p.21 #2Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Looks like it's "perfect".
great center and edge performance, great handling of aberrations and colour fringing and almost no flaring.
Negatives are Vignetting and coma
while the former is to be expected, the latter doesn't concern me at all in a 50mm lens.
The Milvus can keep up with the Sigma Art at f/1.4 (34/29 vs 36/27 center/FF edge resolution), but only untul you stop down to f/2, where the center performance of the Sigma outshines the Zeiss by 10%.
p.21 #6Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
From reading the Google-translated article, it sounds like Cosina helps Zeiss with design-for-manufacturing issues. That is, how Zeiss can alter their design so that Cosina can consistently and economically make lenses that meet Zeiss's design goals.
It seems to be a big deal for these high-resolution lenses. Sigma's said similar things about their Arts: that they often reject designs that their computer program has come up with because they can't manufacture them consistently.
p.21 #7Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
There was a question here on the forum about whether Fuji or Cosina was manufacturing the Milvus line of Zeiss lenses, but it appears from that article that Cosina is indeed the manufacturer. I've been happy with the build quality of my ZF lenses, pleased to hear Cosina is making the Milvi, though I'm sure Fuji would do a good job, as well.
p.21 #8Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
I own the 35/1.4 ZE Distagon and absolutely love it, but was never impressed with the 50/1.4 ZE Planar (too soft wide-open) or the 85/1.4 ZE Planar (beautiful, but too much focus shift). I think these new 50/1.4 Distagon and 85/1.4 Planar Milvus lenses may be just what I was waiting for.
p.21 #9Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Likely blasphemy, but I have the Milvus 85 for a long rental and am so far not impressed. Aesthetically, it is a truly beautiful piece of engineering, but it has several ergonomic failings, starting with its rather unwieldy and poorly balanced weight. I could give that one a pass, as I liked the ZE 2/135 in spite of a similar problem. The biggest drawback is that the focus ring has no ribbing whatsoever and requires near macro-level rotation. This yields very precise focusing (great), but it is fairly difficult to comfortably hold the focus ring without either slipping or holding your hand quite wide. Neither is great for results/ergonomics. All that is on a Canon FF body, with or without a grip. Unlike the ZE 1.4/35, this lens gets ridiculously unbalanced on a Sony mirrorless.
The real test is (and should be) the image quality. For bokeh, the Canon 1.2/85 L II is comparable at f/1.4, but the Canon retains sharpness in center all the way to f/1.2. The Milvus bokeh is better than my old C/Y 1.4/85, as is the sharpness. The Milvus also eliminated the bulk of the focus shift that nuked the ZE 85 for me. For short to middle distance subjects, the Canon is as good or better and weighs far less. At infinity, I have not done a definitive comparison, but for what I have shot so far, the Milvus does not blow me away.
Ironically, I rented the lens expecting to be selling my Canon and perhaps even my C/Y 2/100 but instead am even more impressed with the Canon than I was before.
The Milvus is a big improvement over prior ZE and C/Y 85mm lenses, but it falls short of a key competitor that is older, lighter, and even has AF. I am quite surprised.
p.21 #10Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Grenache wrote:
Likely blasphemy, but I have the Milvus 85 for a long rental and am so far not impressed. Aesthetically, it is a truly beautiful piece of engineering, but it has several ergonomic failings, starting with its rather unwieldy and poorly balanced weight. I could give that one a pass, as I liked the ZE 2/135 in spite of a similar problem. The biggest drawback is that the focus ring has no ribbing whatsoever and requires near macro-level rotation. This yields very precise focusing (great), but it is fairly difficult to comfortably hold the focus ring without either slipping or holding your hand quite wide. Neither is great for results/ergonomics. All that is on a Canon FF body, with or without a grip. Unlike the ZE 1.4/35, this lens gets ridiculously unbalanced on a Sony mirrorless.
The real test is (and should be) the image quality. For bokeh, the Canon 1.2/85 L II is comparable at f/1.4, but the Canon retains sharpness in center all the way to f/1.2. The Milvus bokeh is better than my old C/Y 1.4/85, as is the sharpness. The Milvus also eliminated the bulk of the focus shift that nuked the ZE 85 for me. For short to middle distance subjects, the Canon is as good or better and weighs far less. At infinity, I have not done a definitive comparison, but for what I have shot so far, the Milvus does not blow me away.
Ironically, I rented the lens expecting to be selling my Canon and perhaps even my C/Y 2/100 but instead am even more impressed with the Canon than I was before.
The Milvus is a big improvement over prior ZE and C/Y 85mm lenses, but it falls short of a key competitor that is older, lighter, and even has AF. I am quite surprised....Show more →
Agree almost all what you say about ergonomics of New Zeiss, which is also apply to OTUS. I feel awkward using lens this big on Sony. even I change my mount of A7R, not good still. So, I stay with Nikon for next round as long as I am with these monster sized high performance lenses.
The original Planar is fine performer IMO. It is way sharper than 50 planar. focus shift is not a big problem for long distance.
p.21 #11Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
This is not an ideal lens for photographers who shoot models. Too many moments will be lost using manual focus. Seems like an ideal lens for landscape, product photography and to some degree, architectural.
p.21 #12Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Grenache wrote:
The real test is (and should be) the image quality. For bokeh, the Canon 1.2/85 L II is comparable at f/1.4, but the Canon retains sharpness in center all the way to f/1.2. The Milvus bokeh is better than my old C/Y 1.4/85, as is the sharpness. The Milvus also eliminated the bulk of the focus shift that nuked the ZE 85 for me. For short to middle distance subjects, the Canon is as good or better and weighs far less. At infinity, I have not done a definitive comparison, but for what I have shot so far, the Milvus does not blow me away. ...Show more →
85L is based on a classic double guass design with the help of aspherical element to correct spherical aberration. The problem of double guass fast prime is usually the image curvature. I can almost conclude that Milvus 85 will have better edge sharpness. BTW, CA is always the problem of 85L, I have to stop down to f/2.8 to get rid of it. I hope the Milvus can do better.
p.21 #14Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Thanks, Wayne. For portraits, the 85L has been working nicely. For landscape or other, either the CY 2/100 or Leica 100 AME have worked fine. I do still look for a perfect all-around 85/90 lens, as to my eye, they are different from 100...granted, I may be the only one that sees that difference.
p.21 #15Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
The 85 Milvus has secondary LoCA (bokeh fringing) wide open. It goes away when you stop it down. It's great for landscape, but doesn't make sense for that since you'd never use the faster apertures for landscape, but are forced to carry all of that extra weight around. The Contax/Yashica 85/2.8 on the other hand is the perfect landscape 85, and has Otus-level quality, but without being as antiseptic, on a D810 stopped down at 5.6. Even 2.8 is not that bad. It's made me take the 85 Milvus off my wishlist.
If Zeiss reissues this lens and keeps it lightweight, it would be a killer lens.