This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2015Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
p.1 #1Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
I just added the Milvus lineup to the draft version of Lens$db, and I made a table (shown below) that compares vital stats for the new Milvus lenses with similar Zeiss lenses from the Otus, Classic ZE, and Contax C/Y lineups. I decided to put it in a new thread, so it wouldn't get lost in the rapidly growing Milvus announcement thread,
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1386293/0#13192626
The Zeiss lens comparison table shown below includes a couple of parameters that aren't included in published versions of Lens$db; Cylindrical Volume (V.cyl), and the ratio of Lens Diameter to Filter Diameter (D/Df). The cylindrical volume is calculated as the volume of a right cylinder with diameter and length equal to the lens dimensions. For most "straight sided" lenses, this is a pretty accurate measure of volume; however, some lenses like the Distagon 21/2.8 have a lot of geometric flare as the lens goes from the focus ring to the much wider filter ring. The 'V.mod' parameter accounts for this, as a scalar multiplier on actual max. diameter, to produce an 'effective diameter'. I introduced 'V.mod' to model the volume of my CZ 18/3.5 ZE, which has very similar shape to the 21/2.8 ZE (and other 21/2.8's).
As many people have mentioned in the Milvus announcement thread, these lenses are relatively big and heavy. Also, the Milvus lineup has the highest D/Df ratios of any lens series that I know. IOW, the lens might have a relatively smallish filter diameter (e.g. 67mm), but the actual lens is still pretty big.
Cheers,
Jim
P.S. as discussed later in this thread, three of the Classic ZE lens weights were incorrect, and so were a few dimensions. The comparison table has been updated and should be correct, in comparison with the Zeiss data sheets.
(discussion at https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1386354/1#13194328)
Zeiss lens vital stats: comparison of Milvus, Otus, Classic, and Contax C/Y (corrected)
Edited on Sep 12, 2015 at 06:51 AM · View previous versions
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1386293/0#13192626
The Zeiss lens comparison table shown below includes a couple of parameters that aren't included in published versions of Lens$db; Cylindrical Volume (V.cyl), and the ratio of Lens Diameter to Filter Diameter (D/Df). The cylindrical volume is calculated as the volume of a right cylinder with diameter and length equal to the lens dimensions. For most "straight sided" lenses, this is a pretty accurate measure of volume; however, some lenses like the Distagon 21/2.8 have a lot of geometric flare as the lens goes from the focus ring to the much wider filter ring. The 'V.mod' parameter accounts for this, as a scalar multiplier on actual max. diameter, to produce an 'effective diameter'. I introduced 'V.mod' to model the volume of my CZ 18/3.5 ZE, which has very similar shape to the 21/2.8 ZE (and other 21/2.8's).
As many people have mentioned in the Milvus announcement thread, these lenses are relatively big and heavy. Also, the Milvus lineup has the highest D/Df ratios of any lens series that I know. IOW, the lens might have a relatively smallish filter diameter (e.g. 67mm), but the actual lens is still pretty big.
Cheers,
Jim
P.S. as discussed later in this thread, three of the Classic ZE lens weights were incorrect, and so were a few dimensions. The comparison table has been updated and should be correct, in comparison with the Zeiss data sheets.
(discussion at https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1386354/1#13194328)
Zeiss lens vital stats: comparison of Milvus, Otus, Classic, and Contax C/Y (corrected)
Edited on Sep 12, 2015 at 06:51 AM · View previous versions
Sep 10, 2015 at 02:02 PM
p.1 #2Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
I wish you can put ZF version in as well.
Sep 10, 2015 at 02:32 PM
p.1 #3Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
With the fantastic lenses that Canon has been putting out, I can't see dropping that kind of cash - AND autofocus - for any possible, marginal IQ improvements.
Sep 10, 2015 at 02:38 PM
p.1 #4Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
GC5 wrote:
With the fantastic lenses that Canon has been putting out, I can't see dropping that kind of cash - AND autofocus - for any possible, marginal IQ improvements.
Yes. If only they could make a decent 1.4/50, without LoCA that makes your eyes bleed!
With the fantastic lenses that Canon has been putting out, I can't see dropping that kind of cash - AND autofocus - for any possible, marginal IQ improvements.
Yes. If only they could make a decent 1.4/50, without LoCA that makes your eyes bleed!
Sep 10, 2015 at 02:41 PM
p.1 #5Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
GC5 wrote:
With the fantastic lenses that Canon has been putting out, I can't see dropping that kind of cash - AND autofocus - for any possible, marginal IQ improvements.
Or you might want to use it to shoot for video and many would then consider the MF and the available clickless aperture a huge advantage. Personally, I much prefer MF to AF, so it is good to have different options for people with different preferences.
With the fantastic lenses that Canon has been putting out, I can't see dropping that kind of cash - AND autofocus - for any possible, marginal IQ improvements.
Or you might want to use it to shoot for video and many would then consider the MF and the available clickless aperture a huge advantage. Personally, I much prefer MF to AF, so it is good to have different options for people with different preferences.
Sep 10, 2015 at 03:51 PM
p.1 #6Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Steve Spencer wrote:
Personally, I much prefer MF to AF...
I prefer both.
Personally, I much prefer MF to AF...
I prefer both.
Sep 10, 2015 at 03:56 PM
p.1 #7Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Why have the diameters increased so much? With the Batis it's the AF motors but here are they just trying to be jerks?
And the 21/2.8 getting even bigger? It was already big for its speed. I'm looking at the dimensions of the 20/1.8G wondering how small a 21/2.8 designed with modern technologies might be.
And the 21/2.8 getting even bigger? It was already big for its speed. I'm looking at the dimensions of the 20/1.8G wondering how small a 21/2.8 designed with modern technologies might be.
Sep 10, 2015 at 04:12 PM
p.1 #8Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Lee Saxon wrote:
Why have the diameters increased so much? With the Batis it's the AF motors but here are they just trying to be jerks?
And the 21/2.8 getting even bigger? It was already big for its speed. I'm looking at the dimensions of the 20/1.8G wondering how small a 21/2.8 designed with modern technologies might be.
The 21 f/2.8 is actually the least offender. It only went from 71mm to 72.4mm at the focus ring, which probably just reflects the way the focus ring is made. The much wider diameter at the end isn't that big of a deal and probably just reflects the better hood system of the Milvus. I never liked the hood system on my ZE 21 f/2.8, so I see the change with that lens in shape not to be a big deal. The weight, however, I think is not very helpful. If I had a choice at the same price (yesterday vs. today new that is what it is), then I would buy the Milvus version, but my back would probably hate me for it
Why have the diameters increased so much? With the Batis it's the AF motors but here are they just trying to be jerks?
And the 21/2.8 getting even bigger? It was already big for its speed. I'm looking at the dimensions of the 20/1.8G wondering how small a 21/2.8 designed with modern technologies might be.
The 21 f/2.8 is actually the least offender. It only went from 71mm to 72.4mm at the focus ring, which probably just reflects the way the focus ring is made. The much wider diameter at the end isn't that big of a deal and probably just reflects the better hood system of the Milvus. I never liked the hood system on my ZE 21 f/2.8, so I see the change with that lens in shape not to be a big deal. The weight, however, I think is not very helpful. If I had a choice at the same price (yesterday vs. today new that is what it is), then I would buy the Milvus version, but my back would probably hate me for it
Sep 10, 2015 at 04:45 PM
p.1 #9Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Steve Spencer wrote:
The 21 f/2.8 is actually the least offender.
Depends how you look at it. The increase wasn't as much but the 21/2.8 was already the most oversized as I mentioned.
I assume we're only talking about the rehousings here since the new 50 and 85 Milvus are just ridiculous.
I don't understand the positioning of the 50 and 85. They're nearly as big as the Otus. So either they're as good as the Otus at a fraction of the price and everybody buys the Milvus instead of the Otus, or they're not and everybody buys either the Otus or the reasonably-sized original ZF.2 (depending on their priorities and budget) instead of the Milvus.
The 21 f/2.8 is actually the least offender.
Depends how you look at it. The increase wasn't as much but the 21/2.8 was already the most oversized as I mentioned.
I assume we're only talking about the rehousings here since the new 50 and 85 Milvus are just ridiculous.
I don't understand the positioning of the 50 and 85. They're nearly as big as the Otus. So either they're as good as the Otus at a fraction of the price and everybody buys the Milvus instead of the Otus, or they're not and everybody buys either the Otus or the reasonably-sized original ZF.2 (depending on their priorities and budget) instead of the Milvus.
Sep 10, 2015 at 05:38 PM
p.1 #10Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
GC5 wrote:
With the fantastic lenses that Canon has been putting out, I can't see dropping that kind of cash - AND autofocus - for any possible, marginal IQ improvements.
I love my Otus 55mm - what a wonderful wonderful lens - but when I saw the new 35L II my first reaction was, "Wow, looks Otus-good". Going to be really really exciting as Canon circles back around on the 50 and 85 f/1.2L, and 135L. With all these awesome new high resolution bodies and amazing new lenses, these are pretty cool times from a gear standpoint.
With the fantastic lenses that Canon has been putting out, I can't see dropping that kind of cash - AND autofocus - for any possible, marginal IQ improvements.
I love my Otus 55mm - what a wonderful wonderful lens - but when I saw the new 35L II my first reaction was, "Wow, looks Otus-good". Going to be really really exciting as Canon circles back around on the 50 and 85 f/1.2L, and 135L. With all these awesome new high resolution bodies and amazing new lenses, these are pretty cool times from a gear standpoint.
Sep 10, 2015 at 06:04 PM
p.1 #11Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
darbo wrote:
Going to be really really exciting as Canon circles back around on the 50 and 85 f/1.2L, and 135L.
Looking at the price of the 35L II I'm afraid of the 85L replacement...
Going to be really really exciting as Canon circles back around on the 50 and 85 f/1.2L, and 135L.
Looking at the price of the 35L II I'm afraid of the 85L replacement...
Sep 10, 2015 at 06:14 PM
p.1 #12Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Lee Saxon wrote:
Looking at the price of the 35L II I'm afraid of the 85L replacement...
Hehe...still cheap compared to the Otus I expect.
darbo wrote
Going to be really really exciting as Canon circles back around on the 50 and 85 f/1.2L, and 135L.Hehe...still cheap compared to the Otus I expect.
Sep 10, 2015 at 06:20 PM
p.1 #13Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Zeiss has seemingly decided you are either a small camera new design user (Batis), a small camera video inclined user (Loxia), or a stills (some video) user in the DSLR space - which crucially Zeiss see as being a pro market segment in the near future. By this they seem to be chasing studio and location shooters, for whom size/bulk/weight matter far less.
from Fred's citing of their blurb: 'portrait, landscape, event'
The new pair are spin-offs of the Otus development program, almost certainly; but...920 grams and 1280 grams? No one will be walking around shooting street with these. Lee, they wanted to bring new lenses with significantly better IQ to the pro portrait market. And they are better at the right price, but seem likely to spend most time on a heavy tripod.
I'm less than gruntled that they did not put the resources into Batis, so they could at least deliver the first two into the retail space; not to mention prioritizing the devt of more of them, according to their market potential, which is hard to over-estimate at present. And Milvis? milk-elvis. They might have milvused themselves here.
from Fred's citing of their blurb: 'portrait, landscape, event'
The new pair are spin-offs of the Otus development program, almost certainly; but...920 grams and 1280 grams? No one will be walking around shooting street with these. Lee, they wanted to bring new lenses with significantly better IQ to the pro portrait market. And they are better at the right price, but seem likely to spend most time on a heavy tripod.
I'm less than gruntled that they did not put the resources into Batis, so they could at least deliver the first two into the retail space; not to mention prioritizing the devt of more of them, according to their market potential, which is hard to over-estimate at present. And Milvis? milk-elvis. They might have milvused themselves here.
Sep 10, 2015 at 06:31 PM
p.1 #14Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Lee Saxon wrote:
Depends how you look at it. The increase wasn't as much but the 21/2.8 was already the most oversized as I mentioned.
I assume we're only talking about the rehousings here since the new 50 and 85 Milvus are just ridiculous.
I don't understand the positioning of the 50 and 85. They're nearly as big as the Otus. So either they're as good as the Otus at a fraction of the price and everybody buys the Milvus instead of the Otus, or they're not and everybody buys either the Otus or the reasonably-sized original ZF.2 (depending on their priorities and budget)...Show more →
Pretty simple really. Just as sharp as the Otus (or very close) but without the colour correction. They will be second in performance to the Otus and there will always be people who will pay the extra for the absolutely best performance. I think you are right, however, these will sell a lot better than the Otii. But I'm sure Toyota sells a lot more Camrys than they do Lexii, too, and I am pretty sure even Leica sells a lot more 50 lux Asphs, than 50 cron AAs.
Steve Spencer wrote
The 21 f/2.8 is actually the least offender.I assume we're only talking about the rehousings here since the new 50 and 85 Milvus are just ridiculous.
I don't understand the positioning of the 50 and 85. They're nearly as big as the Otus. So either they're as good as the Otus at a fraction of the price and everybody buys the Milvus instead of the Otus, or they're not and everybody buys either the Otus or the reasonably-sized original ZF.2 (depending on their priorities and budget)...Show more →
Pretty simple really. Just as sharp as the Otus (or very close) but without the colour correction. They will be second in performance to the Otus and there will always be people who will pay the extra for the absolutely best performance. I think you are right, however, these will sell a lot better than the Otii. But I'm sure Toyota sells a lot more Camrys than they do Lexii, too, and I am pretty sure even Leica sells a lot more 50 lux Asphs, than 50 cron AAs.
Sep 10, 2015 at 07:14 PM
p.1 #15Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
But the problem I see with that is that the cost/benefit for the Otus, especially the 55, was already pretty slim, and these two lenses make it a razor's edge. We're not talking Camry to Lexus here we're talking Porsche to Ferrari.
As you say, there will still be people who want them. But was doubling up on the Otus / Mini-Otus really the right place to focus development when the Touit, Loxia, and Batis lines are so small?
As you say, there will still be people who want them. But was doubling up on the Otus / Mini-Otus really the right place to focus development when the Touit, Loxia, and Batis lines are so small?
Sep 10, 2015 at 07:19 PM
p.1 #16Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Don't sweat the small stuff. 
Sep 10, 2015 at 07:24 PM
p.1 #17Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
One thing to keep in mind - it's entirely possible that Zeiss don't care if the Milvus 50/85 cannibalize sales of the Otus 55/85. They may make more per-lens profit on the new lenses, and so long as total sales increase and the Otus carries the torch of excellence, that's a win for Zeiss.
Sep 10, 2015 at 07:28 PM
p.1 #18Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Taylor, market wise, it might be a feature not a bug. Who knows how many or how few Otuses they sold? That faint sound in the distance..may be the falling resale price of the Otus 55/85. Think of the Otus lenses as a research project, feeding technology downwards. It makes more sense then.
The weight of the Ms will kill them, however, for the mass market.
In MTB we have this saying:
low price-low weight-high strength, choose any two.
It seems apposite here too, with the word 'optical' in place of 'high'. Looks like the best new designs are close to breaking that formula, the Batis pair are in that frame.
The weight of the Ms will kill them, however, for the mass market.
In MTB we have this saying:
low price-low weight-high strength, choose any two.
It seems apposite here too, with the word 'optical' in place of 'high'. Looks like the best new designs are close to breaking that formula, the Batis pair are in that frame.
Sep 10, 2015 at 08:00 PM
p.1 #19Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
philip_pj wrote:
Taylor, market wise, it might be a feature not a bug. Who knows how many or how few Otuses they sold? That faint sound in the distance..may be the falling resale price of the Otus 55/85. Think of the Otus lenses as a research project, feeding technology downwards. It makes more sense then.
The weight of the Ms will kill them, however, for the mass market.
Zeiss lens, mass market? Where? When?
Taylor, market wise, it might be a feature not a bug. Who knows how many or how few Otuses they sold? That faint sound in the distance..may be the falling resale price of the Otus 55/85. Think of the Otus lenses as a research project, feeding technology downwards. It makes more sense then.
The weight of the Ms will kill them, however, for the mass market.
Zeiss lens, mass market? Where? When?
Sep 10, 2015 at 08:02 PM
p.1 #20Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
GC5 wrote:
With the fantastic lenses that Canon has been putting out, I can't see dropping that kind of cash - AND autofocus - for any possible, marginal IQ improvements.
JohnJ wrote:
Yes. If only they could make a decent 1.4/50, without LoCA that makes your eyes bleed!
Maybe they can with the BR elements?
EBH
With the fantastic lenses that Canon has been putting out, I can't see dropping that kind of cash - AND autofocus - for any possible, marginal IQ improvements.
JohnJ wrote:
Yes. If only they could make a decent 1.4/50, without LoCA that makes your eyes bleed!
Maybe they can with the BR elements?
EBH
Sep 10, 2015 at 08:18 PM