# Review - Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 T*



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 15, 2016)

Discuss our review of the Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 T* here.


----------



## sunnyVan (Aug 15, 2016)

For some reason, lenses always look sexier with a little spray of water.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 15, 2016)

sunnyVan said:


> For some reason, lenses always look sexier with a little spray of water.



They are kind of like swimsuit models


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 15, 2016)

Thanks Dustin that was a sumptuous review.
It was like a food critic describing a beautiful meal in a Michelin starred restaurant.
The only problem is I don't get to taste the food.
I love the Digital Picture Reviews but yours are much more sensory and ethereal.

I'd love to try one out. I have the 50 1.2 and I find it a real hit and miss lens.
When it hits focus it's brilliant but I seem to have relatively alot of slightly out of focus or completely out of focus photos. I know 1.2 is razor thin but in a sequence of shots it can be in focus / out of focus.
Still when it nails it , its a great image.
I'd love to try something that's even better - I can't imagine it.

Can you put a focusing screen on a 5DSR ( I believe you can't on a 5DIII).

Keep up the good work.


----------



## George D. (Aug 15, 2016)

Great image gallery sample pics and what a gorgeous bokeh. Thanks.


----------



## gsealy (Aug 15, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> Thanks Dustin that was a sumptuous review.
> It was like a food critic describing a beautiful meal in a Michelin starred restaurant.
> The only problem is I don't get to taste the food.
> I love the Digital Picture Reviews but yours are much more sensory and ethereal.
> ...



It seems as though some people put upgraded focusing screens in the 5DIII, but it is not architected to do it like a 1D series is. So it is more difficult. Check on YouTube, there are some videos about it.


----------



## Basil (Aug 15, 2016)

I have read reviews that suggest the IQ on the Sigma 50 1.4 ART is very very close to the much more expensive Zeiss Otus. Given that the Sigma is a bit less $$ and has AF, what would be the compelling reason to go with this non-AF lens for a little more than the Sigma? Serious question.


----------



## Click (Aug 15, 2016)

Thanks Dustin, excellent review.


----------



## infared (Aug 16, 2016)

Great review of a stellar lens. I have a GREAT copy of the Sigma that is totally dialed in to my 5D3....so I am keeping that area of my quiver intact because of the IQ and the AF of the Sigma. ...but for some, the Zeiss water resistance, build quality, and rendering will be more attractive. To each his own. We do have great choices in lenses for the format though, and that is always a good thing! ;D


----------



## vscd (Aug 16, 2016)

I don't know why, but the 50mm range totally lost my interest in favour to 35mm lenses... but the Milvus is at least a desirable piece of engineering. Getting the lens wet with some waterdrops takes the lens to a MILFus, maybe? 

Sorry. 8)


----------



## photojoern.de (Aug 16, 2016)

Like the other Zeiss lenses, it doesn´t have Autofocus and it doesn´t have image stabilization. For this reason, I doubt that in real life in 90% of the situations your photos will be as good or better than with a stabilized AF lens. Non moving objects, non moving portrait at good light. That´s it. Landscape will probably be stopped down anyway, so bokeh is not an issue. Street: no AF and no IS is a killer, in my opinion. Did I miss anything?


----------



## sunnyVan (Aug 16, 2016)

Some people pay premium price for German cars and these may not even have roofs on them. I sit in my Japanese car with AC on in the summer and I laugh at them. 




photojoern.de said:


> Like the other Zeiss lenses, it doesn´t have Autofocus and it doesn´t have image stabilization. For this reason, I doubt that in real life in 90% of the situations your photos will be as good or better than with a stabilized AF lens. Non moving objects, non moving portrait at good light. That´s it. Landscape will probably be stopped down anyway, so bokeh is not an issue. Street: no AF and no IS is a killer, in my opinion. Did I miss anything?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 16, 2016)

Basil said:


> I have read reviews that suggest the IQ on the Sigma 50 1.4 ART is very very close to the much more expensive Zeiss Otus. Given that the Sigma is a bit less $$ and has AF, what would be the compelling reason to go with this non-AF lens for a little more than the Sigma? Serious question.



If you get a dialed in copy of the Sigma (and there are people who say they have such an animal), it is an extremely sharp lens. It does not have the visual punch of the Otus, though (I compared them side by side). The Otus has better microcontrast, global contrast, and color rendition. The Sigma is a bit sharper than this Milvus wide open, but I like the overall drawing/look of the Milvus rendering more than any of the other 50mm options I've reviewed (more than 15).

Zeiss lenses aren't for everyone, but this one has a lot of character that will appeal to certain shooters and is worthy of consideration for anyone who isn't put off by MF.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 16, 2016)

infared said:


> Great review of a stellar lens. I have a GREAT copy of the Sigma that is totally dialed in to my 5D3....so I am keeping that area of my quiver intact because of the IQ and the AF of the Sigma. ...but for some, the Zeiss water resistance, build quality, and rendering will be more attractive. To each his own. We do have great choices in lenses for the format though, and that is always a good thing! ;D



That's a great take. A few years ago there really wasn't any exceptional 50mm options - now there is a bunch of them. Lucky us!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 16, 2016)

photojoern.de said:


> Like the other Zeiss lenses, it doesn´t have Autofocus and it doesn´t have image stabilization. For this reason, I doubt that in real life in 90% of the situations your photos will be as good or better than with a stabilized AF lens. Non moving objects, non moving portrait at good light. That´s it. Landscape will probably be stopped down anyway, so bokeh is not an issue. Street: no AF and no IS is a killer, in my opinion. Did I miss anything?



Probably not...for your shooting style. People have shot street for a long time without AF, so it is physically possible  For me, however, I had no problem delivering images that I liked better than similar images taken with other AF lenses...but yes, I was a little more deliberate in acquiring them.

On that note, though, if you've never used a MF lens on a body with a decent precision matte focus screen, you will have a hard time knowing how much fun MF can be. Watching the plane of focus glide from one subject to another through the viewfinder at large apertures is about as much fun as you can have doing photography...and does wonders for your creativity.


----------



## photojoern.de (Aug 16, 2016)

> Probably not...for your shooting style. People have shot street for a long time without AF, so it is physically possible  For me, however, I had no problem delivering images that I liked better than similar images taken with other AF lenses...but yes, I was a little more deliberate in acquiring them.
> 
> On that note, though, if you've never used a MF lens on a body with a decent precision matte focus screen, you will have a hard time knowing how much fun MF can be. Watching the plane of focus glide from one subject to another through the viewfinder at large apertures is about as much fun as you can have doing photography...and does wonders for your creativity.



Well, I did use manual focus with Canone AE-1 and alikes for decades. And I am very happy that I have autofocus available now. Because a properly used AF will nail the focus much quicker and you will, consequently, be able to catch quickly vanishing moments where you otherwise would have been the decisive half a second too late.

You write "I had no problem delivering images that I liked better than similar images taken with other AF lenses". But I don´t still get it: which situations? Did you have a model that was not moving too quickly? That would probably the right situation for the lens.
I just don´t manage to come a conclusion: this lens is the ideal lens for situation x and y. It doesn´t look to be ideal for street, not for landscape. Potentially product, not sure. Portrait? Could be. But only limited, because you will use parts of your concentration and brainpower to focus, less on the model. I don´t get it. I do like Bokeh and open aperture. But why a manual focus might do wonders for my creativity - no, I certainly don´t get that.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 16, 2016)

photojoern.de said:


> > Probably not...for your shooting style. People have shot street for a long time without AF, so it is physically possible  For me, however, I had no problem delivering images that I liked better than similar images taken with other AF lenses...but yes, I was a little more deliberate in acquiring them.
> >
> > On that note, though, if you've never used a MF lens on a body with a decent precision matte focus screen, you will have a hard time knowing how much fun MF can be. Watching the plane of focus glide from one subject to another through the viewfinder at large apertures is about as much fun as you can have doing photography...and does wonders for your creativity.
> 
> ...



For the most part I didn't use the lens any differently than I would an AF lens. What I'm saying is that I preferred the LOOK of the images over competing AF lenses that I've reviewed. I would certainly prefer the Milvus to have a great AF system. It doesn't, but that doesn't mean that I can't produce pictures that I prefer to competing lenses with it because of the great optics. I think you are confusing my point. It's not AF vs MF; it is the Milvus package (including optics) over the Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron alternatives.


----------



## eli452 (Aug 17, 2016)

gsealy said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems as though some people put upgraded focusing screens in the 5DIII, but it is not architected to do it like a 1D series is. So it is more difficult. Check on YouTube, there are some videos about it.
> ...


----------



## BMLmedia (Aug 17, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Basil said:
> 
> 
> > I have read reviews that suggest the IQ on the Sigma 50 1.4 ART is very very close to the much more expensive Zeiss Otus. Given that the Sigma is a bit less $$ and has AF, what would be the compelling reason to go with this non-AF lens for a little more than the Sigma? Serious question.
> ...



In addition to image quality and the unique look that people talk about there is also a feel of quality when you hold the Otus. You know it is the best built lens you can get and you know it will not break anytime soon. If you make a living from your equipment then knowing it will not fail in from of a client is very assuring.


----------

