Question... this Milvus 2/35 you have... is there really a big difference in rendering compared to the classic 2/35?
say... contrast? OOF areas?
There shouldn\'t be. Optically the Milvus 35 f/2 is the same as the classic 35 f/2.
I agree with you, but it\'s interesting that in the case of the Milvus 50/2 MP, which should also be much the same as the classic equivalent, DXO testing results show the new one as much sharper than the old one. Not just a little, a lot. The optical formula of 8 elements in 6 groups is the same, so we tend to say it\'s optically equivalent and the only difference is coating. But we don\'t know if they tweaked the shape of those elements a little which makes a big difference in the personality of the lens. On the other hand, DXO might have a good sample of the Milvus and a poor sample of the classic. We don\'t know.
That said, I\'m not \"upgrading\" just for the heck of it. I have classic models of the 21, 35/2, 100, and 135 and I\'m perfectly happy with them. I got Milvus versions of the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, but I didn\'t have the classic ones, and in just these 2 it really is a different lens.
----
Here\'s one with the Milvus 85. Simple on camera flash bounced off the ceiling. f/2.8 gave enough DOF so most of the dog\'s head is reasonably in focus.
This is our 3-legged rescue dog who is afraid of everything.
