Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/1.4 lens review with samples

Will this Zeiss lens be a star, or simply crash down to earth in a heap? Enjoy your lecture!
All sample pictures taken by me on a Canon EOS R5 camera.
Find it here (Amazon affiliate link - thanks for the support):
geni.us/Milvus35
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonEOSR5Body
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonEFtoRF
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma50mm14Art
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonRF35mm18Macro
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/MarumiFitSlim77
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020USBPlusMic
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSmartLavalierPlus
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC3MicAdaptor
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1nMiniRecorder
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMini2FlyMore
Music:
'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...

[@arghyadipsen2429]

Zeiss - "You took everything from me" Tamron - "I don't even know you"

[@kenvinchang]

This comment is gold

[@astromanicdave]

The size of that. Looks like it should be 135mm

[@Joe-hm1zk]

That blue accented mounting bayonet is so slick looking.

[@alexgraefe.photoYT]

And again I'm even happier with my Sigma 35 f1.4 Art than before. Which I bought by recommendation by the way. Thank you for your great review videos Christopher!

[@huelyadennis]

Hmm... Just 3 years ago Dustin Abbott rated this equal to the Canon 35mm 1.4 L ii, even slightly sharper and therefore one of the best 35mm in the world. Not doubting your review, I actually always enjoy them and I have never used this particular lens. However, I do own the Milvus 85mm and 135mm. I sold my Canon 85mm 1.4 IS L as the Milvus was better in basically every way but especially in bokeh and control of chromatic aberrations when I compared them side by side. The 135mm though is from another planet, it is basically the perfect lens and even though being an older design, hands down, it still beats all my other lenses in every aspect apart from practicality :) and aside from the two mentioned above, I do own the Canon 24mm 1.4 L ii, RF 35mm 1.8, the RF 50mm 1.2 and the RF 70-200 2.8. So I don’t know, maybe the 35 is the bad one out of the bunch but I do wonder about people like D. Abbott who is a very trustworthy guy like yourself and did three thorough videos of the lens basically praising it throughout (same with the 85mm). The color rendition of these lenses is still amazing and I don’t know what it is but when I tested them against the Canon counterparts, in portrait work, the Zeiss lenses always looked more pleasing and had a sort of 3D look to them. I can’t pin it down what it is but they do have some magic to them and once you hold one in your hand, you start to think all other manufacturers are a joke...the craftsmanship is stunning, only Leica lenses come close. I shot 20 years only on Canon , Sigma, Tamron lenses before I held the first Zeiss in my hands and to be honest if I wouldn’t need autofocus for some of my lenses, I would sell them all and buy only Zeiss primes....that’s how it is once you start shooting with one...so yeah, best to just leave it alone in the first place :)

[@philsmithphoto]

I was a little confused too having seen Dustin Abbott's videos! Have a look at Christopher's review of the Milvus 85mm. I'm starting to think the R5 maybe doesn't like Zeiss lenses so much! I use the Milvus 85mm on a 5DSR and the results are nothing short of spectacular with no hint of softness even wide open, yet it was clearly softer in Christopher's video. I also use it adapted on an EOS RP and again, it's pin sharp. What they have both found though maybe is that the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 is the one to go for for Canon. Although each time I look at a shot from my Milvus I want to sell all my other lenses and some less vital organs and move fully to Zeiss!

[@p4ul.f708]

Whoopsi, looks like Im a bit early for this one 😅 Just wanted you to know, that you are in my opinion the best lens reviewer on KZbin ! You give all necessary informations in 10min whereas others would need 30min and leave some aspects out.

[@diegorivera2711]

Wow, classy way of saying first! I'm adding this one to my book. Cheers!

[@p4ul.f708]

@@diegorivera2711 Hey, thanks !👌 Its actually my first time to be the first to click on a video. :0 Have a nice day ! :)

[@LingBaneHydra]

The image quality is disappointing for the price. For this price I expect nothing but perfection.

[@Leo9ine]

Zeiss has seemingly gone downhill in the last five years. This and their 85 Sony lens are atrocious for the price. It's really unfortunate and I hope they get their glory back.

[@LingBaneHydra]

@@Leo9ine Actually, the Milvus 21mm and the 85mm are awesome! State of the art optics. I don't care about the auto focus when I'm using it. They are ultra sharp, no chromatic aberrations and no distortion, all this with Zeiss micro contrast and bokeh. This one was unfortunate. lol

[@bryanbarajasBB]

@@LingBaneHydra thoughts on cine cp.3 Zeiss lens?

[@LingBaneHydra]

@@bryanbarajasBB Not really. I don't have experience with Zeiss Cine to draw any conclusions. I usually rent Canon Cine gear with Canon lenses. Sorry for been unable to help more.

[@Adventure_Together]

Zeiss trading off of the name here. that's a huge amount of money for a lens of this standard.

[@iamwisdomsky]

they're just overrated. people should stop glorifying these kind of companies. Sigma's cheaper lens are even sharper and better than this. and not to mention, they have autofocus!

[@arashi9469]

@@iamwisdomsky Sigma lenses are sharp but honestly the images they produce are trash, the bokeh is ugly, they look flat... then again, they're cheap lenses and are good value for money, but don't overestimate them.

[@iamwisdomsky]

@@arashi9469 ugly bokeh? look flat? lol. The cheap Sigma 56mm F1.4 DC DN would scratch you in the back and beg you to disagree. Compare that to this.The Zeiss would look like a complete joke.

[@JLeoH]

Look at Sigma lenses' corners. They tend to look horribly busy and the images lack character. A lens is not just about resolution. There is all kinds of subtle differences that can move us without us knowing why. Leica lenses are the dream of many due to that very fact. The images do look different. There is no point in arguing about taste yet there is a reason for differences in price - most of the time. I own the Zeiss 35mm 1.4 Milvus, Leica Summilux-M 35mm 1.4 ASPH. and the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art and the Tamron 35mm 1.4. I like the Leica and the Zeiss the most. The other two are great too but are too clean in many situations.

[@oliverlison]

@@iamwisdomsky Sigma is trash. I would not touch it even with 2 pairs of gloves on. Nwow honestly. The Sigma is alright. It is not my choice. However, i wonder if you have ever used a Zeiss lens before? I only work with Zeiss lenses for nearly a decade. Yes, there are lenses in between that are not good at all and unusable. But Sigma has the same. Not all of them are good. What is Christopher here omitting? The lens does not perfom well on the far edges up to around f2.8 or f3,5 or so. When do you need a perfect edge? By f4 Zeiss surpasses the Sigma 35 1.4. But what is more important? More important is actually the look of the image. How it renders a portrait, a scenery, what not. Christopher only juggles with numbers here and it is not field test. Auto focus is another thing. You love it or you hate it. It is the same with Sigmas QC - because it is to scream.

[@bmbfilmshd]

Love that lens 😍😍

[@JLeoH]

Got it too! It's great!

[@davidkieltyka9]

I’d expect most of the Milvus lineup to be showing their age now. Been around for awhile and in most cases based on even earlier Yashica/Contax era designs.

[@frontstandard1488]

These lenses have the capability to be slightly softer with more micro contrast wide open. It's a feature IMO. The overall image contrast, smoothness of out of focus areas, the colour, 3 dimensionality, really work. Your test chart is a flat image plane and not all lenses are designed to work on a flat image, most especially a Zeiss, which works with depth. That is the problem with flat test charts, they don't reflect the real world the lens was made for necessarily. A reproduction lens is flat field for this reason, to reproduce flat art works etc. The Zeiss is not designed for that, so it appears less sharp. I've yet to see a more natural and special image from full frame in 35mm, other than Leica and the 50mm 1.4 Panasonic (which has masses of distortion for such an expensive lens). The Zeiss is quite organic. I think it's the colour and contrast. These are subtle differences but they can really make a picture quite special IMO.

[@pirate9882]

Finally someone who makes sense.

[@bijosn]

I agree with your assessment and points about its characteristics. I have the Sony 35 1.4 GM and the zeiss classic 35 1.4 ZE, I prefer the images coming out of the zeiss even though the GM is sharper and more "perfect". i find the new coatings on the milvus range kill the chromatic aberration and with it the 3d pop, so i prefer the classic range over the milvus.

[@ludviggermainauclairphotog7710]

I have had a completely different experience with the Milvus 35mm 1.4 on the EOS R5, as quite some other people did. Sure this lens ain't cheap, and it should be pretty much picture perfect for the price, but I must agree with some people here that you might have had a bad copy, and also the fact that there is little variation in the distance of the subject doesn't give the whole picture about its optical performance either. The thing that makes me feel bitter about this review is that I've shot this lens side by side with a canon 35L II and a Sigma 35mm Art on a R5, 5D mark IV and an old 5D quite often, and I'd say my results are much more in line with the likes of Dustin Abbott's review, a little less sharpness at 1.4 in the center, but for absolutely everything else optically speaking the milvus is a hair better or more than either the 35L II or the 35Art. And I really love the 35LII by the way, I don't say these things lightly. I am completely sure there are better options price wise if you are on a budget, the tamron is really good that's for sure, but to call the milvus 35mm 1.4 a piece of crap seems exaggerated. Again, your copy might be a pile of crap, I don't doubt your results with that specific copy, and again I must agree that it isn't really trustworthy if some bad apples pass through the inspection process, but believe some of us when we say that this lens can be absolutely stunning.

[@adhi_atma]

Interesting, Your friend seems really love the m6 ii haha

[@sromrell]

I like the title of the book under the clock. Blessings from Colorado

[@firstglass1696]

Thank you, Chris, that video is quite informative (as usual of course😉)! I definitely wont buy a 1.4 lens to use it up from 2.8, no matter how much it is. I think some softness at full aperture is perhaps acceptable (or even desierable) with portrait lenses, but never on a 35 for landscape, street or architecture, not o mention the bokeh I really dislike. I think this is a shame for such a brilliant brand 🙁!

[@Folly_Inds]

A lens that you could sum up with the simple statement "but why?"

[@SovietLensReviews]

Chris getting savage in this one, love it! Zeiss really seem to be stuck in the 90's a bit with their lenses like this. Old school Zeiss pricing with... Old school Zeiss performance, while competitors have overtaken them.

[@arashi9469]

I don't think this one is Zeiss' fault, but rather the long flange distance of Canon's EF mount which forces them to use suboptimal lens designs. In fact, I'm pretty curious too see their next high end lineup for mirrorless cameras, it'll probably be something interesting.

[@oliverlison]

@@arashi9469 I think so too. Zeiss lenses for F Mount Nikon seem to be much better

[@entanglement385]

Thanks for another fantastic review. I have the Touit lenses, and so the review is pertinent (but not for my Fuji LOL). Love the Touit 32 tho ... second favorite lens.

[@rchrdsn]

I have a suggestion. I would like that you started adding color rendition test to your reviews, having a specific setup where you could take pictures under neutral light (sunny daylight temp, I think). I have this idea that a Zeiss lens is superior in color rendition, but I might be biased because I already have this in my mind without really remembering how this opinion was built. (Maybe I'm trying to save Zeiss, haha). Thanks for the review.

[@rchrdsn]

I mean, regular indoor and outdoors photos could also be used to say something about color rendition.

[@PAD32]

I don't like much that fingerprint finish they make on their lenses, but it looks very realistic

[@cheytacpraetoriancomposite3413]

Having purchased the sigma 85 1.4 recently i would go for the sigma option of the 35...alot better results for a lot smaller price.

[@dch2896]

That's a huge lens.

[@Snapit551]

Ziess lenses are best for micro contrast and the best ziess is the 135mm f2 ever

[@qiminaqiemi97]

Hey christopher, i was wondering if you could make the best overall third party lenses for the new eos r system, i been searching for third party lens that is compatible with the new canon full frame mirrorless but not so many vid on yt talk abt this and most of the canon L lens is pretty expensive so i kinda wish there is a list of much better value for money lenses rather then the much more expensive rf lens

[@gdrriley420]

I see this being used a lot as a replacement for a vintage lens for cinema use. not a typical photo lens

[@bikingmoments]

Thanks for the review! Do you think MF lenses are gradually phased out nowadays? At this price level, there are so many great AF options with even f/1.2 and shaper IQ...

[@Bilalizaddin]

Canon 35mm f1.4LII is one of the best lenses made in history of 35mm

[@jacobnathanielzpayag3885]

I think I know why this lens is so optically challenged. It is based on the really old Distagon 35 f1.4 design that dates back to who knows when (I think late 90s-early 2000s-ish). The Milvus line basically has two groups. Lenses with new optical designs and a reskin of existing designs.

[@MichaelLaing71]

I believe the Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/1.4 is a new optical design. The Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/2 is based on an older design.

[@santhoshsandy5298]

For pairing with EOS r6 do i need any mount adaptor? If yes, what kind kind of adaptor? Ef Or rf?

[@standhd]

It’s on his camera. I froze the vid and took a screenshot. It is a Canon adapter and it’s labeled “EF-EOS R”

[@danielrussell4122]

Thanks for the review. Quite shocking how much worse the Milvus 35mm F/1.4 is compared to the Milvus 35mm F/2. The F/2 is one of the finest lenses I've ever used. Up there with the Zeiss 135mm F/2 APO Sonnar.

[@frontstandard1488]

Not true. A flat field test chart does not represent the drawing and more subtle sharpness and contrast this lens has with 3d objects

[@prideswim318]

You're the most systematic reviewer of lenses on youtube, so, is there any way you can help me understand the relative merits of Leica M lenses? If they're not actually "the best", as lauded by fanboys and the brand, I'll stick to my big, much cheaper, gear for professional work, and get a little crop sensor camera for taking around. However, if they are sharper and more contrasty than Sigma and Canon lenses, well, I might be tempted to own a Leica M10, only, and fulfil my divine vision of being a minimalist man. Come on Chris! Run a Leica Summilux 35 f/1.4 through its paces!

[@JLeoH]

If you look at the new APO SL lenses, they are in fact the best lenses. Nothing comes close in terms of resolution and contrast. Leica M lenses are the best >>>for their compact size

[@SatanSupimpa]

I'm not saying Zeiss lenses are bad, I'm just saying that I rarely see a review that convinces me that they're worth what they cost.

[@JLeoH]

How about trying one?

[@oliverlison]

They are worth the cost in my opinion.

[@eh1333]

I think this also applies to Leica!

[@rrraaatttuuulll]

Please give us a EOS R5 with RF 28-70mm f/2 review. Actually want to see the image output or some sample images. Please consider this

[@julius4858]

I think he reviewed the lens with an EOS R

[@nealrichmond4588]

'Why Zeiss failed' or 'The Case for Zeiss' . Thanks for the honest and excellent lens review, but sometimes subliminal isn't so subliminal when it's overt. I guess sadly politics comes into faith and religion at some point, but personally speaking, the former might switch some people off the later? Back to lenses, Won't be budging from my Canon 35mm RF 1.8 with autofocus and IS on the strength of your review and my enjoyment of that amazing value lens. Best wishes.

[@alfredv9902]

Another opinion in this video. At 4:30, mentioned is the Milvus 35mm v1.4 shot at f1.4 is SHARP, SHARP, SHARP. This is a video for videographers, but the Milvus is used by photographers and video shooters, and many of us shoot stills and vids...nice that it does both at a professional level (color matched lenses, de-click feature of aperture ring). kzbin.info/www/bejne/qoqphWicit6jqKs

[@malcolmkermode9794]

There are massive sample variations with the Milvus 35mm f1.4. I had one sample that was so soft it couldn't be focused. I've tried four samples and I now have one that's reasonable. I should have kept the second sample. Some samples are fantastic and others are just straight out lemons. It's a lottery. Cosina needs to pick up it's game and actually test lenses before leaving the factory.

[@oliverlison]

I have 5 Zeiss lenses and the only one I have had an issue with was the classic Planar 1.4/50. I could not get it sharp.

[@bijosn]

@@oliverlison thats not an issue its a feature, that lens is quite soft unless stopped down....but its wide open rendering lends itself to some artistic shots

[@bijosn]

if what you say is true then that is shocking that such an expensive line of lenses has such poor QC...so Sony Zeiss 35mm F1.4 was plagued with poor QC

[@ryanstark2350]

@@bijosn I have an old Contax Yashica Zeiss Planar 50mm. That lens is not sharp at all wide open due to spherical aberrations which I think all these 50mm Planars suffer from but it has a lovely smooth quality to it. You can't really have every feature of a lens perfect. Fix one thing and another thing gets worse.

[@EpicWaterLion]

I've got one small questions: How do you light the Vignetting Test Chart for a homogenous light distribution :)

[@peter_shadow7559]

He doesn't illuminate the chart, he just lowers the lens aperture until it is evenly illuminated. At F1.4 the corners are dark but the center is lit. At F2.8 the image is even. Hope it helps.

[@lorenzogattaldo3764]

@@peter_shadow7559 Still the chart must receive light somehow.

[@FinalManaTrigger]

The easiest way is to hang the chart outside on a north facing wall and you should get even lighting. Or it can be lit with a softbox pointed straight on.

[@christopherfrost]

@@FinalManaTrigger You got it :-)

[@peter_shadow7559]

@@lorenzogattaldo3764 Oh! My apologies. You were referring to the chart in general, not to why the vignette became clearer in the corners. My Bad.

[@oliverlison]

Zeiss lenses for Nikon seem to be sharper, but I honestly dont care because sharpness is relative. It is what you want to work with and why. I do a lot photography but no clinical testing because most clients and people won't see it. I have the 2/25 classic, 2/35 MIlvus, 2/50 Milvus and1.4/85 Milvus is my arsenal. I love the 2/50 most. The 2/25 was my go to lens on a APC camera. The 1.4/85 is gorgeous but too heavy and too fat to use comfortably. The 2/35 is a fairly new aquisition and has not had much camera time and therefor I cannot say much. A lot of retailers are shifiting from SLR to Mirrorless and get rid of those Zeiss lenes. All three milvus lenses were showroom models and on some I could get a rebate too. I am very happy this them and I hope they will last for another decade if used carefully.

[@JLeoH]

I see it the same way! Clinical testing is a big problem that came up with digital photography. Lenses have become sharper and sharper but the images you see become worse and worse. How ironic. I just shot a Summaron-M 35mm 2.8 from the 1960s and it's perfectly sharp and the rendition is like that of a Rolleiflex 3.5F camera. :-)

[@oliverlison]

@@JLeoH Thanks for sharing your thought. That high resulution is race is something I cannot stand.

[@supercuber9805]

Pls do affordable lens complation pls pls pls

[@mattwilson8993]

Can you do a review of the 35mm 2.8 ZA ?

[@shadda]

Love that lens

[@robertcudlipp3426]

One of the most underrated lens out there. Am not a Sony/Zeiss shooter, however a very, very deep pocketed mate who purchased the current Sony AR ?- with a trillion mp etc- didn't like the trade in price offered for his gen 1 A7R and that Sony/Zeiss 35 2.8 & gave the combo to me. That 2.8 lens is simply superb, even in my hands. Ok, it's not 1.4 or whatever, however with the mega sensor on even gen 1 A7R, easy to wind up iso. Use for landscape, street type work & often set at 5.6/f 8 etc.

[@shadda]

@@robertcudlipp3426 It's such a great little travel lens, and looks amazing on crop bodies and FF. Probably my favorite prime.

[@Kim_Alexander]

any zeiss lens has to be reviewed in real life situations

[@maxhammick948]

Not testing it on APS-C is sensible - anyone buying this over a chinese manual focus one like the ttartisans model (at 1/20th the price) for an APS-C camera needs their head examined!

[@bijosn]

only a complete idiot woud try to compare a zeiss milvus to a ttartisan

[@klausweigeldt4123]

I really and fully disagree with this. That lens is really outstanding if you know how to use it.

[@riccardotosatto3264]

is this sharper at 1.4 than the Tamron 35mm 1.4 EF?

[@JLeoH]

The Tamron is sharper at F1.4, maybe about 25%. The Tamron loses sharpness at F4 though. The Zeiss is sharper at normal apertures and got better contrast. Compare some images on Flickr.com!

[@thebluereverend]

Glad you reviewed this one because it seems disappointing. Guess I'll stick with my old Nikon 35mm 1.4 (the manual one)

[@oliverlison]

Not sure if this is quite true. Have look for the same lens for Nikon mount. Somehow all Zeiss Canon Mount perform weaker. than Nikon.

[@JLeoH]

The Nikon one is great. Manual focus lenses without split screen focussing disk is annoying though. Only get it if you are getting a Z camera!

[@rogeryoung3587]

06:23 Something fishy with that number plate - too many 7s ;-)

[@root9065]

Since the lens is adapted on another camera, I'm wondering, would the adapter impact its optical quality? If the answer is no, then this lens is definitely not worth its price.

[@mindprison88]

The adapter in question (Canon EF to EOS R) doesn't have any glass elements inside of it, thus it doesn't have any impact on image quality.

[@JLeoH]

The Nikon versions of Zeiss lenses tend to perform better (and look better on the outside).

[@bijosn]

yes it can , i think the glass on the mirrorless sensors tends to be thicker and add reflections. from what ive read BSI sensors do better with adapted lenses. I havent independantly verified all of these claims so it could be complete bogus

[@RealRaynedance]

It's so weird hearing such a short name for a lens. I thought you forgot to say the whole thing at first.

[@garethjones5068]

Yeah I think I'll stick with my Samyang 35 1.4, this Zeiss lens costs literally 10 times what I paid for that

[@Wakodaf]

Yop i also thing samy is good ... my copy is sharp enought

[@arnonart]

lenses are generally pretty elusive thing. a huge unreasonable price tag doesn't necessarily mean any good.

[@boredgrass]

What happened to Zeiss??? Have they been victim to a hostile overtake??? I am shocked! I once had a Contax ST (analogue) with a 180/2.8, a 60/2.8 Macro and a 28/2.8 and the optical quality of those lenses was on par with Leica!.Is this an "accident" or have they decided to change into the "cheap lane"? That would be a great and saddening loss!

[@SyntheticFuture]

It looks really large and heavy. Very expensive. And the image quality is not "mind blowing", although I have to admit it looks like a strong player at f2. Then again: 2k for a f2 lens is pushing it Imho. Weird outing from team Zeiss.

[@johnadams3038]

I expected to be more expensive.

[@alfredv9902]

I find this review of the Milvus inconsistent with what real professionals and other reviewers are saying. When you say Sigma 35mm art and Tamrons are better, and this Milvus 35mm f1.4 has mediocre performance, you either have a bad copy, or you have some other motive....something is not right (my guess you rented, and lens separation in one of the elements- dropped, etc....., not decentering). Also Zeiss uses floating elements to maintain sharpness at close range...probably damaged. I recommend you check Dustin Abbotts review of the Milvus 35mm f1.4, where he compares it with Canons 35mm f1.4 LII (top grade glass). Dustin felt Canon was sharper at f1.4 (both are by the way sharp at f1.4, but I think he missed focus on Milvus, both had sharp tall grass in front of barn), both about equal at f2, and after that the end result was for landscapes, the Milvus was clearly the winner....far better micro contrast, edge, and corner resolution. This is a landscape lens, not for shooting Imatest test charts which are not meant for wide angle lenses. You have not one single image test at medium distances, or infinity (which is the main reason we purchase the 35mm ....landscapes. For astro shooters, check out my test image using the Milvus 35mm f1.4 shot at f1.4 (Dpreview review comparing Milvus 35mm and 25mm). One of the images was a full file, and it is sharp into the edges and corners at f1.4. I don't think there is another lens that can do that at f1.4. Sure, some coma at f1.4, but clone out the few, or repair....key is this was at f1.4....impressive right into the corners...fantastic for Aurora's. You mention poor sharpness on the watch, and text, yet you can see in Dustins 2nd video amazing close up performance on the jewelry, with amazing micro contrast and the Zeiss pop. The 3rd video will show that all Zeiss lenses in the Super Speed Milvus line are designed to be sharp from f1.4, and all are color matched (unfortunately resolution of video could be better). kzbin.info/www/bejne/bWXXfZuXps6YbZY kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJzdZaN8r6ppp68 kzbin.info/www/bejne/qnXKZ6h6p7qXkLs This review left a very negative feeling in everyone's mind. The fact is Milvus is purchased by professionals (TV studios, videographers, cinema photographers) because of the superior performance of Milvus lenses. Milvus lenses are color matched (so are Otus and Master Primes) which is critical in video/cinema photography, and have the best color science. Milvus also have aperture de-click feature, lens gears, superior micro contrast (the zeiss "pop"), weather proof, professional build quality, and best low flare performance (no one matches their T-coatings), hyperfocal scale. People keep buying zeiss, not because they want to throw money away, or are stupid. Pros are buying them, and they know through experience/other pros... which are the best. Today all lenses have high resolution, because of the high MP cameras that have been introduced. Today you measure a lens on contrast, coma, aberrations, distortion, flare, etc. Another important point, Milvus is manual focus, therefore no AF focus issues with other brands. You can throw your nikon ZF2 Milvus unto Canon/Sony/Fujinon/Arri/Red/ Cinema camera body. See a new body with 100mp in 2 years that you might want...no problem (adapters do not effect quality, no glass in it). Adapters are standard in video/cinema. Amateurs seem afraid of them, prefer smaller, but without them, you are LOCKED into one camera system. I prefer a Nikon DSLR one minute, and a Sony body for other things....using same lenses. Nice to be able to do that. Manual focus is not an issue with built in green dot focus system (D800-D850) and focus peaking, although still not as fast as AF. On the other hand, serious landscape shooters, videographers, take their time, plan their shot, and have no interest in AF focus taking control. I owned the Sigma Arts in 14/35/50 and still own the 150-600mm Sport. I also own the Milvus 15/2.8, 25/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4. I am very familiar with both systems. The reviewer says the lens is disappointing, when in fact the review is disappointing, a bad lens, and no long distance testing, and lack of knowledge regarding the Milvus lenses. Comparing a lens that expensive to Tamrons/Sigma's at 1/3 the price............common sense should have prevailed that something is wrong. Your comments that the mfr's MTF are in line with the performance, and others saying it performed similar, is clearly being deceptive....or you DID NO DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Other reviewers are praising, not insulting, and the actual performance in the close up shots would have put the MTF curves at the very bottom of the graph (due to lens failure). You should have realized something is wrong. On the other hand, it is not always easy to know these things, unless you have a 2nd or 3rd to compare with.

[@oliverlison]

Thanks for your effort to put your opinon in writing. I feel the same that Christopher did not pay attention to what he was doing. Christopher also does not perfom lens tests on Nikon. We all know that the outcome differs. It is an incomplete test and a juggle with numbers. It is not real field test.

[@bradleykussy]

I agree, this is the only lens review I've seen where people believe the Milvus is shit. For me, it boils down to: do I want Canon EF, electronic apersture, and Metadata with ZE OR Nikon F with a manual aperture, no Metadata, declickable aperture, but the focus throw is reversed. Still not sure 😕.

[@cryptobyt2403]

I got milvus 50 for 500 bucks. I plan on getting milvus 35/2 for street. I plan on selling my afd 50/1.4 and ai28/2.8 for milvus 35/2

[@powerlurker]

but the color redering is much better than sigma and tamron

[@christopherfrost]

Why do you say that, and what do you mean by that exactly?

[@powerlurker]

@@christopherfrost purely subjective，about sigma lens，the sharpness is without question，but i always find their dark arera lack of detail -- no transition just black。 and i owned tamron sp351.4 ，i just found your zeiss photo are more pleasent in color，again thats all just my eyes saw，didnt test anything，maybe u could make a blind test video about it， will be fun

[@powerlurker]

@@christopherfrost and for a quiet long time，when i said “color ” of one lens，the only measurement are my eyes，no quantifiable test to back it up，gladly my frend work in a opic lab did the test and confirmed my thought and explained，the measurement is the full visible spectrum a lens could provide and compared to a SRGB spectrum chart，the lens he use is 50art、otus 55 1.4、sony 50 1.4z，and 50art has the smallest visible spectrum，and this is due to the glass quantity，the high Refractive glass is more expensive obviously，and the sigma‘s price restrict they can use only adequate glass ，so it blocked some visible spectrum tamron sp35 has Resin element，it has even lower Refractive rate than normal glass，and their process precision is not so well -- the onion ring in the bokeh

[@bijosn]

I agree

[@supercuber9805]

Pls pls pls affordable lenses for canon mount

[@gstpierre69]

3lbs!! That blue makes it worth it though

[@benni1015]

Well it definitly is something seriously special. I mean for such a price you wont find such a bad 35mm anywhere...

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

Samyang 35mm f/1.2 XP manual focus lens seems to be a better choice.

[@bijosn]

not really, it lacks the magic of zeiss

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

@@bijosnKeeo the magic to yourself, I'd keep the cash and buy a Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART. After years of pretending manual focus is a viable option, I am now convinced that only macro and UWA lenses can get away without AF. A 35mm without AF=junk.

[@bijosn]

@@shang-hsienyang1284 ok the sigma 1.2 is a different story but in your initial post you mentioned the samyang 35 XP...give me the milvus 35 f1.4 over that samyang xp any day, but the sigma 35 1.2 trumps them all but it is a big lens

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

@@bijosn I was more open minded about manual focusing lenses back then. I thought optical quality and character were important, but now I realized none of these trivial attributes matter if the moment is lost. I will take any AF FF 35mm or APSC 23mm lens over any high quality 35mm equivalent lenses now. Being able to capture the story is more important.

[@patrick.771]

Better test some Nikon Z lenses when Zeiss can't deliver :P

[@chrisrout1654]

Unfortunately, most of this review is at close distance and clearly shows that chart tests can be very misleading. I have seen very thorough technical reviews of this lens from the likes of Lloyd Chambers and Dustin Abbot, they clearly show that this lens is world class at moderate distance onwards, the colour rendering and micro contrast are better than it's competitors, don't get me wrong, the Canon 35mm f1.4L and the new Tamron f1.4 are superb lenses, I guess it's picking the right lens for the subject and your own shooting needs.

[@carlporter2239]

Hello everyone, andz today we have..

[@dakmandotcom6682]

Screw that....!sigma 40mm f1.4!

[@rosedwilson402]

rank for 35 mm is sigma,tamron then zeiss?

[@litacatalin3261]

Tamron 35/f1.4 is a lot better.I know this because I shoot astrophotography and a stellar frame is the ultimate quality test for edge chromatic aberations and astigmatism.

[@tbrown2892]

Oh dear! What a shocker. I don’t know how they can market it as a f1.4 lens with such poor performance wide open.

[@Wakodaf]

It looks like samyang 35 1,4 is bit better, in sharpnesssss

[@aditya_gupta]

Sony will probably beat it

[@JLeoH]

haha in terms of flatness definitely.

[@aditya_gupta]

Your hands must be huge...that r5 looks so small.

[@saifaldin_]

I’ve learnt to adjust my perception of scale when watching videos on this channel. My hands are probably only half the size compared to Christopher’s. 🤣

[@aditya_gupta]

@@saifaldin_ exactly...😅

[@NetTubeUser]

What the Hell, Zeiss? A $2,000 lens with some blurry corners and onion bokeh? WHAT? I'm kinda disappointed and surprised. I expected more quality than that for this price, to be honest.

[@ryanbeer5262]

Utterly ridiculous, I expect more from Zeiss. Seems a lot bigger than it needs to be for a mf lens

[@togp3403]

What a weird lens, I feel like this is a supremely idiotic buy from anyone, I feel sorry for anyone who bought a lens this expensive and large that has such poor image quality relative to other manufacturers. It’s striking how disappointing this lens is.

[@panagiotistsiverdis]

Τι πετσόκομμα ήταν αυτό;;;

[@artemholstov9207]

Zeiss..🤦🏻

[@GreatDXR]

Mediocre Optical quality, manual focus and no image stabilization. What's not to love at $2,000? Oh, wait a minute it's made by Zeiss!

[@Cagey7531]

Sony/Zeiss lenses are incredibly ugly is what they are, I don't care how good a 35 1.4 is, there's never a need for it to be that clunky

[@WetDoggo]

Bullshit lens 😂

[@binaryblog]

Thx for the review but the lens is pure garbage like 3/4 of Zeiss lenses.

[@alfredv9902]

You don't own, you don' t know, and you depend on reviews. Reviewer is way off the mark. Try and be stunned. Sharper than the MIlvus 35mm f2.

[@dch2896]

Zeiss these days is like a warning sign to stay away.

[@oliverlison]

why? I have plenty Zeiss lenses, some of them are not good at all but there are stellar lenses too. Look at the NIkon, Sigma etc... as if they are all excellent choices.