Review: Zeiss Milvus 100mm f/2M by TDP

[Canon Rumors]

Bryan at The-Digital-Picture has completed his review of the Zeiss Milvus 100mm f/2M. This is a lens I have a lot of interest in, as I rarely use autofocus when using a macro lens and I’d love to see the results of an f/2 aperture over the f/2.8 of the Canon competitor.</p>
<p>The Milvus is a lot more expensive than the Canon equivalent, but is it worth it?</p>
<blockquote><p>If you want the best, be prepared to pay for it. While no other 100mm DSLR lens can touch this one’s image quality at f/2 or f/2.8, there is a price to be paid for this quality. The price tag on this lens ranges from nearly 2x to well over 3x as much as the other options. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-Milvus-100mm-f-2M-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1185207-REG/zeiss_2096_563_milvus_2_100m_ze_lens.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Zeiss Milvus 100mm f/2M at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>

 

[infared]

WOW! How is that possible. My Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS is one of the sharpest lenses in my quiver. I can't see paying more. ...And the IS comes in handy for non-macro shooting. The Milvus may be a great lens, but too expensive and no AF.

 

[grainier]

How much people really use macros that wide open? I will sometimes open my 100L to 2.8 but only for perfectly flat objects with questionable backgrounds, but most of the time it's at 5.6-8.
Well I guess if you paid up you sort of have to?

 

[dannyt]

Attention:

"These samples were borrowed from the predecessor review, but this lens' results would be the same."

Which isn't true. The coating on the Milvus has been improved which would result in less loss of contrast and brigther color, which also result in a sharper image to the eyes.

 

[RickWagoner]

WOW! How is that possible. My Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS is one of the sharpest lenses in my quiver. I can't see paying more. ...And the IS comes in handy for non-macro shooting. The Milvus may be a great lens, but too expensive.

$1,800 is not costly to a person who regularly shoots birds, this price for a long lens is still considered a budget lens. All depends on your perspective with price.

 

[scyrene]

How much people really use macros that wide open? I will sometimes open my 100L to 2.8 but only for perfectly flat objects with questionable backgrounds, but most of the time it's at 5.6-8.
Well I guess if you paid up you sort of have to?

I had a look at my photo library. The 100L wide open works well for portraits, pictures of flowers with dreamy backgrounds, food photography. Also I started doing handheld focus stacks this summer, with subjects like butterflies - to retain a nice out of focus background, but get more of the subject in focus (which is not possible by stopping down).

 

[raptor3x]

How much people really use macros that wide open? I will sometimes open my 100L to 2.8 but only for perfectly flat objects with questionable backgrounds, but most of the time it's at 5.6-8.
Well I guess if you paid up you sort of have to?

I had a look at my photo library. The 100L wide open works well for portraits, pictures of flowers with dreamy backgrounds, food photography. Also I started doing handheld focus stacks this summer, with subjects like butterflies - to retain a nice out of focus background, but get more of the subject in focus (which is not possible by stopping down).

If you look at the TDP Lens Image Quality tool with both on the 5DsR you'll see that the Zeiss is indeed better, but only in the extreme corners.

 

[scyrene]

How much people really use macros that wide open? I will sometimes open my 100L to 2.8 but only for perfectly flat objects with questionable backgrounds, but most of the time it's at 5.6-8.
Well I guess if you paid up you sort of have to?

I had a look at my photo library. The 100L wide open works well for portraits, pictures of flowers with dreamy backgrounds, food photography. Also I started doing handheld focus stacks this summer, with subjects like butterflies - to retain a nice out of focus background, but get more of the subject in focus (which is not possible by stopping down).

If you look at the TDP Lens Image Quality tool with both on the 5DsR you'll see that the Zeiss is indeed better, but only in the extreme corners.

Huh? I was making no comment on this lens. I did look at the comparison and wasn't terribly impressed. The 100L (which is one of my favourite lenses) is only marginally worse, and has AF and IS that I make use of most of the time - and is a lot cheaper!

 

[raptor3x]

How much people really use macros that wide open? I will sometimes open my 100L to 2.8 but only for perfectly flat objects with questionable backgrounds, but most of the time it's at 5.6-8.
Well I guess if you paid up you sort of have to?

I had a look at my photo library. The 100L wide open works well for portraits, pictures of flowers with dreamy backgrounds, food photography. Also I started doing handheld focus stacks this summer, with subjects like butterflies - to retain a nice out of focus background, but get more of the subject in focus (which is not possible by stopping down).

If you look at the TDP Lens Image Quality tool with both on the 5DsR you'll see that the Zeiss is indeed better, but only in the extreme corners.

Huh? I was making no comment on this lens. I did look at the comparison and wasn't terribly impressed. The 100L (which is one of my favourite lenses) is only marginally worse, and has AF and IS that I make use of most of the time - and is a lot cheaper!

Yeah, I was agreeing with you. The 100L gives you true 1:1 magnification, autofocus, and stabilization at around half the price with the only downside being a bit less resolution in the extreme corners.

 

[[email protected]]

The difference in the corners on that image quality tool is very notable. Very impressive for Zeiss. I always been amazed that my 100L is so high quality given its age, but now it does seem long in the tooth.

Makes me think there is room for Canon to do the Blue Goo treatment on the 100 macro and beat Zeiss, which does have some color fuzziness at f/2-2.8.

I need both AF and IS on a 100 macro, as I'm hand holding often while bug hunting, stretching light and ISO; often on moving targets. I'd pay Zeiss's price if it had those things. I look forward instead to a Canon update with better corners and the new Blue Goo color correction we see on the 35mm 1.4 II.

 

[vscd]

I may repeat myself, but 1:2 is no Makrolens. I like Zeiss but the price is ridiculous in comparision to the 100L. ???

 

[Jopa]

According to the same Bryan / LensRentals MTF chart http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=674&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1001&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=AVG the Canon is just tiny (I doubt anybody would see it IRL) less sharp in the center, but has significantly better corners. It comes with IS that's way more important, real 1:1 macro, and AF (not that important for macro). Also not sure who shoots macro @ 2.8... I usually go till the diffraction kicks in . Bryan just wants to push a few new lenses via the affiliate links so no wonder he's saying this lens is awesome.

 

[scyrene]

How much people really use macros that wide open? I will sometimes open my 100L to 2.8 but only for perfectly flat objects with questionable backgrounds, but most of the time it's at 5.6-8.
Well I guess if you paid up you sort of have to?

I had a look at my photo library. The 100L wide open works well for portraits, pictures of flowers with dreamy backgrounds, food photography. Also I started doing handheld focus stacks this summer, with subjects like butterflies - to retain a nice out of focus background, but get more of the subject in focus (which is not possible by stopping down).

If you look at the TDP Lens Image Quality tool with both on the 5DsR you'll see that the Zeiss is indeed better, but only in the extreme corners.

Huh? I was making no comment on this lens. I did look at the comparison and wasn't terribly impressed. The 100L (which is one of my favourite lenses) is only marginally worse, and has AF and IS that I make use of most of the time - and is a lot cheaper!

Yeah, I was agreeing with you. The 100L gives you true 1:1 magnification, autofocus, and stabilization at around half the price with the only downside being a bit less resolution in the extreme corners.

Oh right cool. Sorry, easy to misinterpret things on forums

 

[scyrene]

The difference in the corners on that image quality tool is very notable. Very impressive for Zeiss. I always been amazed that my 100L is so high quality given its age, but now it does seem long in the tooth.

Makes me think there is room for Canon to do the Blue Goo treatment on the 100 macro and beat Zeiss, which does have some color fuzziness at f/2-2.8.

I need both AF and IS on a 100 macro, as I'm hand holding often while bug hunting, stretching light and ISO; often on moving targets. I'd pay Zeiss's price if it had those things. I look forward instead to a Canon update with better corners and the new Blue Goo color correction we see on the 35mm 1.4 II.

"Given its age"? It was only released in 2009!

 

[infared]

I may repeat myself, but 1:2 is no Makrolens. I like Zeiss but the price is ridiculous in comparision to the 100L. ???

I have thought about this more...YES, vscd you are correct, it is ridiculous. The Canon is an impressive lens with IS & AF and is a BARGAIN for its price. I will wager to say..that if you have a great image captured by both of these lenses, no one would really quibble about the tiny edge that the Zeiss "may" have. ...plus some photos that the Canon could created would not even be able to be made with the Zeiss because of it's macro limitations, no IS and no AF. I love glass out of the Canon box..I really do, but I would not choose this one.
Now...the Zeiss 135mm f/2...hmmmmm....that is a siren calling compared to the Canon....the Zeiss is so over-the-top incredible....WHAT a lens...it just may be worth living without the AF. ....(not if you are shooting action though).

 

[StudentOfLight]

Attention:

"These samples were borrowed from the predecessor review, but this lens' results would be the same."

Which isn't true. The coating on the Milvus has been improved which would result in less loss of contrast and brigther color, which also result in a sharper image to the eyes.

Those images relate to depth-of-field at differing apertures for a given magnification, which would be the same as the old lens.

 

[infared]

WOW! How is that possible. My Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS is one of the sharpest lenses in my quiver. I can't see paying more. ...And the IS comes in handy for non-macro shooting. The Milvus may be a great lens, but too expensive.

$1,800 is not costly to a person who regularly shoots birds, this price for a long lens is still considered a budget lens. All depends on your perspective with price.

100mm macro: long lens for "birds"??????????? ??? ??? ??? You lost me.

 

[grainier]

How much people really use macros that wide open? I will sometimes open my 100L to 2.8 but only for perfectly flat objects with questionable backgrounds, but most of the time it's at 5.6-8.
Well I guess if you paid up you sort of have to?

I had a look at my photo library. The 100L wide open works well for portraits, pictures of flowers with dreamy backgrounds, food photography. Also I started doing handheld focus stacks this summer, with subjects like butterflies - to retain a nice out of focus background, but get more of the subject in focus (which is not possible by stopping down).

How do you do it? Spray while racking focus?

 

[scyrene]

How much people really use macros that wide open? I will sometimes open my 100L to 2.8 but only for perfectly flat objects with questionable backgrounds, but most of the time it's at 5.6-8.
Well I guess if you paid up you sort of have to?

I had a look at my photo library. The 100L wide open works well for portraits, pictures of flowers with dreamy backgrounds, food photography. Also I started doing handheld focus stacks this summer, with subjects like butterflies - to retain a nice out of focus background, but get more of the subject in focus (which is not possible by stopping down).

How do you do it? Spray while racking focus?

No. So long as it stays still, I try not to move and just select AF points at different positions on the subject, taking a couple of shots at each.

 

[Eldar]

How much people really use macros that wide open? I will sometimes open my 100L to 2.8 but only for perfectly flat objects with questionable backgrounds, but most of the time it's at 5.6-8.
Well I guess if you paid up you sort of have to?

I had a look at my photo library. The 100L wide open works well for portraits, pictures of flowers with dreamy backgrounds, food photography. Also I started doing handheld focus stacks this summer, with subjects like butterflies - to retain a nice out of focus background, but get more of the subject in focus (which is not possible by stopping down).

How do you do it? Spray while racking focus?

No. So long as it stays still, I try not to move and just select AF points at different positions on the subject, taking a couple of shots at each.

I focus manually, pick the near focal point and then fire away, while I adjust focus to also cover the far point.