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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 11, 2015)

```
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 (Dec 11, 2015)

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 (Dec 11, 2015)

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 (Dec 11, 2015)

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 (Dec 11, 2015)

infared said:


> 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 (Dec 11, 2015)

grainier said:


> 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 (Dec 11, 2015)

scyrene said:


> grainier said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 11, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > grainier said:
> ...



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 (Dec 11, 2015)

scyrene said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



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] (Dec 11, 2015)

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 (Dec 11, 2015)

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


----------



## Jopa (Dec 11, 2015)

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 (Dec 11, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



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


----------



## scyrene (Dec 11, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> 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 (Dec 11, 2015)

vscd said:


> 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 (Dec 11, 2015)

dannyt said:


> 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 (Dec 11, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## grainier (Dec 11, 2015)

scyrene said:


> grainier said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



How do you do it? Spray while racking focus?


----------



## scyrene (Dec 11, 2015)

grainier said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > grainier said:
> ...



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 (Dec 11, 2015)

scyrene said:


> grainier said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...


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


----------



## scyrene (Dec 11, 2015)

Eldar said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > grainier said:
> ...



Might try that!


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 11, 2015)

To me, buying a mf only lens is a bit like buying a car you can only start with a crank handle.

If I want to focus manually for an extended time, I'll pull out my old Bronica and my light meter and really have some fun, but mf on a modern lens is just horse and buggy stuff.
Basically what Zeiss is saying is that af is too difficult for them to do.


----------



## Phenix205 (Dec 11, 2015)

Zeiss should really make a super sharp MF 15-35 f8.0 zoom lens for landscaping photography only. An MF telephoto with large aperture, not sure what it was made for.


----------



## TeT (Dec 12, 2015)

Phenix205 said:


> Zeiss should really make a super sharp MF 15-35 f8.0 zoom lens for landscaping photography only....



That could be really cheap (by zeiss standards) and really awesome (by any standards)

Honestly though by F8 dont't most of the upper tier lenses kind of all get extremely sharp? I imagine it would be difficult to make something that stood out at that opening (?)


----------



## Phenix205 (Dec 12, 2015)

TeT said:


> Phenix205 said:
> 
> 
> > Zeiss should really make a super sharp MF 15-35 f8.0 zoom lens for landscaping photography only....
> ...



The difference lies in color and micro contrast. I just wish Zeiss could make some small aperture MF wide angle lenses and sell them at a fraction of their MF 1.4 and 2.8s. It may not be technically challenging enough to their brilliant engineers and probably won't make business sense either.


----------



## grainier (Dec 12, 2015)

Eldar said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > grainier said:
> ...



That's what I meant by rack and spray.


----------



## Zeidora (Dec 12, 2015)

Zeiss used to make a 100 mm Makroplanar f/2.8 1:1 for C/Y. LOVED that lens on the RTSIII, but impractical on a dSLR due to working aperture. The lack of a true 1:1 macro in the current Zeiss line-up is baffling. The dual use as macro and portrait lens is so un-Zeiss. Use the right tool for the right purpose. Have pointed that out to Zeiss several times.

Re IS, there are two good alternatives called tripod and flash. 

I fully support Zeiss' no AF approach. I have a couple of canon AF lenses (180 Macro and 300 2/8 IS) and they feel cheap and imprecise in comparison to any Zeiss lens. The MPE 65 has a more solid feel, and -- surprise!-- it's MF! It is a typical trade-off. Who ever wants AF, stick with Canon or other AF third parties. Once you rotate the focus barrel on a Zeiss and a Canon lens, you notice the greater friction on the Zeiss. Butter smooth, but requires more torque due to VERY tight manufacturing tolerances. That means precise lens alignments, and good optical corrections. The only way of making a Zeiss lens AF is by making an AF-body, like the old Contax AX, which moved the film plane. Here the ball is in Canon's court.

Comparing good focus shots of the AF 180 macro and the Zeiss 100 MP, pretty even handed, though I usually turn AF off on the 180 because it is useless, always on the wrong point.

Not going to upgrade from the ZE to the Milvus, though. Once a true 1:1 100 mm MP comes out, I'll preorder that one.


----------



## sdsr (Dec 12, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> To me, buying a mf only lens is a bit like buying a car you can only start with a crank handle.
> 
> If I want to focus manually for an extended time, I'll pull out my old Bronica and my light meter and really have some fun, but mf on a modern lens is just horse and buggy stuff.
> Basically what Zeiss is saying is that af is too difficult for them to do.



Seriously? Zeiss Batis lenses are AF.... And I trust you realize that not everyone shares your preference for AF.
There seems to be a lot of sour grapes in this thread. Just as some on this site don't seem able to stomach the idea that there are 135mm lenses with better image quality than the 135L, some don't seem to like the idea that there's a 100mm lens with better image quality than the 100L (wonderful though it is). If you rummage around online you'll find quite a few 100mm macro lens comparisons where the predecessor of the Milvus appears superior to its rivals in terms of image quality (though whether the differences matter enough to justify the extra expense etc. is a matter of taste); while you're at it you may run across Roger Cicala's brief comment at lensrentals ("Unlike the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, this lens has no IS, and no autofocus. So why bother? Because the ZE 100mm is two steps beyond spectacular."). I own both the 100L and the predecessor of the Milvus and haven't used the Canon since buying the Zeiss, just as I've not used the 135L since buying the Rokinon - though the difference between the 135 lenses is greater and, this time, it's the much cheaper one that wins. (It helps, of course, that I use them on a mirrorless Sony with its built-in tools that make MF easy and IBIS; if I still only used a Canon dslr I would probably stick with the Canon lenses.) Whether it qualifies as a "true" macro lens doesn't matter at all to me - there's a lot to be said for a close-focusing lens that's f2 regardless of whether it does 1:1.


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 12, 2015)

sdsr said:


> Bennymiata said:
> 
> 
> > To me, buying a mf only lens is a bit like buying a car you can only start with a crank handle.
> ...



I'm really glad that you love your Zeiss lenses so much, but for me and many others that still use mirror slappers, and need to focus in dark rooms at receptions, nothing beats a good SLR with a fast auto focussing lens. It would be near on impossible to manually focus accurately in the conditions I need it in and the speed from one shot to the next.
Back in the days before digital, I used Hasselblads and Bronicas, not only because mf film is much better than 35mm film, but the viewfinder was huge and bright allowing you to manually focus so much easier than on a digital SLR.
However, most lenses were f4 or so, so even wide open, you still had a little bit of dof.
If Zeiss are so clever, why haven't they brought ANY af lenses for Canons?
If they did, their sales would increase hundreds of percent.


----------



## Zeidora (Dec 12, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> If Zeiss are so clever, why haven't they brought ANY af lenses for Canons?
> If they did, their sales would increase hundreds of percent.



You really don't understand Zeiss. It's not about volume, it is about quality. Top notch quality. Period. The end. 

Once you look at more than just Zeiss SLR lenses, maybe you will get it. I've shopped for stereo microscope: Zeiss has the edge over Leica. Compounds: Zeiss at least on par with Nikon; Canon?!? not so much. SEM: Zeiss over JEOL, Hitachi, FEI (for my application, at least. Tescan did not exist at the time). Binoculars for birding (10x56): Zeiss way better than Leica or Swarovski.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 12, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> If Zeiss are so clever, why haven't they brought ANY af lenses for Canons?
> If they did, their sales would increase hundreds of percent.


I/we can only guess, since Zeiss will keep the reasoning for their decision to themselves. Sigma and the other independent suppliers have to reverse engineered Canon´s AF system, since they are (understandably) unwilling to share. And the results are quite inconsistent. For slow zooms, that is a minor issue, but for the faster primes, it makes these lenses a bit of a problem. If Zeiss ended up with the same inconsistent AF on a $4k Otus lens, it would kill their reputation. Instead they deliver the best manual focus functionality on the market.

I have a custom made precision focusing screen in my 5DSR (I got one for the 1DX also, but have not used it since I got the 5DSR) and manual focus is a lot easier than many seem to believe, even in poor light. If you shoot wide open, your subjects better be fairly static though. 

In addition to my 12 AF lenses, I have 8 manual focus lenses (6 Zeiss and 2 Canon TS-E). I love using them and I routinely shoot them wide open. People seem to believe that AF is preferable in every situation. But that is not true in every case, at least not for me. When you want to focus on a small detail behind large front objects, that is a lot easier and faster with manual focus. When you want something in the periphery of the image in focus, outside the AF point matrix, you can focus directly and skip focus/recompose. When your AF point is in the top right and your subject is to bottom left, you can skip moving the AF point etc. etc. 

In my case, without having a good explanation for it, I am a better photographer with primes than with zooms and I am even better (or less bad) with manual focus. I believe it has to do with the attention and focus it requires. I would never use them for a low light event though.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 12, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> Re IS, there are two good alternatives called tripod and flash.



*Rolls eyes* They are not the same. A flash is very handy for macros - but not always. A tripod is not always practical. I'm glad you're happy with your way of shooting, but don't assume it's for everyone, or that it's the best way in all situations.


----------



## johnnycash (Dec 14, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I have a custom made precision focusing screen in my 5DSR (I got one for the 1DX also, but have not used it since I got the 5DSR) and manual focus is a lot easier than many seem to believe, even in poor light. If you shoot wide open, your subjects better be fairly static though.
> 
> In addition to my 12 AF lenses, I have 8 manual focus lenses (6 Zeiss and 2 Canon TS-E). I love using them and I routinely shoot them wide open. People seem to believe that AF is preferable in every situation. But that is not true in every case, at least not for me. When you want to focus on a small detail behind large front objects, that is a lot easier and faster with manual focus. When you want something in the periphery of the image in focus, outside the AF point matrix, you can focus directly and skip focus/recompose. When your AF point is in the top right and your subject is to bottom left, you can skip moving the AF point etc. etc.
> 
> In my case, without having a good explanation for it, I am a better photographer with primes than with zooms and I am even better (or less bad) with manual focus. I believe it has to do with the attention and focus it requires. I would never use them for a low light event though.



Hi, you have a custom made precision focusing screen in your 5DSR? Can you please tell me more about it? I love using my Otus, if only I could use the viewfinder!


----------



## Eldar (Dec 14, 2015)

johnnycash said:


> Hi, you have a custom made precision focusing screen in your 5DSR? Can you please tell me more about it? I love using my Otus, if only I could use the viewfinder!


You can order a custom made S-type screen from www.focusingscreen.com. It is about 3x the price of a regular canon screen, but still cheap compared to the rest of the system. It gives you a very good visula focusing capability and I get very good hitrate even at f1.4 with my Otus lenses and f2.0 with the 135mm. Only down side is that the viewer gets a bit darker with slower lenses. I can use it up to f4, but some find that also a bit dark.

It is a bit intimidating to make the change first time, but it is actually quite simple. It is the same operation as with the 5DIII, which you can watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1xUyqQNlys


----------



## Jopa (Dec 14, 2015)

johnnycash said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I have a custom made precision focusing screen in my 5DSR (I got one for the 1DX also, but have not used it since I got the 5DSR) and manual focus is a lot easier than many seem to believe, even in poor light. If you shoot wide open, your subjects better be fairly static though.
> ...



What about a live view magnifier like Zacuto? It's no worse than an EVF.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 15, 2015)

Jopa said:


> johnnycash said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


I have a Zacuto, which works, but I prefer the S-type focusing screen.


----------

