If you do a comparison of planar and Milvus, by all means, you don't need to hold back or be shy about it. Do post here !! I am by no means asking, just in case, ha ha
akul wrote:
If you do a comparison of planar and Milvus, by all means, you don't need to hold back or be shy about it. Do post here !! I am by no means asking, just in case, ha ha
we'll see if I dont get lazy. But One thing I am sure of... I can't do the same shots with classic planar it will be dreamy all over.
Now I am starting to call this Classic planar my dream machine.
I have't been keeping up lately (been shooting exclusively Leica) so I was under the impression that the milvus line was announced mostly as cosmetic upgrade, but looking at the 1.4/50 the difference seems apparent!
why are manufacturers all of a sudden making great 50s (and in this case, not just one)? they never bothered before
It appears the 50P at f2.8 looks a lot like the 50D at f1.4 (at near focus). I thought that is what I was looking at initially (in bushwacker's Seven Lakes image).
Keep them Milvus pics coming! I've been on the fence about the 50/1.4 Milvus for a while now, as someone who used to own the legendary Sigma 50/1.4 ART I had the feeling that the Milvus was pretty much the same except without AF and at a higher price, but some of the pictures that have been posted here from it suggest it might have some of that lucious Zeissiness to it.
Rodluvan wrote:
I have't been keeping up lately (been shooting exclusively Leica) so I was under the impression that the milvus line was announced mostly as cosmetic upgrade, but looking at the 1.4/50 the difference seems apparent!
why are manufacturers all of a sudden making great 50s (and in this case, not just one)? they never bothered before
My experience on this Milvus 50/1.4 is that wide open is pretty sharp tons of contrast compared to 50/1.4 planar.
for some reason i dont like its [ milvus ] contrast wide open.
here's the money shot that convinced me to keep the Milvus, there's no way I can do this with Classic 50/1.4 Planar wide open. One thing I am missing here... the dreamy bokeh.
Thanks !! Of course I was greedier that I was hoping for sort of a comparison. I had a CY 50/1.4 ,so I am familiar with planar's rendition,but I am not as good to be able to draw comparison in my head. Nice shot !
It feels that compare to Planar, Milvus has more DOF with no veiling flare,and more composed broken, which leads to more descriptive accurate ( whatever that means) rendering. Planar was also prone to produce busier bokeh, but pretty strong after 2.8 especially from mid to far distance shot . Wide open in close distance was fun but bit too much flare and not much resolution.
bushwacker wrote:
here's the money shot that convinced me to keep the Milvus, there's no way I can do this with Classic 50/1.4 Planar wide open. One thing I am missing here... the dreamy bokeh.
Interesting that Milvus's bokeh has a lot of definition in mid distance shot. Good 3d it appears. May be a little less subject isolation than I expected.
Yet another frame with my little Zeiss ZF.2 25/2.8 Distagon on a D810.
