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.12 #1Zeiss 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 →
I'm confused then, how can they sacrifice sharpness to improve micro-contrast? In the lab, micro-contrast is the 30/40 lpmm that would represent lens sharpness. They probably mean global or across the frame performance.
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 →
I'm confused then, how can they sacrifice sharpness to improve micro-contrast? In the lab, micro-contrast is the 30/40 lpmm that would represent lens sharpness. They probably mean global or across the frame performance.
Sep 14, 2015 at 12:35 PM
p.12 #2Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
alundeb wrote:
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
I am not mocking Zeiss. In fact if you count the number of members here that I personally take the credit of converting to Zeiss, you'd be surprised
However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.Sep 14, 2015 at 12:35 PM
p.12 #3Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
zhangyue 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 two.
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.
Yeah the 50/1.4 wasn't a good lens wide open, at all. The 85/1.4 was just on the cusp and thus usable for my needs.
Both had a good drawing style. I don't know if I'd like to have the DS of the 85 sacrificed for higher sharpness, but some CA corrections would be welcome and I don't mind the larger size if the DS was retained. The 50, I'd sacrifice the DS for sharpness, as long as it didn't loose all of its charm and become a 50ART
alundeb wrote
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
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.
Yeah the 50/1.4 wasn't a good lens wide open, at all. The 85/1.4 was just on the cusp and thus usable for my needs.
Both had a good drawing style. I don't know if I'd like to have the DS of the 85 sacrificed for higher sharpness, but some CA corrections would be welcome and I don't mind the larger size if the DS was retained. The 50, I'd sacrifice the DS for sharpness, as long as it didn't loose all of its charm and become a 50ART
Sep 14, 2015 at 12:40 PM
p.12 #4Zeiss 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. I am not mocking Zeiss. In fact if you count the number of members here that I personally take the credit of converting to Zeiss, you'd be surprised However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.
AMEN!
alundeb wrote
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
However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.AMEN!
Sep 14, 2015 at 12:41 PM
p.12 #5Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
hiepphotog 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
I think they sacrificed high resolution in favor of micro contrast. The high micro contrast gives the impression of higher sharpness. So basically they sacrificed a bit of resolution for higher acutance.
In fact, that sounds like the old Leica vs Zeiss debate of the 70s and 80s where Leica was known to prefer high resolution but lower contrast while Zeiss did the opposite, as they considered sharpness, or the illusion of, was more important than sheer resolution for typical enlargements.
Edited on Sep 14, 2015 at 12:48 PM · View previous versions
Sep 14, 2015 at 12:41 PM
p.12 #6Zeiss 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. I am not mocking Zeiss. In fact if you count the number of members here that I personally take the credit of converting to Zeiss, you'd be surprised However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.
That's what I comment, the direction. The direction Zeiss is taking can easily be proven to be in direction of one of the classical Zeiss lenses.
I don't think there is one signature Zeiss look. Take three famous classical lenses, the Distagon 21, Planar 50 and Makro-Planar 100. Very very different look. And Zeiss have traditionally had many lenses with superb sharpness and resolution across the frame, but with SLoCA, like the MP 100.
And anobody who thinks that the Planar 50 1.4 ZF.2 doesn't have massive SLoCA both wide open and stopped down to f/2.8 is in wild confusion.
alundeb wrote
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
However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.That's what I comment, the direction. The direction Zeiss is taking can easily be proven to be in direction of one of the classical Zeiss lenses.
I don't think there is one signature Zeiss look. Take three famous classical lenses, the Distagon 21, Planar 50 and Makro-Planar 100. Very very different look. And Zeiss have traditionally had many lenses with superb sharpness and resolution across the frame, but with SLoCA, like the MP 100.
And anobody who thinks that the Planar 50 1.4 ZF.2 doesn't have massive SLoCA both wide open and stopped down to f/2.8 is in wild confusion.
Sep 14, 2015 at 12:46 PM
p.12 #7Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
alundeb wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote
alundeb wrote
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
However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.I don't think there is one signature Zeiss look. Take three famous classical lenses, the Distagon 21, Planar 50 and Makro-Planar 100. Very very different look. And Zeiss have traditionally had many lenses with superb sharpness and resolution across the frame, but with SLoCA, like the MP 100.
And anobody who thinks that the Planar 50 1.4 ZF.2 doesn't have massive SLoCA both wide open and stopped down to f/2.8 is in wild confusion.
But these are not classic Zeiss lenses
Zeiss had already started to stray away with this line. Classic Zeiss look can be found in Contax and Hasselblad glass.
Sep 14, 2015 at 12:51 PM
p.12 #8Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
adamdewilde 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 two.
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.Yeah the 50/1.4 wasn't a good lens wide open, at all. The 85/1.4 was just on the cusp and thus usable for my needs.
Both had a good drawing style. I don't know if I'd like to have the DS of the 85 sacrificed for higher sharpness, but some CA corrections would be welcome and I don't mind the larger size if the DS was retained. The 50, I'd sacrifice the DS for sharpness, as long as it didn't loose all of its charm and become a 50ART
Variation in drawing style would be hard to quantify, whether it's good or bad. The Milvus 85 was designed without any ASPH lens to undercorrect SA a bit to get smooth bokeh and a bit of glow at the focus point (or so Zeiss/Lloyd said). However, its design already deviates greatly from the original one that to retain the exact same drawing style would be impossible. Nonetheless, real-world shooting would show. I don't really put a lot of stock in what the designer said. Prime example is the Leica 50 APO. Karbe said he really focuses on excellent bokeh (sharp drop-off between in-focus and oof to get more blur) for that lens, but comparing it to the Otus, it's no where near as smooth.
zhangyue wrote
alundeb wrote
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
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.
Both had a good drawing style. I don't know if I'd like to have the DS of the 85 sacrificed for higher sharpness, but some CA corrections would be welcome and I don't mind the larger size if the DS was retained. The 50, I'd sacrifice the DS for sharpness, as long as it didn't loose all of its charm and become a 50ART
Variation in drawing style would be hard to quantify, whether it's good or bad. The Milvus 85 was designed without any ASPH lens to undercorrect SA a bit to get smooth bokeh and a bit of glow at the focus point (or so Zeiss/Lloyd said). However, its design already deviates greatly from the original one that to retain the exact same drawing style would be impossible. Nonetheless, real-world shooting would show. I don't really put a lot of stock in what the designer said. Prime example is the Leica 50 APO. Karbe said he really focuses on excellent bokeh (sharp drop-off between in-focus and oof to get more blur) for that lens, but comparing it to the Otus, it's no where near as smooth.
Sep 14, 2015 at 12:51 PM
p.12 #9Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
"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. I am not mocking Zeiss. In fact if you count the number of members here that I personally take the credit of converting to Zeiss, you'd be surprised However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.That's what I comment, the direction. The direction Zeiss is taking can easily be proven to be in direction of one of the classical Zeiss lenses.
I don't think there is one signature Zeiss look. Take three famous classical lenses, the Distagon 21, Planar 50 and Makro-Planar 100. Very very different look. And Zeiss have traditionally had many lenses with superb sharpness and resolution across the frame, but with SLoCA, like the MP 100.
And anobody who thinks that the Planar 50 1.4 ZF.2 doesn't have massive SLoCA both wide open and stopped down to f/2.8 is in wild confusion.But these are not classic Zeiss lenses
Zeiss had already started to stray away with this line. Classic Zeiss look can be found in Contax and Hasselblad glass.
Have not shot any Hasselblad, but I can definitely tell there is a shift between the Contax Zeiss and modern Zeiss. I prefer the older drawing style. But this thing doesn't just happen with Zeiss. To many, Karbe ruins the Leica look as well.
alundeb wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
alundeb wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
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 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
However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.I don't think there is one signature Zeiss look. Take three famous classical lenses, the Distagon 21, Planar 50 and Makro-Planar 100. Very very different look. And Zeiss have traditionally had many lenses with superb sharpness and resolution across the frame, but with SLoCA, like the MP 100.
And anobody who thinks that the Planar 50 1.4 ZF.2 doesn't have massive SLoCA both wide open and stopped down to f/2.8 is in wild confusion.
Zeiss had already started to stray away with this line. Classic Zeiss look can be found in Contax and Hasselblad glass.
Have not shot any Hasselblad, but I can definitely tell there is a shift between the Contax Zeiss and modern Zeiss. I prefer the older drawing style. But this thing doesn't just happen with Zeiss. To many, Karbe ruins the Leica look as well
.Sep 14, 2015 at 12:55 PM
p.12 #10Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
hiepphotog wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote
alundeb wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
alundeb wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
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. However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.I don't think there is one signature Zeiss look. Take three famous classical lenses, the Distagon 21, Planar 50 and Makro-Planar 100. Very very different look. And Zeiss have traditionally had many lenses with superb sharpness and resolution across the frame, but with SLoCA, like the MP 100.
And anobody who thinks that the Planar 50 1.4 ZF.2 doesn't have massive SLoCA both wide open and stopped down to f/2.8 is in wild confusion.
Zeiss had already started to stray away with this line. Classic Zeiss look can be found in Contax and Hasselblad glass.
.Yeah, not everyone is in love with Karbe's designs, but to his credit, he managed to somewhat keep the Leica look while technically improving the lenses.
By the way, I also much prefer the old Contax look.
Sep 14, 2015 at 01:00 PM
p.12 #11Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
"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. I am not mocking Zeiss. In fact if you count the number of members here that I personally take the credit of converting to Zeiss, you'd be surprised However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.That's what I comment, the direction. The direction Zeiss is taking can easily be proven to be in direction of one of the classical Zeiss lenses.
I don't think there is one signature Zeiss look. Take three famous classical lenses, the Distagon 21, Planar 50 and Makro-Planar 100. Very very different look. And Zeiss have traditionally had many lenses with superb sharpness and resolution across the frame, but with SLoCA, like the MP 100.
And anobody who thinks that the Planar 50 1.4 ZF.2 doesn't have massive SLoCA both wide open and stopped down to f/2.8 is in wild confusion.But these are not classic Zeiss lenses
Zeiss had already started to stray away with this line. Classic Zeiss look can be found in Contax and Hasselblad glass.
That's a different format, and very difficult to compare
I think the jury is still in the initial phase of meeting regarding the new Distagon 50/1.4 and how it's SLoCA and bokeh compares to Planar 50 in either C/Y or ZF incarnation. It is so easy to complain now if a new lens isn't an Otus with the micro contrast of a Sigma Art
alundeb wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
alundeb wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
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 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
However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.I don't think there is one signature Zeiss look. Take three famous classical lenses, the Distagon 21, Planar 50 and Makro-Planar 100. Very very different look. And Zeiss have traditionally had many lenses with superb sharpness and resolution across the frame, but with SLoCA, like the MP 100.
And anobody who thinks that the Planar 50 1.4 ZF.2 doesn't have massive SLoCA both wide open and stopped down to f/2.8 is in wild confusion.
Zeiss had already started to stray away with this line. Classic Zeiss look can be found in Contax and Hasselblad glass.
That's a different format, and very difficult to compare
I think the jury is still in the initial phase of meeting regarding the new Distagon 50/1.4 and how it's SLoCA and bokeh compares to Planar 50 in either C/Y or ZF incarnation. It is so easy to complain now if a new lens isn't an Otus with the micro contrast of a Sigma Art
Sep 14, 2015 at 01:04 PM
p.12 #12Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
alundeb wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote
alundeb wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
alundeb wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
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. However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.I don't think there is one signature Zeiss look. Take three famous classical lenses, the Distagon 21, Planar 50 and Makro-Planar 100. Very very different look. And Zeiss have traditionally had many lenses with superb sharpness and resolution across the frame, but with SLoCA, like the MP 100.
And anobody who thinks that the Planar 50 1.4 ZF.2 doesn't have massive SLoCA both wide open and stopped down to f/2.8 is in wild confusion.
Zeiss had already started to stray away with this line. Classic Zeiss look can be found in Contax and Hasselblad glass.
I think the jury is still in the initial phase of meeting regarding the new Distagon 50/1.4 and how it's SLoCA and bokeh compares to Planar 50 in either C/Y or ZF incarnation. It is so easy to complain now if a new lens isn't an Otus with the micro contrast of a Sigma Art
No one is really complaining, we're just analyzing
Sep 14, 2015 at 01:08 PM
p.12 #13Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
hiepphotog wrote:
And now that Zeiss provides higher local contrast in the Milvus than the Planar 50, they get mocked for exactly that. I am not mocking Zeiss. In fact if you count the number of members here that I personally take the credit of converting to Zeiss, you'd be surprised However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.That's what I comment, the direction. The direction Zeiss is taking can easily be proven to be in direction of one of the classical Zeiss lenses.
I don't think there is one signature Zeiss look. Take three famous classical lenses, the Distagon 21, Planar 50 and Makro-Planar 100. Very very different look. And Zeiss have traditionally had many lenses with superb sharpness and resolution across the frame, but with SLoCA, like the MP 100.
And anobody who thinks that the Planar 50 1.4 ZF.2 doesn't have massive SLoCA both wide open and stopped down to f/2.8 is in wild confusion.But these are not classic Zeiss lenses
Zeiss had already started to stray away with this line. Classic Zeiss look can be found in Contax and Hasselblad glass.Have not shot any Hasselblad, but I can definitely tell there is a shift between the Contax Zeiss and modern Zeiss. I prefer the older drawing style. But this thing doesn't just happen with Zeiss. To many, Karbe ruins the Leica look as well .
I much prefer older Zeiss. But oddly enough I much prefer Karbe designs. I think he manages to strike a very good balance. I just wish I never sent my 50APO in to be fixed. And that they'd find a solution to the 75APO veiling flare problems. Oh and that the 35FLE had a cooler rendering. But yea, nobody's perfect
I LOVE all the S-lenses.. Some say they're boring in comparison to M-rendering, but I think they're brilliant despite the fact that I agree they're a bit boring.
edwardkaraa wrote
alundeb wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
alundeb wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
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. However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.I don't think there is one signature Zeiss look. Take three famous classical lenses, the Distagon 21, Planar 50 and Makro-Planar 100. Very very different look. And Zeiss have traditionally had many lenses with superb sharpness and resolution across the frame, but with SLoCA, like the MP 100.
And anobody who thinks that the Planar 50 1.4 ZF.2 doesn't have massive SLoCA both wide open and stopped down to f/2.8 is in wild confusion.
Zeiss had already started to stray away with this line. Classic Zeiss look can be found in Contax and Hasselblad glass.
.I much prefer older Zeiss. But oddly enough I much prefer Karbe designs. I think he manages to strike a very good balance. I just wish I never sent my 50APO in to be fixed. And that they'd find a solution to the 75APO veiling flare problems. Oh and that the 35FLE had a cooler rendering. But yea, nobody's perfect
I LOVE all the S-lenses.. Some say they're boring in comparison to M-rendering, but I think they're brilliant despite the fact that I agree they're a bit boring.
Sep 14, 2015 at 01:17 PM
p.12 #14Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
The oldest generation Zeiss I've shot is ZF/ZF.2 and a couple of ZM lenses, ZM 50/2, ZF 50/1.4 among them. I've never used any Contax C/Y or Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. Could you guys explain in short what's changed from the old to the new? I'm a bit confused now.
Sep 14, 2015 at 01:45 PM
p.12 #15Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
The older designs have much stronger OOF chromatic aberrations. Usually.
Sep 14, 2015 at 02:08 PM
p.12 #16Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
My take is simple: Zeiss' goal in lens design is best embodied in the Otus designs. Other ranges (Batis, Loxia, Milvus) are a mix of heritage lenses and newer designs incorporating part of the Otus philosophy, but with compromises for weight/cost/size/AF. If you object to Otus IQ, then, of course, it is time to give up on Zeiss altogether.
Sep 14, 2015 at 02:14 PM
p.12 #17Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Zeiss contax 80mmf2 constantly produce wonderful portraits in that format. Lot of character in its images. The old Zeiss 35mm f1.4 is also wonderful.
I will hold my breath for new 50 and 85. More samples, please.
I agree it is hard to generalize the modern look of Zeiss given lots of their lens wait to be refreshed. but so far, I am not a fan of Batis and Truit.
As for Leica, I am surprised to read Karbe say that given his lens is not exact perform like that. but indeed worries me about that could be Leica's future direction. 50APO?
50lux is one example that has wonderful Bokeh and decent focus transition. 28cron and 75APO also looks great.
OTUS 55/85 have nice drawing, though on the boring side, but still better than 90% out there, on the other hand, Sigma 35 and 50 is on the border of ugly side of Bokeh I would say.
I will hold my breath for new 50 and 85. More samples, please.
I agree it is hard to generalize the modern look of Zeiss given lots of their lens wait to be refreshed. but so far, I am not a fan of Batis and Truit.
As for Leica, I am surprised to read Karbe say that given his lens is not exact perform like that. but indeed worries me about that could be Leica's future direction. 50APO?
50lux is one example that has wonderful Bokeh and decent focus transition. 28cron and 75APO also looks great.
OTUS 55/85 have nice drawing, though on the boring side, but still better than 90% out there, on the other hand, Sigma 35 and 50 is on the border of ugly side of Bokeh I would say.
Sep 14, 2015 at 02:31 PM
p.12 #18Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Z250SA wrote:
The older designs have much stronger OOF chromatic aberrations. Usually.
Can you name an example? I can't think of any.
The older designs have much stronger OOF chromatic aberrations. Usually.
Can you name an example? I can't think of any.
Sep 14, 2015 at 02:39 PM
p.12 #19Zeiss 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. I am not mocking Zeiss. In fact if you count the number of members here that I personally take the credit of converting to Zeiss, you'd be surprised However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.
I'm probably going to be the odd man out here, but that "signature look" is what originally drove me away from Zeiss, in favor of "sharper lenses" such as Canon's TSE and macro, and further into the new 24 IS and 35 IS primes. I was happy to sell my ZE 21/2.8 and ZE 35/2, as Zeiss seemed to be creatively defining the lens aberrations they infused the lenses with. Very similar situation with Leica -- keeping only the R 60/2.8 macro.
I've only recently started purchasing a few inexpensive Zeiss ZF and ZF.2 for the D800e, partly due to Nikon's lack of high quality inexpensive lenses I'm interested in. The 25/2.8 and 35/2 are wonderful on the higher rez sensor, but I consider these to be two of the lowest "bs quotient" in the Zeiss line up. I'm glad to see particular improvement in the 50.
To each his own, and I'm not immune to "character", loving my 50/1.2L and even the 135/2.8 SF, as well as a few others wide open. But mostly, I want lenses to be as technically perfect as possible, with least vignetting, flat field, low CA and great contrast. As I say, I may not be the market Zeiss is building lenses for.
Personally, I had been hoping Zeiss had repackaged these lenses to feature AF and IS, and reduced prices to be more competitive with Canikon.
alundeb wrote
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
However I do have some concern about the direction Zeiss has been taking lately, as I feel they are straying away from the signature Zeiss look.I'm probably going to be the odd man out here, but that "signature look" is what originally drove me away from Zeiss, in favor of "sharper lenses" such as Canon's TSE and macro, and further into the new 24 IS and 35 IS primes. I was happy to sell my ZE 21/2.8 and ZE 35/2, as Zeiss seemed to be creatively defining the lens aberrations they infused the lenses with. Very similar situation with Leica -- keeping only the R 60/2.8 macro.
I've only recently started purchasing a few inexpensive Zeiss ZF and ZF.2 for the D800e, partly due to Nikon's lack of high quality inexpensive lenses I'm interested in. The 25/2.8 and 35/2 are wonderful on the higher rez sensor, but I consider these to be two of the lowest "bs quotient" in the Zeiss line up. I'm glad to see particular improvement in the 50.
To each his own, and I'm not immune to "character", loving my 50/1.2L and even the 135/2.8 SF, as well as a few others wide open. But mostly, I want lenses to be as technically perfect as possible, with least vignetting, flat field, low CA and great contrast. As I say, I may not be the market Zeiss is building lenses for.
Personally, I had been hoping Zeiss had repackaged these lenses to feature AF and IS, and reduced prices to be more competitive with Canikon.
Sep 14, 2015 at 02:41 PM
p.12 #20Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Steve Spencer wrote:
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...Show more →
Well, my blog's objectivity might be compromised too if I was flown to Oberkochen. Some of these claims are very questionable. Ming Thein apparently now believes that every Otus that comes off the production line gets checked on a K8 before it goes out. Yes, I'm sure that's why its consistency scores are no better than any old Canon according to Roger and Brandon's actual tests -.-
Lloyd's the one who really might have gone off the deep end though. They've made a horrible choice with this new 50/1.4. If somebody wants clinical rendering, make them buy Otus. The Milvus line is supposed to "match" but the 35/2 and 21/2.8 and arguably the macros (and, as Tariq mentioned, apparently even the new 85) are just not going to match with a clinical 50/1.4. Not to mention the fact that who wants a 50/1.4 this gigantic? The 50/1.4 redesign should've cut way down on focus shift, eased up on the field curvature somewhat, and given a little more sharpness - and come in at a reasonable size. They went way too far.
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...Show more →
Well, my blog's objectivity might be compromised too if I was flown to Oberkochen. Some of these claims are very questionable. Ming Thein apparently now believes that every Otus that comes off the production line gets checked on a K8 before it goes out. Yes, I'm sure that's why its consistency scores are no better than any old Canon according to Roger and Brandon's actual tests -.-
Lloyd's the one who really might have gone off the deep end though. They've made a horrible choice with this new 50/1.4. If somebody wants clinical rendering, make them buy Otus. The Milvus line is supposed to "match" but the 35/2 and 21/2.8 and arguably the macros (and, as Tariq mentioned, apparently even the new 85) are just not going to match with a clinical 50/1.4. Not to mention the fact that who wants a 50/1.4 this gigantic? The 50/1.4 redesign should've cut way down on focus shift, eased up on the field curvature somewhat, and given a little more sharpness - and come in at a reasonable size. They went way too far.
Sep 14, 2015 at 05:27 PM