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.16 #1Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Exactly. On the topic of the Otus specifically, this was covered really well here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/the-glass-in-the-path-sensor-stacks-and-adapted-lenses
The sensor glass is essential in order to test the lens to its potential.
Which, co-incidentally, also begs the question: how well do the Otus lenses perform on film, where there's no 2-4mm of sensor glass in the way?
The sensor glass is essential in order to test the lens to its potential.
Which, co-incidentally, also begs the question: how well do the Otus lenses perform on film, where there's no 2-4mm of sensor glass in the way?
Sep 17, 2015 at 10:56 PM
p.16 #2Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
I think lenses like the Otus will perform equally as well on film and digital with minor differences.
Sep 17, 2015 at 11:21 PM
p.16 #3Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think lenses like the Otus will perform equally as well on film and digital with minor differences.
The Otus has the sensor glass calculated into its formula, so it will perform a little worse on film (or on Leica M if you could adapt it)
I think lenses like the Otus will perform equally as well on film and digital with minor differences.
The Otus has the sensor glass calculated into its formula, so it will perform a little worse on film (or on Leica M if you could adapt it)
Sep 17, 2015 at 11:39 PM
p.16 #4Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
DavidBM wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote
I think lenses like the Otus will perform equally as well on film and digital with minor differences.If I understood the graphs correctly the center performance is higher with the sensor glass but the corners are better without it?
Sep 18, 2015 at 12:57 AM
p.16 #5Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
The Otus has the sensor glass calculated into its formula, so it will perform a little worse on film (or on Leica M if you could adapt it)If I understood the graphs correctly the center performance is higher with the sensor glass but the corners are better without it?
As far as I understand it the reverse should be the case: in the centre the glass should make very little difference either way. The thicker glass on the other hand causes refractive bending of the light at the edges, which if you calculate the lens to compensate for it (i.e. treat the sensor glass effectively as the last element in the lens) will result in over-compensation in its absence. Just as when a lens is calculated without the sensor glass (like older M lenses) and you use it on a digital sensor then performance can be OK in the centre but worse at the edge.
So it makes little difference in the middle, but at the edges if you EITHER use a lens calculated for no glass on a sensor with glass OR use a lens calculated for a sensor glass on film or a very thin glass you will get slightly worse performance.
DavidBM wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
I think lenses like the Otus will perform equally as well on film and digital with minor differences.As far as I understand it the reverse should be the case: in the centre the glass should make very little difference either way. The thicker glass on the other hand causes refractive bending of the light at the edges, which if you calculate the lens to compensate for it (i.e. treat the sensor glass effectively as the last element in the lens) will result in over-compensation in its absence. Just as when a lens is calculated without the sensor glass (like older M lenses) and you use it on a digital sensor then performance can be OK in the centre but worse at the edge.
So it makes little difference in the middle, but at the edges if you EITHER use a lens calculated for no glass on a sensor with glass OR use a lens calculated for a sensor glass on film or a very thin glass you will get slightly worse performance.
Sep 18, 2015 at 05:30 AM
p.16 #6Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
I believe David is right. The sensor glass either when it is too thick or too thin has very little effect on the centre performance of a lens. When it is thicker than the lens was designed for, then as I understand it the tangential field curvature bends toward infinity. When it is thinner than the lens was designed for then the tangential field curvature bends towards the MFD. Either is going to cause problems as most lenses (and I would think this is very very likely true for an Otus lens) balance tangential field curvature and sagital field curvature to reduce astigmatism. If you have not seen the toothwalker's excellent description of the relationship between field curvature and astigmatism, then I would definitely recommend reading it. Here is the link:
http://toothwalker.org/optics/astigmatism.html
If you look at figure 3 panel B in that link, then it is pretty easy to tell why when the incorrect cover glass is used for a lens (either too thick or too thin) you will get tangential field curvature and whether it is in (i.e., toward MFD from too thin a cover glass) or it is out (i.e., toward infinity from too thick a cover glass) you will get increased astigmatism. Now if you had a lens that was designed with significant astigmatism and it was just the right sort of astigmatism, it is possible that it would do better with a different thickness to the cover glass, but really that would just mean the lens was designed for a different cover glass thickness. I highly doubt the Otus lens were designed to create astigmatism in this way, so they are going to have reduced performance with either too thick or too thin of cover glass.
http://toothwalker.org/optics/astigmatism.html
If you look at figure 3 panel B in that link, then it is pretty easy to tell why when the incorrect cover glass is used for a lens (either too thick or too thin) you will get tangential field curvature and whether it is in (i.e., toward MFD from too thin a cover glass) or it is out (i.e., toward infinity from too thick a cover glass) you will get increased astigmatism. Now if you had a lens that was designed with significant astigmatism and it was just the right sort of astigmatism, it is possible that it would do better with a different thickness to the cover glass, but really that would just mean the lens was designed for a different cover glass thickness. I highly doubt the Otus lens were designed to create astigmatism in this way, so they are going to have reduced performance with either too thick or too thin of cover glass.
Sep 18, 2015 at 07:46 AM
p.16 #7Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
The optical path length of the sensor cover is shorter than that of air, so a lens computed w.r.t. a sensor cover will effectively be near sighted if you remove the cover glass. The effect of this near sightedness varies across the intended focal plane = sensor.
Sep 18, 2015 at 07:47 AM
p.16 #8Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
In my experience, to put it simple, lens designed with the stack in mind, if you remove the stack, corners/edges will curve inward (toward the camera). That's basically the opposite with the majority of RF lenses I have tested on the A7 series. However, MTF measurement would show much more wavy behavior even from 1/3 of the frame (of course more astigmatism as well).
Sep 18, 2015 at 08:32 AM
p.16 #9Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Steve Spencer wrote:
I believe David is right. The sensor glass either when it is too thick or too thin has very little effect on the centre performance of a lens. When it is thicker than the lens was designed for, then as I understand it the tangential field curvature bends toward infinity. When it is thinner than the lens was designed for then the tangential field curvature bends towards the MFD. Either is going to cause problems as most lenses (and I would think this is very very likely true for an Otus lens) balance tangential field curvature and sagital field...Show more →
I'm actually aware of what you're saying, but I'm just trying to understand LR results.
Clearly the Otus has better center performance with the sensor glass. I wonder why?
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/otusnoto4comp-1024x433.jpg
I believe David is right. The sensor glass either when it is too thick or too thin has very little effect on the centre performance of a lens. When it is thicker than the lens was designed for, then as I understand it the tangential field curvature bends toward infinity. When it is thinner than the lens was designed for then the tangential field curvature bends towards the MFD. Either is going to cause problems as most lenses (and I would think this is very very likely true for an Otus lens) balance tangential field curvature and sagital field...Show more →
I'm actually aware of what you're saying, but I'm just trying to understand LR results.
Clearly the Otus has better center performance with the sensor glass. I wonder why?
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/otusnoto4comp-1024x433.jpg
Sep 18, 2015 at 08:46 AM
p.16 #10Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
http://toothwalker.org/optics/astigmatism.html
If you look at figure 3 panel B in that link, then it is pretty easy to tell why when the incorrect cover glass is used for a lens (either too thick or too thin) you will get tangential field curvature and whether it is in (i.e., toward MFD from too thin a cover glass) or it is out (i.e., toward infinity from too thick a cover glass) you will get increased astigmatism. Now if you had a lens that was designed with significant astigmatism and it was just the right sort of astigmatism, it is possible that it would do better with a different thickness to the cover glass, but really that would just mean the lens was designed for a different cover glass thickness. I highly doubt the Otus lens were designed to create astigmatism in this way, so they are going to have reduced performance with either too thick or too thin of cover glass.I'm actually aware of this, but I was trying to understand LR findings.
Clearly the Otus has better center performance with the sensor glass. I wonder why?
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/otusnoto4comp-1024x433.jpg
Those MTF charts are through a speed booster that is tuned for an m43 system.
Steve Spencer wrote
I believe David is right. The sensor glass either when it is too thick or too thin has very little effect on the centre performance of a lens. When it is thicker than the lens was designed for, then as I understand it the tangential field curvature bends toward infinity. When it is thinner than the lens was designed for then the tangential field curvature bends towards the MFD. Either is going to cause problems as most lenses (and I would think this is very very likely true for an Otus lens) balance tangential field curvature and sagital field curvature to reduce astigmatism. If you have not seen the toothwalker's excellent description of the relationship between field curvature and astigmatism, then I would definitely recommend reading it. Here is the link:http://toothwalker.org/optics/astigmatism.html
If you look at figure 3 panel B in that link, then it is pretty easy to tell why when the incorrect cover glass is used for a lens (either too thick or too thin) you will get tangential field curvature and whether it is in (i.e., toward MFD from too thin a cover glass) or it is out (i.e., toward infinity from too thick a cover glass) you will get increased astigmatism. Now if you had a lens that was designed with significant astigmatism and it was just the right sort of astigmatism, it is possible that it would do better with a different thickness to the cover glass, but really that would just mean the lens was designed for a different cover glass thickness. I highly doubt the Otus lens were designed to create astigmatism in this way, so they are going to have reduced performance with either too thick or too thin of cover glass.
Clearly the Otus has better center performance with the sensor glass. I wonder why?
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/otusnoto4comp-1024x433.jpg
Those MTF charts are through a speed booster that is tuned for an m43 system.
Sep 18, 2015 at 08:54 AM
p.16 #11Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
hiepphotog wrote:
http://toothwalker.org/optics/astigmatism.html
If you look at figure 3 panel B in that link, then it is pretty easy to tell why when the incorrect cover glass is used for a lens (either too thick or too thin) you will get tangential field curvature and whether it is in (i.e., toward MFD from too thin a cover glass) or it is out (i.e., toward infinity from too thick a cover glass) you will get increased astigmatism. Now if you had a lens that was designed with significant astigmatism and it was just the right sort of astigmatism, it is possible that it would do better with a different thickness to the cover glass, but really that would just mean the lens was designed for a different cover glass thickness. I highly doubt the Otus lens were designed to create astigmatism in this way, so they are going to have reduced performance with either too thick or too thin of cover glass.I'm actually aware of this, but I was trying to understand LR findings.
Clearly the Otus has better center performance with the sensor glass. I wonder why?
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/otusnoto4comp-1024x433.jpgThose MTF charts are through a speed booster that is tuned for an m43 system.
Nope they are after they removed the booster. This is with the booster:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/otusreducerwithglass-1024x430.jpg
edwardkaraa wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
I believe David is right. The sensor glass either when it is too thick or too thin has very little effect on the centre performance of a lens. When it is thicker than the lens was designed for, then as I understand it the tangential field curvature bends toward infinity. When it is thinner than the lens was designed for then the tangential field curvature bends towards the MFD. Either is going to cause problems as most lenses (and I would think this is very very likely true for an Otus lens) balance tangential field curvature and sagital field curvature to reduce astigmatism. If you have not seen the toothwalker's excellent description of the relationship between field curvature and astigmatism, then I would definitely recommend reading it. Here is the link:http://toothwalker.org/optics/astigmatism.html
If you look at figure 3 panel B in that link, then it is pretty easy to tell why when the incorrect cover glass is used for a lens (either too thick or too thin) you will get tangential field curvature and whether it is in (i.e., toward MFD from too thin a cover glass) or it is out (i.e., toward infinity from too thick a cover glass) you will get increased astigmatism. Now if you had a lens that was designed with significant astigmatism and it was just the right sort of astigmatism, it is possible that it would do better with a different thickness to the cover glass, but really that would just mean the lens was designed for a different cover glass thickness. I highly doubt the Otus lens were designed to create astigmatism in this way, so they are going to have reduced performance with either too thick or too thin of cover glass.
Clearly the Otus has better center performance with the sensor glass. I wonder why?
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/otusnoto4comp-1024x433.jpg
Nope they are after they removed the booster. This is with the booster:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/otusreducerwithglass-1024x430.jpg
Sep 18, 2015 at 09:01 AM
p.16 #12Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Then Otus/Milvus should work well with Sony A7, because they have similar glass thicknesses, unlike Leica M.
Sep 18, 2015 at 09:24 AM
p.16 #13Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Until such time as CaNikon includes an EVF and focus peaking, or Zeiss collaborates with these Dying Leviathans to furnish proper MF focusing screens on mirror cameras, lumbering lenses such as these hold little appeal despite their superior capabilities (I have at one time or another owned the 21. 28 and 1,4/35 ZF). Once I moved on from my Katz Eye-modified D700, focusing accurately with a D8** was far more challenging and ultimately unsatisfying.
The joys of a lighter kit (Leica M, Sony a7) have freed me from decades-long DSLR dependency.
The joys of a lighter kit (Leica M, Sony a7) have freed me from decades-long DSLR dependency.
Sep 18, 2015 at 10:03 AM
p.16 #14Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
http://toothwalker.org/optics/astigmatism.html
If you look at figure 3 panel B in that link, then it is pretty easy to tell why when the incorrect cover glass is used for a lens (either too thick or too thin) you will get tangential field curvature and whether it is in (i.e., toward MFD from too thin a cover glass) or it is out (i.e., toward infinity from too thick a cover glass) you will get increased astigmatism. Now if you had a lens that was designed with significant astigmatism and it was just the right sort of astigmatism, it is possible that it would do better with a different thickness to the cover glass, but really that would just mean the lens was designed for a different cover glass thickness. I highly doubt the Otus lens were designed to create astigmatism in this way, so they are going to have reduced performance with either too thick or too thin of cover glass.I'm actually aware of this, but I was trying to understand LR findings.
Clearly the Otus has better center performance with the sensor glass. I wonder why?
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/otusnoto4comp-1024x433.jpgThose MTF charts are through a speed booster that is tuned for an m43 system.Nope they are after they removed the booster. This is with the booster:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/otusreducerwithglass-1024x430.jpg
My bad then. It's strange to see not much astigmatism on these charts. High central value can be observed on Zeiss MTF chart of the ZM 35/1.4 on a Sony; it's slight though. My guess is if the lens is designed for a 2mm thick glass, going thinner would have more detrimental effect than going thicker (duh!). We have to see the curves on native thickness to draw real conclusion from it.
hiepphotog wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
I believe David is right. The sensor glass either when it is too thick or too thin has very little effect on the centre performance of a lens. When it is thicker than the lens was designed for, then as I understand it the tangential field curvature bends toward infinity. When it is thinner than the lens was designed for then the tangential field curvature bends towards the MFD. Either is going to cause problems as most lenses (and I would think this is very very likely true for an Otus lens) balance tangential field curvature and sagital field curvature to reduce astigmatism. If you have not seen the toothwalker's excellent description of the relationship between field curvature and astigmatism, then I would definitely recommend reading it. Here is the link:http://toothwalker.org/optics/astigmatism.html
If you look at figure 3 panel B in that link, then it is pretty easy to tell why when the incorrect cover glass is used for a lens (either too thick or too thin) you will get tangential field curvature and whether it is in (i.e., toward MFD from too thin a cover glass) or it is out (i.e., toward infinity from too thick a cover glass) you will get increased astigmatism. Now if you had a lens that was designed with significant astigmatism and it was just the right sort of astigmatism, it is possible that it would do better with a different thickness to the cover glass, but really that would just mean the lens was designed for a different cover glass thickness. I highly doubt the Otus lens were designed to create astigmatism in this way, so they are going to have reduced performance with either too thick or too thin of cover glass.
Clearly the Otus has better center performance with the sensor glass. I wonder why?
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/otusnoto4comp-1024x433.jpg
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/otusreducerwithglass-1024x430.jpg
My bad then. It's strange to see not much astigmatism on these charts. High central value can be observed on Zeiss MTF chart of the ZM 35/1.4 on a Sony; it's slight though. My guess is if the lens is designed for a 2mm thick glass, going thinner would have more detrimental effect than going thicker (duh!). We have to see the curves on native thickness to draw real conclusion from it.
Sep 18, 2015 at 10:32 AM
p.16 #15Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
hiepphotog wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote
hiepphotog wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
I believe David is right. The sensor glass either when it is too thick or too thin has very little effect on the centre performance of a lens. When it is thicker than the lens was designed for, then as I understand it the tangential field curvature bends toward infinity. When it is thinner than the lens was designed for then the tangential field curvature bends towards the MFD. Either is going to cause problems as most lenses (and I would think this is very very likely true for an Otus lens) balance tangential field curvature and sagital field curvature to reduce astigmatism. If you have not seen the toothwalker's excellent description of the relationship between field curvature and astigmatism, then I would definitely recommend reading it. Here is the link:http://toothwalker.org/optics/astigmatism.html
If you look at figure 3 panel B in that link, then it is pretty easy to tell why when the incorrect cover glass is used for a lens (either too thick or too thin) you will get tangential field curvature and whether it is in (i.e., toward MFD from too thin a cover glass) or it is out (i.e., toward infinity from too thick a cover glass) you will get increased astigmatism. Now if you had a lens that was designed with significant astigmatism and it was just the right sort of astigmatism, it is possible that it would do better with a different thickness to the cover glass, but really that would just mean the lens was designed for a different cover glass thickness. I highly doubt the Otus lens were designed to create astigmatism in this way, so they are going to have reduced performance with either too thick or too thin of cover glass.
Clearly the Otus has better center performance with the sensor glass. I wonder why?
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/otusnoto4comp-1024x433.jpg
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/06/otusreducerwithglass-1024x430.jpg
It's not very surprising not to see much astigmatism, knowing how telecentric the otus is. However one phenomenon remains to be examined further. It seems center values improve with sensor glass.
Sep 18, 2015 at 11:18 AM
p.16 #16Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
The Otus performing better in the center with the 4mm glass cover is probably more about reduced spherical aberration than astigmatism. Note how when they changed to the correct 2mm glass cover as used by Canon sensors, everything improved compared to the 4mm glass: center and edges.
Sep 18, 2015 at 01:38 PM
p.16 #17Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
f.hayek wrote:
Until such time as CaNikon includes an EVF and focus peaking, or Zeiss collaborates with these Dying Leviathans to furnish proper MF focusing screens on mirror cameras, lumbering lenses such as these hold little appeal despite their superior capabilities (I have at one time or another owned the 21. 28 and 1,4/35 ZF). Once I moved on from my Katz Eye-modified D700, focusing accurately with a D8** was far more challenging and ultimately unsatisfying.
The joys of a lighter kit (Leica M, Sony a7) have freed me from decades-long DSLR dependency.
Frustration with Canon's wide lenses back at the end of the 2000s got me thinking about building a ZE kit combined with key Canon lenses. But then realized I'd be carrying around 2x more gear while being no better off at visually confirming focus through the OVF. Instead I 'downsized' to Leica M for some aspects of my kit because very small yet high performance lenses were high on my priority list. I have very little interest in acquiring Milvus, though the performance of the new 50 and 85 is appealing.
IMO, Zeiss's current lens design direction bodes well for those looking for what they're offering, as well as those who aren't. Those who want small and high performance may provide an opportunity for someone to fill this niche. Loxia would seem to be Zeiss's own answer, but they're definitely dragging their feet. Maybe it's logical to first address the area that will generate the most sales - DSLR and adapting Milvus to Sony... But looking at the number of people spending serious coin on Leica M lenses just to use on Sony... so much for Sony killing off Leica.
Until such time as CaNikon includes an EVF and focus peaking, or Zeiss collaborates with these Dying Leviathans to furnish proper MF focusing screens on mirror cameras, lumbering lenses such as these hold little appeal despite their superior capabilities (I have at one time or another owned the 21. 28 and 1,4/35 ZF). Once I moved on from my Katz Eye-modified D700, focusing accurately with a D8** was far more challenging and ultimately unsatisfying.
The joys of a lighter kit (Leica M, Sony a7) have freed me from decades-long DSLR dependency.
Frustration with Canon's wide lenses back at the end of the 2000s got me thinking about building a ZE kit combined with key Canon lenses. But then realized I'd be carrying around 2x more gear while being no better off at visually confirming focus through the OVF. Instead I 'downsized' to Leica M for some aspects of my kit because very small yet high performance lenses were high on my priority list. I have very little interest in acquiring Milvus, though the performance of the new 50 and 85 is appealing.
IMO, Zeiss's current lens design direction bodes well for those looking for what they're offering, as well as those who aren't. Those who want small and high performance may provide an opportunity for someone to fill this niche. Loxia would seem to be Zeiss's own answer, but they're definitely dragging their feet. Maybe it's logical to first address the area that will generate the most sales - DSLR and adapting Milvus to Sony... But looking at the number of people spending serious coin on Leica M lenses just to use on Sony... so much for Sony killing off Leica.
Sep 18, 2015 at 02:09 PM
p.16 #18Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
f.hayek wrote:
Until such time as CaNikon includes an EVF and focus peaking, or Zeiss collaborates with these Dying Leviathans to furnish proper MF focusing screens on mirror cameras, lumbering lenses such as these hold little appeal despite their superior capabilities (I have at one time or another owned the 21. 28 and 1,4/35 ZF). Once I moved on from my Katz Eye-modified D700, focusing accurately with a D8** was far more challenging and ultimately unsatisfying.
The joys of a lighter kit (Leica M, Sony a7) have freed me from decades-long DSLR dependency.
Hear hear. Unless I'm shooting a landscape at f/8 on a tripod, I'm unlikely to get optimal focus at f/1.4 through my D800 viewfinder anyway, so whoop-de-do about amazing image quality wide open. My Leica M with focus peaking makes more casual MF photography possible; the D800 is not especially well equipped to do the same.
Until such time as CaNikon includes an EVF and focus peaking, or Zeiss collaborates with these Dying Leviathans to furnish proper MF focusing screens on mirror cameras, lumbering lenses such as these hold little appeal despite their superior capabilities (I have at one time or another owned the 21. 28 and 1,4/35 ZF). Once I moved on from my Katz Eye-modified D700, focusing accurately with a D8** was far more challenging and ultimately unsatisfying.
The joys of a lighter kit (Leica M, Sony a7) have freed me from decades-long DSLR dependency.
Hear hear. Unless I'm shooting a landscape at f/8 on a tripod, I'm unlikely to get optimal focus at f/1.4 through my D800 viewfinder anyway, so whoop-de-do about amazing image quality wide open. My Leica M with focus peaking makes more casual MF photography possible; the D800 is not especially well equipped to do the same.
Sep 18, 2015 at 03:35 PM
p.16 #19Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
These are going to be AMAZING. The current ZE line blows away all Canon L glass and the Milvus line is going to be even better. Would be nice to AF for weddings but I'm definitely picking up the 85 for portraits!
Sep 20, 2015 at 11:48 AM
p.16 #20Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
BostonGreg wrote:
These are going to be AMAZING. The current ZE line blows away all Canon L glass...!
I'm sure the Milvus will be amazing, but the ZE lineup certainly does not blow away all Canon L glass.
These are going to be AMAZING. The current ZE line blows away all Canon L glass...!
I'm sure the Milvus will be amazing, but the ZE lineup certainly does not blow away all Canon L glass.
Sep 20, 2015 at 11:59 AM