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.2 #1Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
I guess these Milvus lenses got larger and heavier than their ZE/ZF versions due to the newly designed, curving barrel and hoods. If that's the case, then I think it was an odd choice to add weight to a lens just to make it look more modern. But who knows, maybe Zeiss is counting on some buyers to "wear" these lenses as a fashion statement.
Sep 10, 2015 at 08:35 PM
p.2 #2Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Lens hood bayonets and the body flare leading to them have gotten a bit odd the past year or so...
Sep 10, 2015 at 10:23 PM
p.2 #3Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Thorsten wrote:
I guess these Milvus lenses got larger and heavier than their ZE/ZF versions due to the newly designed, curving barrel and hoods. If that's the case, then I think it was an odd choice to add weight to a lens just to make it look more modern. But who knows, maybe Zeiss is counting on some buyers to "wear" these lenses as a fashion statement.
That's why I buy Leica
I guess these Milvus lenses got larger and heavier than their ZE/ZF versions due to the newly designed, curving barrel and hoods. If that's the case, then I think it was an odd choice to add weight to a lens just to make it look more modern. But who knows, maybe Zeiss is counting on some buyers to "wear" these lenses as a fashion statement.
That's why I buy Leica
Sep 10, 2015 at 10:56 PM
p.2 #4Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
philip_pj wrote:
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.
Dear god what the...one of the main reason I like my MF lenses is the weight advantage over AF glass. No way I would invest in these unless I was exclusively a studio photographer, but even with them the majority stop down the lens to f5.6/f8.
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.
Dear god what the...one of the main reason I like my MF lenses is the weight advantage over AF glass. No way I would invest in these unless I was exclusively a studio photographer, but even with them the majority stop down the lens to f5.6/f8.
Sep 10, 2015 at 11:11 PM
p.2 #5Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Oh, by the way Jim, great work with the chart, a very interesting resource. One nitpick, if it were me I'd omit the C/Y 100/2; since it wasn't a macro IMHO it was a completely different lens which had no successor rather than an ancestor to the 100MP and Milvus 100M.
Sep 11, 2015 at 12:33 AM
p.2 #6Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Thanks Jim, I appreciate the effort!
Sep 11, 2015 at 12:52 AM
p.2 #7Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Good work for the table!
920g for a 50 1.4, no way. It' s heavier than my 135/2 AI , The 85 being heavier than the OTUS too.
And I already find ZF lenses too heavy.
920g for a 50 1.4, no way. It' s heavier than my 135/2 AI , The 85 being heavier than the OTUS too.
And I already find ZF lenses too heavy.
Sep 11, 2015 at 06:08 AM
p.2 #8Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
The old 100mm f/2 ZE is 699g without caps or hood, and the hood is 64g, for a total of 763g without caps. With the original caps it's 790g. (I just weighed mine on kitchen scales, because the value in the table looked wrong.)
Assuming the figure for the Milvus version includes the hood, it's still 50g heavier.
Assuming the figure for the Milvus version includes the hood, it's still 50g heavier.
Sep 11, 2015 at 06:20 AM
p.2 #9Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
melcat wrote:
The old 100mm f/2 ZE is 699g without caps or hood, and the hood is 64g, for a total of 763g without caps. With the original caps it's 790g.
If the new weights listed in the data sheets include the hood and caps (the old data sheets for the ZE/ZF did not), then that explains almost all the weight difference of the the rehoused lenses. We are then talking just 20 to 30 grams more per lens and that could be the seals for weather sealing and a better front cap (which is worth a little extra weight, IMO). I suppose once people get the lenses in hand we will know if the reported weight includes the hood and caps or not. This should be easy to check. Possibly consistent with this interpretation is that the old data sheets for the ZE/ZF did not include the hood in the top pictures of the lens, whereas the new data sheets for the Milvus lenses do include the hood in the top pictures of the lens.
The old 100mm f/2 ZE is 699g without caps or hood, and the hood is 64g, for a total of 763g without caps. With the original caps it's 790g.
If the new weights listed in the data sheets include the hood and caps (the old data sheets for the ZE/ZF did not), then that explains almost all the weight difference of the the rehoused lenses. We are then talking just 20 to 30 grams more per lens and that could be the seals for weather sealing and a better front cap (which is worth a little extra weight, IMO). I suppose once people get the lenses in hand we will know if the reported weight includes the hood and caps or not. This should be easy to check. Possibly consistent with this interpretation is that the old data sheets for the ZE/ZF did not include the hood in the top pictures of the lens, whereas the new data sheets for the Milvus lenses do include the hood in the top pictures of the lens.
Sep 11, 2015 at 06:30 AM
p.2 #10Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Weights in the 'classic' ZE and C/Y data sheets do not include hoods or caps, and so I assume it's the same for the Milvus data sheets.
I just verified this by weighing my Distagon 18/3.5 ZE and Makro-Planar 50/2 lenses. Their weights on my pelouze PE10 micro scale are exactly the same as in the Zeiss ZE data sheets; 510g and 570g, without hoods & caps.
I just sent an email to a contact at Zeiss.de, to ask if the Milvus data sheet weights include hoods and/or caps, or not. I'll post the reply as soon as it comes in.
Edited on Sep 11, 2015 at 12:37 PM · View previous versions
I just verified this by weighing my Distagon 18/3.5 ZE and Makro-Planar 50/2 lenses. Their weights on my pelouze PE10 micro scale are exactly the same as in the Zeiss ZE data sheets; 510g and 570g, without hoods & caps.
I just sent an email to a contact at Zeiss.de, to ask if the Milvus data sheet weights include hoods and/or caps, or not. I'll post the reply as soon as it comes in.
Edited on Sep 11, 2015 at 12:37 PM · View previous versions
Sep 11, 2015 at 09:46 AM
p.2 #11Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
While checking the weights of my lenses with the Zeiss data sheets, I noticed a discrepancy between the Lens$db weights and the Zeiss data sheet weights. for three lenses. Also, some of the lens geometries were off.
Turns out, I used B&H spec sheet data for the ZE lenses when they were added to Lens$db. As shown in the attached table of lens weights, the B&H weights were (and still are) wrong for some Classic ZE lenses. Also, some of the B&H spec sheet dimensions are wrong (in comparison with Zeiss), and in at least a few cases, ZF dimensions are stated for ZE lenses.
I have all of the ZE classic data sheets, and so I'll check them all and change the Lens$db database where appropriate. Then, I'll update the table at the top of this thread.
I can't explain the difference between melcat's 100/2 MP ZE weight of 699g, the Lens$db weight of 680g, because the Zeiss data sheet also says 680g.
Comparison of selected ZE lens weights from B&H, Zeiss, and me.
Edited on Sep 11, 2015 at 12:37 PM · View previous versions
Turns out, I used B&H spec sheet data for the ZE lenses when they were added to Lens$db. As shown in the attached table of lens weights, the B&H weights were (and still are) wrong for some Classic ZE lenses. Also, some of the B&H spec sheet dimensions are wrong (in comparison with Zeiss), and in at least a few cases, ZF dimensions are stated for ZE lenses.
I have all of the ZE classic data sheets, and so I'll check them all and change the Lens$db database where appropriate. Then, I'll update the table at the top of this thread.
I can't explain the difference between melcat's 100/2 MP ZE weight of 699g, the Lens$db weight of 680g, because the Zeiss data sheet also says 680g.
© jcolwell 2015
Comparison of selected ZE lens weights from B&H, Zeiss, and me.
Edited on Sep 11, 2015 at 12:37 PM · View previous versions
Sep 11, 2015 at 10:26 AM
p.2 #12Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Only the new 50mm/1.4 and 85mm/1.4 are substantially different optically from the ZE/ZF designs. The Milvus 50mm/1.4 and 85mm/1.4 are substantially improved, and much more closely resemble the Otus lenses in optical layout and MTF than they do the ZE/ZF versions, at least on paper. I wonder if Zeiss has worked on controlling secondary longitudinal color errors compared to the original 100 MP. That's the one thing that keeps me from fully loving that lens.
Sep 11, 2015 at 11:25 AM
p.2 #13Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Steve Spencer wrote:
If the new weights listed in the data sheets include the hood and caps...
I just got confirmation from Zeiss that the Milvus data sheet weights do not include hoods and caps.
If the new weights listed in the data sheets include the hood and caps...
I just got confirmation from Zeiss that the Milvus data sheet weights do not include hoods and caps.
Sep 11, 2015 at 02:53 PM
p.2 #14Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
jcolwell wrote:
I just got confirmation from Zeiss that the Milvus data sheet weights do not include hoods and caps.
Thanks for checking Jim. That is much appreciated. I am still a bit baffled by why the weights have gone up about 130g per lens. I like that the lenses are weather sealed. I like the new hood design. But why with the same glass would the weight increase so much? Perhaps when Lens Rentals does a tear down something might make sense.
Steve Spencer wrote
If the new weights listed in the data sheets include the hood and caps...Thanks for checking Jim. That is much appreciated. I am still a bit baffled by why the weights have gone up about 130g per lens. I like that the lenses are weather sealed. I like the new hood design. But why with the same glass would the weight increase so much? Perhaps when Lens Rentals does a tear down something might make sense.
Sep 11, 2015 at 03:19 PM
p.2 #15Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
I really am not a person who minds heavy gear at all so the added weight doesn't bother me that much (except insofar as idle curiosity about why it's there), except for one thing: where's the tripod foot? Several of these have gotten to the point that they need them.
Sep 11, 2015 at 03:48 PM
p.2 #16Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
darbo wrote:
... and amazing new lenses, these are pretty cool times from a gear standpoint.
And from a chiropractor standpoint.
... and amazing new lenses, these are pretty cool times from a gear standpoint.
And from a chiropractor standpoint.
Sep 11, 2015 at 10:37 PM
p.2 #17Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
jcolwell wrote:
I just got confirmation from Zeiss that the Milvus data sheet weights do not include hoods and caps.
Datasheet weight was supposed to include the caps, but they fell off before they could be put on the scale.
I just got confirmation from Zeiss that the Milvus data sheet weights do not include hoods and caps.
Datasheet weight was supposed to include the caps, but they fell off before they could be put on the scale.
Sep 11, 2015 at 10:40 PM
p.2 #18Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
rico wrote:
Datasheet weight was supposed to include the caps, but they fell off before they could be put on the scale.
That and now since they have the newly designed Otus casings. You can expect impact damage reports to go up 100 fold.
jcolwell wrote
I just got confirmation from Zeiss that the Milvus data sheet weights do not include hoods and caps.That and now since they have the newly designed Otus casings. You can expect impact damage reports to go up 100 fold.
Sep 11, 2015 at 10:42 PM
p.2 #19Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Steve Spencer wrote:
Perhaps when Lens Rentals does a tear down something might make sense.
Yes, they'll find the lead ballast used to keep the lens upright during a flotation event.
Perhaps when Lens Rentals does a tear down something might make sense.
Yes, they'll find the lead ballast used to keep the lens upright during a flotation event.
Sep 11, 2015 at 10:43 PM
p.2 #20Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
SteveDK wrote:
I wonder if Zeiss has worked on controlling secondary longitudinal color errors compared to the original 100 MP. That's the one thing that keeps me from fully loving that lens.
I don't think so. They just changed the lens housing. I'd also love to see an Otus macro lens.
I wonder if Zeiss has worked on controlling secondary longitudinal color errors compared to the original 100 MP. That's the one thing that keeps me from fully loving that lens.
I don't think so. They just changed the lens housing. I'd also love to see an Otus macro lens.
Sep 11, 2015 at 10:43 PM