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.4 #1Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
U.C. wrote:
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.
What I write is indeed the case.
Have a look at the optical layout of the Batis 25/2. It is a Distagon with a back focal distance, much shorter than that of a Distagon for DSLRs. The rearmost element of the Batis 25/2 would crash right into the mirrorbox. Distagon or retrofocus design doesn't imply a long back focal distance, and thus not DSLR compatibility.
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.What I write is indeed the case.
Have a look at the optical layout of the Batis 25/2. It is a Distagon with a back focal distance, much shorter than that of a Distagon for DSLRs. The rearmost element of the Batis 25/2 would crash right into the mirrorbox. Distagon or retrofocus design doesn't imply a long back focal distance, and thus not DSLR compatibility.
Sep 12, 2015 at 11:20 AM
p.4 #2Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
adamdewilde wrote:
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..)
Adam, the new 35L looks awsome. Competetion is great, Great time to be a gear head!
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..)
Adam, the new 35L looks awsome. Competetion is great, Great time to be a gear head!
Sep 12, 2015 at 11:57 AM
p.4 #3Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
phuang3 wrote:
I don't think so. They just changed the lens housing. I'd also love to see an Otus macro lens.
You are probably right, because the MTF curves look exactly the same, so the optical design probably has not changed. The 100mm/2 MP design is still a very good lens design, but as it's not been updated to an Apochromat, there is no reason to trade my ZF.2 version for the new Milvus barreled one. And as I like to go on hikes and walks with the lens as a telephoto/macro, the lighter weight of the ZF.2 is actually preferable.
I am intrigued by the 85mm/1.4 Milvus though, that seems to be an "Otis-light," even if it's not that light, and might be really useful for low light or astrophotography.
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.You are probably right, because the MTF curves look exactly the same, so the optical design probably has not changed. The 100mm/2 MP design is still a very good lens design, but as it's not been updated to an Apochromat, there is no reason to trade my ZF.2 version for the new Milvus barreled one. And as I like to go on hikes and walks with the lens as a telephoto/macro, the lighter weight of the ZF.2 is actually preferable.
I am intrigued by the 85mm/1.4 Milvus though, that seems to be an "Otis-light," even if it's not that light, and might be really useful for low light or astrophotography.
Sep 12, 2015 at 01:33 PM
p.4 #4Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
adamdewilde wrote:
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..)
The 35mm/1.4 Distagon ZM doesn't show purple fringing, but instead cyan fringing, especially visible in tree branches silhouetted against light skies, though perhaps some of that is the Leica M's CMOSIS sensor. Otherwise a very good lens, this cyan fringing bugs the heck out of me.
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..)
The 35mm/1.4 Distagon ZM doesn't show purple fringing, but instead cyan fringing, especially visible in tree branches silhouetted against light skies, though perhaps some of that is the Leica M's CMOSIS sensor. Otherwise a very good lens, this cyan fringing bugs the heck out of me.
Sep 12, 2015 at 01:41 PM
p.4 #5Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Steve, I use the ZM 35 f:1.4 on a A7RII and previously on a A7R. The fringing is there. It is not the products of the CMOSIS sensor. It is one compromise Zeiss felt they needed to make to get everything else where they wanted it.
Sep 12, 2015 at 02:23 PM
p.4 #6Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
adamdewilde wrote:
... 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..)
A year ago, I would have agreed. I avoided fast 35s for that reason, but then the Sigma Art arrived. The damn thing is as close to color perfect as I can fantasize—and we're talking wide open. Not bad for $900.
... 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..)
A year ago, I would have agreed. I avoided fast 35s for that reason, but then the Sigma Art arrived. The damn thing is as close to color perfect as I can fantasize—and we're talking wide open. Not bad for $900.
Sep 12, 2015 at 04:09 PM
p.4 #7Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
adamdewilde wrote:
They would have to. It's the nature of a macro lens.
Not all of them do. I had the Nikon 200mm AFD and that doesn't extend.The results that I had with this lens with focus-stacking were better than those of the ZF 100/2. IMO because of the not-extending of the Nikon lens.
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.Not all of them do. I had the Nikon 200mm AFD and that doesn't extend.The results that I had with this lens with focus-stacking were better than those of the ZF 100/2. IMO because of the not-extending of the Nikon lens.
Sep 12, 2015 at 04:54 PM
p.4 #8Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
rico wrote:
(Also note, Canon 35L II claims to have done it with their blue-whatever-whatever..)A year ago, I would have agreed. I avoided fast 35s for that reason, but then the Sigma Art arrived. The damn thing is as close to color perfect as I can fantasize—and we're talking wide open. Not bad for $900.
I have the feeling that latest 35L II will even break the record, become the 1st 35mm APO lens. Current sample shows extraordinary CA suppression at wide open.
adamdewilde wrote
... 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..)
I have the feeling that latest 35L II will even break the record, become the 1st 35mm APO lens. Current sample shows extraordinary CA suppression at wide open.
Sep 12, 2015 at 05:37 PM
p.4 #9Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
wiseguy010 wrote:
They would have to. It's the nature of a macro lens.Not all of them do. I had the Nikon 200mm AFD and that doesn't extend.The results that I had with this lens with focus-stacking were better than those of the ZF 100/2. IMO because of the not-extending of the Nikon lens.
A few more macro lenses that are entirely internal focus and thus don't extend are
Sony 90/2.8 FE
Zeiss Touit 50/2.8
Olympus 60/2.8 and Panasonic/Leica 45/2.8 for m43.
All four of them go to 1:1 magnification.
adamdewilde wrote
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.A few more macro lenses that are entirely internal focus and thus don't extend are
Sony 90/2.8 FE
Zeiss Touit 50/2.8
Olympus 60/2.8 and Panasonic/Leica 45/2.8 for m43.
All four of them go to 1:1 magnification.
Sep 12, 2015 at 06:31 PM
p.4 #10Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
The Milvus weighs twice as much as the Contax C/Y 85 1.4 Planar? That's insane! I know these lenses aren't for me - I have been watching Zeiss's new releases - but talk about bloat.
Sep 12, 2015 at 06:31 PM
p.4 #11Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
wiseguy010 wrote:
They would have to. It's the nature of a macro lens.Not all of them do. I had the Nikon 200mm AFD and that doesn't extend.The results that I had with this lens with focus-stacking were better than those of the ZF 100/2. IMO because of the not-extending of the Nikon lens.
If macro lenses don't extend, then the focal length shortens at close range. AFAIK, all macro lenses do one or the other.
adamdewilde wrote
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.If macro lenses don't extend, then the focal length shortens at close range. AFAIK, all macro lenses do one or the other.
Sep 12, 2015 at 06:53 PM
p.4 #12Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think Leica is busy designing an entire new line of Q AF lenses.
Lets hope. And let's hope they're as good as the M lenses, and with as much character.
I think Leica is busy designing an entire new line of Q AF lenses.
Lets hope. And let's hope they're as good as the M lenses, and with as much character.
Sep 12, 2015 at 08:21 PM
p.4 #13Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
bjornthun wrote:
They would have to. It's the nature of a macro lens.Not all of them do. I had the Nikon 200mm AFD and that doesn't extend.The results that I had with this lens with focus-stacking were better than those of the ZF 100/2. IMO because of the not-extending of the Nikon lens.A few more macro lenses that are entirely internal focus and thus don't extend are
Sony 90/2.8 FE
Zeiss Touit 50/2.8
Olympus 60/2.8 and Panasonic/Leica 45/2.8 for m43.
All four of them go to 1:1 magnification.
What's happening with your lenses is the same as what's happening with the Zeiss. It's just that they were designed to be large enough to accommodate the shift in elements needed to achieve 1:1 macro without the barrel extending outwards.
What I meant to say was "They would have to. It's the nature of the macro lens". As in that specific lens design.
wiseguy010 wrote
adamdewilde wrote
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.Sony 90/2.8 FE
Zeiss Touit 50/2.8
Olympus 60/2.8 and Panasonic/Leica 45/2.8 for m43.
All four of them go to 1:1 magnification.
What's happening with your lenses is the same as what's happening with the Zeiss. It's just that they were designed to be large enough to accommodate the shift in elements needed to achieve 1:1 macro without the barrel extending outwards.
What I meant to say was "They would have to. It's the nature of the macro lens". As in that specific lens design.
Sep 12, 2015 at 08:25 PM
p.4 #14Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
rico wrote:
(Also note, Canon 35L II claims to have done it with their blue-whatever-whatever..)A year ago, I would have agreed. I avoided fast 35s for that reason, but then the Sigma Art arrived. The damn thing is as close to color perfect as I can fantasize—and we're talking wide open. Not bad for $900.
I shot a few weddings with the 35ART lens. It's good, but one of the reasons I ditched it was because the CA performance wasn't good enough to make up for the lack of color and in my opinion dull rendering.
Though considering I was shooting backlit brides and wasn't always facing issues like I do with other 35mm lenses. It's a pretty well corrected lens.
adamdewilde wrote
... 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..)
I shot a few weddings with the 35ART lens. It's good, but one of the reasons I ditched it was because the CA performance wasn't good enough to make up for the lack of color and in my opinion dull rendering.
Though considering I was shooting backlit brides and wasn't always facing issues like I do with other 35mm lenses. It's a pretty well corrected lens.
Sep 12, 2015 at 08:27 PM
p.4 #15Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Steve Spencer wrote:
If macro lenses don't extend, then the focal length shortens at close range. AFAIK, all macro lenses do one or the other.
And the two I have experience with (105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor and Leica 100AME) do both.
If macro lenses don't extend, then the focal length shortens at close range. AFAIK, all macro lenses do one or the other.
And the two I have experience with (105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor and Leica 100AME) do both.
Sep 13, 2015 at 12:41 AM
p.4 #16Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
wiseguy010 wrote:
They would have to. It's the nature of a macro lens.Not all of them do. I had the Nikon 200mm AFD and that doesn't extend.The results that I had with this lens with focus-stacking were better than those of the ZF 100/2. IMO because of the not-extending of the Nikon lens.
That's interesting. I would have thought the opposite. If a macro lens doesn't (fully) extend at MFD it achieves it's maximum magnification by reducing the focal length, as written above. This is true for the 2nd gen of the Nikon 200mm macro, while the Zeiss keeps its focal length.
My guess was that a constant focal length is much more important for focus stacking than a constant distance between the front lens and the object. But maybe I'm wrong.
Boris
adamdewilde wrote
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.That's interesting. I would have thought the opposite. If a macro lens doesn't (fully) extend at MFD it achieves it's maximum magnification by reducing the focal length, as written above. This is true for the 2nd gen of the Nikon 200mm macro, while the Zeiss keeps its focal length.
My guess was that a constant focal length is much more important for focus stacking than a constant distance between the front lens and the object. But maybe I'm wrong.
Boris
Sep 13, 2015 at 01:01 AM
p.4 #17Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
adamdewilde wrote:
They would have to. It's the nature of a macro lens.Not all of them do. I had the Nikon 200mm AFD and that doesn't extend.The results that I had with this lens with focus-stacking were better than those of the ZF 100/2. IMO because of the not-extending of the Nikon lens.A few more macro lenses that are entirely internal focus and thus don't extend are
Sony 90/2.8 FE
Zeiss Touit 50/2.8
Olympus 60/2.8 and Panasonic/Leica 45/2.8 for m43.
All four of them go to 1:1 magnification.What's happening with your lenses is the same as what's happening with the Zeiss. It's just that they were designed to be large enough to accommodate the shift in elements needed to achieve 1:1 macro without the barrel extending outwards.
What I meant to say was "They would have to. It's the nature of the macro lens". As in that specific lens design.
The four lenses I mentioned have an internal focusing group. I own only the Sony 90 FE and the Touit 50/2.8.
If I recall correctly, the front element of the Nikon AF-D 200/4 moves, but within the barrel, so the outer dimensions of the lens stay the same.
bjornthun wrote
wiseguy010 wrote
adamdewilde wrote
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.Sony 90/2.8 FE
Zeiss Touit 50/2.8
Olympus 60/2.8 and Panasonic/Leica 45/2.8 for m43.
All four of them go to 1:1 magnification.
What I meant to say was "They would have to. It's the nature of the macro lens". As in that specific lens design.
The four lenses I mentioned have an internal focusing group. I own only the Sony 90 FE and the Touit 50/2.8.
If I recall correctly, the front element of the Nikon AF-D 200/4 moves, but within the barrel, so the outer dimensions of the lens stay the same.
Sep 13, 2015 at 04:58 AM
p.4 #18Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Bobu wrote:
They would have to. It's the nature of a macro lens.Not all of them do. I had the Nikon 200mm AFD and that doesn't extend.The results that I had with this lens with focus-stacking were better than those of the ZF 100/2. IMO because of the not-extending of the Nikon lens.That's interesting. I would have thought the opposite. If a macro lens doesn't (fully) extend at MFD it achieves it's maximum magnification by reducing the focal length, as written above. This is true for the 2nd gen of the Nikon 200mm macro, while the Zeiss keeps its focal length.
My guess was that a constant focal length is much more important for focus stacking than a constant distance between the front lens and the object. But maybe I'm wrong.
Boris
Hi Boris,
Thanks for your thoughts. I must say that I am not quite sure about this as well. The only thing I noticed when using the ZF 100/2 was that the framing of the subject changed quite a lot while focussing but this wasn't the case with the Nikon 200 (at least when I remember correctly). This in combination with the better focus stacking results of the Nikon 200 resulted in my conclusion. It might de different though. I will try to read more about it and when I find out I will post it here. Of course I could use a macro rail with the ZF 100/2 that would enable me to work around it.
wiseguy010 wrote
adamdewilde wrote
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.My guess was that a constant focal length is much more important for focus stacking than a constant distance between the front lens and the object. But maybe I'm wrong.
Boris
Hi Boris,
Thanks for your thoughts. I must say that I am not quite sure about this as well. The only thing I noticed when using the ZF 100/2 was that the framing of the subject changed quite a lot while focussing but this wasn't the case with the Nikon 200 (at least when I remember correctly). This in combination with the better focus stacking results of the Nikon 200 resulted in my conclusion. It might de different though. I will try to read more about it and when I find out I will post it here. Of course I could use a macro rail with the ZF 100/2 that would enable me to work around it.
Sep 13, 2015 at 01:00 PM
p.4 #19Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
bjornthun wrote:
They would have to. It's the nature of a macro lens.Not all of them do. I had the Nikon 200mm AFD and that doesn't extend.The results that I had with this lens with focus-stacking were better than those of the ZF 100/2. IMO because of the not-extending of the Nikon lens.A few more macro lenses that are entirely internal focus and thus don't extend are
Sony 90/2.8 FE
Zeiss Touit 50/2.8
Olympus 60/2.8 and Panasonic/Leica 45/2.8 for m43.
All four of them go to 1:1 magnification.What's happening with your lenses is the same as what's happening with the Zeiss. It's just that they were designed to be large enough to accommodate the shift in elements needed to achieve 1:1 macro without the barrel extending outwards.
What I meant to say was "They would have to. It's the nature of the macro lens". As in that specific lens design.The four lenses I mentioned have an internal focusing group. I own only the Sony 90 FE and the Touit 50/2.8.
If I recall correctly, the front element of the Nikon AF-D 200/4 moves, but within the barrel, so the outer dimensions of the lens stay the same.
I think I might have mis-explained the situation and confused things. There's a basic principle behind macro lenses. The Zeiss is designed as such that it moves away from the sensor. Think of a bellows system (sort of). In order for Zeiss to make everything internal, the lens would have to be bigger OR zeiss would have to change the design of the 100/2 which they did not do. All lenses designed like Zeiss' lens, would need this to be the case. There are ways to do this while keeping the front element static. For Zeiss' design it's not possible to do this. The 50MP is also the same.
Sorry I'm not technical enough to explain, and would have to draw diagrams
On a side note, if they removed the macro function from both the MP lenses. They would be TINY TINY lenses. Especially the 50MP.
adamdewilde wrote
bjornthun wrote
wiseguy010 wrote
adamdewilde wrote
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.Sony 90/2.8 FE
Zeiss Touit 50/2.8
Olympus 60/2.8 and Panasonic/Leica 45/2.8 for m43.
All four of them go to 1:1 magnification.
What I meant to say was "They would have to. It's the nature of the macro lens". As in that specific lens design.
If I recall correctly, the front element of the Nikon AF-D 200/4 moves, but within the barrel, so the outer dimensions of the lens stay the same.
I think I might have mis-explained the situation and confused things. There's a basic principle behind macro lenses. The Zeiss is designed as such that it moves away from the sensor. Think of a bellows system (sort of). In order for Zeiss to make everything internal, the lens would have to be bigger OR zeiss would have to change the design of the 100/2 which they did not do. All lenses designed like Zeiss' lens, would need this to be the case. There are ways to do this while keeping the front element static. For Zeiss' design it's not possible to do this. The 50MP is also the same.
Sorry I'm not technical enough to explain, and would have to draw diagrams
On a side note, if they removed the macro function from both the MP lenses. They would be TINY TINY lenses. Especially the 50MP.
Sep 14, 2015 at 11:58 AM
p.4 #20Zeiss Milvus vital stats, compared with Otus, Classic, and C/Y
Bobu wrote:
They would have to. It's the nature of a macro lens.Not all of them do. I had the Nikon 200mm AFD and that doesn't extend.The results that I had with this lens with focus-stacking were better than those of the ZF 100/2. IMO because of the not-extending of the Nikon lens.That's interesting. I would have thought the opposite. If a macro lens doesn't (fully) extend at MFD it achieves it's maximum magnification by reducing the focal length, as written above. This is true for the 2nd gen of the Nikon 200mm macro, while the Zeiss keeps its focal length.
My guess was that a constant focal length is much more important for focus stacking than a constant distance between the front lens and the object. But maybe I'm wrong.
Boris
I agree with you. This even happens with Non-macro lenses. And is terribly noticeable with 70-200 zooms
But I think all lenses breath a slight bit, no matter if the front element moves or not. Unless of course a lens is corrected for it. Like a lot of the Cine counterparts to the ZE/ZF lenses are.
wiseguy010 wrote
adamdewilde wrote
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.My guess was that a constant focal length is much more important for focus stacking than a constant distance between the front lens and the object. But maybe I'm wrong.
Boris
I agree with you. This even happens with Non-macro lenses. And is terribly noticeable with 70-200 zooms
But I think all lenses breath a slight bit, no matter if the front element moves or not. Unless of course a lens is corrected for it. Like a lot of the Cine counterparts to the ZE/ZF lenses are.
Sep 14, 2015 at 12:00 PM