# Review - Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4 T*



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 26, 2016)

Discuss our review of the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4 T* here.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 26, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Without autofocus, how can anyone even dream of using any of these lenses?



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/


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 26, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Without autofocus, how can anyone even dream of using any of these lenses?
> ...



Another piece of the dilbert jigsaw puzzle fits into place :-\


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 26, 2016)

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


----------



## Eldar (Feb 26, 2016)

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.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 26, 2016)

Eldar said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 26, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Without autofocus, how can anyone even dream of using any of these lenses?



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... :-[


----------



## Eldar (Feb 26, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> 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.


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 (Feb 26, 2016)

Eldar said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 26, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...


He he, +2kUSD for a focusing ring is a bit stiff


----------



## slclick (Feb 26, 2016)

In a nutshell what is the biggest differences between the Milvus line and the Planar/Distagon?


----------



## Eldar (Feb 26, 2016)

slclick said:


> In a nutshell what is the biggest differences between the Milvus line and the Planar/Distagon?


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.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 26, 2016)

slclick said:


> In a nutshell what is the biggest differences between the Milvus line and the Planar/Distagon?



"The new lenses are the ZEISS answer to the current trend toward sensors with increasingly high resolution which, in turn, require higher and higher image quality"


----------



## RGF (Feb 26, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Without autofocus, how can anyone even dream of using any of these lenses?
> ...



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).


----------



## jaayres20 (Feb 26, 2016)

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.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 26, 2016)

jaayres20 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## slclick (Feb 26, 2016)

RGF said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I totally get where you are coming from but with static subjects and live view magnification it works for me and this is coming from someone who was once blind for a month due to an autoimmune dysfunction.


----------



## meywd (Feb 27, 2016)

slclick said:


> RGF 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.


----------



## meywd (Feb 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > 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.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > 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.


----------



## Mr Bean (Feb 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Its like this, and bear in mind, I rarely use my 15mm Zeiss, but.....
I'm married to my Canon gear. I love it, I spend a lot of time, emotion, enjoyment with it. But in comparison, my Zeiss is like a mistress, something to enjoy on occasion


----------



## lidocaineus (Feb 27, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Without autofocus, how can anyone even dream of using any of these lenses?
> ...



There's a *HUGE* difference between modern day dSLRs and film SLRs in terms of pentaprism/pentamirror brightness as well as viewfinder help, specifically split prisms, rangefinder-like focus aids, and mini-prisms etched onto the focus plane. Manual focusing back then was _de-rigeur_ and extremely natural to perform, even at wide open apertures.

These days you have none of that, because it's assumed you will be utilizing autofocus. The closest you get is a focus confirmation or focus peaking, neither of which is even remotely close to things like split-prisms. Even the alternate manual focusing screen you can add to certain Canon dSLRs aren't even close to the accuracy you could get in the past. 

There's a reason photo 101 students were required to get manual-only film cameras up until the 2000s; not only did you learn about proper exposure, you learned how to quickly and accurately focus, and it wasn't hard (these were 101 classes, for people who had never picked up a camera before). Good luck trying to get a total newb to do that today.


----------



## candc (Feb 27, 2016)

lidocaineus said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



manual focusing on the sony a7 bodies is better than any slr or dslr i have used. the old split prism was accurate but only works in the center. focus peaking and magnification in the viewfinder is really the way to go if you like to use manual focus lenses. its less hassle than using af in many ways. you are not constantly fighting the camera on picking a focus point and fiddling with settings. works great on static shots


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 27, 2016)

candc said:


> manual focusing on the sony a7 bodies is better than any slr or dslr i have used. the old split prism was accurate but only works in the center. focus peaking and magnification in the viewfinder is really the way to go if you like to use manual focus lenses. its less hassle than using af in many ways. you are not constantly fighting the camera on picking a focus point and fiddling with settings. works great on static shots



While I agree that MF on the A7 is nice (specifically due to VF magnification), i have found zero use for peeking. I just can't get it to help, because it shows practically anything with high contrast as being in focus. MF is also a little compromised by the mostly fly-by-wire lenses. Regardless, I love it.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 27, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > manual focusing on the sony a7 bodies is better than any slr or dslr i have used. the old split prism was accurate but only works in the center. focus peaking and magnification in the viewfinder is really the way to go if you like to use manual focus lenses. its less hassle than using af in many ways. you are not constantly fighting the camera on picking a focus point and fiddling with settings. works great on static shots
> ...



I have to agree on focus peeking (for my own use). I rarely enable it and prefer above all to rely on visual confirmation via true DOF either on mirrorless or via an EF-S Focus screen on the 6D. It is the true DOF that makes focus fun for me, as I can watch focus come into existence anywhere in the frame. I enjoy that organic process of watching the image come to life.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 27, 2016)

As good as this lens might be, somehow I don't see myself going back to a MF lens, ever!


----------



## candc (Feb 27, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



I am really surprised to hear the dislike for focus peaking. I use it all the time in manual focus mode in the a7rii. I think the combination of focus peaking and magnification in conjunction is very fast, easy to use, and accurate. 

There are situations with a low contrast subject that peaking doesn't aid much but I don't find it ever interferes with focusing.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 27, 2016)

candc said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



It's not that I don't like it, per se. I merely haven't found it to be particularly reliable. I've had it show me things as being in focus which obviously were not. I may be using it wrong, however.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 27, 2016)

candc said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I actually really enjoy the organic process of watching something come into focus and visualizing the perfect point of focus, and the color overlay of the focus peaking diminishes that process for me personally.


----------



## slclick (Feb 27, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Some of us apply a little more right brain, some a little more left. Just another thing which makes the photography experience so varied and expansive.


----------



## candc (Feb 27, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Using a mirrorless camera does make you feel removed from the scene. Focus peaking, live histogram, and zebras add another layer of disconnect on top of it all. I don't enjoy it as much either but it is very functional.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 27, 2016)

candc said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



Definitely, I find a lot of the EVF overlays to be distracting. I shoot with the electronic level active, but nothing else in the image frame.

I also typically don't have it preview the exposure, but sometimes will.


----------



## JoFT (Feb 28, 2016)

Thank you Dustin for the nice review of the Milvus 85mm f1.4. I had it in my hands recently: great experience. I will definetely budget it: I do have a very old Zeiss Planar f1.4 85mm from my Contax times - and I use it from time to time even with my DSLR´s (and on µ43 as well): I definitely want to get one.


In discussion with manual focus: I do not mind. I have the SIGMa 85mm f1.4 but I am struggling with the Autofocus there...

On remark on the size of the lens [/size][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]In combination the the 6D and smaller bodies my fingers are touching the lens. In combination with 7D/5D-Type bodies the lens is fine...[/font][size=78%]


----------



## jaayres20 (Mar 2, 2016)

I would love to hear about someone's experience with this lens and manual focusing using the AF confirmation on Canon cameras. How much trouble will I have with AF confirmation and anything more open than 2.8. Why is AF confirmation not accurate with wider apertures like 1.4?


----------



## gsealy (Mar 2, 2016)

I have this Zeiss lens and others. The big things for me are the contrast and the color. The image just has more depth and feel to it than those taken with other lens that I have. I guess I could best sum it up best by saying the photos have a "wow" factor to them. 

The biggest thing to handle manual focus for me was to replace the standard focus screen. The are a number of different types available and they take about 1 minute to replace. Once I had that I was able to easily achieve focus. And the situation can also be handled by making some depth of field calculations/estimates. The are a number of apps for this.


----------



## suburbia (Mar 2, 2016)

I bought the Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm for my FF 5D series camera as my first taste of Zeiss MF camera work. I enjoyed the unique look of the picture file but was always disappointed with the overall sharpness of scenes particularly the edges.

I have today come across their new Milvus range via this thread and I find myself tempted by the 50mm 1.4 to replace my little used 35mm. Although I love the 85mm range I could not afford both the 50mm and the 85mm and feel that the 50mm would be the better all-rounder.

Anyone with similar experience of the previous 35mm lens and moving to 50mm MF lens?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 2, 2016)

suburbia said:


> I bought the Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm for my FF 5D series camera as my first taste of Zeiss MF camera work. I enjoyed the unique look of the picture file but was always disappointed with the overall sharpness of scenes particularly the edges.
> 
> I have today come across their new Milvus range via this thread and I find myself tempted by the 50mm 1.4 to replace my little used 35mm. Although I love the 85mm range I could not afford both the 50mm and the 85mm and feel that the 50mm would be the better all-rounder.
> 
> Anyone with similar experience of the previous 35mm lens and moving to 50mm MF lens?



If you can wait a month or so, I have the Milvus 1.4/50mm arriving in a few weeks for review.


----------



## suburbia (Mar 3, 2016)

Thanks! I watched your informative sequence of reviews of the 85mm on Youtube last night, it certainly whet my appetite for this new lens range!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 3, 2016)

suburbia said:


> Thanks! I watched your informative sequence of reviews of the 85mm on Youtube last night, it certainly whet my appetite for this new lens range!



Cool. I have fairly high expectations for the 1.4/50mm, but it does face some strong competitors in the Sigma 50 ART and the Tamron 45 VC (which I now own and is quite excellent). Should be fun.


----------



## NWPhil (Mar 25, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> 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




not that in anyway I doubt, but really would love to see that picture, or point to it if you can. Thanks


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 26, 2016)

NWPhil said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...



It's far from my favorite shot with the Helios 44-2 (Gallery here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thousandwordimages/albums/72157631587949800 ), but this is the photo: 


The Pink Lady&#x27;s Slipper by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Miller Zell Design paid $525 for the image; I paid $30 (shipped from Russia) for the old Helios 44-2


----------



## NWPhil (Mar 28, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> NWPhil said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Thanks Dustin - a lovely shot, and I can see clearly why they wanted it.
as a foot note, I was thinking that the lens in question was a Otus ... :


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 28, 2016)

FramerMCB said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Without autofocus, how can anyone even dream of using any of these lenses?
> ...



Maybe Dilbert was being sarcastic.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 29, 2016)

NWPhil said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > NWPhil said:
> ...



I have had some Otus shots licensed, but nothing [yet] that would have paid outright for one.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 29, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> NWPhil said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Given the fees from the likes of Getty you're probably better off using gear to the value of a Helios


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 30, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > NWPhil said:
> ...



True  I've been fortunate to have a few direct licenses that were a wee bit more profitable


----------

