected may be visually less pleasing. It could be the reason why I didn't like the FE 55/1.8. I agree with you Tariq that I personally would prefer more classic designs that are a bit soft wide open but with pleasing rendering, that sharpen up considerably when stopped down. In this respect, the old planar 50/1.4 will become a classic, especially if it's discontinued.
Yes, little unexpected from Zeiss. I agree about the ugly drawing style of FE 55 - if you look Diglloyd post of tree on edge of cliff the foreground boke is unbeliavably ugly, very very similar to FE55. Maybe preferences of world are changing due to small sensors of phones and people getting used to "all sharp, no boke" images, which differs very much from my own personal style, as if counting pixels majority of megapixels I use are on boke.
What is interesting that I can't see this "less pleasing rendering" in Otus lenses, they look sharp on focus plane and smooth on boke, without major errors in either one (@ f/1.4 they also have SLOCA). The Milvus 1.4/50 (or FE55) look reminds me of old macro lenses, which were overcorrected and had ugly boke due to that on scenarios where boke quantity is low (naturally in makro applications boke is good as ratio of distances between subject, backgroun and DOF are huge). Even very good makro lenses like Leica Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8 and Carl Zeiss Planar 2.8/60 C/Y, can have really really ugly boke sometimes.
http://diglloyd.com/:
Lenses that are not as well corrected will mask SLOCA via a veiling haze over the image, diluting the color.
SUBJECTIVE OPINION: The key rendering character of Zeiss lenses used to be that boke has less contrast than focus plane, which gives more "pop" to subject. So if I read this correctly the new and "better" Zeiss look will have more visible green/magenta edges (SLOCA) and higher contrast in boke. My translation for this is "less pleasing" as well... For "all sharp" landscape shooters things are improving, but for anyone else the rendering style is getting worse.
Luckily there are lots of legacy lenses and I can't see this look getting more common in film industry either (=thou lots more expensive, but there most likely are new traditional Zeiss rendering style options available also in future). Hopefully Loxia series is not going to this new look either.
Samuli
I guess you are looking at it all wrong (at least according to Lloyd/ Digilloyd).
We have quite long discussion of this in email with Lloyd. For me the question is how much stopping down is needed to get rid off this = make it smaller so that it won't show up in final size of image - I don't care how it looks 1:1, but resized to 3840px wide (=for UHD-1 television) it can't show any on pixel level. Print is anyhow more forgiving than UHD-1 display (e.g. 60 inch TV).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Guess I will stick with the less corrected - and cheaper - lenses that avoid this issue myself as I do find this effect visually more troublesome than some of the other abberations that apparently mask the problem.
One thing which I find weird that I get this kind of issues solved using most other Zeiss normal lenses (CY1.7, CY1.4, G45, ZE/ZF1.4, ZM2.0, Loxia) by closing down to f/2.2-2.8 depending on lens and shooting distance. I don't assume that Milvus 1.4/50 would be usable for me @ f/1.4, but if it also needs to be closed down to f/2.8 I fail to see what is the point of carrying 3x weight and 3x volume(or more?). But more samples needed to understand the behaviour, if the Milvus performs @ f/2.0 as well as other Zeiss lenses @ f/2.8, I most likely will get Milvus as well - can't have too many normal lenses
edwardkaraa wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote
I guess you are looking at it all wrong (at least according to Lloyd/ Digilloyd). http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150913_1450-SLOCA.html
Guess I will stick with the less corrected - and cheaper - lenses that avoid this issue myself as I do find this effect visually more troublesome than some of the other abberations that apparently mask the problem.
Yes, little unexpected from Zeiss. I agree about the ugly drawing style of FE 55 - if you look Diglloyd post of tree on edge of cliff the foreground boke is unbeliavably ugly, very very similar to FE55. Maybe preferences of world are changing due to small sensors of phones and people getting used to "all sharp, no boke" images, which differs very much from my own personal style, as if counting pixels majority of megapixels I use are on boke.
What is interesting that I can't see this "less pleasing rendering" in Otus lenses, they look sharp on focus plane and smooth on boke, without major errors in either one (@ f/1.4 they also have SLOCA). The Milvus 1.4/50 (or FE55) look reminds me of old macro lenses, which were overcorrected and had ugly boke due to that on scenarios where boke quantity is low (naturally in makro applications boke is good as ratio of distances between subject, backgroun and DOF are huge). Even very good makro lenses like Leica Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8 and Carl Zeiss Planar 2.8/60 C/Y, can have really really ugly boke sometimes.
http://diglloyd.com/:
Lenses that are not as well corrected will mask SLOCA via a veiling haze over the image, diluting the color.
SUBJECTIVE OPINION: The key rendering character of Zeiss lenses used to be that boke has less contrast than focus plane, which gives more "pop" to subject. So if I read this correctly the new and "better" Zeiss look will have more visible green/magenta edges (SLOCA) and higher contrast in boke. My translation for this is "less pleasing" as well... For "all sharp" landscape shooters things are improving, but for anyone else the rendering style is getting worse.
Luckily there are lots of legacy lenses and I can't see this look getting more common in film industry either (=thou lots more expensive, but there most likely are new traditional Zeiss rendering style options available also in future). Hopefully Loxia series is not going to this new look either.
Samuli
Sep 14, 2015 at 03:44 AM
p.11 #4Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
I don't think it makes great sense to compare Batis and Milvus, at least from Zeiss' point of view. Because Batis are designed with autofocus, they need to be lightweight, and not designed for super-sharp focus, which can only be achieved manually according to Zeiss. This leads to performance parameters being quite different for the two ranges of lenses.
If one pushes that logic (Zeiss' not mine) to its limit, then it means that anyone not seeing the difference between Batis images and Milvus images (and, even more, Otus images) should buy Batis and be happy, because he/she can achieve happiness at less than perfect focus, and commensurate performance in other lens parameters...
I am not sure I completely subscribe to that statement, but...
If one pushes that logic (Zeiss' not mine) to its limit, then it means that anyone not seeing the difference between Batis images and Milvus images (and, even more, Otus images) should buy Batis and be happy, because he/she can achieve happiness at less than perfect focus, and commensurate performance in other lens parameters...
I am not sure I completely subscribe to that statement, but...
Sep 14, 2015 at 04:09 AM
p.11 #5Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Phillipe, any more info on the 21mm Loxia? I see nothing on the Zeiss website while the Milvus MTF are already published. Same with the big stores (B$H for eg), Milvus listed but not the Loxia. A google search brings up nothing as well.
Regards
Regards
Sep 14, 2015 at 04:17 AM
p.11 #6Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Well, originally I had been told that the WA Loxia and Otus would be introduced at the same meeting, but they weren't. Release date is now end of the first half of October. That said, there were a couple of 21mm Loxia at the meeting in Oberkochen, but only under glass and from a distance... Pascal, who was there, thinks only Lloyd Chambers and Ming Thein got to play with them.
Sep 14, 2015 at 04:25 AM
p.11 #7Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
OK thanks. Do you recall how the size of the Loxia compares to the Distagon; Contax and/or ZF?
Sep 14, 2015 at 04:29 AM
p.11 #8Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
We have quite long discussion of this in email with Lloyd. For me the question is how much stopping down is needed to get rid off this = make it smaller so that it won't show up in final size of image - I don't care how it looks 1:1, but resized to 3840px wide (=for UHD-1 television) it can't show any on pixel level. Print is anyhow more forgiving than UHD-1 display (e.g. 60 inch TV).
One thing which I find weird that I get this kind of issues solved using most other Zeiss normal lenses (CY1.7, CY1.4, G45,...Show more →
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150913_1450-SLOCA.html
Guess I will stick with the less corrected - and cheaper - lenses that avoid this issue myself as I do find this effect visually more troublesome than some of the other abberations that apparently mask the problem.That's an interesting development and totally unexpected. So lenses that are better corrected may be visually less pleasing. It could be the reason why I didn't like the FE 55/1.8. I agree with you Tariq that I personally would prefer more classic designs that are a bit soft wide open but with pleasing rendering, that sharpen up considerably when stopped down. In this respect, the old planar 50/1.4 will become a classic, especially if it's discontinued.
Lenses that are not as well corrected will mask SLOCA via a veiling haze over the image, diluting the color.
If this more evident SLOCA rendering is indeed due to better correction (versus an attempt at creating a "reality distortion" field
) of one attribute at the extreme expense of another, than I see it as somewhat of a failure of the lens designer to better balance all of the optical characteristics.
Tariq Gibran wrote
I guess you are looking at it all wrong (at least according to Lloyd/ Digilloyd).Tariq Gibran wrote
Guess I will stick with the less corrected - and cheaper - lenses that avoid this issue myself as I do find this effect visually more troublesome than some of the other abberations that apparently mask the problem.edwardkaraa wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
I guess you are looking at it all wrong (at least according to Lloyd/ Digilloyd). http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150913_1450-SLOCA.html
Guess I will stick with the less corrected - and cheaper - lenses that avoid this issue myself as I do find this effect visually more troublesome than some of the other abberations that apparently mask the problem.
Earlier quote
http://diglloyd.com/:Lenses that are not as well corrected will mask SLOCA via a veiling haze over the image, diluting the color.
If this more evident SLOCA rendering is indeed due to better correction (versus an attempt at creating a "reality distortion" field
) of one attribute at the extreme expense of another, than I see it as somewhat of a failure of the lens designer to better balance all of the optical characteristics.Sep 14, 2015 at 05:55 AM
p.11 #9Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Samuli Vahonen wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
I guess you are looking at it all wrong (at least according to Lloyd/ Digilloyd).Tariq Gibran wrote
Guess I will stick with the less corrected - and cheaper - lenses that avoid this issue myself as I do find this effect visually more troublesome than some of the other abberations that apparently mask the problem.edwardkaraa wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
I guess you are looking at it all wrong (at least according to Lloyd/ Digilloyd). http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150913_1450-SLOCA.html
Guess I will stick with the less corrected - and cheaper - lenses that avoid this issue myself as I do find this effect visually more troublesome than some of the other abberations that apparently mask the problem.
What is interesting that I can't see this "less pleasing rendering" in Otus lenses, they look sharp on focus plane and smooth on boke, without major errors in either one (@ f/1.4 they also have SLOCA). The Milvus 1.4/50 (or FE55) look reminds me of old macro lenses, which were overcorrected and had ugly boke due to that on scenarios where boke quantity is low (naturally in makro applications boke is good as ratio of distances between subject, backgroun and DOF are huge). Even very good makro lenses like Leica Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8 and Carl Zeiss Planar 2.8/60 C/Y, can have really really ugly boke sometimes.
Earlier quote
http://diglloyd.com/:Lenses that are not as well corrected will mask SLOCA via a veiling haze over the image, diluting the color.
Luckily there are lots of legacy lenses and I can't see this look getting more common in film industry either (=thou lots more expensive, but there most likely are new traditional Zeiss rendering style options available also in future). Hopefully Loxia series is not going to this new look either.
Samuli
) of one attribute at the extreme expense of another, than I see it as somewhat of a failure of the lens designer to better balance all of the optical characteristics.Agreed again. I think there is too much emphasis these days on ultimate sharpness across the frame, at all costs.
Sep 14, 2015 at 06:38 AM
p.11 #10Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think there is too much emphasis these days on ultimate sharpness across the frame, at all costs.
I don't know about the degree. Many recent lens releases have focused on APO correction and boke. There is no standard for what good boke and pleasing aberrations are supposed to look like. Both the Zeiss, 35/1.4 Z* and Milvus 50/1.4 show SLOCA and have boke to die for in some examples. I would agree if we rephrase it to that there is too little emphasis on lenses with good APO correction and good boke that don't cost a fortune. But that is nothing new.
I think there is too much emphasis these days on ultimate sharpness across the frame, at all costs.
I don't know about the degree. Many recent lens releases have focused on APO correction and boke. There is no standard for what good boke and pleasing aberrations are supposed to look like. Both the Zeiss, 35/1.4 Z* and Milvus 50/1.4 show SLOCA and have boke to die for in some examples. I would agree if we rephrase it to that there is too little emphasis on lenses with good APO correction and good boke that don't cost a fortune. But that is nothing new.
Sep 14, 2015 at 06:57 AM
p.11 #11Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
alundeb wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote
I think there is too much emphasis these days on ultimate sharpness across the frame, at all costs.So basically if price does not allow for good apo correction with good bokeh, emphasis goes to high performance on the focusing plane. By the way many apo lenses don't have nice bokeh so it's not a given. Example M 90 AA.
Sep 14, 2015 at 07:02 AM
p.11 #12Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
I don't know about the degree. Many recent lens releases have focused on APO correction and boke. There is no standard for what good boke and pleasing aberrations are supposed to look like. Both the Zeiss, 35/1.4 Z* and Milvus 50/1.4 show SLOCA and have boke to die for in some examples. I would agree if we rephrase it to that there is too little emphasis on lenses with good APO correction and good boke that don't cost a fortune. But that is nothing new.So basically if price does not allow for good apo correction with good bokeh, emphasis goes to high performance on the focusing plane. By the way many apo lenses don't have nice bokeh so it's not a given. Example M 90 AA.
Yes, it is like they improve what aspect of performance they can, just because they can. Like new cameras are improving resolution because they can. The new BR (abnormal dispersion) material from Canon is interesting. It will be very intersting to see how the boke develops and what lenses they will put it in and at what cost.
alundeb wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
I think there is too much emphasis these days on ultimate sharpness across the frame, at all costs.Yes, it is like they improve what aspect of performance they can, just because they can. Like new cameras are improving resolution because they can. The new BR (abnormal dispersion) material from Canon is interesting. It will be very intersting to see how the boke develops and what lenses they will put it in and at what cost.
Sep 14, 2015 at 07:07 AM
p.11 #13Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
I don't think Lloyd's blog makes much sense in this case. Eliminating any one aberration without considering what it will do to other aberrations just doesn't make sense from a lens design standpoint. If I eliminate spherical aberrations, which is what he seems to be saying Zeiss was doing with this lens and get worse appearance of secondary longitudinal chromatic aberrations, then some might see that as progress. Spherical aberrations affect the centre of the image and are one of the few aberrations that do and if you prioritize wide open sharpness then you probably have to work on reducing them. On the other hand, others (and count me in that group) may see that as regress because both SA and SLoCA clear up when stopping down, and wide open I would rather have a bit more (not a lot but a bit more) SA, even if that reduces sharpness, especially if it leads to some masking of the SLoCA, and even more so if keeping the SA results in a bit better bokeh.
Interestingly, Lloyd talks about this as a general strategy for the Milvus line, but I think this strategy is mostly for the 50 f/1.4. It sure looks to me from the design and the MTFs that they may have made the opposite decision for the 85 f/1.4. It looks to me like they left some SA wide open and added a bunch of extra glass to control for colour (and presumably SLoCA). I expect that lens might not be quite as sharp wide open, but for it to have less of the colour fringing issues and to have nicer bokeh (at least for my tastes). That lens is too huge for me to really be interested in it, but it looks like it might be a lovely 85mm lens.
Interestingly, Lloyd talks about this as a general strategy for the Milvus line, but I think this strategy is mostly for the 50 f/1.4. It sure looks to me from the design and the MTFs that they may have made the opposite decision for the 85 f/1.4. It looks to me like they left some SA wide open and added a bunch of extra glass to control for colour (and presumably SLoCA). I expect that lens might not be quite as sharp wide open, but for it to have less of the colour fringing issues and to have nicer bokeh (at least for my tastes). That lens is too huge for me to really be interested in it, but it looks like it might be a lovely 85mm lens.
Sep 14, 2015 at 09:19 AM
p.11 #14Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Interesting thoughts Steve, but the design trade gets a bit more complicated if the Milvus 50 got both reduced SA and LoCA (purple haze) wide open at the trade of low correction for SLoCA. I never was a fan of the Planar 50 ZF wide open because of the purple haze, and the bokeh was a two edged sword too.
Sep 14, 2015 at 10:06 AM
p.11 #15Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
SLOCA is a term I first heard of. but it matches my experience with other latest well corrected lens I had: ZM distagon 35mm f1.4, and 55mm FE. both are very strong offender on this.
I am not a fan of latest Zeiss lens introduction. first ZM 35, then Batis 85 (25 is OK for landscape/cityscape use ) and now new Milvus (wait for more samples) and to some extent even OTUS...(even I love most of 55OTUS and it has its specialty)
Not surprised, Leica's new head of design hold the same design philosophy:
“the contrast has to fall off very fast in terms of depth of field. That’s it. That is the idea – and the ideal. The fall off has to be very fast! You point the lens and shoot, and where the focal plane is, the contrast should be high. The front and behind should fall off very fast.”
Quote from Overggard interview with Karbe, I always feel this property lead to Zeiss POP (25f2, 35f2, 50 and 100MP), but I am not a big fan of it and actually prefer planar 50/85 and Distogon 35f1.4 myself.
This latest trend lead me to recollect some R glass which I found the SA is very tasteful.(The new NIKON 58G is too much of it, it is totally out of control, I sold it.) and focus transition is smooth with no or little CA.
I believe with helping from latest more powerful computer aid design, found a technical well designed lens will not be hard. look at even Sigma, tamron...
From 35L II samples, this is the only lens come out of past 5 years make me want pay full retail to get it. It is a bargain.
I am not a fan of latest Zeiss lens introduction. first ZM 35, then Batis 85 (25 is OK for landscape/cityscape use ) and now new Milvus (wait for more samples) and to some extent even OTUS...(even I love most of 55OTUS and it has its specialty)
Not surprised, Leica's new head of design hold the same design philosophy:
“the contrast has to fall off very fast in terms of depth of field. That’s it. That is the idea – and the ideal. The fall off has to be very fast! You point the lens and shoot, and where the focal plane is, the contrast should be high. The front and behind should fall off very fast.”
Quote from Overggard interview with Karbe, I always feel this property lead to Zeiss POP (25f2, 35f2, 50 and 100MP), but I am not a big fan of it and actually prefer planar 50/85 and Distogon 35f1.4 myself.
This latest trend lead me to recollect some R glass which I found the SA is very tasteful.(The new NIKON 58G is too much of it, it is totally out of control, I sold it.) and focus transition is smooth with no or little CA.
I believe with helping from latest more powerful computer aid design, found a technical well designed lens will not be hard. look at even Sigma, tamron...
From 35L II samples, this is the only lens come out of past 5 years make me want pay full retail to get it. It is a bargain.
Sep 14, 2015 at 10:29 AM
p.11 #16Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
zhangyue wrote:
I believe with helping from latest more powerful computer aid design, found a technical well designed lens will not be hard. look at even Sigma, tamron...
It's interesting that Sigma in particular seems to be just as concerned with other lens attributes beyond sharpness at all cost. With the Art 50/1.4, they claim to have sacrificed a little ultimate sharpness in exchange for higher local/micro-contrast for instance. Looking at test results, they also appear to have allowed more CA vs Otus, yet due to the higher micro contrast, the results appear sharper with the Sigma than they measure.
"Something we were told by Sigma president Kazuto Yamaki cued us to take a closer look, though. In discussing lens-design tradeoffs with IR founder Dave Etchells, Mr. Yamaki said they chose to make a very small compromise on sharpness in order to deliver significantly better local contrast. And guess what? The 50mm f/1.4 Art indeed exhibits fantastic local contrast, and if there's any tradeoff in sharpness, it is indeed very slight. (Especially considering the higher resolution of the camera used with the Otus.) Overall, the Otus rendition is just muddier. Looking at the initial results in this test, Sigma seems to have made the right call: even if the lenses were the same price, we'd probably choose the Sigma for our own camera bag."
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/28/first-test-pics-of-sigma-50mm-f-1.4-put-it-on-par-with-zeiss-otus-55mm-f1.4
Their review which compares the lens to the Otus.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1677/cat/30
I believe with helping from latest more powerful computer aid design, found a technical well designed lens will not be hard. look at even Sigma, tamron...
It's interesting that Sigma in particular seems to be just as concerned with other lens attributes beyond sharpness at all cost. With the Art 50/1.4, they claim to have sacrificed a little ultimate sharpness in exchange for higher local/micro-contrast for instance. Looking at test results, they also appear to have allowed more CA vs Otus, yet due to the higher micro contrast, the results appear sharper with the Sigma than they measure.
"Something we were told by Sigma president Kazuto Yamaki cued us to take a closer look, though. In discussing lens-design tradeoffs with IR founder Dave Etchells, Mr. Yamaki said they chose to make a very small compromise on sharpness in order to deliver significantly better local contrast. And guess what? The 50mm f/1.4 Art indeed exhibits fantastic local contrast, and if there's any tradeoff in sharpness, it is indeed very slight. (Especially considering the higher resolution of the camera used with the Otus.) Overall, the Otus rendition is just muddier. Looking at the initial results in this test, Sigma seems to have made the right call: even if the lenses were the same price, we'd probably choose the Sigma for our own camera bag."
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/28/first-test-pics-of-sigma-50mm-f-1.4-put-it-on-par-with-zeiss-otus-55mm-f1.4
Their review which compares the lens to the Otus.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1677/cat/30
Sep 14, 2015 at 10:59 AM
p.11 #17Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
zhangyue wrote
I believe with helping from latest more powerful computer aid design, found a technical well designed lens will not be hard. look at even Sigma, tamron..."Something we were told by Sigma president Kazuto Yamaki cued us to take a closer look, though. In discussing lens-design tradeoffs with IR founder Dave Etchells, Mr. Yamaki...Show more →
Interestingly that used to be exactly Zeiss philosophy in lens design, sacrificing a bit of resolution in favor of high local contrast. Times have changed.
Sep 14, 2015 at 11:08 AM
p.11 #18Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
It's interesting that Sigma in particular seems to be just as concerned with other lens attributes beyond sharpness at all cost. With the Art 50/1.4, they claim to have sacrificed a little ultimate sharpness in exchange for higher local/micro-contrast for instance. Looking at test results, they also appear to have allowed more CA vs Otus, yet due to the higher micro contrast, the results appear sharper with the Sigma than they measure.
"Something we were told by Sigma president Kazuto Yamaki cued us to take a closer look, though. In discussing lens-design tradeoffs with IR founder Dave Etchells, Mr. Yamaki said they chose to make a very small compromise on sharpness in order to deliver significantly better local contrast. And guess what? The 50mm f/1.4 Art indeed exhibits fantastic local contrast, and if there's any tradeoff in sharpness, it is indeed very slight. (Especially considering the higher resolution of the camera used with the Otus.) Overall, the Otus rendition is just muddier. Looking at the initial results in this test, Sigma seems to have made the right call: even if the lenses were the same price, we'd probably choose the Sigma for our own camera bag."
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/28/first-test-pics-of-sigma-50mm-f-1.4-put-it-on-par-with-zeiss-otus-55mm-f1.4
Their review which compares the lens to the Otus.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1677/cat/30Interestingly that used to be exactly Zeiss philosophy in lens design, sacrificing a bit of resolution in favor of high local contrast. Times have changed.
And now that Zeiss provides higher local contrast in the Milvus than the Planar 50, they get mocked for exactly that.
Tariq Gibran wrote
zhangyue wrote
I believe with helping from latest more powerful computer aid design, found a technical well designed lens will not be hard. look at even Sigma, tamron..."Something we were told by Sigma president Kazuto Yamaki cued us to take a closer look, though. In discussing lens-design tradeoffs with IR founder Dave Etchells, Mr. Yamaki said they chose to make a very small compromise on sharpness in order to deliver significantly better local contrast. And guess what? The 50mm f/1.4 Art indeed exhibits fantastic local contrast, and if there's any tradeoff in sharpness, it is indeed very slight. (Especially considering the higher resolution of the camera used with the Otus.) Overall, the Otus rendition is just muddier. Looking at the initial results in this test, Sigma seems to have made the right call: even if the lenses were the same price, we'd probably choose the Sigma for our own camera bag."
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/28/first-test-pics-of-sigma-50mm-f-1.4-put-it-on-par-with-zeiss-otus-55mm-f1.4
Their review which compares the lens to the Otus.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1677/cat/30
And now that Zeiss provides higher local contrast in the Milvus than the Planar 50, they get mocked for exactly that.
Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 AM
p.11 #19Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
alundeb wrote:
It's interesting that Sigma in particular seems to be just as concerned with other lens attributes beyond sharpness at all cost. With the Art 50/1.4, they claim to have sacrificed a little ultimate sharpness in exchange for higher local/micro-contrast for instance. Looking at test results, they also appear to have allowed more CA vs Otus, yet due to the higher micro contrast, the results appear sharper with the Sigma than they measure.
"Something we were told by Sigma president Kazuto Yamaki cued us to take a closer look, though. In discussing lens-design tradeoffs with IR founder Dave Etchells, Mr. Yamaki said they chose to make a very small compromise on sharpness in order to deliver significantly better local contrast. And guess what? The 50mm f/1.4 Art indeed exhibits fantastic local contrast, and if there's any tradeoff in sharpness, it is indeed very slight. (Especially considering the higher resolution of the camera used with the Otus.) Overall, the Otus rendition is just muddier. Looking at the initial results in this test, Sigma seems to have made the right call: even if the lenses were the same price, we'd probably choose the Sigma for our own camera bag."
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/28/first-test-pics-of-sigma-50mm-f-1.4-put-it-on-par-with-zeiss-otus-55mm-f1.4
Their review which compares the lens to the Otus.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1677/cat/30Interestingly that used to be exactly Zeiss philosophy in lens design, sacrificing a bit of resolution in favor of high local contrast. Times have changed.And now that Zeiss provides higher local contrast in the Milvus than the Planar 50, they get mocked for exactly that.
planar 50 is a special case, at WO, it is simply too soft. Planar 85 is fine as is. It would be interesting to see comparison between the new and old 85.
I won't want draw any conclusion yet since there are no enough samples for new 50/85. The huge size/weight is the biggest complain so far.
Edited on Sep 14, 2015 at 12:47 PM · View previous versions
edwardkaraa wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
zhangyue wrote
I believe with helping from latest more powerful computer aid design, found a technical well designed lens will not be hard. look at even Sigma, tamron..."Something we were told by Sigma president Kazuto Yamaki cued us to take a closer look, though. In discussing lens-design tradeoffs with IR founder Dave Etchells, Mr. Yamaki said they chose to make a very small compromise on sharpness in order to deliver significantly better local contrast. And guess what? The 50mm f/1.4 Art indeed exhibits fantastic local contrast, and if there's any tradeoff in sharpness, it is indeed very slight. (Especially considering the higher resolution of the camera used with the Otus.) Overall, the Otus rendition is just muddier. Looking at the initial results in this test, Sigma seems to have made the right call: even if the lenses were the same price, we'd probably choose the Sigma for our own camera bag."
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/28/first-test-pics-of-sigma-50mm-f-1.4-put-it-on-par-with-zeiss-otus-55mm-f1.4
Their review which compares the lens to the Otus.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1677/cat/30
planar 50 is a special case, at WO, it is simply too soft. Planar 85 is fine as is. It would be interesting to see comparison between the new and old 85.
I won't want draw any conclusion yet since there are no enough samples for new 50/85. The huge size/weight is the biggest complain so far.
Edited on Sep 14, 2015 at 12:47 PM · View previous versions
Sep 14, 2015 at 11:55 AM
p.11 #20Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It's interesting that Sigma in particular seems to be just as concerned with other lens attributes beyond sharpness at all cost. With the Art 50/1.4, they claim to have sacrificed a little ultimate sharpness in exchange for higher local/micro-contrast for instance. Looking at test results, they also appear to have allowed more CA vs Otus, yet due to the higher micro contrast, the results appear sharper with the Sigma than they measure.
"Something we were told by Sigma president Kazuto Yamaki cued us to take a closer look, though. In discussing lens-design tradeoffs with IR founder Dave Etchells, Mr. Yamaki...Show more →
They do have Zeiss look for both Sigma, I like that Sigma 35 actually, especially considering its price.
Look, that is exact my issue about new Zeiss for the market (I am a niche user fine with MF with better build) bigger, heavier, more expensive and no AF...
Video use ?
Edited on Sep 14, 2015 at 12:47 PM · View previous versions
zhangyue wrote
I believe with helping from latest more powerful computer aid design, found a technical well designed lens will not be hard. look at even Sigma, tamron..."Something we were told by Sigma president Kazuto Yamaki cued us to take a closer look, though. In discussing lens-design tradeoffs with IR founder Dave Etchells, Mr. Yamaki...Show more →
They do have Zeiss look for both Sigma, I like that Sigma 35 actually, especially considering its price.
Look, that is exact my issue about new Zeiss for the market (I am a niche user fine with MF with better build) bigger, heavier, more expensive and no AF...
Video use ?
Edited on Sep 14, 2015 at 12:47 PM · View previous versions
Sep 14, 2015 at 12:00 PM