Official: Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/1.4 Distagon T*

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<em>The tenth lens in the ZEISS Milvus series for DSLR cameras already shows its many benefits at full aperture</em></p>
<p><strong>OBERKOCHEN/Germany, 2017-06-21</strong> – ZEISS has launched a new lens for full-frame DSLR cameras from Canon1 and Nikon2 on the market: the ZEISS Milvus 1.4/35. Now the tenth lens in the Milvus family, the ZEISS Milvus 1.4/35 is particularly suitable for portrait photography thanks to its speed. “The high maximum aperture enables the subject to stand out clearly against the background, and the photographer can achieve creative combinations of focus and blur,” says Christophe Casenave, Product Manager at ZEISS. “The manual focus enables very exact focusing, and the creamy bokeh provides an excellent image look. And even at full aperture the image quality leaves nothing to be desired.” The ZEISS Milvus 1.4/35 is also perfectly at home in landscape photography: “The 35-millimeter focal length is a genuine all-rounder.” Like all lenses in the ZEISS Milvus family, it is protected against dust and splashes and, according to Casenave, even bad weather is no problem. The metal barrel gives the lens its robust and durable character.</p>
<p><strong>Practically no chromatic aberrations thanks to a new optical design</strong>

With aspherical lens elements, special glass materials and advanced correction, ZEISS has given the lens a completely new optical design. “This means the photos are practically free from chromatic aberrations,” says Casenave. Thanks to their excellent edge-to-edge imagery the ZEISS Milvus lenses are designed for high-performance digital cameras. “The resolutions of camera sensors are constantly becoming higher, and this also increases the demands made on the lenses. For ZEISS Milvus lenses this is no problem. They are a solid investment in the future.”</p>
<p><strong>Also suitable for filming</strong>

The ten lenses in the ZEISS Milvus family, ranging between 15 and 135 millimeters, are also suitable for film productions: the manual focus with a large rotation angle can be operated with the aid of a ZEISS Lens Gear with a follow-focus system. The de-click function allows the aperture to be set continuously in the version for Nikon3 cameras. A further benefit for filming: ZEISS has matched the color characteristics of the ten lenses. Filmmakers can therefore switch between the focal lengths and still have a uniform color look. “This facilitates editing enormously,” says Casenave.</p>
<p><strong>Price and availability</strong>

The ZEISS Milvus 1.4/35 will be available from specialist dealers and in the ZEISS Online Shop from July 2017. The recommended retail price is 1,999 euros.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
<div style="font-size:0px;height:0px;line-height:0px;margin:0;padding:0;clear:both"></div>

 

[YuengLinger]

Canon has filled this niche nicely, thank you. And with great AF to boot!

Now bring on the new ef 50mm f/1.2...

 

[ahsanford]

That's a little over $2200?

So, if I have this right:

Take the wonderful 35L II, remove the autofocus, add about a pound of weight, and charge $600 more for it.

Shockingly, Zeiss's now legendary losing streak at getting my money lives on. :

I appreciate they make stellar optics, but this is one of Canon's strongest offerings. Whatever very small IQ improvements this new Zeiss might realize over the 35L II would be dwarfed by the loss of AF for my needs.

- A

 

[Ozarker]

That's a little over $2200?

So, if I have this right:

Take the wonderful 35L II, remove the autofocus, add about a pound of weight, and charge $600 more for it.

Shockingly, Zeiss's now legendary losing streak at getting my money lives on. :

I appreciate they make stellar optics, but this is one of Canon's strongest offerings. Whatever very small IQ improvements this new Zeiss might realize over the 35L II would be dwarfed by the loss of AF for my needs.

- A

Yeah, it's a pig to me. I know Zeiss has a following, but wow.

 

[FramerMCB]

That's a little over $2200?

So, if I have this right:

Take the wonderful 35L II, remove the autofocus, add about a pound of weight, and charge $600 more for it.

Shockingly, Zeiss's now legendary losing streak at getting my money lives on. :

I appreciate they make stellar optics, but this is one of Canon's strongest offerings. Whatever very small IQ improvements this new Zeiss might realize over the 35L II would be dwarfed by the loss of AF for my needs.

- A

You miss the point here my friend...why drive a Ferrari when you can really unload your wallet to drive a BUGATTI! (One that didn't use paddle-shifters on the steering wheel...)

...snicker, snicker.

I'm quite positive with my driving skill and the amount of time I'm ever driving (and it's mostly in traffic) I'd be just as thrilled with the performance of, say, an Audi S5.

 

[ahsanford]

You miss the point here my friend...why drive a Ferrari when you can really unload your wallet to drive a BUGATTI!

Does the Bugatti also lack a staple expecation of most users? Say, a steering wheel?

- A

 

[Khalai]

You miss the point here my friend...why drive a Ferrari when you can really unload your wallet to drive a BUGATTI!

Does the Bugatti also lack a staple expecation of most users? Say, a steering wheel?

- A

Lack of AF in Zeiss ZE lenses is probably "licensing issue" to quote Zeiss representative in an interview I once read.

But I have to wonder, to whom this lens should appeal. Heavier, more expensive and MF only lens with practically identical performance. For clickless aperture you'd still need ZF.2 mount with aperture ring. ZE mount is fully electronic anyways. Maybe I'm just tired and missing some obvious point, maybe...

 

[Berowne]

It simply Looks pretty nice, a lot of glass, densly packed with very few air between the different elements. And - if I compare my MF Leica-Lenses - I think it will feel realy good, if you touch it. A truely fat Piece of metal and glass.

 

[Pookie]

It simply Looks pretty nice, a lot of glass, densly packed with very few air between the different elements. And - if I compare my MF Leica-Lenses - I think it will feel realy good, if you touch it. A truely fat Piece of metal and glass.

Compared to Leica !!! Even my Summilux is tiny comapred to this. And it "feels" great already... fat glass is not a great selling point.

 

[ScottyP]

You miss the point here my friend...why drive a Ferrari when you can really unload your wallet to drive a BUGATTI!

Does the Bugatti also lack a staple expecation of most users? Say, a steering wheel?

- A

Lack of AF in Zeiss ZE lenses is probably "licensing issue" to quote Zeiss representative in an interview I once read.

But I have to wonder, to whom this lens should appeal. Heavier, more expensive and MF only lens with practically identical performance. For clickless aperture you'd still need ZF.2 mount with aperture ring. ZE mount is fully electronic anyways. Maybe I'm just tired and missing some obvious point, maybe...

Bah. Sigma, Tamron, etc don't have licensing problems. They have AF. Zeiss doesn't have it because they know they can't make it work up to the standards of their glass. So Maybe Sigma can simultaneously stop all criticism of its AF and quadruple its prices by simply removing AF altogether?

 

[Jopa]

You miss the point here my friend...why drive a Ferrari when you can really unload your wallet to drive a BUGATTI!

Does the Bugatti also lack a staple expecation of most users? Say, a steering wheel?

- A

Lack of AF in Zeiss ZE lenses is probably "licensing issue" to quote Zeiss representative in an interview I once read.

But I have to wonder, to whom this lens should appeal. Heavier, more expensive and MF only lens with practically identical performance. For clickless aperture you'd still need ZF.2 mount with aperture ring. ZE mount is fully electronic anyways. Maybe I'm just tired and missing some obvious point, maybe...

Bah. Sigma, Tamron, etc don't have licensing problems. They have AF. Zeiss doesn't have it because they know they can't make it work up to the standards of their glass. So Maybe Sigma can simultaneously stop all criticism of its AF and quadruple its prices by simply removing AF altogether?

Sigma and Tamron simply don't care enough about licensing

 

[Khalai]

You miss the point here my friend...why drive a Ferrari when you can really unload your wallet to drive a BUGATTI!

Does the Bugatti also lack a staple expecation of most users? Say, a steering wheel?

- A

Lack of AF in Zeiss ZE lenses is probably "licensing issue" to quote Zeiss representative in an interview I once read.

But I have to wonder, to whom this lens should appeal. Heavier, more expensive and MF only lens with practically identical performance. For clickless aperture you'd still need ZF.2 mount with aperture ring. ZE mount is fully electronic anyways. Maybe I'm just tired and missing some obvious point, maybe...

Bah. Sigma, Tamron, etc don't have licensing problems. They have AF. Zeiss doesn't have it because they know they can't make it work up to the standards of their glass. So Maybe Sigma can simultaneously stop all criticism of its AF and quadruple its prices by simply removing AF altogether?

Zeiss can do AF lenses as well. Batis and Touit lineup. It boggles me as well, why they won't offer AF lenses for DSLR...

 

[YuengLinger]

You miss the point here my friend...why drive a Ferrari when you can really unload your wallet to drive a BUGATTI!

Does the Bugatti also lack a staple expecation of most users? Say, a steering wheel?

- A

Lack of AF in Zeiss ZE lenses is probably "licensing issue" to quote Zeiss representative in an interview I once read.

But I have to wonder, to whom this lens should appeal. Heavier, more expensive and MF only lens with practically identical performance. For clickless aperture you'd still need ZF.2 mount with aperture ring. ZE mount is fully electronic anyways. Maybe I'm just tired and missing some obvious point, maybe...

Bah. Sigma, Tamron, etc don't have licensing problems. They have AF. Zeiss doesn't have it because they know they can't make it work up to the standards of their glass. So Maybe Sigma can simultaneously stop all criticism of its AF and quadruple its prices by simply removing AF altogether?

Zeiss can do AF lenses as well. Batis and Touit lineup. It boggles me as well, why they won't offer AF lenses for DSLR...

Do some people get more satisfaction from manual focus, viewing AF as for commoners? Lack of AF didn't bother me when I was eleven years old, but after that my reflexes began to slow...

 

[Sharlin]

Lack of AF in Zeiss ZE lenses is probably "licensing issue" to quote Zeiss representative in an interview I once read.

Bah. Sigma, Tamron, etc don't have licensing problems. They have AF. Zeiss doesn't have it because they know they can't make it work up to the standards of their glass. So Maybe Sigma can simultaneously stop all criticism of its AF and quadruple its prices by simply removing AF altogether?

Zeiss can do AF lenses as well. Batis and Touit lineup. It boggles me as well, why they won't offer AF lenses for DSLR...

Sigma and Tamron clean-room reverse engineer Canon's and Nikon's AF communication protocols. This is basically like trying to build a dictionary and a set of grammar rules for an unknown language, just by trying to talk with a person speaking that language and nothing else. Oh, and most of the time you say something wrong, the person will go catatonic and you need to "reboot" them.

Because they don't really know the exact protocol and all its corner cases, just an approximation, their AF implementations are not necessarily optimal, and when the protocols are updated, the lenses may exhibit compatibility issues.

Now, unlike Sigma and Tamron, historically Zeiss is a premium brand. They will obviously not resort to such hacks because any AF issues, or just the fact that they're doing hacks, would cheapen the brand. Should Zeiss ever release an AF lens for a DSLR it will be because they were able to make an AF protocol licencing deal with the body manufacturer.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Zeiss is sending me one of these today, so I'll be putting it head to head against my 35L II. I have no doubt that there will be areas where the Zeiss exceeds the 35L II, but the 35L II is the closest thing to a Zeiss that Canon has, so I don't expect anything significant. And the 35L II is a deadly accurate on my camera bodies.

I suspect that more Nikon users than Canon shooters will be interested in the Milvus 35. We forget how spoiled we are for glass, sometimes, as Canon shooters.

 

[mjg79]

Zeiss is sending me one of these today, so I'll be putting it head to head against my 35L II. I have no doubt that there will be areas where the Zeiss exceeds the 35L II, but the 35L II is the closest thing to a Zeiss that Canon has, so I don't expect anything significant. And the 35L II is a deadly accurate on my camera bodies.

I suspect that more Nikon users than Canon shooters will be interested in the Milvus 35. We forget how spoiled we are for glass, sometimes, as Canon shooters.

Hi Dustin, I've always enjoyed reading your reviews so I am happy that you will be doing one of the Milvus 35mm.

On Zeiss's website they have put up some data spec sheets for this lens - it really looks like it should be a spectacular performer. I think given Canon's outstanding 35L II they had little choice but to really throw everything at the 35mm focal length. Lloyd Chambers put up some comparison shots and it appears they are trying to produce a more refined version of the ZE 35 - much better correction wide open but without sacrificing the pleasant bokeh.

A request I have (if you take requests from strangers on the internet!) would be to know how it performs at middle distances, several feet away from a subject at f/1.4. The legendary Contax Zeiss 35/1.4 was particularly strong in this area, combining sharpness with a rapid fall off in focus giving that famed "3D" look. It would be fascinating to know how well the Milvus lens works in that sort of range too.

I also think it would be worth looking into how easy it is to focus at f/1.4. This was a huge weak spot of the ZE lens - it wasn't well corrected at f/1.4 (apparently to give that lovely bokeh) so I have seen people do experiments with it where they line up several different crayons of different colors identical distances from the lens and focus perfectly on one and then it finds another color is out of focus. That was what gave the ZE a "haze" or "veil" that some perceived especially if for example focusing on something that included particular mixtures of colors. It really contributed to making it harder to manually focus (by contrast the highly corrected Contax version snapped in and out of focus cleanly) so it would be interesting to know how the Milvus fares.

I look forward to reading your review.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Zeiss is sending me one of these today, so I'll be putting it head to head against my 35L II. I have no doubt that there will be areas where the Zeiss exceeds the 35L II, but the 35L II is the closest thing to a Zeiss that Canon has, so I don't expect anything significant. And the 35L II is a deadly accurate on my camera bodies.

I suspect that more Nikon users than Canon shooters will be interested in the Milvus 35. We forget how spoiled we are for glass, sometimes, as Canon shooters.

Hi Dustin, I've always enjoyed reading your reviews so I am happy that you will be doing one of the Milvus 35mm.

On Zeiss's website they have put up some data spec sheets for this lens - it really looks like it should be a spectacular performer. I think given Canon's outstanding 35L II they had little choice but to really throw everything at the 35mm focal length. Lloyd Chambers put up some comparison shots and it appears they are trying to produce a more refined version of the ZE 35 - much better correction wide open but without sacrificing the pleasant bokeh.

A request I have (if you take requests from strangers on the internet!) would be to know how it performs at middle distances, several feet away from a subject at f/1.4. The legendary Contax Zeiss 35/1.4 was particularly strong in this area, combining sharpness with a rapid fall off in focus giving that famed "3D" look. It would be fascinating to know how well the Milvus lens works in that sort of range too.

I also think it would be worth looking into how easy it is to focus at f/1.4. This was a huge weak spot of the ZE lens - it wasn't well corrected at f/1.4 (apparently to give that lovely bokeh) so I have seen people do experiments with it where they line up several different crayons of different colors identical distances from the lens and focus perfectly on one and then it finds another color is out of focus. That was what gave the ZE a "haze" or "veil" that some perceived especially if for example focusing on something that included particular mixtures of colors. It really contributed to making it harder to manually focus (by contrast the highly corrected Contax version snapped in and out of focus cleanly) so it would be interesting to know how the Milvus fares.

I look forward to reading your review.

That doesn't sound unreasonable. I find the 35L II delivers a nice 3D look, too.

 

[bereninga]

I just saw some images from this lens. Wow, I wish I could afford this and be good at manual focus. The images this produces look pretty special.

 

[mjg79]

That doesn't sound unreasonable. I find the 35L II delivers a nice 3D look, too.

That's great, thank you. I am a bit mad about the 35mm focal length - the combination of some wideness of view with some fall off in focus (with a 1.4 anyway) gives such a pleasing look. That's why I pay particular attention to "middle distance" sharpness and fall off in focus.

The Canon 35L II does indeed give good 3D especially due to the "pop" of it being so sharp at f/1.4. I think efforts by Sigma and also Nikon probably contributed to Canon pulling out all the stops for their 35mm and I hope this will be motivating Zeiss to really push themselves too, anything less than outstanding performance won't be good enough given the Canon has auto-focus and is smaller, lighter and cheaper.

I think Zeiss are trying to give a best of both situation - with the new lens giving a gentle painterly bokeh (something that at medium distances both the Contax Zeiss and Canon fare less well at) while also being corrected to be sharp at f1.4. With enough elements and complexity it can of course be accomplished but how it "looks" isn't a foregone conclusion, especially in regard to how it renders the fall off in focus. It will be a long time before I get my hands on one to make any comparisons so I am grateful you are willing to explore that element of the new lens.

I'm quite jealous that your weekend will be spent enjoying the new Zeiss!

 

[Berowne]

Dustin, your photos taken with the new 35mm Milvus are very nice. Thanks for that!