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.
DaveFP wrote:
I would find them far too heavy for travel.
In any case I love your images.
Can you tell us what textures you employ?
Thanks Dave. I appreciate it. I actually don't employ texturing any more to my pictures. Or if I do, only in a very subtle way to give them more of a painterly look. The textures I used to use were highly customized and altered depending on the image.
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 →
I'm also in this boat. Recently acquired a zf2 25f2 but am currently considering the milvus.
I will say my 25 f2 has given me some of the best IQ other than otus. but I have not tried the milvus line yet.
Not sure if it's worth the size/weight penalty for the extra stop/possible iq bonus
not really interested in the 28 otus. 25 is a sweet spot for me
At one point not many years ago I carried the ZE Milvus 15/2.8, 50M/2 and 135/2 in my single bag. It was a chore as the total weight of those three lenses was slightly over 6 pounds.
I gave Voigtlander a try and eventually purchased a CV 21, 65, 110. IMO, the IQ was excellent, easily as good as the Milvus lenses I had at the time. The total weight of the three CV's is 4 pounds. While that may only be 2 pounds, by the end of the day it felt like a heck of a lot more.
I really liked the Milvus lenses, but I like the CV's equally as well so the Zeiss glass went away. I did purchase the Sonar 135 Classic early this year as I really did miss that FL.
If the weight of the Milvus lenses is less an issue for you then by all means take them on your trip (consider a monopod?). If the overall weight is a concern then give CV's a look.
I have CVs and Milvus lenses. As good as the CVs are, I find the Milvus to have better color repro and fidelity. The CVs have beautiful sunstars. Pick your poison and go shoot. All of these lenses are so good.
I have several MIlvus lenses. My favourites by far are the 25 1.4, the 85 1.4 and the 135/2 in that order.
I will go out with only one if I know what I will encounter. Other times, for a longer time I will carry one mounted to my S1R with a RRS L bracket and a sling. This combination allows me to carry a camera and lens comfortably for many hours along with a second lens in my bag. I know with these two lenses, I will get amazing results.
I love the manual focussing of all the Milvus lenses.
And I was 88 years old when I was doing this. Since then I have gone back to a brace of M9's. Getting old I guess.
No one knows the late Zeiss lenses like Cosina, and it shows despite them being largely a Leica M-mount provider, now neglectful of other camera systems except for a few demonstration specials.
The often exceptional CV lenses are nevertheless a step towards the digital era. They never quite instilled the magic that Zeiss effortlessly incorporated into their lenses. (you know your lenses, Doug, thanks so much for your referrals for the Simeras - the 50mm is a cracking lens, a quite astonishing optic).
Looking at the Milvus series, as a set they seem to emulate the famed Zeiss cine lenses: uncompromising, large and heavy, all business and very, very good. It saddens me that the 35/1.4 was not workable for my needs, it impresses me more than the much-trumpeted SL 35/2 APO. But I've loved the Zeiss look from the very first image I saw from one many years ago.
For travel? Long after the effort is forgotten, the Milvus's images will remain. Maybe take a favourite one, and a few 'vote lenders' (Voigtlanders) or ZE/ZFs. They are all good at what matters.
phillip-pj I should have added that it is the brace of my M9's have the Simera 50 and 28 mounted.
In many ways the S 28 reminds me of the Milvus 25. Other times it remind me of the famous c/y Zeiss 28 Hollywood with the field curvature sweeping forward at the edges.
Thanks Doug, I understand. Running through the often confusing field of the photographic landscape, we can see the huge impact of Carl Zeiss AG. I feel lucky to have started with the Contax lenses because they set the tone for what you choose to go with later on, due to their strong signature. I enjoy the CV lenses but Zeiss is a more muscular look that has improved with wider dynamic range sensors.
It's no coincidence the great lens makers of stills photography are very big players in the cine field. We could say that Zeiss retreated in that direction 5-10 years back and the cine lens forms seemed to have influenced the size and look of their Milvus and Otus lines. And they also influenced the smaller new lens producers such as DZOFilm, simply by being the standard against which others are measured.
It will be interesting to see what the still-to-appear Simera 75/1.4 looks like. I hope they don't cramp its dimensions to ensure it attracts the favor of the Leica M base. The cine version is luckily the fallback option for me, and the 16-blade aperture is a bonus if I go in that direction. That series uses aerospace aluminum, probably 6061 for its thermal properties.
I use lenses a lot at f2-f3.5 which is where ball shape problems seem to appear. I find it more troublesome than a little busyness in the balls or corner ball shapes, provided contrast is kept low. By the way, the 14-blade aperture used in the Simeras is unusual. Even high end cine lenses use fewer blades than that, nine or eleven being common. But if anything, it's more critical in photography's lenses with its frozen images.
The 75 T1.5 is only 450 grams in any case, and it's native in E-mount. It's doubtful the Leica base will be much interested in 75mm lenses of any kind, their interest seems to peter out at the 50mm mark. The Voigtlander 75/1.5 is a great lens IMO, but it is always saleable to M-mount users if the Simera suits my style and needs better. I think it will, the strong close focus centers and dramatic fade are very different to the Voigtlander's dreamy f1.5 render. It was made for Leica, so that's understandable. Many of them criticize it nevertheless.
I also opt for Zeiss classic lenses. I use the classic Zeiss lenses ZF 21/2.8, 35/2.0 and 100/2.0 Macro for traveling. They have perfect spacing for environmental use. The macro is good for long shots, and for details and flowers. Earlier I used them on the Nikon D750, now also on mirrorless Z7 with FTZ adapter. Both are full frame bodies.
I own also 25/2, 25/2.8 (very special lens since it can close focus up to 1:2.5). 28/2 ("Holywood", very painterly), 50/1.4, 50/2.0 and 85/1.4 which is a good match with the 28/2.0. I choose those two when I only want to carry 2 lenses. I never missed any lacking resolution. They are still very good lenses, except for some CA sometimes.
For my taste the 25/1.4 would be far to heavy for a travel lens. 25/2 classic is less then half the weight, and 25/2.8 is the lightest. 28/2 slightly more.
Now I also own Voigtlander 40/1.2 Z which is perfect as a one lens solution, has a similar rendering to the Zeiss lenses, it is very light and goes without adapter. It might be to long on a crop body though.
In India I would be reluctant to walk around with a big fat lens, I'd rather choose something less conspicous.
Yeah, it's not a travel (as generally defined) option lens for almost everyone. I have similar to you, lots of Zeiss images among the best I've managed. The one that keeps embarrassing my fancy lenses is the 35-70/3.4.
What works in India is a small camera/lens to quickly get it to your eye and shoot, while being discreet. It takes practice and sometimes a bit of chutzpah, but very worthwhile to get it right. MF is hard in the street life, so much movement. Low yield unless posed. Temples are OK, palaces too. I used a Hexar AF for years, plus a Fuji GA645. Both around 35mm or equivalent.
I wonder what Cosina managers think of the (2017) 40/1.2 sales career after these last seven years?
Nov 29, 2024 at 01:43 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
When I shot the Canon 5D II, my travel kit was the ZE 21 f/2.8, ZE 35 f/1.4, Minolta 58 f/1.2, and ZE 100 f/2 Makro. It was big and heavy but produced excellent images (I post a few below) and when I was younger I didn't mind lugging the extra weight.
When I switched to Sony I moved away from the ZE/ZF/Milvus lenses but I have owned the Milvus 25 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 and 135 f/2 APO. Recently I also acquired the ZE 25 f/2, the ZE 50 f/2 Makro, and reacquired the 100 f/2 Makro. I like these lenses a lot, but for travel I go with lighter lenses these days. For example, as much as I like the 100 f/2 Makro, I find for travel the Zeiss Loxia 85 f/2.4 to be a great travel replacement, and as much as I like the 50 f/2 Makro the Voigtlander 50 f/2 APO is a great travel replacement and as much as I think the Milvus 25 f/1.4 is a fantastic lens, for travel I am sure I would always pick the Loxia 25 f/2.4 and I would pick the Loxia even over the excellent and somewhat smaller ZE 25 f/2.
Below are some shots with these lenses.
ILCE-7M221mm F2.8 lens21mmf/5.61/30s800 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7M2100mm F2 lens100mmf/4.51/320s100 ISO+1.3 EV
Canon EOS 5D Mark IIZeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZE lens100mmf/2.01/800s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5DT 100mm F2 SAM lens100mmf/5.61/1000s160 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5DT 25mm F2 SAM lens25mmf/5.61/400s160 ISO0.0 EV
