I recently bought the Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4, and am possibly looking for a Milvus 25/1.4. I take mostly environmental portraits and landscapes, which both lenses respectively suit very well. I use a Fuji X-H1 with a Canon adapter to attach the Milvus. The X-H1 has built in IS.
But I have a dilemma. I have a Fuji 16-55mm (like new) which is a great lens in its own right, which I would like to sell in order to afford the 25/1.4. I will be travelling extensively in India, and likely living there for an extended time. I am concerned about the portability of the Milvus lenses. I don't use a tripod, and the 85mm is quite heavy. I thought I would keep the 16-55 as a backup in case I find the Milvus 85mm untenable. I need to decide soon: 85+25mm Milvus or 85+Fuji 16-55 backup.
Note that I don't find the Milvus 50/1.4 has that same Zeiss pop that I find with the other two lenses, so even though it is lighter, I won't be considering it.
So my question is, what has been your experience with the Milvus lenses hand held when going on trips? I don't think I would mind lugging them around, but I was wondering whether you find persistent hand holding of these lenses to be too much of a strain? I am 62 years old, so relatively still young, but not necessarily a body building type, although in good shape generally.
Will you have all of your lenses with you at all times? If you walk for longer distances, or if you will need to hand-hold the lenses for longer times, one Milvus is likely preferable to two. At the same time, the Zeiss Milvus 1.4/25mm is just exceptionally good, better than the 1.4/85mm. Did you test the 2.8/21, which is a lot less heavy? If you have static subjects, you can have longer exposure times with wide angle lenses, so maybe you don't need f/1.4.
Actually, the Nikon Z with 1.8/24mm might be the best choice with regard to size, weight and image quality, but I assume that would be more costly altogether, given your existing gear.
The milvus 25 1.4 has amazing flat field correction, color spectrum and sharpness, so it would not go unappreciated with the high spatial resolution and color science of the X-H1. The crop factor would have a fov similar to the native fujinon XF23mmF1.4 R, which is a great native lens.
The milvus 25 is only 65 grams lighter than the milvus 85, and the native XF23mmF1.4 R is 300g, 1/4 of the weight of the milvus 25 & half the cost.
While I often choose non-native lenses for my cameras for their superior qualities compared to native ones, in the case of fujinon I believe that many of the native lenses are superior to many of the others for color science & sharpness and tonality. Probably not against the milvus 25/1.4, though.
Perhaps a trip to the camera shop to test side by side.
I own six Zeiss lenses which I use on Nikon cameras without adapter, currently D850. My heaviest lenses are Otus 55/1.4 and Sonnar 135/2 and I have no problems hand holding these lenses for prolonged times. I have no Milvus lenses, but instead their earlier zf versions (15/2.8, 25/2, 35/2, 100/2) which are much lighter than the Milvus and optically excellent. The zf 15 and 100 mm are actually optically identical to the Milvus.version . If I wanted to get an 85 mm lens, I would select the Otus over the Milvus. My most used lens is the Otus and I add one or two of the lighter lenses for travel.
AcuteShadows, thanks for your reply. I heard that the Milvus 25/1.4 is exceptional, better even than the 35/1.4 which is a very good lens as well. I don't think I will switch to Nikon. I pretty well made a commitment to Zeiss lenses.
AndereObjektiv wrote:
The milvus 25 1.4 has amazing flat field correction, color spectrum and sharpness, so it would not go unappreciated with the high spatial resolution and color science of the X-H1. The crop factor would have a fov similar to the native fujinon XF23mmF1.4 R, which is a great native lens.
The milvus 25 is only 65 grams lighter than the milvus 85, and the native XF23mmF1.4 R is 300g, 1/4 of the weight of the milvus 25 & half the cost.
While I often choose non-native lenses for my cameras for their superior qualities compared to native ones, in the case of fujinon I believe that many of the native lenses are superior to many of the others for color science & sharpness and tonality. Probably not against the milvus 25/1.4, though.
Perhaps a trip to the camera shop to test side by side. ...Show more →
Yes, great point AndereObjektiv about native lenses. The Fujinon lenses are actually renowned for their quality. Yet there is something quite singular and special about the Zeiss look. I can't wait to test the Milvus out with the X-H1.
GiantTristan wrote:
I own six Zeiss lenses which I use on Nikon cameras without adapter, currently D850. My heaviest lenses are Otus 55/1.4 and Sonnar 135/2 and I have no problems hand holding these lenses for prolonged times. I have no Milvus lenses, but instead their earlier zf versions (15/2.8, 25/2, 35/2, 100/2) which are much lighter than the Milvus and optically excellent. The zf 15 and 100 mm are actually optically identical to the Milvus.version . If I wanted to get an 85 mm lens, I would select the Otus over the Milvus. My most used lens is the Otus and I add one or two of the lighter lenses for travel....Show more →
GiantTristan, I am glad you find the Otus lenses manageable by way of size and weight. They tend to be longer than their Milvus counterparts. Does the Giant in your ID describe your hand-size? In which case, you hold an advantage.
I also have X-H1 and Milvus 1.4/85 ZF.2. Logically, Milvus 1.4/25 was also in my radar for some time, but it seems to be a rather hard to find lens around. After exchanging messages with few people on the internet, I ended up getting Z6 + 24/1.8S, which does not solve my initial dilemma anyway as this combo should actually be compared against XF16mm/1.4 instead... I'm still thinking whether Mivlus 25mm will be a better all-arounder that I can also put on a Fuji X camera.
With that being said, I would almost never travel with a bag that heavy. I usually pack a X-T100 for its better colour detail for landscape shooting, and some light primes. Rarely, a zoom lens too.
You may consider the new XF 16-80mm/4, but reviews are not great at both ends. I would go as far as saying that most Fujinon lenses are not thrilling when it comes to corner performance, so pick your priorities.
Why, just like with any other of my working set lenses, I always shoot my Zeiss Distagon 35mm f2 zf, including during travel. Its not the Milvus version though, which from my perspective only has disadvantages - uglier, heavier, more expensive, useless video functionality, and most importantly its apparently also not optically identical and is optically inferior.
And I wouldnt use it during actual trekking, when you really want to travel as light as possible, which however I dont do. And personally an adapted lens isnt really my top choice for travel.
The 16-80/4 is simply epic. I dont know any 5x zoom thats actually great at the ends. Avoid those, or stop the lens down.
fblack wrote:
I also have X-H1 and Milvus 1.4/85 ZF.2. Logically, Milvus 1.4/25 was also in my radar for some time, but it seems to be a rather hard to find lens around. After exchanging messages with few people on the internet, I ended up getting Z6 + 24/1.8S, which does not solve my initial dilemma anyway as this combo should actually be compared against XF16mm/1.4 instead... I'm still thinking whether Mivlus 25mm will be a better all-arounder that I can also put on a Fuji X camera.
With that being said, I would almost never travel with a bag that heavy. I usually pack a X-T100 for its better colour detail for landscape shooting, and some light primes. Rarely, a zoom lens too.
You may consider the new XF 16-80mm/4, but reviews are not great at both ends. I would go as far as saying that most Fujinon lenses are not thrilling when it comes to corner performance, so pick your priorities....Show more →
Thank you fblack. From what I hear, people who have the Milvus 25/1.4 cannot put it down. It is the go-to landscape lens for them. I had the 16-80mm (my first fuji zoom) but it proved a huge disappointment. I will pm you about your impressions about the Milvus-X-H1 partnership.
Sauseschritt wrote:
Why, just like with any other of my working set lenses, I always shoot my Zeiss Distagon 35mm f2 zf, including during travel. Its not the Milvus version though, which from my perspective only has disadvantages - uglier, heavier, more expensive, useless video functionality, and most importantly its apparently also not optically identical and is optically inferior.
And I wouldnt use it during actual trekking, when you really want to travel as light as possible, which however I dont do. And personally an adapted lens isnt really my top choice for travel.
The 16-80/4 is simply epic. I dont know any 5x zoom thats actually great at the ends. Avoid those, or stop the lens down. ...Show more →
Really? I had the Fuji 16-80 and it is what drove me to try third-party lenses. I finally figured out how to use it by fiddling with different settings that I never heard of before, but the whole experience ruined my trip and left me cold about this lens.
Also, every single person has been critical of the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f2 's optical quality, particularly relative to the newer Milvus 35mm f1.4. You seem to be the only one who claims the latter is optically inferior. May I ask in what ways?
Zeiss glass runs deep in my blood. I've owned almost all of the Zeiss Classic ZF.2 lenses, of note the 18mm, 28mm, both 35mm's, 50mm, 85mm 100mm & 135mm. I've since upgraded to the Milvus 15mm, 25mm, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f2 & 135mm, also the Otus 55mm & 85mm. You could say I have some experience with these lenses.
Honestly, you can't go wrong with any of them. I choose to upgrade to the Milvus line for the weather sealing because I live in Seattle and as everyone knows...it rains, a lot.
If I'm going out for a casual walk I'll typical carry the Milvus 135mm & 25mm in my bag, and the Otus 55mm is mounted on the Nikon Z7...slung over my shoulder, ready to go. Each of these are very easily carried and are very well balanced.
The others are more specialized and aren't used as often, but still have a home, for now. That said, I've considered selling the 25mm & 35mm and upgrade to the 28mm Otus...but haven't made the decision yet.
Anyway, having a wide angle Zoom for convenience is nice but if IQ is more important... always choose the primes.
Zeiss glass runs deep in my blood. I've owned almost all of the Zeiss Classic ZF.2 lenses, of note the 18mm, 28mm, both 35mm's, 50mm, 85mm 100mm & 135mm. I've since upgraded to the Milvus 15mm, 25mm, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f2 & 135mm, also the Otus 55mm & 85mm. You could say I have some experience with these lenses.
Honestly, you can't go wrong with any of them. I choose to upgrade to the Milvus line for the weather sealing because I live in Seattle and as everyone knows...it rains, a lot.
If I'm going out for a casual walk I'll typical carry the Milvus 135mm & 25mm in my bag, and the Otus 55mm is mounted on the Nikon Z7...slung over my shoulder, ready to go. Each of these are very easily carried and are very well balanced.
The others are more specialized and aren't used as often, but still have a home, for now. That said, I've considered selling the 25mm & 35mm and upgrade to the 28mm Otus...but haven't made the decision yet.
Anyway, having a wide angle Zoom for convenience is nice but if IQ is more important... always choose the primes.
Thanks Wes. I am glad that portability is not an issue for you with these big lenses! If you are interested in selling the Milvus 25mm now let me know. I am looking to buy it before I move overseas.
I have the ZF 35/2 , and have been shooting the Milvus 35/1.4. The difference I see between the two in my photographs is that the in focus areas vs the out of focus areas with the 35/2 are more dramatic than with the Milvus 35. They seem to be both similarly sharp, but the 35/2 has more “pop”. If I’m wrong about this please let me know.
Is the Milvus 25 really sharper than the ZF2 25/2? The ZF2 is certainly more portable & less expensive. I like the results from mine, but I have a feeling I going to be comparing the two long term.
carlitos wrote:
I have the ZF 35/2 , and have been shooting the Milvus 35/1.4. The difference I see between the two in my photographs is that the in focus areas vs the out of focus areas with the 35/2 are more dramatic than with the Milvus 35. They seem to be both similarly sharp, but the 35/2 has more “pop”. If I’m wrong about this please let me know.
Is the Milvus 25 really sharper than the ZF2 25/2? The ZF2 is certainly more portable & less expensive. I like the results from mine, but I have a feeling I going to be comparing the two long term....Show more →
Interesting. The 35/2 is considered less sharp than the 35/1.4, but perhaps this pertains only to the corners, and closer to wide open. I would love to see some samples of what you say about contrast differences between focused and out of focus areas. can you show us? I like that pop, or 3D look a lot.
The 2/35 Classic (and the Milvus version which is optically identical except for updated coatings) has CA that never goes away at any aperture. It does have a look, and that may be valuable if you're shooting video or JPEG where the SOOC look is baked in. The 1.4/35 Milvus gets sharper as you stop down, and exceeds the 2/35 at all equivalent stops both in sharpness and evenness across the field. Note that there is a 1.4/35 Classic as well, and it's a completely different lens and character than the Milvus version.
