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.17 #1Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
jcolwell wrote:
I'm sure the Milvus will be amazing, but the ZE lineup certainly does not blow away all Canon L glass.
The Canon 85L sure holds its own against any Zeiss lens!
BostonGreg wrote
These are going to be AMAZING. The current ZE line blows away all Canon L glass...!The Canon 85L sure holds its own against any Zeiss lens!
Sep 20, 2015 at 12:00 PM
p.17 #2Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
There are better and lesser ZEs IMHO. As there are some better and some weaker L lenses as well.
Sep 20, 2015 at 12:04 PM
p.17 #3Zeiss 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 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!
I disagree about Zeiss superiority over Canon L glass. In my experience, Zeiss is good, but Canon is better overall. Canon, even discounting their terrific AF and IS and zoom mechanics, is far ahead of Zeiss in research, engineering and IQ (excepting certain particular lenses, like the ZE 135/2 and 15/2.8). You might make a better case for the claim if you cite Nikon vs. Zeiss, but even there, with the AF/VR and prime and zoom selection, Nikon is the clear winner.
I say this as a past and present owner of a fair number of Zeiss lenses, from Contax to today.
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!
I disagree about Zeiss superiority over Canon L glass. In my experience, Zeiss is good, but Canon is better overall. Canon, even discounting their terrific AF and IS and zoom mechanics, is far ahead of Zeiss in research, engineering and IQ (excepting certain particular lenses, like the ZE 135/2 and 15/2.8). You might make a better case for the claim if you cite Nikon vs. Zeiss, but even there, with the AF/VR and prime and zoom selection, Nikon is the clear winner.
I say this as a past and present owner of a fair number of Zeiss lenses, from Contax to today.
Sep 20, 2015 at 12:07 PM
p.17 #4Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Edward, I totally agree. MTF's are just one data point IMO and I really need to shoot with a lens to fully evaluate it. The way my Otus 55 renders bright highlights in a controlled fashion and how its clarity and transparency is something no mtf is going to show imo. Bokeh, color rendition, FC etc. too. Glad Zeiss is still focusing some its attention on improving its DSLR lens lineup as I am still an old dinosaur dslr shooter who can still carry the weight of these lenses and can still focus wide open if I have too. My RX1 serves me well when I want to go light. Zeiss lenses are still worth it to me!
edwardkaraa wrote:
I am holding neutral position about Zeiss's statement and LR's measurement. Good news is lenses like OTUS are indeed went through K8 measurement either from repair or from manufacture based on above statement.
As for lens variation, I now realize this is a very complicated terminology which is highly depend on varies factor like machine used, human error, test methodology as well as the definition. I will not treat LR's results or Zeiss statement as is but as a very good information to know.
From my own experience, I haven't notice big variation on any lens I purchased other than a few Nikon AF lens. (the 24-70mm has very different focus profile and is very hard to compensate with focus adjust. only one out of 3 copy I had perform as is over the zoom range and focus distance and I had a bad copy of 851.8G and exchanged one perform wonderful. I bought a new 24-85G and find it perform horrible. Return it and didn't bother to exchange.)
My experience with high end Leica and Zeiss lens have always been good. OTUS55 indeed show its best f1.4 performance I have seen, and 50lux ASPH also meet my expectation. They all seem perform as MTF suggested. 50lux, 35lux R seems even better than MTF suggested.
I guess it is mainly because I use WO only for central upto 2/3 frame and only time I really care about absolute sharpness cross frame: I have well above f5.6 or f8. And I do believe the variation results are especially sensitive to WO cross frame which usually not very applicable for normal use.I think each of us with 30-40 years of experience in photography, we must be able to distinguish and understand lens performances without the need of MTF graphs. However, I do find that Zeiss MTF have matched each and every Zeiss lens I have owned and used (except the ZA lenses, which MTF are by Sony). I have every reason to trust the MTF. Even though I have not used any Leica glass, from our forum discussions and sample photos, I also find the MTF to be very accurate.
Unfortunately I find the results by LR very inconsistent. Some seem...Show more →
edwardkaraa wrote:
zhangyue wrote
Roger, thanks for comment and detailing about your procedure. I mainly past information I got from Zeiss in recent conversation about my OTUS repair.I am holding neutral position about Zeiss's statement and LR's measurement. Good news is lenses like OTUS are indeed went through K8 measurement either from repair or from manufacture based on above statement.
As for lens variation, I now realize this is a very complicated terminology which is highly depend on varies factor like machine used, human error, test methodology as well as the definition. I will not treat LR's results or Zeiss statement as is but as a very good information to know.
From my own experience, I haven't notice big variation on any lens I purchased other than a few Nikon AF lens. (the 24-70mm has very different focus profile and is very hard to compensate with focus adjust. only one out of 3 copy I had perform as is over the zoom range and focus distance and I had a bad copy of 851.8G and exchanged one perform wonderful. I bought a new 24-85G and find it perform horrible. Return it and didn't bother to exchange.)
My experience with high end Leica and Zeiss lens have always been good. OTUS55 indeed show its best f1.4 performance I have seen, and 50lux ASPH also meet my expectation. They all seem perform as MTF suggested. 50lux, 35lux R seems even better than MTF suggested.
I guess it is mainly because I use WO only for central upto 2/3 frame and only time I really care about absolute sharpness cross frame: I have well above f5.6 or f8. And I do believe the variation results are especially sensitive to WO cross frame which usually not very applicable for normal use.
Unfortunately I find the results by LR very inconsistent. Some seem...Show more →
Sep 20, 2015 at 12:23 PM
p.17 #5Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
rattymouse wrote:
I'm sure the Milvus will be amazing, but the ZE lineup certainly does not blow away all Canon L glass.The Canon 85L sure holds its own against any Zeiss lens!
I prefer my Contax N 85/1.4 over my 85Lmk2. Doesn't blow out highlights like the 85L and has better colors and microcontrast.
jcolwell wrote
BostonGreg wrote
These are going to be AMAZING. The current ZE line blows away all Canon L glass...!I prefer my Contax N 85/1.4 over my 85Lmk2. Doesn't blow out highlights like the 85L and has better colors and microcontrast.
Sep 20, 2015 at 12:29 PM
p.17 #6Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
I actually envy you Wayne 
You must be still in excellent shape. I guess I got spoiled by RF, because now even the M240 feels heavy sometimes. I do miss shooting with a 1D series body though.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Edward, I totally agree. MTF's are just one data point IMO and I really need to shoot with a lens to fully evaluate it. The way my Otus 55 renders bright highlights in a controlled fashion and how its clarity and transparency is something no mtf is going to show imo. Bokeh, color rendition, FC etc. too. Glad Zeiss is still focusing some its attention on improving its DSLR lens lineup as I am still an old dinosaur dslr shooter who can still carry the weight of these lenses and can still focus wide open if I have...Show more →
I am holding neutral position about Zeiss's statement and LR's measurement. Good news is lenses like OTUS are indeed went through K8 measurement either from repair or from manufacture based on above statement.
As for lens variation, I now realize this is a very complicated terminology which is highly depend on varies factor like machine used, human error, test methodology as well as the definition. I will not treat LR's results or Zeiss statement as is but as a very good information to know.
From my own experience, I haven't notice big variation on any lens I purchased other than a few Nikon AF lens. (the 24-70mm has very different focus profile and is very hard to compensate with focus adjust. only one out of 3 copy I had perform as is over the zoom range and focus distance and I had a bad copy of 851.8G and exchanged one perform wonderful. I bought a new 24-85G and find it perform horrible. Return it and didn't bother to exchange.)
My experience with high end Leica and Zeiss lens have always been good. OTUS55 indeed show its best f1.4 performance I have seen, and 50lux ASPH also meet my expectation. They all seem perform as MTF suggested. 50lux, 35lux R seems even better than MTF suggested.
I guess it is mainly because I use WO only for central upto 2/3 frame and only time I really care about absolute sharpness cross frame: I have well above f5.6 or f8. And I do believe the variation results are especially sensitive to WO cross frame which usually not very applicable for normal use.I think each of us with 30-40 years of experience in photography, we must be able to distinguish and understand lens performances without the need of MTF graphs. However, I do find that Zeiss MTF have matched each and every Zeiss lens I have owned and used (except the ZA lenses, which MTF are by Sony). I have every reason to trust the MTF. Even though I have not used any Leica glass, from our forum discussions and sample photos, I also find the MTF to be very accurate.
Unfortunately I find the results by LR very inconsistent. Some seem to make sense, and some look to be sensationally different. I know because I have owned or still own some of the offenders. Due to this inconsistency, I stopped looking at their MTF.
You must be still in excellent shape. I guess I got spoiled by RF, because now even the M240 feels heavy sometimes. I do miss shooting with a 1D series body though. wayne seltzer wrote:
Edward, I totally agree. MTF's are just one data point IMO and I really need to shoot with a lens to fully evaluate it. The way my Otus 55 renders bright highlights in a controlled fashion and how its clarity and transparency is something no mtf is going to show imo. Bokeh, color rendition, FC etc. too. Glad Zeiss is still focusing some its attention on improving its DSLR lens lineup as I am still an old dinosaur dslr shooter who can still carry the weight of these lenses and can still focus wide open if I have...Show more →
edwardkaraa wrote
zhangyue wrote
Roger, thanks for comment and detailing about your procedure. I mainly past information I got from Zeiss in recent conversation about my OTUS repair.I am holding neutral position about Zeiss's statement and LR's measurement. Good news is lenses like OTUS are indeed went through K8 measurement either from repair or from manufacture based on above statement.
As for lens variation, I now realize this is a very complicated terminology which is highly depend on varies factor like machine used, human error, test methodology as well as the definition. I will not treat LR's results or Zeiss statement as is but as a very good information to know.
From my own experience, I haven't notice big variation on any lens I purchased other than a few Nikon AF lens. (the 24-70mm has very different focus profile and is very hard to compensate with focus adjust. only one out of 3 copy I had perform as is over the zoom range and focus distance and I had a bad copy of 851.8G and exchanged one perform wonderful. I bought a new 24-85G and find it perform horrible. Return it and didn't bother to exchange.)
My experience with high end Leica and Zeiss lens have always been good. OTUS55 indeed show its best f1.4 performance I have seen, and 50lux ASPH also meet my expectation. They all seem perform as MTF suggested. 50lux, 35lux R seems even better than MTF suggested.
I guess it is mainly because I use WO only for central upto 2/3 frame and only time I really care about absolute sharpness cross frame: I have well above f5.6 or f8. And I do believe the variation results are especially sensitive to WO cross frame which usually not very applicable for normal use.
Unfortunately I find the results by LR very inconsistent. Some seem to make sense, and some look to be sensationally different. I know because I have owned or still own some of the offenders. Due to this inconsistency, I stopped looking at their MTF.
Sep 20, 2015 at 12:32 PM
p.17 #7Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
I disagree and have alot of Zeiss, Canikon and Leica lenses and find the Zeiss and Leica lenses mostly better than the Canikon!!!!!!!!
Since eveyone is spouting their opinions I would spout mine!
Gunzorro wrote:
I disagree about Zeiss superiority over Canon L glass. In my experience, Zeiss is good, but Canon is better overall. Canon, even discounting their terrific AF and IS and zoom mechanics, is far ahead of Zeiss in research, engineering and IQ (excepting certain particular lenses, like the ZE 135/2 and 15/2.8). You might make a better case for the claim if you cite Nikon vs. Zeiss, but even there, with the AF/VR and prime and zoom selection, Nikon is the clear winner.
I say this as a past and present owner of a fair number of Zeiss lenses, from Contax...Show more →
Since eveyone is spouting their opinions I would spout mine!
Gunzorro wrote:
BostonGreg wrote
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!I say this as a past and present owner of a fair number of Zeiss lenses, from Contax...Show more →
Sep 20, 2015 at 12:34 PM
p.17 #8Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
jcolwell wrote:
I'm sure the Milvus will be amazing, but the ZE lineup certainly does not blow away all Canon L glass.
The 200 f/2L IS, the 17 & 24 TSE's and the 85L II are awesome. Besides these, Zeiss lenses are on another level.
BostonGreg wrote
These are going to be AMAZING. The current ZE line blows away all Canon L glass...!The 200 f/2L IS, the 17 & 24 TSE's and the 85L II are awesome. Besides these, Zeiss lenses are on another level.
Sep 20, 2015 at 01:27 PM
p.17 #9Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
The top lenses in their respective brands are all about the same. There's very little distinction among the top performers of each brand.
Sep 20, 2015 at 01:38 PM
p.17 #10Zeiss 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...!
jcolwell wrote:
I'm sure the Milvus will be amazing, but the ZE lineup certainly does not blow away all Canon L glass.
BostonGreg wrote:
The 200 f/2L IS, the 17 & 24 TSE's and the 85L II are awesome. Besides these, Zeiss lenses are on another level.
The 50/1.2L is also very nice.
These are going to be AMAZING. The current ZE line blows away all Canon L glass...!
jcolwell wrote:
I'm sure the Milvus will be amazing, but the ZE lineup certainly does not blow away all Canon L glass.
BostonGreg wrote:
The 200 f/2L IS, the 17 & 24 TSE's and the 85L II are awesome. Besides these, Zeiss lenses are on another level.
The 50/1.2L is also very nice.
Sep 20, 2015 at 01:46 PM
p.17 #11Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
I actually envy you Wayne You must be still in excellent shape. I guess I got spoiled by RF, because now even the M240 feels heavy sometimes. I do miss shooting with a 1D series body though.
I am holding neutral position about Zeiss's statement and LR's measurement. Good news is lenses like OTUS are indeed went through K8 measurement either from repair or from manufacture based on above statement.
As for lens variation, I now realize this is a very complicated terminology which is highly depend on varies factor like machine used, human error, test methodology as well as the definition. I will not treat LR's results or Zeiss statement as is but as a very good information to know.
From my own experience, I haven't notice big variation on any lens I purchased other than a few Nikon AF lens. (the 24-70mm has very different focus profile and is very hard to compensate with focus adjust. only one out of 3 copy I had perform as is over the zoom range and focus distance and I had a bad copy of 851.8G and exchanged one perform wonderful. I bought a new 24-85G and find it perform horrible. Return it and didn't bother to exchange.)
My experience with high end Leica and Zeiss lens have always been good. OTUS55 indeed show its best f1.4 performance I have seen, and 50lux ASPH also meet my expectation. They all seem perform as MTF suggested. 50lux, 35lux R seems even better than MTF suggested.
I guess it is mainly because I use WO only for central upto 2/3 frame and only time I really care about absolute sharpness cross frame: I have well above f5.6 or f8. And I do believe the variation results are especially sensitive to WO cross frame which usually not very applicable for normal use.I think each of us with 30-40 years of experience in photography, we must be able to distinguish and understand lens performances without the need of MTF graphs. However, I do find that Zeiss MTF have matched each and every Zeiss lens I have owned and used (except the ZA lenses, which MTF are by Sony). I have every reason to trust the MTF. Even though I have not used any Leica glass, from our forum discussions and sample photos, I also find the MTF to be very accurate.
Unfortunately I find the results by LR very inconsistent. Some seem to make sense, and some look to be sensationally different. I know because I have owned or still own some of the offenders. Due to this inconsistency, I stopped looking at their MTF.
I can't picture you Edward shooting a giant camera like a 1DX. You've always been a Leica guy since I "met" you here at FM.
I actually envy you Wayne
You must be still in excellent shape. I guess I got spoiled by RF, because now even the M240 feels heavy sometimes. I do miss shooting with a 1D series body though. wayne seltzer wrote
Edward, I totally agree. MTF's are just one data point IMO and I really need to shoot with a lens to fully evaluate it. The way my Otus 55 renders bright highlights in a controlled fashion and how its clarity and transparency is something no mtf is going to show imo. Bokeh, color rendition, FC etc. too. Glad Zeiss is still focusing some its attention on improving its DSLR lens lineup as I am still an old dinosaur dslr shooter who can still carry the weight of these lenses and can still focus wide open if I have too. My RX1 serves me well when I want to go light. Zeiss lenses are still worth it to me!edwardkaraa wrote
zhangyue wrote
Roger, thanks for comment and detailing about your procedure. I mainly past information I got from Zeiss in recent conversation about my OTUS repair.I am holding neutral position about Zeiss's statement and LR's measurement. Good news is lenses like OTUS are indeed went through K8 measurement either from repair or from manufacture based on above statement.
As for lens variation, I now realize this is a very complicated terminology which is highly depend on varies factor like machine used, human error, test methodology as well as the definition. I will not treat LR's results or Zeiss statement as is but as a very good information to know.
From my own experience, I haven't notice big variation on any lens I purchased other than a few Nikon AF lens. (the 24-70mm has very different focus profile and is very hard to compensate with focus adjust. only one out of 3 copy I had perform as is over the zoom range and focus distance and I had a bad copy of 851.8G and exchanged one perform wonderful. I bought a new 24-85G and find it perform horrible. Return it and didn't bother to exchange.)
My experience with high end Leica and Zeiss lens have always been good. OTUS55 indeed show its best f1.4 performance I have seen, and 50lux ASPH also meet my expectation. They all seem perform as MTF suggested. 50lux, 35lux R seems even better than MTF suggested.
I guess it is mainly because I use WO only for central upto 2/3 frame and only time I really care about absolute sharpness cross frame: I have well above f5.6 or f8. And I do believe the variation results are especially sensitive to WO cross frame which usually not very applicable for normal use.
Unfortunately I find the results by LR very inconsistent. Some seem to make sense, and some look to be sensationally different. I know because I have owned or still own some of the offenders. Due to this inconsistency, I stopped looking at their MTF.
I can't picture you Edward shooting a giant camera like a 1DX. You've always been a Leica guy since I "met" you here at FM.
Sep 20, 2015 at 08:07 PM
p.17 #12Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Shoot me now, but having shot the Canon 85L quite a bit, think it's pretty overrated, though the central sharpness at 1.2 is impressive. I much preferred the Leica R 80 and Contax N 85, and even the Sony Zeiss 85. The 85L has too saturated/not nuanced enough color palate and blows highlights too easily. The bokeh is too abstracted and bland.
Lens choices are largely preferential though. I find myself shooting Zeiss, Minolta and would be more Leica if not for price. I dislike Nikon and Sony lenses most.
Lens choices are largely preferential though. I find myself shooting Zeiss, Minolta and would be more Leica if not for price. I dislike Nikon and Sony lenses most.
Sep 20, 2015 at 08:32 PM
p.17 #13Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
rattymouse wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote
I actually envy you Wayne You must be still in excellent shape. I guess I got spoiled by RF, because now even the M240 feels heavy sometimes. I do miss shooting with a 1D series body though. wayne seltzer wrote
Edward, I totally agree. MTF's are just one data point IMO and I really need to shoot with a lens to fully evaluate it. The way my Otus 55 renders bright highlights in a controlled fashion and how its clarity and transparency is something no mtf is going to show imo. Bokeh, color rendition, FC etc. too. Glad Zeiss is still focusing some its attention on improving its DSLR lens lineup as I am still an old dinosaur dslr shooter who can still carry the weight of these lenses and can still focus wide open if I have too. My RX1 serves me well when I want to go light. Zeiss lenses are still worth it to me!edwardkaraa wrote
zhangyue wrote
Roger, thanks for comment and detailing about your procedure. I mainly past information I got from Zeiss in recent conversation about my OTUS repair.I am holding neutral position about Zeiss's statement and LR's measurement. Good news is lenses like OTUS are indeed went through K8 measurement either from repair or from manufacture based on above statement.
As for lens variation, I now realize this is a very complicated terminology which is highly depend on varies factor like machine used, human error, test methodology as well as the definition. I will not treat LR's results or Zeiss statement as is but as a very good information to know.
From my own experience, I haven't notice big variation on any lens I purchased other than a few Nikon AF lens. (the 24-70mm has very different focus profile and is very hard to compensate with focus adjust. only one out of 3 copy I had perform as is over the zoom range and focus distance and I had a bad copy of 851.8G and exchanged one perform wonderful. I bought a new 24-85G and find it perform horrible. Return it and didn't bother to exchange.)
My experience with high end Leica and Zeiss lens have always been good. OTUS55 indeed show its best f1.4 performance I have seen, and 50lux ASPH also meet my expectation. They all seem perform as MTF suggested. 50lux, 35lux R seems even better than MTF suggested.
I guess it is mainly because I use WO only for central upto 2/3 frame and only time I really care about absolute sharpness cross frame: I have well above f5.6 or f8. And I do believe the variation results are especially sensitive to WO cross frame which usually not very applicable for normal use.
Unfortunately I find the results by LR very inconsistent. Some seem to make sense, and some look to be sensationally different. I know because I have owned or still own some of the offenders. Due to this inconsistency, I stopped looking at their MTF.
You'd be surprised RM
I was shooting with a 1Ds and 1Ds2 and Contax lenses until 2008 when I moved to Sony A900. The rangefinder thing is recent, just the last 4 years Sep 20, 2015 at 08:46 PM
p.17 #14Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
You must be still in excellent shape. I guess I got spoiled by RF, because now even the M240 feels heavy sometimes. I do miss shooting with a 1D series body though.
I am holding neutral position about Zeiss's statement and LR's measurement. Good news is lenses like OTUS are indeed went through K8 measurement either from repair or from manufacture based on above statement.
As for lens variation, I now realize this is a very complicated terminology which is highly depend on varies factor like machine used, human error, test methodology as well as the definition. I will not treat LR's results or Zeiss statement as is but as a very good information to know.
From my own experience, I haven't notice big variation on any lens I purchased other than a few Nikon AF lens. (the 24-70mm has very different focus profile and is very hard to compensate with focus adjust. only one out of 3 copy I had perform as is over the zoom range and focus distance and I had a bad copy of 851.8G and exchanged one perform wonderful. I bought a new 24-85G and find it perform horrible. Return it and didn't bother to exchange.)
My experience with high end Leica and Zeiss lens have always been good. OTUS55 indeed show its best f1.4 performance I have seen, and 50lux ASPH also meet my expectation. They all seem perform as MTF suggested. 50lux, 35lux R seems even better than MTF suggested.
I guess it is mainly because I use WO only for central upto 2/3 frame and only time I really care about absolute sharpness cross frame: I have well above f5.6 or f8. And I do believe the variation results are especially sensitive to WO cross frame which usually not very applicable for normal use.I think each of us with 30-40 years of experience in photography, we must be able to distinguish and understand lens performances without the need of MTF graphs. However, I do find that Zeiss MTF have matched each and every Zeiss lens I have owned and used (except the ZA lenses, which MTF are by Sony). I have every reason to trust the MTF. Even though I have not used any Leica glass, from our forum discussions and sample photos, I also find the MTF to be very accurate.
Unfortunately I find the results by LR very inconsistent. Some seem to make sense, and some look to be sensationally different. I know because I have owned or still own some of the offenders. Due to this inconsistency, I stopped looking at their MTF.I can't picture you Edward shooting a giant camera like a 1DX. You've always been a Leica guy since I "met" you here at FM.You'd be surprised RM I was shooting with a 1Ds and 1Ds2 and Contax lenses until 2008 when I moved to Sony A900. The rangefinder thing is recent, just the last 4 years
Yeah, I saw all that Contax gear in your past history. Amazing amount of gear you used to have. I'd like to have a set up like that now and always contemplate getting an RTS III to start with. Or maybe a G2. Who knows, maybe one day.
Still, I can picture you with the Contax gear since it is still manual focus. Hard to see you with fully automated gear like the Canon set up!
rattymouse wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
I actually envy you Wayne You must be still in excellent shape. I guess I got spoiled by RF, because now even the M240 feels heavy sometimes. I do miss shooting with a 1D series body though. wayne seltzer wrote
Edward, I totally agree. MTF's are just one data point IMO and I really need to shoot with a lens to fully evaluate it. The way my Otus 55 renders bright highlights in a controlled fashion and how its clarity and transparency is something no mtf is going to show imo. Bokeh, color rendition, FC etc. too. Glad Zeiss is still focusing some its attention on improving its DSLR lens lineup as I am still an old dinosaur dslr shooter who can still carry the weight of these lenses and can still focus wide open if I have too. My RX1 serves me well when I want to go light. Zeiss lenses are still worth it to me!edwardkaraa wrote
zhangyue wrote
Roger, thanks for comment and detailing about your procedure. I mainly past information I got from Zeiss in recent conversation about my OTUS repair.I am holding neutral position about Zeiss's statement and LR's measurement. Good news is lenses like OTUS are indeed went through K8 measurement either from repair or from manufacture based on above statement.
As for lens variation, I now realize this is a very complicated terminology which is highly depend on varies factor like machine used, human error, test methodology as well as the definition. I will not treat LR's results or Zeiss statement as is but as a very good information to know.
From my own experience, I haven't notice big variation on any lens I purchased other than a few Nikon AF lens. (the 24-70mm has very different focus profile and is very hard to compensate with focus adjust. only one out of 3 copy I had perform as is over the zoom range and focus distance and I had a bad copy of 851.8G and exchanged one perform wonderful. I bought a new 24-85G and find it perform horrible. Return it and didn't bother to exchange.)
My experience with high end Leica and Zeiss lens have always been good. OTUS55 indeed show its best f1.4 performance I have seen, and 50lux ASPH also meet my expectation. They all seem perform as MTF suggested. 50lux, 35lux R seems even better than MTF suggested.
I guess it is mainly because I use WO only for central upto 2/3 frame and only time I really care about absolute sharpness cross frame: I have well above f5.6 or f8. And I do believe the variation results are especially sensitive to WO cross frame which usually not very applicable for normal use.
Unfortunately I find the results by LR very inconsistent. Some seem to make sense, and some look to be sensationally different. I know because I have owned or still own some of the offenders. Due to this inconsistency, I stopped looking at their MTF.
I was shooting with a 1Ds and 1Ds2 and Contax lenses until 2008 when I moved to Sony A900. The rangefinder thing is recent, just the last 4 years Yeah, I saw all that Contax gear in your past history. Amazing amount of gear you used to have. I'd like to have a set up like that now and always contemplate getting an RTS III to start with. Or maybe a G2. Who knows, maybe one day.
Still, I can picture you with the Contax gear since it is still manual focus. Hard to see you with fully automated gear like the Canon set up!
Sep 20, 2015 at 08:51 PM
p.17 #15Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
rattymouse wrote:
You must be still in excellent shape. I guess I got spoiled by RF, because now even the M240 feels heavy sometimes. I do miss shooting with a 1D series body though.
Unfortunately I find the results by LR very inconsistent. Some seem to make sense, and some look to be sensationally different. I know because I have owned or still own some of the offenders. Due to this inconsistency, I stopped looking at their MTF.I can't picture you Edward shooting a giant camera like a 1DX. You've always been a Leica guy since I "met" you here at FM.You'd be surprised RM I was shooting with a 1Ds and 1Ds2 and Contax lenses until 2008 when I moved to Sony A900. The rangefinder thing is recent, just the last 4 years Yeah, I saw all that Contax gear in your past history. Amazing amount of gear you used to have. I'd like to have a set up like that now and always contemplate getting an RTS III to start with. Or maybe a G2. Who knows, maybe one day.
Still, I can picture you with the Contax gear since it is still manual focus. Hard to see you with fully automated gear like the Canon set up!
I think the G2 autofocus is quite outdated, but the RTS III would be a fantastic camera even today. I think most samples have vacuum pressure plate problems, but it doesn't affect the image quality.
You're right that it's not really me with AF gear, though I used to own the G2 (my first AF system), the A900 and AF lenses, and in the beginning of my digital adventure, I owned quite many Canon EF lenses but they were the reason why I switched back to Contax glass
edwardkaraa wrote
rattymouse wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
I actually envy you Wayne You must be still in excellent shape. I guess I got spoiled by RF, because now even the M240 feels heavy sometimes. I do miss shooting with a 1D series body though. wayne seltzer wrote
Edward, I totally agree. MTF's are just one data point IMO and I really need to shoot with a lens to fully evaluate it. The way my Otus 55 renders bright highlights in a controlled fashion and how its clarity and transparency is something no mtf is going to show imo. Bokeh, color rendition, FC etc. too. Glad Zeiss is still focusing some its attention on improving its DSLR lens lineup as I am still an old dinosaur dslr shooter who can still carry the weight of these lenses and can still focus wide open if I have too. My RX1 serves me well when I want to go light. Zeiss lenses are still worth it to me!edwardkaraa wrote
I think each of us with 30-40 years of experience in photography, we must be able to distinguish and understand lens performances without the need of MTF graphs. However, I do find that Zeiss MTF have matched each and every Zeiss lens I have owned and used (except the ZA lenses, which MTF are by Sony). I have every reason to trust the MTF. Even though I have not used any Leica glass, from our forum discussions and sample photos, I also find the MTF to be very accurate.Unfortunately I find the results by LR very inconsistent. Some seem to make sense, and some look to be sensationally different. I know because I have owned or still own some of the offenders. Due to this inconsistency, I stopped looking at their MTF.
I was shooting with a 1Ds and 1Ds2 and Contax lenses until 2008 when I moved to Sony A900. The rangefinder thing is recent, just the last 4 years Still, I can picture you with the Contax gear since it is still manual focus. Hard to see you with fully automated gear like the Canon set up!
I think the G2 autofocus is quite outdated, but the RTS III would be a fantastic camera even today. I think most samples have vacuum pressure plate problems, but it doesn't affect the image quality.
You're right that it's not really me with AF gear, though I used to own the G2 (my first AF system), the A900 and AF lenses, and in the beginning of my digital adventure, I owned quite many Canon EF lenses but they were the reason why I switched back to Contax glass
Sep 20, 2015 at 10:44 PM
p.17 #16Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Deezie wrote:
The top lenses in their respective brands are all about the same. There's very little distinction among the top performers of each brand.
I tend to agree with this. Every brand has made some average decidedly average lenses among the beauties.
The top lenses in their respective brands are all about the same. There's very little distinction among the top performers of each brand.
I tend to agree with this. Every brand has made some average decidedly average lenses among the beauties.
Sep 20, 2015 at 11:22 PM
p.17 #17Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Paul Mo wrote:
I tend to agree with this. Every brand has made some average decidedly average lenses among the beauties.
I find this statement way too much of a generalization. IMO, it is more untrue than true. Take the Canon 50 f/1.2L and the Zeiiss Otus 55 f/1.4. About the same? Not at all. I think reasonable people could prefer either, but they are very different. The Otus is much sharper wide open and has much better colour correction (much less colour fringing), and it is a manual focus lens. The Canon L, however, is AF and I am sure some people would prefer the bokeh. These things (wide open sharpness, colour correction, and bokeh) are all quite noticeable.
Deezie wrote
The top lenses in their respective brands are all about the same. There's very little distinction among the top performers of each brand.I find this statement way too much of a generalization. IMO, it is more untrue than true. Take the Canon 50 f/1.2L and the Zeiiss Otus 55 f/1.4. About the same? Not at all. I think reasonable people could prefer either, but they are very different. The Otus is much sharper wide open and has much better colour correction (much less colour fringing), and it is a manual focus lens. The Canon L, however, is AF and I am sure some people would prefer the bokeh. These things (wide open sharpness, colour correction, and bokeh) are all quite noticeable.
Sep 21, 2015 at 05:52 AM
p.17 #18Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Steve Spencer wrote:
I find this statement way too much of a generalization. IMO, it is more untrue than true. Take the Canon 50 f/1.2L and the Zeiiss Otus 55 f/1.4. About the same? Not at all. I think reasonable people could prefer either, but they are very different. The Otus is much sharper wide open and has much better colour correction (much less colour fringing), and it is a manual focus lens. The Canon L, however, is AF and I am sure some people would prefer the bokeh. These things (wide open sharpness, colour correction, and bokeh) are all quite noticeable....Show more →
Quite noticeable on a benchmark test. Absolutely. Quite noticeable by reasonable people in a blind test of output. I'm not so sure.
I find this statement way too much of a generalization. IMO, it is more untrue than true. Take the Canon 50 f/1.2L and the Zeiiss Otus 55 f/1.4. About the same? Not at all. I think reasonable people could prefer either, but they are very different. The Otus is much sharper wide open and has much better colour correction (much less colour fringing), and it is a manual focus lens. The Canon L, however, is AF and I am sure some people would prefer the bokeh. These things (wide open sharpness, colour correction, and bokeh) are all quite noticeable....Show more →
Quite noticeable on a benchmark test. Absolutely. Quite noticeable by reasonable people in a blind test of output. I'm not so sure.
Sep 21, 2015 at 06:49 AM
p.17 #19Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
ggreene wrote:
Quite noticeable on a benchmark test. Absolutely. Quite noticeable by reasonable people in a blind test of output. I'm not so sure.
I think these two lenses would be easy to pick out in a blind test at wide apertures. Some years ago, denoir made a blind test of 5 Zeiss vs Canon lenses, and I scored 100% correct. With one exception, the ZE 21/2.8 where the moustache distortion was the giveaway, the differences then were far more subtle than between the Otus 55 and the 50 1.2 L at wide apertures.
Steve Spencer wrote
I find this statement way too much of a generalization. IMO, it is more untrue than true. Take the Canon 50 f/1.2L and the Zeiiss Otus 55 f/1.4. About the same? Not at all. I think reasonable people could prefer either, but they are very different. The Otus is much sharper wide open and has much better colour correction (much less colour fringing), and it is a manual focus lens. The Canon L, however, is AF and I am sure some people would prefer the bokeh. These things (wide open sharpness, colour correction, and bokeh) are all quite noticeable.I think these two lenses would be easy to pick out in a blind test at wide apertures. Some years ago, denoir made a blind test of 5 Zeiss vs Canon lenses, and I scored 100% correct. With one exception, the ZE 21/2.8 where the moustache distortion was the giveaway, the differences then were far more subtle than between the Otus 55 and the 50 1.2 L at wide apertures.
Sep 21, 2015 at 07:07 AM
p.17 #20Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
ggreene wrote:
Quite noticeable on a benchmark test. Absolutely. Quite noticeable by reasonable people in a blind test of output. I'm not so sure.
When I said noticeable, I meant noticeable in an 8 X 10 print. I stand by that statement if the lenses are shot near wide open.
Steve Spencer wrote
I find this statement way too much of a generalization. IMO, it is more untrue than true. Take the Canon 50 f/1.2L and the Zeiiss Otus 55 f/1.4. About the same? Not at all. I think reasonable people could prefer either, but they are very different. The Otus is much sharper wide open and has much better colour correction (much less colour fringing), and it is a manual focus lens. The Canon L, however, is AF and I am sure some people would prefer the bokeh. These things (wide open sharpness, colour correction, and bokeh) are all quite noticeable.When I said noticeable, I meant noticeable in an 8 X 10 print. I stand by that statement if the lenses are shot near wide open.
Sep 21, 2015 at 08:53 AM