Review - Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4 T*
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
dilbert said:
Are you serious? The same way that all photographers did until recently. MF has its drawbacks, to be sure, but you might find (as I did), that using MF glass actually boosts your creativity and in some situations is actually more enjoyable (organic) to use.
Here's a piece I did for Digital Photography School (DPS) on the topic: http://digital-photography-school.com/why-every-photographer-should-use-a-manual-focus-lens/
Upvote
0
P.S. In December a company paid more than 10 times what I spent to acquire the lens that took the picture that they licensed...a MF lens. I guess I was able to dream it 
Upvote
0
Thanks for another good review Dustin. I believe the release of the Milvus line shows that Zeiss never intended to earn much on their Otus line. You can get almost the same performance, at a significantly lower cost, with the Milvus line. It seems to me as the Otus line is to show what´s possible and then release something very close, with an acceptable price tag.
I am a dedicated Zeissoholic myself and I use these lenses a lot. Like you, I have S-type focusing screens for my cameras. Unfortunately Canon does not support one for the 5DSR, so I have a custom made screen from Focusing Screen in Taiwan, which works just like a Canon screen. With that in you can nail focus at all stops, down to f1.4. It requires practice and concentration, but so it should.
Dilbert´s comment just represent a comment from someone who has never tried. I get lots of comments when I bring my Zeiss bag around (5 manual focus primes, from 15mm to 135mm and a 5DSR). Why do you bother with these manual focus lenses and all the hassle, when you have AF zooms. However, when they see what they can do, they tend to shut up.
Like you said, shooting with manual focus primes does something to the artistic side of your photography. It requires attention all the little details that delivers good images in the other end.
I have said it before, but I´ll repeat myself; Always looking forward to another of your reviews.
I am a dedicated Zeissoholic myself and I use these lenses a lot. Like you, I have S-type focusing screens for my cameras. Unfortunately Canon does not support one for the 5DSR, so I have a custom made screen from Focusing Screen in Taiwan, which works just like a Canon screen. With that in you can nail focus at all stops, down to f1.4. It requires practice and concentration, but so it should.
Dilbert´s comment just represent a comment from someone who has never tried. I get lots of comments when I bring my Zeiss bag around (5 manual focus primes, from 15mm to 135mm and a 5DSR). Why do you bother with these manual focus lenses and all the hassle, when you have AF zooms. However, when they see what they can do, they tend to shut up.
Like you said, shooting with manual focus primes does something to the artistic side of your photography. It requires attention all the little details that delivers good images in the other end.
I have said it before, but I´ll repeat myself; Always looking forward to another of your reviews.
Upvote
0
Eldar said:
Thank you very much. I'm about to swap my Canon 135L for the Sonnar T* 2/135mm. That's another Otus quality lens and I really enjoyed using it. I've been torn between it and this Milvus 85, but I do love the 135 focal length for portraits.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
I would say to you good sir, that anyone that has a static subject: landscape, portraiture, product, interiors, architecture, etc. There was a time when manual focus was all there was, and great, time-tested, images were made this way for decades. And there are situations where manual focus is simpler. Look at it this way. Isn't it easier to manually focus on the subject in an image no matter where in the image it may be versus picking an autofocus point that may or may not be perfectly aligned with the exact point of focus, or after autofocus is achieved having to reframe the image before taking the picture? By manually focusing it can slow us down and help re-immerse us in the process of image creation. We're always in such a hurry today... :-[
Upvote
0
The 135/2 is a fantastic lens. The only thing that tells it apart from an Otus is the design and mechanical wrapping. Which, even though it is not as good as the Otus, it´s still great. Optical quality is absolutely outstanding in every department.TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
Upvote
0
Eldar said:
The mechanics were the primary place where I preferred the Otus over the Milvus 85. I liked the position and feel of the focus ring on the Otus better.
Upvote
0
As I understand it, there are a couple with new designs (50 and 85 are two of them I believe). Whereas others are the old designs in new mechanical wrapping. The 21mm f2.8 is one of those. The mechanics, in addition to their good looks, is also weather sealed, which is a big plus in my book.slclick said:
Upvote
0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
true. MF is useful at times, but as I get older my sight is becoming less acute, AF is helpful. Also with action.
For me it is hard to justify the price. though next time I plan on replacing a lens I will definitely consider a zeiss (if I can afford it).
Upvote
0
I used to use my 90mm tilt shift that is manual focus, but the a selected focus point would blink red when I got the subject in focus. Would this lens do the same, or does that only work if it is a Canon lens? If I could get a focus confirmation blink then I don't see how a manual focus lens is an issue as long as the subject isn't moving.
Upvote
0
It works the same way. However, you´ll have a problem when you are shooting with wider f-stops than f2.8. The focus confirm is not accurate enough. That is where the S-screen is a tremendous help.jaayres20 said:
Upvote
0
slclick said:
Also with ML and focus peak its easier to get an accurate focus, for slow AF lenses like the 50/1.8, I find my self using MF as much as AF if not more, especially in low light.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
Unless they buy a MF lens, like the samyang 14mm f/2.8, but you will say that is a wide angle lens, then what about their telephoto range? maybe because these are cheap and the Zeiss are very expensive, however some want the quality that only exists in Zeiss lenses and have the money to get them, yes its about what you can afford and what you can't afford, if I can afford the Ziess I will get it, and I will not use it for action shots, I will leave that to the 70-200, which is better suited for such shots.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
A lot. Lenses like the Milvus, and like the Sigma Art series, and Canon Luxury, and Zeiss lenses such as these which will autofocus (rather well), are products for a niche market.
These days, most people will not buy a MF lens, but at the same time most people won't spare one free thought on autofocus characteristics either.
Attachments
Upvote
0
