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.14 #1Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
zhangyue wrote:
Unless I miss understand SLCA, I found green/purple outline in Bokeh high contrast area usually looks more offensive with lens better corrected and seldom a problem with old fast, character lens.
I have seen it happen with 90APO, 100MP, FE55, ZM35 and also a few long leica APO R lens and I bet BATIS 85 will also have this problem (though I haven't seen enough samples.)
Maybe old under corrected lens have other aberration overwhelm the SLCA, not sure.
There are a lot of old character lens that have green/purple outline in bokeh high contrast areas. For example, the Minotla 58mm f/1.2 Rokkor has tons of such fringing, and my C/Y Zeiss 50 f/1.4 does too if you shoot it close up wide open (which I almost never do). I also saw it in the Nikon 105mm f/2.5 I had (but a bit less I think because of the more moderate aperture), and it is pretty strong in the Olympus 100mm f/2 as well. It is easy to see in the 90 APO, and 100 MP, because there are no other aberrations to distract you. With the Rokkor the green/purple fringing that is clearly present ranks way below the glow which captures your attention much more, but that doesn't mean the fringing isn't there.
I good comparison of classic to modern lenses is the Leica M 90 cron pre-AA to the Leica M 90 AA. The AA may have quite a bit of fringing, but it is much less than the pre-AA. It is just with the AA there isn't anything else to notice, whereas with the pre-AA there is lots of SA which you notice wide open more than the fringing.
alundeb wrote
Lenses are by default not corrected for secondary LoCA (bokeh color fringing) and examples of lenses without specific APO correction and with low SLoCA are very rare. People seem to want to get rid of SLoCA, but lenses without it are either too clinical for them or have too harsh boke. TI have seen it happen with 90APO, 100MP, FE55, ZM35 and also a few long leica APO R lens and I bet BATIS 85 will also have this problem (though I haven't seen enough samples.)
Maybe old under corrected lens have other aberration overwhelm the SLCA, not sure.
There are a lot of old character lens that have green/purple outline in bokeh high contrast areas. For example, the Minotla 58mm f/1.2 Rokkor has tons of such fringing, and my C/Y Zeiss 50 f/1.4 does too if you shoot it close up wide open (which I almost never do). I also saw it in the Nikon 105mm f/2.5 I had (but a bit less I think because of the more moderate aperture), and it is pretty strong in the Olympus 100mm f/2 as well. It is easy to see in the 90 APO, and 100 MP, because there are no other aberrations to distract you. With the Rokkor the green/purple fringing that is clearly present ranks way below the glow which captures your attention much more, but that doesn't mean the fringing isn't there.
I good comparison of classic to modern lenses is the Leica M 90 cron pre-AA to the Leica M 90 AA. The AA may have quite a bit of fringing, but it is much less than the pre-AA. It is just with the AA there isn't anything else to notice, whereas with the pre-AA there is lots of SA which you notice wide open more than the fringing.
Sep 15, 2015 at 12:34 PM
p.14 #2Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
AhamB wrote:
Can you name an example? I can't think of any.
Well, the most obvious is perhaps the 135/2.8 Sonnar vs the 135/2 Aposonnar. The correct comparison would perhaps be between the Contax 135/2 and the new Apo, but I can´t comment on the old f/2 except from what can be found on the net as I only have the f/2.8. Love both the f/2.8 and the Apo though.
Contax 28/2.8 vs ZE 28/2 is an other pair I have. My Contax 35/1.4 keeper was worse than the ZE 35/2 that I had and sold twice. Contax 50/1.7 vs ZE 50/2. My Contax 85/1.4 is far worse than my friends ZF 85/1.4.
Z250SA wrote
The older designs have much stronger OOF chromatic aberrations. Usually.Well, the most obvious is perhaps the 135/2.8 Sonnar vs the 135/2 Aposonnar. The correct comparison would perhaps be between the Contax 135/2 and the new Apo, but I can´t comment on the old f/2 except from what can be found on the net as I only have the f/2.8. Love both the f/2.8 and the Apo though.
Contax 28/2.8 vs ZE 28/2 is an other pair I have. My Contax 35/1.4 keeper was worse than the ZE 35/2 that I had and sold twice. Contax 50/1.7 vs ZE 50/2. My Contax 85/1.4 is far worse than my friends ZF 85/1.4.
Sep 15, 2015 at 01:59 PM
p.14 #3Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
hiepphotog wrote:
Do you have any insight that you can share to this seemingly less consistency?
What I understand from what Zeiss are saying (I have it second-hand, not first-hand) is that
1) the results are extremely sensitive to even very slight variations in the testing rig and process. A figure of 20 microns has been quoted as being enough to alter results beyond recognition
2) if one is comparing, say an average lens Vs a top-performance lens, the relative performance of the average lens will be affected less by this variation than that of the top-performance lens.
3) top-performance lenses tend to have a performance envelope relative to placement that looks like a high-but-narrow peak. Lesser-performance lenses peak less high, but with a broader profile. Hence a slight misalignment hurts their performance less.
All this means that it is posible for a test to be skewed totally, depending whether the rig and measurement system are tight enough to actually elicit peak performance from each lens, or not. And, if the test is indeed skewed by such an issue, then it is entirely possible for a lesser lens to seem to offer greater consistency than a higher-performing one.
What I am seeing, as a technical ignoramus, is that (a) there seem to be many shooters happy (or more) with the performance of their Otus lenses, and (b) I have not seen Otus owners questioning whether their lens is the proverbial "bad lens", which I see owners of other lenses ask themselves and fellow FMers.
Do you have any insight that you can share to this seemingly less consistency?
What I understand from what Zeiss are saying (I have it second-hand, not first-hand) is that
1) the results are extremely sensitive to even very slight variations in the testing rig and process. A figure of 20 microns has been quoted as being enough to alter results beyond recognition
2) if one is comparing, say an average lens Vs a top-performance lens, the relative performance of the average lens will be affected less by this variation than that of the top-performance lens.
3) top-performance lenses tend to have a performance envelope relative to placement that looks like a high-but-narrow peak. Lesser-performance lenses peak less high, but with a broader profile. Hence a slight misalignment hurts their performance less.
All this means that it is posible for a test to be skewed totally, depending whether the rig and measurement system are tight enough to actually elicit peak performance from each lens, or not. And, if the test is indeed skewed by such an issue, then it is entirely possible for a lesser lens to seem to offer greater consistency than a higher-performing one.
What I am seeing, as a technical ignoramus, is that (a) there seem to be many shooters happy (or more) with the performance of their Otus lenses, and (b) I have not seen Otus owners questioning whether their lens is the proverbial "bad lens", which I see owners of other lenses ask themselves and fellow FMers.
Sep 15, 2015 at 02:28 PM
p.14 #4Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
philber wrote:
What I understand from what Zeiss are saying (I have it second-hand, not first-hand) is that
1) the results are extremely sensitive to even very slight variations in the testing rig and process. A figure of 20 microns has been quoted as being enough to alter results beyond recognition
2) if one is comparing, say an average lens Vs a top-performance lens, the relative performance of the average lens will be affected less by this variation than that of the top-performance lens.
3) top-performance lenses tend to have a performance envelope relative to placement that looks like a high-but-narrow peak. Lesser-performance lenses peak...Show more →
Philpp, very interesting! Not an expert myself. but I agree with your comment with whole heart based on my experience. It definitely echo what I have seen during shooting OTUS compare to shoot Leica R lens. The OTUS is merciless and rewarding at the same time. For reportage style shooting, I can see myself prefer Leica R's broader envelop in term of focusing rendering, less so with some Zeiss ZF, even less so with 135APO, MP100 OTUS and S glass.
hiepphotog wrote
Do you have any insight that you can share to this seemingly less consistency?1) the results are extremely sensitive to even very slight variations in the testing rig and process. A figure of 20 microns has been quoted as being enough to alter results beyond recognition
2) if one is comparing, say an average lens Vs a top-performance lens, the relative performance of the average lens will be affected less by this variation than that of the top-performance lens.
3) top-performance lenses tend to have a performance envelope relative to placement that looks like a high-but-narrow peak. Lesser-performance lenses peak...Show more →
Philpp, very interesting! Not an expert myself. but I agree with your comment with whole heart based on my experience. It definitely echo what I have seen during shooting OTUS compare to shoot Leica R lens. The OTUS is merciless and rewarding at the same time. For reportage style shooting, I can see myself prefer Leica R's broader envelop in term of focusing rendering, less so with some Zeiss ZF, even less so with 135APO, MP100 OTUS and S glass.
Sep 15, 2015 at 03:22 PM
p.14 #5Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
i guess the question begs to be asked since the new formulas are not impressing a whole lot of folks in the forum...who are these lenses targeted to?
Sep 15, 2015 at 04:01 PM
p.14 #6Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
I'm only a curious observer, having sold off my ZE lenses in the past (to use Leica R exclusively) but, since they all seem to have clickless aperture options, film-makers?
Sep 15, 2015 at 05:32 PM
p.14 #7Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
low325 wrote:
i guess the question begs to be asked since the new formulas are not impressing a whole lot of folks in the forum...who are these lenses targeted to?
I think a lot of people around here are either interested in smaller sized lenses (Loxia, Leica M mount) or in lenses with even better quality (Otus line). I think the 85 f/1.4 is a very impressive design, which has just about exactly what I would like in a portrait lens, it is just way to big for what I would want. I think the 50 f/1.4 is an advance in many ways over traditional double gauss 50mm lenses, but it too is very large and because of its size won't be on my radar. DSLR shooters for whom these lenses were primarily made may not be nearly so concerned about their size and very well may love them. Personally, I think for a Canon or Nikon camera they are significantly better than the OEM Canon and Nikon alternatives, but I don't shoot Canon or Nikon. I shoot Sony and for what I want they are just too big.
i guess the question begs to be asked since the new formulas are not impressing a whole lot of folks in the forum...who are these lenses targeted to?
I think a lot of people around here are either interested in smaller sized lenses (Loxia, Leica M mount) or in lenses with even better quality (Otus line). I think the 85 f/1.4 is a very impressive design, which has just about exactly what I would like in a portrait lens, it is just way to big for what I would want. I think the 50 f/1.4 is an advance in many ways over traditional double gauss 50mm lenses, but it too is very large and because of its size won't be on my radar. DSLR shooters for whom these lenses were primarily made may not be nearly so concerned about their size and very well may love them. Personally, I think for a Canon or Nikon camera they are significantly better than the OEM Canon and Nikon alternatives, but I don't shoot Canon or Nikon. I shoot Sony and for what I want they are just too big.
Sep 15, 2015 at 06:07 PM
p.14 #8Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
coogee wrote:
I'm only a curious observer, having sold off my ZE lenses in the past (to use Leica R exclusively) but, since they all seem to have clickless aperture options, film-makers?
Yes, the clickless aperture is a feature primarily added to make them more attractive for certain type of video shooting.
I'm only a curious observer, having sold off my ZE lenses in the past (to use Leica R exclusively) but, since they all seem to have clickless aperture options, film-makers?
Yes, the clickless aperture is a feature primarily added to make them more attractive for certain type of video shooting.
Sep 15, 2015 at 06:09 PM
p.14 #9Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Personally, I would only shoot Melvis lenses with a camera with an EVF.
Thanks to all of you guys who took the time to explain to me about Contax Zeiss and Hasselblad Zeiss rendering compared to the modern style offerings from Zeiss. I understand better what is going on and what it's about now. I am happy with Zeiss ZF and Sony/Zeiss. Regarding Leica I have really only liked modern glass. So, I have two question.
Which Contax/Zeiss SLR lenses, that aren't too expensive, would be good candidates for checking out classical Contax/Zeiss rendering?
Do the Contax G 45/2 or 90/2.8 display the classical Contax/Zeiss style rendering of their SLR brethren?
Thanks to all of you guys who took the time to explain to me about Contax Zeiss and Hasselblad Zeiss rendering compared to the modern style offerings from Zeiss. I understand better what is going on and what it's about now. I am happy with Zeiss ZF and Sony/Zeiss. Regarding Leica I have really only liked modern glass. So, I have two question.
Which Contax/Zeiss SLR lenses, that aren't too expensive, would be good candidates for checking out classical Contax/Zeiss rendering?
Do the Contax G 45/2 or 90/2.8 display the classical Contax/Zeiss style rendering of their SLR brethren?
Sep 15, 2015 at 06:52 PM
p.14 #10Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
low325 wrote:
i guess the question begs to be asked since the new formulas are not impressing a whole lot of folks in the forum...who are these lenses targeted to?
Now people have the option to go small with mirrorless, big and heavy lenses are becoming less enticing. The industry is moving toward lighter and smaller (see all the new DO super tele from Canikon). So it's not the performance that is not impressive, it's the whole package that doesn't create much appeal. If they can create the same or better performance at lower weight and size, people would go nuts for these. Again, that's why Canikon shooters would go nuts for those DO lenses.
i guess the question begs to be asked since the new formulas are not impressing a whole lot of folks in the forum...who are these lenses targeted to?
Now people have the option to go small with mirrorless, big and heavy lenses are becoming less enticing. The industry is moving toward lighter and smaller (see all the new DO super tele from Canikon). So it's not the performance that is not impressive, it's the whole package that doesn't create much appeal. If they can create the same or better performance at lower weight and size, people would go nuts for these. Again, that's why Canikon shooters would go nuts for those DO lenses.
Sep 15, 2015 at 06:56 PM
p.14 #11Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
As for the pencil analogy, have you ever done any architectural drawing? I have, and the finer the pencil tip, the lighter the black, even though the carbon used in both is the same color and density.
Anyhow, just for the sake of discussion, let's say you draw 2 grids. The 0.2mm tip will allow you to draw 0.4mm grids, while the 0.5mm pencil will not allow anything below 1mm grid. But if you look at the grids with the naked eye at viewing distance, the 1mm grid will look sharper and contrastier.
And effectively, if you look at MTF...Show more →
I agree with this.... I've done it myself, all manual technical drafting including dimensioning, [ f_cking t-squares, huge drawing boards, triangles and compass ]. This is the reason why kids of today [ they used the wonderful CADs ] don't even know how to draw a simple dimension lines and proper standard arrows, even their handwritings are messed up.... this is the reason when I see an architect with a bad handwriting, or some interior designer that don't know how to write a proper number 1 character, I knew right away they are schooled on computers...... that but that's just another topic.
A 0.5 mechanical pencil got more contrast compared to 0.2 but 0.2 has finer details... this is why 0.2 are used for dimensioning, dimesion lines and arrows they are finer in details.... but when you put in the values [ say 50mm ] you use 0.5 or higher this is for you to clearly see the numbers they more contrast and it's easier to read.
As for the pencil analogy, have you ever done any architectural drawing? I have, and the finer the pencil tip, the lighter the black, even though the carbon used in both is the same color and density.
Anyhow, just for the sake of discussion, let's say you draw 2 grids. The 0.2mm tip will allow you to draw 0.4mm grids, while the 0.5mm pencil will not allow anything below 1mm grid. But if you look at the grids with the naked eye at viewing distance, the 1mm grid will look sharper and contrastier.
And effectively, if you look at MTF...Show more →
I agree with this.... I've done it myself, all manual technical drafting including dimensioning, [ f_cking t-squares, huge drawing boards, triangles and compass ]. This is the reason why kids of today [ they used the wonderful CADs ] don't even know how to draw a simple dimension lines and proper standard arrows, even their handwritings are messed up.... this is the reason when I see an architect with a bad handwriting, or some interior designer that don't know how to write a proper number 1 character, I knew right away they are schooled on computers...... that but that's just another topic.
A 0.5 mechanical pencil got more contrast compared to 0.2 but 0.2 has finer details... this is why 0.2 are used for dimensioning, dimesion lines and arrows they are finer in details.... but when you put in the values [ say 50mm ] you use 0.5 or higher this is for you to clearly see the numbers they more contrast and it's easier to read.
Sep 15, 2015 at 07:11 PM
p.14 #12Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
At least Zeiss are forward thinking with their naming conventions, allowing them, in 2018, to usher in the even larger Biggus and Dickus models.
Sep 15, 2015 at 07:55 PM
p.14 #13Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
bjornthun wrote:
Do the Contax G 45/2 or 90/2.8 display the classical Contax/Zeiss style rendering of their SLR brethren?
yes, the 90/2.8 is in fact nearly identical in design and look to the c/y 85/2.8 sonnar for contax slrs.
the 45/2 has a similar draw to the c/y 50/1.7, but more extreme – sharper and contrastier.
Do the Contax G 45/2 or 90/2.8 display the classical Contax/Zeiss style rendering of their SLR brethren?
yes, the 90/2.8 is in fact nearly identical in design and look to the c/y 85/2.8 sonnar for contax slrs.
the 45/2 has a similar draw to the c/y 50/1.7, but more extreme – sharper and contrastier.
Sep 15, 2015 at 08:17 PM
p.14 #14Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Paul Mo wrote:
At least Zeiss are forward thinking with their naming conventions, allowing them, in 2018, to usher in the even larger Biggus and Dickus models.
As required: http://youtu.be/2K8_jgiNqUc?t=1m58s
At least Zeiss are forward thinking with their naming conventions, allowing them, in 2018, to usher in the even larger Biggus and Dickus models.
As required: http://youtu.be/2K8_jgiNqUc?t=1m58s
Sep 15, 2015 at 08:55 PM
p.14 #15Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Yes a lot of hot air in this thread coming from "Incontentia Buttocks"!! 
justruss wrote:
As required: http://youtu.be/2K8_jgiNqUc?t=1m58s
justruss wrote:
Paul Mo wrote
At least Zeiss are forward thinking with their naming conventions, allowing them, in 2018, to usher in the even larger Biggus and Dickus models.Sep 15, 2015 at 09:11 PM
p.14 #16Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Gunzorro wrote:
...
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 confused, you didn't like the ZE 35/2 on the lower res 5DII but you do like it on the d800e? or you just like it better than the nikon 35/1.8 but not better than the EF 35/2 IS?
i've not been sold on any of the ZE/ZF line myself, they don't really match my preferred set of tradeoffs as well as the contax line did.
the new 50 looks interesting as a wide open shooter, where the ZE was nearly unusable. the corner bokeh looks like it could get crazy in a lot of situations though. i doubt i'd ever get one just because of the size. the 85 looks awesome, but way bigger than anything i'd use.Yes! (The second posit.)
I prefer the handling, AF/IS, and overall "look" of the 35 IS over the Zeiss 35/2 on the Canon. On the Nikon, I'd rather shoot the Zeiss (used) than buy a new 35/1.8 without IS. Sorry, I didn't differentiate those positions very well.
At the time I bought the ZE 35/2 used, it was running around $700-800, so not a good value compared to the 35/2 IS, which could be bought more recently for $450 used. It wasn't a matter of the sensor being 21MP or 36MP.
My real tipping point came with the ZE...Show more →
I can see where you are coming from, and the situation for the slower Milvus lenses is even worse after we got the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and the 16-35 F4 L IS. There is no need to go to Zeiss at those focal lengths for good landscape lenses. I have sold my beloved ZE 21 and also consider letting the 15 mm and the 50 MP go.
sebboh wrote
Gunzorro wrote
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....
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've not been sold on any of the ZE/ZF line myself, they don't really match my preferred set of tradeoffs as well as the contax line did.
the new 50 looks interesting as a wide open shooter, where the ZE was nearly unusable. the corner bokeh looks like it could get crazy in a lot of situations though. i doubt i'd ever get one just because of the size. the 85 looks awesome, but way bigger than anything i'd use.
(The second posit.) I prefer the handling, AF/IS, and overall "look" of the 35 IS over the Zeiss 35/2 on the Canon. On the Nikon, I'd rather shoot the Zeiss (used) than buy a new 35/1.8 without IS. Sorry, I didn't differentiate those positions very well.
At the time I bought the ZE 35/2 used, it was running around $700-800, so not a good value compared to the 35/2 IS, which could be bought more recently for $450 used. It wasn't a matter of the sensor being 21MP or 36MP.
My real tipping point came with the ZE...Show more →
I can see where you are coming from, and the situation for the slower Milvus lenses is even worse after we got the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and the 16-35 F4 L IS. There is no need to go to Zeiss at those focal lengths for good landscape lenses. I have sold my beloved ZE 21 and also consider letting the 15 mm and the 50 MP go.
Sep 16, 2015 at 01:25 AM
p.14 #17Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Steve Spencer wrote:
... good comparison of classic to modern lenses is the Leica M 90 cron pre-AA to the Leica M 90 AA. The AA may have quite a bit of fringing, but it is much less than the pre-AA. It is just with the AA there isn't anything else to notice, whereas with the pre-AA there is lots of SA which you notice wide open more than the fringing.
Similarly with the achromat Telyt-V 280/4.8 of 1961 versus the Apo-Telyt-R 280/4 released 30 years later. At longer FLs, lack of color correction is magnified and harder to ignore, although the deficiency on a specific plane of focus is masked by balancing the blur, so to speak. That the AT280 has a smidgen of TCA is only evident because it's so freakingly well corrected overall. However, that level of correction is not always desirable for all subjects, so the old Visoflex is still a go-to lens. Below is the 280/4.8 @ f/8, and with critical focussing:
To paraphrase Einstein, everything should be made as blurry as possible, but not blurrier. That sounds heretical in this thread.
... good comparison of classic to modern lenses is the Leica M 90 cron pre-AA to the Leica M 90 AA. The AA may have quite a bit of fringing, but it is much less than the pre-AA. It is just with the AA there isn't anything else to notice, whereas with the pre-AA there is lots of SA which you notice wide open more than the fringing.
Similarly with the achromat Telyt-V 280/4.8 of 1961 versus the Apo-Telyt-R 280/4 released 30 years later. At longer FLs, lack of color correction is magnified and harder to ignore, although the deficiency on a specific plane of focus is masked by balancing the blur, so to speak. That the AT280 has a smidgen of TCA is only evident because it's so freakingly well corrected overall. However, that level of correction is not always desirable for all subjects, so the old Visoflex is still a go-to lens. Below is the 280/4.8 @ f/8, and with critical focussing:
To paraphrase Einstein, everything should be made as blurry as possible, but not blurrier. That sounds heretical in this thread.
Sep 16, 2015 at 01:30 AM
p.14 #18Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
philber wrote:
1) the results are extremely sensitive to even very slight variations in the testing rig and process. A figure of 20 microns has been quoted as being enough to alter results beyond recognition
So consequently, a little variation in the camera mount or sensor alignment will negate any advantage of using an Otus.
1) the results are extremely sensitive to even very slight variations in the testing rig and process. A figure of 20 microns has been quoted as being enough to alter results beyond recognition
So consequently, a little variation in the camera mount or sensor alignment will negate any advantage of using an Otus.
Sep 16, 2015 at 02:04 AM
p.14 #19Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
So consequently, a little variation in the camera mount or sensor alignment will negate any advantage of using an Otus.
If you are shooting a perfectly straight and flat target (0 DOF) for maximum sharpness, yes, as I understand it. That, however, is rarely my case...
philber wrote
1) the results are extremely sensitive to even very slight variations in the testing rig and process. A figure of 20 microns has been quoted as being enough to alter results beyond recognitionIf you are shooting a perfectly straight and flat target (0 DOF) for maximum sharpness, yes, as I understand it. That, however, is rarely my case...
Sep 16, 2015 at 03:44 AM
p.14 #20Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
philber wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote
philber wrote
1) the results are extremely sensitive to even very slight variations in the testing rig and process. A figure of 20 microns has been quoted as being enough to alter results beyond recognitionGood point, Philippe
Sep 16, 2015 at 04:02 AM