Do any of you have direct experience comparing Zeiss 50mm F/2.0 "classic" lens with the newer Milvus version. I used to have the classic version, was my favorite lens, for some reason got rid of it, and now thinking about repurchasing it again.
The classic looks to me like the better choice due to:
- smaller size and weight
- nice classic design (subjective)
- much cheaper on the used market and easier to find - my guess is Zeiss sold more of the classics than the Milvus versions
- optically the same as the Milvus
the only thing that tempts me with the Milvus is the supposedly much improved focusing. The classic has a fairly stiff focus mechanism, having something smoother/easier would be nice.
If anyone moved from the classic to Milvus, what are your thoughts? Is the focus mechanism much better? Is the larger size of Milvus noticeable to you?
Thank you.
EDIT: To clarify, this post is about the ZE or ZF version. I'm specifically considering this lens in the ZE mount for the Canon 5D II camera, but feedback from ZF users is welcomed as the ZE and ZF lenses are the same, except the aperture ring.
I don't think they had the Makro-Planar or Milvus for leica m mount, unless you meant adapting them?
Could explain the lack of responses (though it's still early) but you may be better off discussing this in the Nikon forum, I know they had them in F mount, possibly Canon too but unfamiliar.
I'm keen on picking up the ZM Planar 50/2 but mainly for film, though I don't think you're asking about that one.
The performance of my Zeiss Makro-Planar 50mm f/2 ZE has been exceptional (100/2 also), since I bought it (them) in 2013. The 50/2 MP focus ring is well-damped, but I haven't found it to be 'stiff', even at temps down to about -20C. Regardless, the increased size and weight of the Milvus rules it out for me, before even considering cost.
Feb 13, 2026 at 08:58 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p9168k wrote:
Do any of you have direct experience comparing Zeiss 50mm F/2.0 "classic" lens with the newer Milvus version. I used to have the classic version, was my favorite lens, for some reason got rid of it, and now thinking about repurchasing it again.
The classic looks to me like the better choice due to:
- smaller size and weight
- nice classic design (subjective)
- much cheaper on the used market and easier to find - my guess is Zeiss sold more of the classics than the Milvus versions
- optically the same as the Milvus
the only thing that tempts me with the Milvus is the supposedly much improved focusing. The classic has a fairly stiff focus mechanism, having something smoother/easier would be nice.
If anyone moved from the classic to Milvus, what are your thoughts? Is the focus mechanism much better? Is the larger size of Milvus noticeable to you?
My classic ZE 50 f/2 Macro had a lovely focus ring and IMO just the right focus throw. One of the things I like best about the lens. I opted to get the classic for the reasons you list in your post, but if you really wanted a weather sealed lens then that would be a reason to opt for the MIlvus. The classic is not weather sealed.
The other consideration is that the focusing rings on the Milvus line are rubber, and it attracts dirt and dust to it. I much prefer the metal rings in the classic line.
I loved my classic 50 MP! May I suggest you also look at the Voigtlande 50 APO ? Chances are you’ll get a newer, better, cheaper lens from the same people who had been actually producing those classic Zeiss lenses.
nazdravanul wrote:
I loved my classic 50 MP! May I suggest you also look at the Voigtlande 50 APO ? Chances are you’ll get a newer, better, cheaper lens from the same people who had been actually producing those classic Zeiss lenses.
Thanks for the suggestion. I should have specified in the original post that this lens would be for the Canon EF mount. The voigtlander APO is not available for EF. Also the nice thing about the makro planar is its macro capability. It's a very universal lens for variety of subjects. It's very unique.
p9168k wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion. I should have specified in the original post that this lens would be for the Canon EF mount. The voigtlander APO is not available for EF. Also the nice thing about the makro planar is its macro capability. It's a very universal lens for variety of subjects. It's very unique.
Unfortunate that Canon won't let Voigtlander build onto their platform. I have a good friend who would really like to purchase a couple Voigtlanders but he also shoots Canon and their restrictions on 3rd party lenses frustrates him. He may eventually leave Canon because of this.
I never owned the 'classic' but I did the Milvus 50/2 Makro. It was an exceptional lens in all regards, including weight. I began to replace my Zeiss Milvus (3 of them) with Voigtlander's and found the switch to be favorable; both in IQ and weight savings. CV produces some exceptional lenses and I found the CV APO-Lanthar Macro 65mm to be better than the Milvus Makro 50/2. IMO, the CV 65 is the best lens I've ever owned (50+ years of shooting).
I still have the MP ‘classic’ ZF.2.
I find the focus feel perfect, and much prefer the style and design over the Milvus. Optically it is the same bar maybe improved coatings, so Zeiss just made it unnecessarily bigger IMO just so you can see it is a new lens.
The only thing I was disappointed about w my MP was the flare performance. i was expecting much better from Zeiss.
