# Review: How Did Zeiss Go Backwards With the Milvus 15mm f/2.8?



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 7, 2018)

```
The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the Zeiss Milvus 15mm f/2.8 and have come away with some surprising results.</p>
<p><strong>From The-Digital-Picture:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>This lens’ predecessor, the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8, was one of my all-time favorite lenses and I very much looked forward to evaluating the Milvus version. Unfortunately, this evaluation became a very time-consuming one with four different lenses being examined. I can’t make a lens look any better than it really is and, while this lens is really sharp in the center of the frame, I can’t make the corners shine and that leaves me wanting, especially relative to the lens I previously owned. If these lenses truly have the same optical design, something happened to degrade the image quality. <a href="https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-15mm-f-2.8-Milvus-Lens.aspx">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>I find this shocking, as the original Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 is my favourite wide angle lens for landscape work and has proven to be a workhorse and optical gem. I’m shocked the Milvus 15mm f/2.8 appears to have taken a step backwards.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## takesome1 (May 7, 2018)

I had thought about buying this lens for some time.
I stopped reading when I got to this:

*The first lens was not up to our expectations so, as usual, we tested another. With the second still falling short, we brought in a third lens that, unfortunately, appeared similar to the first two. The first three lenses were retail-acquired, so I opted for a Zeiss loan to get the fourth copy. I was certain that lens would be optimal, but in the end, was least satisfied with this one (#4 in our image quality test results).*

I think Bryan could have put one line at the top of the review that would have summed it up, "Most likely, you will not want to buy this lens"

Very good, yet disappointing review.


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2018)

On the upside, Zeiss still has the tooling to make version 1.


----------



## infared (May 8, 2018)

Try a Sigma Art 14mm F/1.8 Lens....
Keep money in the bank and use an Excellent lens.


----------



## Ah-Keong (May 8, 2018)

quite funny since there is no change in the optics design?!

there is a change of the optics between the Milvus and Planar line of the 50mm and the 85mm.
Luckily there is no change of the Milvus and Makro-Planar of the 50mm and 100mm


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 8, 2018)

Do they come out of the same factory? Some of the Zeiss are made in Japan, but high end ones in Germany. It just takes a minute error in grinding to change a lens totally. I did not bother to check.


----------



## Mr Bean (May 8, 2018)

I have a previous model of the 15mm f2.8 and its a gem. Sharp across the entire frame and a beauty to use.

** Edit: When I say previous model, I'm referring to the Distagon - same optical layout as the Milvus **


----------



## sanj (May 8, 2018)

Mr Bean said:


> I have a previous model of the 15mm f2.8 and its a gem. Sharp across the entire frame and a beauty to use.



I had it. Replaced it with Canon 16-35 2.8 III. Could not be happier.


----------



## Canoneer (May 8, 2018)

Save some money and get equal performance on the IRIX 15mm F/2.4


----------



## ahsanford (May 8, 2018)

sanj said:


> Mr Bean said:
> 
> 
> > I have a previous model of the 15mm f2.8 and its a gem. Sharp across the entire frame and a beauty to use.
> ...



Hammer, meet nail. That's spot on:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1073&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=794&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

So you can get this Milvus, or you can get a sharper lens with autofocus, the ability to zoom, and the option to use a relatively standard filter size and a standard Lee 100x100/100x150 front filter setup ..._and_ save $700.

The Milvus' only upsides are possibly coma (for astro, which I haven't seen tested yet), vignetting and if it is de-clickable like the other Milvus lenses for video purposes (but that might only be an upside for a Nikon mount version that actually has a mechanical aperture ring).

I'm sorry, if you are going to offer a prime to stack up against the 16-35 f/2.8L III, it either has to be cheaper or it had better split the atom optically. This Milvus doesn't. Move on.

- A


----------



## Mr Bean (May 8, 2018)

Since I mostly use it for astro, I have no need for a zoom. But the hard infinity stop makes focusing at night a no brainer. Like any lens, its a tool for a purpose.


----------



## mb66energy (May 10, 2018)

Makes me lusting for the 16-35 f/4.0 Canon because of its much better IQ and better flare resistance.
Sigma is very sharp at f/1.8 (!!!!!) but contrast in contralight is poor.
The Milvus version has advanced in contralight contrast compared to its predecessor but the resolution in the corners is very bad (for a lens of such heritage).

While not being exactly f/2.8 nor 15mm the EF 16-35 f/4.0 from Canon seems to be a very good option and throws in Zoom, AF and IS which are really welcome tools supporting photography.


----------



## sanj (May 10, 2018)

Mr Bean said:


> Since I mostly use it for astro, I have no need for a zoom. But the hard infinity stop makes focusing at night a no brainer. Like any lens, its a tool for a purpose.



I use live view, zoom in and focus very effective. Sir.


----------

