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.3 #1Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
I suspect the increased weight is easily explained. It must be the new coatings! 😜
Sep 11, 2015 at 10:59 PM
p.3 #2Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Maybe they figure that those who stick with DSLR in this day and age don't care about the weight of their kit otherwise they would have switched to mirrorless.
Sep 11, 2015 at 11:24 PM
p.3 #3Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Finally, thanks to the ever-clever Steve Spencer, I now "get it". Milvus is a Otus design without the colour correction! Of course, Steve, you are right! This explains the weight of the new 50 and 85. And, because of the weight of the optics a la Otus, the Milvus casings and internal elements (helicoid etc..) must be robust, hence heavier. This explains the weight increase even for existing designs.
This shows what is going to happen to the line: vey probably Otus-Milvus twins in 135mm (the existing 135APO gets repackaged in Otus clothes, the same without colour correction appears in Milvus ones). The same with 15mm f:2.8. OTOH, there will be a totally new design in 26mm, both for Otus and Milvus. What I can't extrapolate yet is what will happen with the excellent 35 f:1.4 and 25 f:2.0 designs, and whether Zeiss will do anything in 18mm.
But I can't say that the extra weight is welcome, with no benefit other than to standardize the look, and the very stiff focus ring is daft if you ask me, even if it is at the request of many users.
This shows what is going to happen to the line: vey probably Otus-Milvus twins in 135mm (the existing 135APO gets repackaged in Otus clothes, the same without colour correction appears in Milvus ones). The same with 15mm f:2.8. OTOH, there will be a totally new design in 26mm, both for Otus and Milvus. What I can't extrapolate yet is what will happen with the excellent 35 f:1.4 and 25 f:2.0 designs, and whether Zeiss will do anything in 18mm.
But I can't say that the extra weight is welcome, with no benefit other than to standardize the look, and the very stiff focus ring is daft if you ask me, even if it is at the request of many users.
Sep 11, 2015 at 11:36 PM
p.3 #4Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
philber wrote:
Finally, thanks to the ever-clever Steve Spencer, I now "get it". Milvus is a Otus design without the colour correction! Of course, Steve, you are right! This explains the weight of the new 50 and 85. And, because of the weight of the optics a la Otus, the Milvus casings and internal elements (helicoid etc..) must be robust, hence heavier. This explains the weight increase even for existing designs.
This shows what is going to happen to the line: vey probably Otus-Milvus twins in 135mm (the existing 135APO gets repackaged in Otus clothes, the same without colour correction appears in Milvus...Show more →
Philip thanks for the kind words
One thing I might add is that I see Zeiss keeping the Classic line of lenses. I think that will be eventually:
18mm f/3.5
25mm f/2.8
28mm f/2
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1/4
85mm f/1.4
These will be nice lenses that do each have a classic look, but not the modern style that the Milvus line will have.
I guess that means that I think Zeiss will eventually reformulate at 35mm f/1.4. I think an Otus with colour correction and a Milvus without it makes a lot of sense. I was surprised the Z* 25 f/2 wasn't rehoused as a Milvus for this launch. I think that lens on balance is stronger than the 35 f/2 and even in some ways than the 21mm f/2.8. Perhaps what we will see is a new 25 f/2 that is more similar to the Batis design and they haven't had time to get it ready yet. The Batis may be even better than the Z* 25 f/2. At 18mm I suspect they are already working on a Batis lens and I think that design may show up in a Milvus. Of course I could be wrong about all this, but if you follow this through you would have as the Milvus line:
15 f/2.8 or more likely 3.5 (Mini Otus with less colour correction)
18 f/3.5 (Based on the Batis design yet to come)
21 f/2.8 (Based on the Z* 21 f/2.8, but originally the classic C/Y 21 f/2.8)
25 f/2 (Based on the Batis deisign, perhaps)
28 f/2 (Mini Otus based on the 28 f/1.4 Otus yet to come with less colour correction)
35 f/2 (Based on the Z* 35 f/2)
35 f/1.4 (Mini Otus with less colour correction based on my speculation there will be a 35 f/1.4 Otus)
50 f/1.4 (Based on the Otus 55 f/1.4 with less colour correction)
50 f/2 Makro (Based on the Z* 50 f/2 Makro)
85 f/1.4 (Based on the Otus 85 f/1.4 with less colour correction)
100 f/2 Makro (Based on the Z* 100 f/2 Makro)
135 f/2 (Based on the Z* 135 f/2 APO with less colour correction)
That would be a very strong $1,000 to $2,000 priced set of lenses, that let's Zeiss compete very well in the Canon and Nikon market for those who can live without AF.
Finally, thanks to the ever-clever Steve Spencer, I now "get it". Milvus is a Otus design without the colour correction! Of course, Steve, you are right! This explains the weight of the new 50 and 85. And, because of the weight of the optics a la Otus, the Milvus casings and internal elements (helicoid etc..) must be robust, hence heavier. This explains the weight increase even for existing designs.
This shows what is going to happen to the line: vey probably Otus-Milvus twins in 135mm (the existing 135APO gets repackaged in Otus clothes, the same without colour correction appears in Milvus...Show more →
Philip thanks for the kind words
One thing I might add is that I see Zeiss keeping the Classic line of lenses. I think that will be eventually:
18mm f/3.5
25mm f/2.8
28mm f/2
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1/4
85mm f/1.4
These will be nice lenses that do each have a classic look, but not the modern style that the Milvus line will have.
I guess that means that I think Zeiss will eventually reformulate at 35mm f/1.4. I think an Otus with colour correction and a Milvus without it makes a lot of sense. I was surprised the Z* 25 f/2 wasn't rehoused as a Milvus for this launch. I think that lens on balance is stronger than the 35 f/2 and even in some ways than the 21mm f/2.8. Perhaps what we will see is a new 25 f/2 that is more similar to the Batis design and they haven't had time to get it ready yet. The Batis may be even better than the Z* 25 f/2. At 18mm I suspect they are already working on a Batis lens and I think that design may show up in a Milvus. Of course I could be wrong about all this, but if you follow this through you would have as the Milvus line:
15 f/2.8 or more likely 3.5 (Mini Otus with less colour correction)
18 f/3.5 (Based on the Batis design yet to come)
21 f/2.8 (Based on the Z* 21 f/2.8, but originally the classic C/Y 21 f/2.8)
25 f/2 (Based on the Batis deisign, perhaps)
28 f/2 (Mini Otus based on the 28 f/1.4 Otus yet to come with less colour correction)
35 f/2 (Based on the Z* 35 f/2)
35 f/1.4 (Mini Otus with less colour correction based on my speculation there will be a 35 f/1.4 Otus)
50 f/1.4 (Based on the Otus 55 f/1.4 with less colour correction)
50 f/2 Makro (Based on the Z* 50 f/2 Makro)
85 f/1.4 (Based on the Otus 85 f/1.4 with less colour correction)
100 f/2 Makro (Based on the Z* 100 f/2 Makro)
135 f/2 (Based on the Z* 135 f/2 APO with less colour correction)
That would be a very strong $1,000 to $2,000 priced set of lenses, that let's Zeiss compete very well in the Canon and Nikon market for those who can live without AF.
Sep 12, 2015 at 02:55 AM
p.3 #5Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Do the new Milvus macro lenses also extend when focussing to nearby? The ZF/ZE versions do, but I am not sure about the Milvus types.
Sep 12, 2015 at 04:24 AM
p.3 #6Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Steve, I beg to differ as regards the possible parentage between Batis and Milvus. Batis lenses are autofocus; in order for that feature to work well, the optical components of the lens need to be light. That leads to very different designs from the best/most precise MF lenses, where Zeiss obvious favor large/heavy elements.
Sep 12, 2015 at 04:27 AM
p.3 #7Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Steve Spencer wrote:
One thing I might add is that I see Zeiss keeping the Classic line of lenses.
I think it will be phased out.
wiseguy010 wrote:
Do the new Milvus macro lenses also extend when focussing to nearby? The ZF/ZE versions do, but I am not sure about the Milvus types.
The optical designs are identical, hence the Milvi will also extend.
Edited on Sep 12, 2015 at 05:04 AM · View previous versions
One thing I might add is that I see Zeiss keeping the Classic line of lenses.
I think it will be phased out.
wiseguy010 wrote:
Do the new Milvus macro lenses also extend when focussing to nearby? The ZF/ZE versions do, but I am not sure about the Milvus types.
The optical designs are identical, hence the Milvi will also extend.
Edited on Sep 12, 2015 at 05:04 AM · View previous versions
Sep 12, 2015 at 04:52 AM
p.3 #8Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
philber wrote:
Steve, I beg to differ as regards the possible parentage between Batis and Milvus. Batis lenses are autofocus; in order for that feature to work well, the optical components of the lens need to be light. That leads to very different designs from the best/most precise MF lenses, where Zeiss obvious favor large/heavy elements.
I see your point Phillipe, but when I say based on I am thinking more in the lines of using what was learned in making the Batis lenses to reformulate the Z* design. The Batis 25 f/2 and the Z* 25 f/2 are both distagon designs that have quite a bit of similarities (The Batis has 10 elements and 8 groups, the Z* has 11 elements in 10 groups). What is notable about the Batis is that of the 10 elements 7 have special glass, 5 with APD glass and 4 with aspherical surfaces (how can that be only 7 elements, two of the elements are APD glass with an aspherical surface). The Z* is a bit simpler with 4 elements with APD glass and just one with an aspherical surface. Incorporating some of the elements with APD glass with an aspherical surface might well improve the Z*. In this way what they learned in designing the Batis may let them improve the Z* before they rehouse it in the Milvus case. Again, I could be totally wrong, but if they are trying something like that, then that might explain why the Z* 25 f/2 was included in the launch of the Milvus line.
Steve, I beg to differ as regards the possible parentage between Batis and Milvus. Batis lenses are autofocus; in order for that feature to work well, the optical components of the lens need to be light. That leads to very different designs from the best/most precise MF lenses, where Zeiss obvious favor large/heavy elements.
I see your point Phillipe, but when I say based on I am thinking more in the lines of using what was learned in making the Batis lenses to reformulate the Z* design. The Batis 25 f/2 and the Z* 25 f/2 are both distagon designs that have quite a bit of similarities (The Batis has 10 elements and 8 groups, the Z* has 11 elements in 10 groups). What is notable about the Batis is that of the 10 elements 7 have special glass, 5 with APD glass and 4 with aspherical surfaces (how can that be only 7 elements, two of the elements are APD glass with an aspherical surface). The Z* is a bit simpler with 4 elements with APD glass and just one with an aspherical surface. Incorporating some of the elements with APD glass with an aspherical surface might well improve the Z*. In this way what they learned in designing the Batis may let them improve the Z* before they rehouse it in the Milvus case. Again, I could be totally wrong, but if they are trying something like that, then that might explain why the Z* 25 f/2 was included in the launch of the Milvus line.
Sep 12, 2015 at 05:03 AM
p.3 #9Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
The Milvus line is for DSLRs, so all these lenses will require a certain back focal distance, the distance from the surface of the rearmost lens element to the sensor. The Batis lenses don't have this same restriction, since they are designed for mirrorless cameras, i.e. no mirrorbox. This in turns means that a future Milvus 25/2 won't be based on the Batis 25/2. And likewise for other possible future Batis wide angles.
With a Metabones adapter the new Milvus line will be nice on the Sony A7 series cameras. Lloyd Cambers says the Milvus 50/1.4 and Milvus 85/1.4 compare favourably to the Leica 75/2 and 90/2 rangefinder lenses.
With a Metabones adapter the new Milvus line will be nice on the Sony A7 series cameras. Lloyd Cambers says the Milvus 50/1.4 and Milvus 85/1.4 compare favourably to the Leica 75/2 and 90/2 rangefinder lenses.
Sep 12, 2015 at 05:40 AM
p.3 #10Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
bjornthun wrote:
The Milvus line is for DSLRs, so all these lenses will require a certain back focal distance, the distance from the surface of the rearmost lens element to the sensor. The Batis lenses don't have this same restriction, since they are designed for mirrorless cameras, i.e. no mirrorbox. This in turns means that a future Milvus 25/2 won't be based on the Batis 25/2. And likewise for other possible future Batis wide angles.
With a Metabones adapter the new Milvus line will be nice on the Sony A7 series cameras. Lloyd Cambers says the Milvus 50/1.4 and Milvus 85/1.4 compare favourably...Show more →
I understand the difference in registration distance between the FE mount and a DSLR mount. You are of course right that that has to be factored into the design, so as I said it seems more likely that lessons learned in designing the Batis lenses (such as the use of APD glass with aspherical surfaces) could be applied to the Z* design of the 25 f/2 and maybe the 18 f/3.5.
Although the Milvus 50 and 85 no doubt compare favourable with the Leica 75 and 90 AA lenses, they are of course much larger.
The Milvus line is for DSLRs, so all these lenses will require a certain back focal distance, the distance from the surface of the rearmost lens element to the sensor. The Batis lenses don't have this same restriction, since they are designed for mirrorless cameras, i.e. no mirrorbox. This in turns means that a future Milvus 25/2 won't be based on the Batis 25/2. And likewise for other possible future Batis wide angles.
With a Metabones adapter the new Milvus line will be nice on the Sony A7 series cameras. Lloyd Cambers says the Milvus 50/1.4 and Milvus 85/1.4 compare favourably...Show more →
I understand the difference in registration distance between the FE mount and a DSLR mount. You are of course right that that has to be factored into the design, so as I said it seems more likely that lessons learned in designing the Batis lenses (such as the use of APD glass with aspherical surfaces) could be applied to the Z* design of the 25 f/2 and maybe the 18 f/3.5.
Although the Milvus 50 and 85 no doubt compare favourable with the Leica 75 and 90 AA lenses, they are of course much larger.
Sep 12, 2015 at 06:27 AM
p.3 #11Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
I know it's just a discussion, but are you guys really worried over a couple of extra ounces (grams)? According to my un-scientific measurements the hood and caps from my ZE21 weigh about as much as two slices of bread, without any peanut butter & jelly.
As far as lugging around the poundage I'm leaving for Malaysia tomorrow with my trusty ZE21, ZE50, CV15, and Touit 32 all to go onto a Sony A6000. Next birthday (if I get there, lol), 71. I fear some of you are wimps in making so come on guys man up!
As far as lugging around the poundage I'm leaving for Malaysia tomorrow with my trusty ZE21, ZE50, CV15, and Touit 32 all to go onto a Sony A6000. Next birthday (if I get there, lol), 71. I fear some of you are wimps in making so come on guys man up!
Sep 12, 2015 at 06:38 AM
p.3 #13Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Steve Spencer wrote:
With a Metabones adapter the new Milvus line will be nice on the Sony A7 series cameras. Lloyd Cambers says the Milvus 50/1.4 and Milvus 85/1.4 compare favourably to the Leica 75/2 and 90/2 rangefinder lenses.I understand the difference in registration distance between the FE mount and a DSLR mount. You are of course right that that has to be factored into the design, so as I said it seems more likely that lessons learned in designing the Batis lenses (such as the use of APD glass with aspherical surfaces) could be applied to the Z* design of the 25 f/2 and maybe the 18 f/3.5.
Yes, I too guess that Zeiss and their partners will take with them any lessons learnt about the usage of aspherical elements in future DSLR designs. Still DSLR and mirrorless wide angles will be different.
Although the Milvus 50 and 85 no doubt compare favourable with the Leica 75 and 90 AA lenses, they are of course much larger.
Much larger, but also a lot less expensive. Leica has to make their lenses work with the RF window. I suspect that the Leica 90AA will be in line for an update to fix the OOF PF.
bjornthun wrote
The Milvus line is for DSLRs, so all these lenses will require a certain back focal distance, the distance from the surface of the rearmost lens element to the sensor. The Batis lenses don't have this same restriction, since they are designed for mirrorless cameras, i.e. no mirrorbox. This in turns means that a future Milvus 25/2 won't be based on the Batis 25/2. And likewise for other possible future Batis wide angles.With a Metabones adapter the new Milvus line will be nice on the Sony A7 series cameras. Lloyd Cambers says the Milvus 50/1.4 and Milvus 85/1.4 compare favourably to the Leica 75/2 and 90/2 rangefinder lenses.
Yes, I too guess that Zeiss and their partners will take with them any lessons learnt about the usage of aspherical elements in future DSLR designs. Still DSLR and mirrorless wide angles will be different.
Although the Milvus 50 and 85 no doubt compare favourable with the Leica 75 and 90 AA lenses, they are of course much larger.
Much larger, but also a lot less expensive. Leica has to make their lenses work with the RF window. I suspect that the Leica 90AA will be in line for an update to fix the OOF PF.
Sep 12, 2015 at 06:43 AM
p.3 #14Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
bjornthun wrote:
With a Metabones adapter the new Milvus line will be nice on the Sony A7 series cameras. Lloyd Cambers says the Milvus 50/1.4 and Milvus 85/1.4 compare favourably to the Leica 75/2 and 90/2 rangefinder lenses.I understand the difference in registration distance between the FE mount and a DSLR mount. You are of course right that that has to be factored into the design, so as I said it seems more likely that lessons learned in designing the Batis lenses (such as the use of APD glass with aspherical surfaces) could be applied to the Z* design of the 25 f/2 and maybe the 18 f/3.5.Yes, I too guess that Zeiss and their partners will take with them any lessons learnt about the usage of aspherical elements in future DSLR designs. Still DSLR and mirrorless wide angles will be different.
Much larger, but also a lot less expensive. Leica has to make their lenses work with the RF window. I suspect that the Leica 90AA will be in line for an update to fix the OOF PF.
Yes the 90AA could use an update as nice as it is in many ways. Reducing the defocus colour fringing and adding a floating element would be good additions. With regard to cost many people may not realize that Leica M lenses have dropped in price on the used market now that there is no longer a shortage of new lenses. The 50 lux Asph, the 75 cron AA and 90 cron AA all can be had for between $2,000 and $2,500 on the used market if you are patient, so the price gap may be smaller than some may have thought.
Steve Spencer wrote
bjornthun wrote
The Milvus line is for DSLRs, so all these lenses will require a certain back focal distance, the distance from the surface of the rearmost lens element to the sensor. The Batis lenses don't have this same restriction, since they are designed for mirrorless cameras, i.e. no mirrorbox. This in turns means that a future Milvus 25/2 won't be based on the Batis 25/2. And likewise for other possible future Batis wide angles.With a Metabones adapter the new Milvus line will be nice on the Sony A7 series cameras. Lloyd Cambers says the Milvus 50/1.4 and Milvus 85/1.4 compare favourably to the Leica 75/2 and 90/2 rangefinder lenses.
Earlier quote
Although the Milvus 50 and 85 no doubt compare favourable with the Leica 75 and 90 AA lenses, they are of course much larger.Yes the 90AA could use an update as nice as it is in many ways. Reducing the defocus colour fringing and adding a floating element would be good additions. With regard to cost many people may not realize that Leica M lenses have dropped in price on the used market now that there is no longer a shortage of new lenses. The 50 lux Asph, the 75 cron AA and 90 cron AA all can be had for between $2,000 and $2,500 on the used market if you are patient, so the price gap may be smaller than some may have thought.
Sep 12, 2015 at 07:32 AM
p.3 #15Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
I think this is happening across the board, but the notion of Leica gear is keeping its price is going out of the window. Good time to buy though . Leica should tighten their production a bit. Even the Lux 28/1.4 with the production problem is dropping in price at certain Leica dealer 
.
Back to the Milvus, from Lloyd's blog, except for the 15, any other focal that is missing from this line-up will be introduced with brand new design. I think the 25/2 should be directly ported as well. I like this consistent new smooth look of Zeiss lens. The D 21 has quite a flare out top, and this smooth curve looks attractive. Maybe they should change the Loxia and ZM design as well. They are niche line-ups so might take a lot more time.
. Leica should tighten their production a bit. Even the Lux 28/1.4 with the production problem is dropping in price at certain Leica dealer .Back to the Milvus, from Lloyd's blog, except for the 15, any other focal that is missing from this line-up will be introduced with brand new design. I think the 25/2 should be directly ported as well. I like this consistent new smooth look of Zeiss lens. The D 21 has quite a flare out top, and this smooth curve looks attractive. Maybe they should change the Loxia and ZM design as well. They are niche line-ups so might take a lot more time.
Sep 12, 2015 at 07:46 AM
p.3 #16Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
bjornthun wrote:
The Milvus line is for DSLRs, so all these lenses will require a certain back focal distance, the distance from the surface of the rearmost lens element to the sensor. The Batis lenses don't have this same restriction, since they are designed for mirrorless cameras, i.e. no mirrorbox. This in turns means that a future Milvus 25/2 won't be based on the Batis 25/2. And likewise for other possible future Batis wide angles.
That would be the case if Sony didn't put a thick piece of glass in front of their sensor. A few large topics here are just about the problems with symmetrical wide angle lenses (like the M-mount lenses). So even though the lenses for the A7-series could be smaller and without the mirrorbox restriction, retrofocus wide angle lenses work (much) better on the A7 camera's.
The Milvus line is for DSLRs, so all these lenses will require a certain back focal distance, the distance from the surface of the rearmost lens element to the sensor. The Batis lenses don't have this same restriction, since they are designed for mirrorless cameras, i.e. no mirrorbox. This in turns means that a future Milvus 25/2 won't be based on the Batis 25/2. And likewise for other possible future Batis wide angles.
That would be the case if Sony didn't put a thick piece of glass in front of their sensor. A few large topics here are just about the problems with symmetrical wide angle lenses (like the M-mount lenses). So even though the lenses for the A7-series could be smaller and without the mirrorbox restriction, retrofocus wide angle lenses work (much) better on the A7 camera's.
Sep 12, 2015 at 09:16 AM
p.3 #17Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
hiepphotog wrote:
I think this is happening across the board, but the notion of Leica gear is keeping its price is going out of the window. Good time to buy though. Leica should tighten their production a bit. Even the Lux 28/1.4 with the production problem is dropping in price at certain Leica dealer .
Back to the Milvus, from Lloyd's blog, except for the 15, any other focal that is missing from this line-up will be introduced with brand new design. I think the 25/2 should be directly ported as well. I like this consistent new smooth look of Zeiss lens....Show more →
The ZMs built like that would be quite cute. And I'd be less wary of impact damage from a small lens like that. Then what I fear from the Otus and new-ZE line.
I think this is happening across the board, but the notion of Leica gear is keeping its price is going out of the window. Good time to buy though
. Leica should tighten their production a bit. Even the Lux 28/1.4 with the production problem is dropping in price at certain Leica dealer .Back to the Milvus, from Lloyd's blog, except for the 15, any other focal that is missing from this line-up will be introduced with brand new design. I think the 25/2 should be directly ported as well. I like this consistent new smooth look of Zeiss lens....Show more →
The ZMs built like that would be quite cute. And I'd be less wary of impact damage from a small lens like that. Then what I fear from the Otus and new-ZE line.
Sep 12, 2015 at 10:48 AM
p.3 #18Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
If I were a betting man.. 75Lux will be the newest Leica announcement. Followed by an updated 35mm APO. I don't think there is a 35mm on earth that doesn't show purple fringing. Good luck to Leica!
(Also note, Canon 35L II claims to have done it with their blue-whatever-whatever..)
(Also note, Canon 35L II claims to have done it with their blue-whatever-whatever..)
Sep 12, 2015 at 10:52 AM
p.3 #19Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
wiseguy010 wrote:
Do the new Milvus macro lenses also extend when focussing to nearby? The ZF/ZE versions do, but I am not sure about the Milvus types.
They would have to. It's the nature of a macro lens.
Do the new Milvus macro lenses also extend when focussing to nearby? The ZF/ZE versions do, but I am not sure about the Milvus types.
They would have to. It's the nature of a macro lens.
Sep 12, 2015 at 10:53 AM
p.3 #20Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
I think Leica is busy designing an entire new line of Q AF lenses.
Sep 12, 2015 at 10:55 AM