I reviewed the “classic” Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 50mm f/2 a few years ago, and concluded that it was a very compelling 50mm option for those that A) are not off-put by manual focus and B) want a much magnification figure than what most 50mm options provide. I am typically delighted by the focus action of Zeiss lenses, but I was less enchanted by the Makro-Planar 50mm, which had focus action definitely on the “heavier/stiffer” side. I was interested to see if the Milvus version of the lens had solved that ergonomic issue, and was intrigued in seeing if the newer Zeiss Milvus 2/50M lens stands out as a serious option even after the market has been saturated with a number of new 50mm lenses. I’ll be working to answer that question over the next few weeks. In the meantime, however, enjoy the images that I produce as a part of my review process. Shooting with a Zeiss lens is always a joy, and I think these images will tell the story why!
Images of the Zeiss Milvus 2/50M
Images Taken with the Zeiss Milvus 2/50M
Images Taken with the Zeiss Milvus 2/50M on Sony APS-C
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART is by far the most requested lens since Sigma launched the ART series line. I’ve been asked when it was coming since I did my first ART series lens review several years ago. It’s finally here, and it is a beast of lens in both size and image quality. Some will be put off by the former, but few by the latter. I’ll be putting the Sigma 85mm ART through my review paces for a couple of weeks and will be reporting in greater detail on it. In the meantime you can watch this space for new photos and watch my YouTube channel for video coverage, too. Thanks to Sigma Canada for getting me a copy of the 85 ART along with the new Sigma 12-24mm f/4 ART lens!
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52016DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Okay. Raise your hand if you wanted/expected this lens to come with an image stabilizer? In a day when many people use DSLRs as hybrid stills/video cameras and when Canon offers camera bodies with 30 and 50 megapixels, one would think that adding IS would have been a priority, but Canon has elected otherwise. Tamron proved a few years ago that such a lens is possible with its 15-30mm f/2.8 VC, but it will continue as the lone option for Canon shooters that want both the large f/2.8 maximum aperture and an image stabilizer in a wide angle zoom. Take a deep breath if this was your main priority, wipe away that tear from the corner of your eye, and let’s move on. The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM is not the lens where Canon marries a wide aperture with an image stabilizer, but the 16-35L III is the lens where Canon gets most of the ingredients right for building an exceptional wide angle zoom.
A few years ago Canon shooters were out in the cold when it came to wide angle zoom lenses. It was the one area where Canon glass wasn’t the best. But things started to turn around with the release of the excellent Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS, a lens that has been both critically and commercially successful. It was one of those rare moments when Canon released something that was both excellent and fairly priced. Canon followed that up with the far more specialist 11-24mm f/4L, a lens with a truly extreme focal length. While not without faults, the 11-24L is a unique lens that is very good at what it does. But the final frontier for Canon was taking that newfound optical performance into their flagship f/2.8 zoom. After spending time with the lens, it’s clear that Canon has successfully done so, though there is just enough ambiguity left for ongoing debate.
Prefer to watch your reviews? Click the videos below!
If you are familiar with the 16-35mm f/4L IS, then you have a fairly good idea about the general shape of the 16-35L III. It has a similar overall look, though with a slightly longer barrel and more of a flare out to the larger 82mm front filter thread. The 16-35L III is a little over a half inch longer (5.02”/127.5mm vs 4.44”/112.8mm) and it has put on some weight (27.87oz/790g vs 21.6oz/615g) over the f/4 version as well as the 16-35 Mark II (22.4oz/635g). This lens is now on the larger size of medium, and those that are serious backpackers or travelers won’t be happy to see the weight gain. That’s basically a 20% weight gain over the previous lens, so if you are a backpacker you may want to stick with the f/4 version.
The lens feels very well made in the Canon L way, and literature from Canon shows that the weather sealing has ramped up with a number of new internal seals. They say, “It features a dust- and water-resistant construction on the switch panel, the zoom and focus rings, and on the lens mount, helping to prevent dust and moisture from interfering with operation. When outfitted with a Canon filter, the EF 16–35mm f/2.8L III USM is supremely dust- and water-resistant.” ‘Supremely’ is a very confident word to apply to dust and water resistance. This diagram shows the various points that seals have been built into the lens.
Note that Canon does recommend the use of a front filter to “seal the deal”. If you choose to forego that filter, however, the lens has expensive fluorine coatings on both the front and rear elements. The nicest thing about the fluorine coating is that it makes them much easier to clean as finger prints and oils don’t bond to the fluorine.
On this note this is both some internal movement of the front element when zooming (always within the limits of the outer barrel) and when zoomed to 35mm there is a pretty huge gap created at the back of the lens where I can see inside the lens. Not unusual, but for your information…
The body is primarily engineered plastics (high grade) around a metal core. The lens feels hefty but without that unique density of a Zeiss lens and its all metal construction. The front filter threads are plastic and are in a 82mm size, which is on the large size of normal but still within the scope of easily accessible and not overly exorbitant in price. I’ve been using a Fotodiox Pro WonderPana filter system for the Tamron 15-30 VC but such a system is a bit expensive and definitely more clunky that just being able to screw on traditional filters. The continued ability to use screw in filters is a big plus here over alternatives with a protruding front element.
Both the zoom ring (closest to the barrel) and the manual focus ring (near the front of the lens) move easily. Full time manual override is available at any point, but be aware that the focus throw is really short (only about 90 degrees), so precision manual focus is a bit challenging.
For you video shooters: focus stays pretty consistent when zooming the lens and the lens doesn’t really seems to focus breathe, so you won’t have to worry the size of objects significantly changing.
There is one switch on the barrel (AF/MF) and a distant window, but no real hyperfocal markings. This isn’t a lens designed around the concept of manual focusing. Good thing its autofocus is exceptional!
Canon has also changed the coatings on this lens. They say this, “The EF 16–35mm f/2.8L III USM features both Subwavelength Coatings (SWC) and Air Sphere Coatings (ASC) on its lens elements to help combat reflections, flare and ghosting, and deliver clean images with reduced aberrations from reflected light. Subwavelength Coatings help prevent reflections by arranging an array of wedge-shaped nanostructures on the lens’s surface that are smaller than the wavelength of visible light and are able to help control reflection and flare. Air Sphere Coating technology puts an ultra-low refractive layer on the lens element designed to significantly reduce both flare and ghosting. These coatings, in concert with the EF 16–35mm f/2.8L III USM’s overall optical formula, help to deliver a clean image to the camera’s sensor, which can decrease the need for post-production.”
This is a solid, nicely made lens. It is smaller than the Tamron 15-30, but not as much as what I anticipated. The Canon is a bit shorter without the lens hood (the Tamron’s hood is permanently integrated), but with the hoods in place the 16-35L III is actually a bit longer. The 16-35L III has noticeably less girth (and weighs less to prove it), but functionally there isn’t much of a difference between these lenses in size. At the same time the lens feels good mounted on a camera. On a full frame body (where it will mostly be used by consumers) it feels nicely balanced.
Autofocus = Just Right
In my experience it is rare for Canon to get autofocus wrong on its lenses, and I certainly was not disappointed with the 16-35L III. Autofocus is very fast, accurate, and I had zero drama during calibration. Canon’s true ring type USM motors are pretty much the best out there, and truthfully it is in this department where the first party lenses have their greatest advantage. In many cases the third party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, and even Samyang/Rokinon offer up just as good (if not better) image quality, but no one does autofocus quite as well as Canon and Nikon. Part of this is because third party lenses (those with autofocus) often have to reverse engineer autofocus algorithms (Canon and Nikon won’t license the technology to them), which means that they don’t always have access to cutting edge tech and sometimes develop quirks when new camera bodies are released. I had this happen to the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC I’ve been shooting with when the 5D Mark IV came out. It didn’t function right in Live View mode, and Live View would “crash” or instantly shut down with the lens attached. I had to send it to Tamron and have the firmware updated to fix this issue.
Both Sigma and Tamron have developed a workaround to this by offering their USB Dock and Tamron Tap In Console that allow firmware updates (along with other tweaks) to be directly delivered to consumers without the need for their lenses to be sent in for updating. This only works for the newer lenses that are compatible with these devices. But there is no such hassle with first party lenses. They just work…and this is a serious consideration when choosing a lens.
I’ve found autofocus accuracy to be very good with the lens, though, to be fair, there is less pressure on wide angle lenses than telephoto lenses as the depth of field is much larger (there is larger room for error). The 16-35L III will focus well in all situations, though, and it is one of the reasons that a lens like this is so valuable to photojournalists and wedding photographers. You need a lens you can rely on in those types of situations. I have no question that the 16-35L III is going to deliver consistent, repeatable autofocus results. This wide open JPEG shows how the lens nailed focus on my desired target.
I did a repeatability test by setting up a fixed target with good contrast, putting the camera (5D Mark IV) on a tripod with 2 second delay (to eliminate vibration). I defocused the lens between shots and autofocused (traditional Phase Detect/Viewfinder AF) and hit the shutter as soon as the “beep” confirmed autofocus. I shot at an f/2.8 aperture and 35mm to put the most stress on the AF system possible. I repeated the test ten times. I then cropped the images in post so that basically only the target is showing. As you move throughout the ten frames you have essentially the same shot every time with very little shifts and movements. Focus is perfect each time. This is exactly what you want: repeatability.
Just for comparison sake, I shot the same test with the Tamron 15-30 at f/2.8 and 30mm. The results were largely the same, save one shot showed a slight miss. I’ve been happy with the Tamron’s focus (and as I said, the demands are somewhat low on a wide angle lens), but I’d without question give the autofocus edge to the first party lens.
Autofocus speed for either lens is very fast (I couldn’t discern a difference), and they both make very little sound when autofocusing (you can hear a very slight “schhhhtk” as the elements align.) This is a definite strength for the lens.
Image Quality
If you are interested in optical designs, here’s an interesting bit of trivia. All three of Canon’s most recent 16-35mm zooms have 16 elements, but where the f/4 version and MK II have those elements in 12 groups, the new 16-35L III actually has only 11 groups. But there is no question the optics have been optimized.
When the lens was announced and the MTF charts were released it became clear that the 16-35L III would be a vast improvement over the MKII version of the lens. At wide apertures the MKII was not overly impressive. The center of the frame wasn’t bad, but the corners were soft. More important was the reality that the corners of the frame never really got perfectly sharp even when the lens was stopped down to smaller apertures. It was prone to chromatic aberrations, had a fairly strong amount of distortion, and vignetted quite heavily. I hadn’t used one (had the 17-40L instead) until I brought one in to compare to the 16-35 f/4L IS when it came out. I shot head to head images and was pretty shocked by how bad the images from the MKII looked by comparison. The 16-35 f/4L was a dramatically improved lens, and the 16-35L II suffered by comparison in that three way shootout series (including the Tamron, which was new at the time as well).
The 16-35L III has addressed many of the flaws of the previous lens. It is much, much sharper, and manages to [slightly] best the excellent 16-35 f/4 with both lenses at their maximum apertures (f/4 vs f/2.8). This is impressive in and of itself, and, while I don’t have the 16-35 f/4 on hand, I do have the Tamron to compare it with. This is arguably a more apples to apples comparison as both share the same maximum aperture. The Canon is sharper in the center, though at wide apertures (and with the copy of each lens that I have) I’m actually finding a bit of an advantage for the Tamron in the corners in some situations. This wide open image of a church along the pixel level crop shows how much detail is being resolved by the lens.
In field work the 16-35L III is delivering consistently crisp results. I tend to shoot a lot of forest scenes (particularly during autumn), and the Canon is having no problem resolving all of the little details of the leaves and textures one finds in the forest. I’ve added a lot of very impressive results to my catalog.
Other strengths include excellent contrast (no more slightly hazy textures), very strong flare resistance (a notable advantage over the Tamron and its curved front element), and a vast, vast improvement of chromatic aberration control. An area of weakness for the previous lens has turned to an area of strength. It is worth noting too that the lens produces one of the nicest sunstars/sunbursts of any lens I’ve seen. Very long, well defined points that add a lot of style to images. A little detail, perhaps, but one that can help make a good image great.
The lens has a similar minimum focus distance spec to the previous generation (11.02”/28cm), but delivers a stronger maximum magnification figure of 0.25x (0.22x for the Mark II). A bit closer to a true 35mm, perhaps? The Tamron shares the minimum focus distance, but its shorter maximum focal length (30mm) results in a less dramatic magnification (it only manages .20x).
There’s no question that the 16-35L III’s 1:4 magnification is a useful figure, and it makes for some great storytelling images. One of the few strengths that I perceived for the 16-35L II in my three way shootout was that it had very nice bokeh. In fact, it was shockingly good for a wide angle lens. I think that the 16-35L III shares that quality, which is impressive considering how much sharper it is. Look at how nice the bokeh highlights are in this iamge:
Shorter focal lengths like this mean that there are few situations where you can really throw a background out of focus, but at least when you are in those situations this lens will do a great job of delivering nice defocused areas.
But the story isn’t all rosy on the optical view front. The lens has two optical weaknesses; one big, one moderate. The big one is that the lens has actually regressed in the area of vignette. It delivers one of the poorest results that I have seen, with extreme corner shading passing FOUR stops…ouch! Having early access to the lens means that I am using it before there is a standard corrective profile in Adobe Lightroom/ACR, and so I’ve seen the lens without any digital trickery to hide its flaws. This is actually an area of strength for the Tamron, which has essentially half the vignette of the 16-35L III. There are few examples here below, and the difference between the Canon and Tamron images wide open (Canon images are first in the series) is pretty startling.
Ironically my head to head comparison revealed that if I zoomed to a pixel level in the middle of the frame (eliminating the vignette) the 16-35L III actually had a brighter image (better light transmission), but when the viewing the images globally the Tamron image actually seemed much brighter because the Canon’s vignette penetrates so deeply into the frame.
I ran a comparison through Canon’s DPP software (which did have a profile available), and did a direct comparison to the Tamron. After correcting for distortion and vignette for both lenses I found that the vignette was heavy enough that full profile correction resulted in some visible noise in the edges that the Tamron doesn’t show… and that was on the 5D Mark IV, which is excellent at lifting shadows. Other bodies may deliver a poorer result. This will be an even bigger issue for video shooters for obvious reasons. Look at the noise levels after correction in the comparison below:
The second issue is that the lens has quite a bit of distortion on the wide end of the focal length. While that is not necessarily unusual (and there is a slight bit of improvement over the previous generation of the lens), you still need to be careful at the angle you hold the camera at as you can create some destructive stretching of the image along the edges of the frame if you’re notecareful. This isn’t unique to this lens, of course, but is something you have to be aware of with most wide angle lenses. The Zeiss Milvus 18mm that I just reviewed felt like it exhibited much less field distortion, though, to be fair, 18mm is a less extreme focal length. Watch for putting people too close to the edge of the frame at the wider focal lengths on this lens; no one will thank you for stretching them out!
The list of optical negatives is pretty short. This is one of the best wide angle zoom lenses available and its performance exceeds that of most wide angle primes, too. Space prevents me sharing too many images in the review, so I recommend you visit the Image Gallery from this lens here to see more of what I’ve gotten during my review period.
Coma
Coma performance is a key issue for wide angle lenses. This is from Wikipedia: “In optics (especially telescopes), the coma, or comatic aberration, in an optical system refers to aberration inherent to certain optical designs or due to imperfection in the lens or other components that results in off-axis point sources such as stars appearing distorted, appearing to have a tail (coma) like a comet.” This is a pretty huge consideration for a lens like this. This is an area I felt the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS fell short. A poor coma performance results in a night sky that looks distorted along the edges and lacks crisp definition in the stars. The previous version of this lens was not a particularly great astrophotography lens.
My favorite Zeiss to date for astrophotography has been the Distagon 15mm along with the Tamron 15-30 VC. The Zeiss Milvus 18mm I just reviewed was another very good astrophotography lens. There is some very good news on this front: the new 16-35L III exhibits very low coma. This isn’t to say that it is entirely free from coma; in the corners there are a few star points that become a little more wedge shaped. This is still a better performance than most, however, and the best I’ve seen out of the Canon wide angle zoom lenses.
I see only one issue that will negatively impact astrophotography use, and that is the heavy vignette already mentioned. This is correctable, obviously, but astrophotography is also often done at higher ISO settings so there is some risk of introducing noise or color banding in that correction.
Not a Slam Dunk
I went into this review with the full expectation that this would be the lens that would make me take a long look at the Tamron 15-30 VC (the lens I’ve been using for wide angle work) and potentially move it for this lens. For one thing, the Tamron is a big, heavy lens. I even said in my introductory video that I was excited over the potential to have a very sharp lens with that maximum f/2.8 aperture in a smaller package than the Tamron. And, to be fair, the 16-35L III is lighter (790g vs 1100) and narrower around (the Tamron is about 12mm thicker in girth), but the Canon isn’t much shorter than the Tamron, and, with the hood in place, is actually a bit longer. It won’t really take up much less space in your bag, and it definitely has gained weight (and a bit of size) when compared with the 16-35 f/4L.
If I were to just pick a lens, I would probably pick the 16-35L III, though I like the slightly wider focal length, the image stabilizer, and very low vignette of the Tamron a lot. It has treated me very well, and produced images that have paid for itself several times over. The Canon uses traditional filters (some savings there), is less flare prone, and delivers slightly better image quality (though there is some give and take across the frame). But the Canon also costs a thousand dollars more, which in this case makes it almost twice as expensive. I would be willing to pay that if the lens were a slam dunk over the Tamron, but I’m not sure that’s the case for me.
If you would like to see a comparison of the pros and cons for each lens, watch this video:
Conclusion:
It feels strange to once again feel somewhat ambiguous after spending time with such an excellent lens. I was really excited for its arrival, got excellent results with it, but find myself still somewhat divided about the lens. I felt the same after my time with the Zeiss Milvus 18mm f/2.8, or the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 ART. The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM is the kind of lens that Canon was incapable of producing five years ago – a wide angle lens that is optically exceptional even at f/2.8. I love the crisp results that I’m getting. Canon has improved on the 16-35L II in almost every way. Chromatic aberrations are very well controlled (a welcome relief after the 16-35L II), and gone is the haziness at f/2.8. The lens is highly flare resistant, produces beautiful sun bursts/sun stars, and has a very useful 0.25x maximum magnification (pretty much class leading). It has strong contrast and is incredibly sharp. The 16-35L III is capable of producing stunning results and is well deserving for consideration for wedding photographers, photojournalists, and landscape photographers. This is one of the best wide angle zooms ever made. So why am I ambiguous?
Because this lens doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Canon has basically two threats to this lens: 1) the high cost of entry and 2) the strong performance of its rivals. As I said in the Milvus 18mm review, the very high price tag gives a higher burden of expectation and makes me more critical of serious faults. I’ve not really mentioned the number of excellent manual focus prime alternatives from the smaller third party players (Samyang, Laowa, Irix) or even the new Sigma 12-24mm ART lens. Five years ago there were very few decent wide angle choices. Today there are a lot of them.
There’s only one significant fault with the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III. That heavy vignette holds the lens back at wide apertures. It has basically twice as much vignette at f/2.8 as the Tamron 15-30 VC. It is fortunate that this is a first party lens and thus gets all of the correction tools in camera that will save JPEGs, as without that correction I’m disappointed by the results for events despite the great sharpness. A heavy vignette is more acceptable in a portrait lens where a vignette can create a unique look, but that’s rarely the case with a wide angle lens. The vignette is heavy enough that correcting for it in post does increase noise levels along the outer portions of the image circle. I’m also not crazy about the distortion, but to be fair it is improved over the previous generation. Am I expecting too much? Perhaps, but slapping a big price tag on a lens increases my expectations of its performance.
So we’ve got a lens that costs $2199 in the US and more elsewhere (It is $2849 + 13% tax here in Canada), and that is going to cause a lot of potential buyers to pause and consider the alternatives. For those that mostly shoot landscapes, Canon’s own 16-35mm f/4L IS is just about as sharp, lighter, and half the price (or even less). Then there is the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC, which has a slightly wider perspective plus the faster aperture…and adds an image stabilizer…for half the price.
Canon has left photographers with an either/or choice. You can have a reasonably priced, optically excellent lens with an image stabilizer but a maximum aperture of only f/4 (the excellent Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS) or you can have an expensive, optically excellent lens with the desirable maximum aperture of f/2.8 for event, low light, or astrophotography work…but you can’t have both the wide aperture and the image stabilizer. The problem is that a lot of photographers wanted this lens to have both, and the price point of $2199 seems more in line with a lens that does have both. As I reviewed the catalog of images I got with the lens I questioned if there were any that I couldn’t have gotten with either the Tamron or the f/4L IS.
In many ways the 16-35L III is the better lens (it is definitely more polished than the Tamron), but the definitive question is, “Is it worth twice as much?” To those that shun third party lenses, need f/2.8, and want the absolute best, the answer is definitely yes, but to those that are working on a budget or want that image stabilizer for video, the answer is far more complicated. If Canon had released this lens at around $1799, I think it would be a slam dunk decision for a lot of photographers. But at nearly $2200? That’s a little bit harder.
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52016DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The new Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L Mark III may be the most important lens release of the year for many professional photographers. The 16-35L lenses have been the staple for event photographers, photo journalists, wedding and portrait photographers, and even for many landscape photographers. The combination of robust build, exceptional autofocus, great focal length, and a wide maximum aperture have made this an indispensable tool. But when Canon released the new 16-35mm f/4L IS a couple of years it really betrayed how much the f/2.8 version needed an update. That update has finally arrived, and my early results suggest that this lens will be one to be reckoned with. Invariably some shooters (and video shooters) will be disappointed that it still does not have IS (Image Stabilization), while others will argue that it would just add more bulk and expense. It does leave the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC with the advantage in that area (price is a notable second), but the Canon promises to be an optical giant while still allowing for the use of traditional filters. My full review will be coming in several weeks, but in the meantime check back often for new photos taken with the lens over my review period.
Images of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III:
Images Taken With the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM:
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52016DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
In the midst of Zeiss’ second wave of Milvus lenses come an entirely new lens: the Zeiss Milvus Distagon T* 2.8/18mm. The Milvus 18mm replaces a classic Zeiss 18mm lens that had a maximum aperture of f/3.5 and wasn’t up to the exacting standards of the 15mm and 21mm Distagon lenses. This new Milvus lens slots between those lenses (the 15mm Distagon also has a new Milvus version in the second wave) and, on paper, creates a potential happy medium between them. The Milvus 15mm is an exceptional lens, but also a challenging one. 15mm can be a hard focal length for some to compose with, and it has a daunting front filter size (95mm), and is both large and expensive. The 21mm is smaller, cheaper, has a more reasonable 82mm front filter thread, but is also a bit less dramatically impressive in the angle of view. It also produced a weaker coma performance than the Distagon 15mm. Can the Milvus 18mm serve as a happy medium between the two?
It is smaller than them both, has a very common 77mm front filter thread, but has a price tag significantly higher than the 21mm (though still quite a bit cheaper than the 15mm). Does its optical performance warrant the price premium over the 21mm? Let’s jump into this review and find out.
Prefer to watch your reviews? Click the video below to watch my video review of the lens:
This is a beautiful lens. I remember reading Bryan Carnathan’s review of the Milvus Distagon 21mm and him making a statement that it was the world’s most beautiful lens. I haven’t personally used that lens (I had reviewed the Classic 21mm only a year previously), but I can see what he meant. The Milvus 18mm is a very similar looking (though slightly smaller) lens. It really is an exquisite looking lens. It has an almost “petal-shape” (with the hood attached) that looks somewhat like a shiny, metal flower opening. I had a lot of fun shooting pictures of this lens. Here’s a video where I show off some of those shots and take a close look at the build and design.
This is a highly desirable form factor. No Zeiss lens is light (and that is particularly true of the Milvus series) due to the heavily engineered build quality. The lens has that unique Zeiss density and feel of fine, heavy duty craftsmanship. It makes the lens feel special. It isn’t a light lens (1.59 lbs/721g), but the weight falls right into a comfortable zone for premium lenses. The length is likewise moderate at 3.66″/93mm (about the length of the new Tamron 45/85mm VC lenses). This is an easy lens to bring along; the Tamron 15-30 VC that I’m currently using for wide angle dwarfs it in both size and weight. While not tiny, the Milvus 18mm is moderately small and fits easily in a camera bag…even as a third or fourth lens to bring along. The extremely common 77mm front filter threads are obviously preferred over the slightly larger (and less common) 82mm of the Milvus 21mm and the far less common and far more expensive 95mm filter threads of the Milvus 15mm. I did some long exposure work with a fairly inexpensive ND1000 filter (Haida Pro) and got beautiful results.
The smallish relatively small 77mm filter thread also means that you could get away with using smaller, less expensive square filter systems for adding an ND grad, too.
The weather sealing on the Milvus lineup is well executed. That alone makes the Milvus lenses a worthy upgrade to some shooters. Your estimation of the importance of weather sealing probably depends on the typical environments where you shoot.
The Milvus 18mm is an internally focusing lens like the other Distagon wide angle lenses, and in typical Zeiss fashion focuses beautifully. The rubberized surface of the focus ring glides beautifully, with just the right amount of damping. The focus throw of the wide angle Milvus lenses isn’t as extreme as the normal and telephoto lenses; I estimate it at about 170 degrees.
The Canon (ZE) version that I tested used an electronically controlled aperture iris just like any other AF lens. As a result you change your aperture setting just like you would any other lens and can use the lens in all camera modes. The only difference is that you have to focus yourself. On Nikon versions (ZF), you have the option to use the included manual aperture ring or to set the aperture value in the camera. The neat trick for Nikon shooters is that you have the option to select a “declicked” mode where there is no fixed aperture stops and you can do aperture racking for video purposes. While the Canon version is very convenient, the lack of a manual aperture ring does make it less “future-proof”. I’m still using lenses 40+ years old adapted to my modern cameras. Manual focus and a manual aperture ring means that you can have full control over a lens that was designed for another system decades ago.
There are no switches on the barrel, just the focus ring and a distance window along with hyper focal markings (helpful, in this case). In practice wide angle manual focus lenses are both easier and harder to manually focus. They are easier in that when you learn where the approximate hyper focal distance is (the point when most everything is in focus) you can pretty much forget about focusing and just shoot. If you are using visual confirmation (like I often do with my 6D body + EG-S Focus Screen that I keep set up for MF lenses), the visual perception of distance from your subject created by the wide focal length makes it a bit harder to visually confirm focus. In real world shooting I would often use a lens like this stopped down anyway, but while reviewing a lens I often shoot it wide open more frequently to help determine its optical prowess. As a result I find that I have missed a few medium distance shots due to unfamiliarity with the lens. I suspect my keeper rate will improve as I become more familiar with the lens. With a wide angle manual focus lens you really need to learn to use hyper focal focus and that takes “muscle memory”; keep using the lens and your keeper rate improves.
I’ve noted that the lens is lovely, but part of what makes it so is the fact that the lens hood is actually a part of the design. On many lenses the hood looks like something tacked on after the engineers got done, but that’s not true of the Milvus series. The hood is an integral part of the design, and the lens flows and tapers into it. I’m very partial to this look. The hood (metal, of course, like everything else on a Zeiss lens) has some flocking inside and is both aesthetic and functional.
The lens has a robust weather sealing which includes not only the stylish Zeiss blue rubber gasket at the lens mount but also internal seals to keep dust and moisture from penetrating. I’ve gotten all the Milvus lenses I’ve reviewed (5, so far) wet without issue, though I never recommend that end users take unnecessary risks.
The lens design is functional, beautiful, and sturdy. I love it. Here’s another look or three at it.
Optical Performance
A few years ago the wide angle standard was considerably lower (particularly for those of us shooting Canon). The Distagon 15mm was a huge standout in terms of sharpness and contrast. Since that point a number of highly improved options have been released, including options from the first party (new Canon 16-35mm zooms), along with some excellent third party options from Tamron, Sigma, and Samyang/Rokinon. The end result is that the competition is much fiercer, particularly for a lens that commands a price tag higher than most all of the competition. To be blunt: I’m not as easily impressed by wide angle lens performance as I once was. Furthermore, a lens with a price tag north of $2000 ($2299 USD, in this case) opens itself up to additional scrutiny to determine if its performance warrants the price.
The lens has a more complex optical formula than the Classic Distagon 18mm, with 14 elements in 12 groups. It can focus down to right under 10″ (25cm), but the resulting 1:7.4 (under .14x) magnification is not particularly impressive.
Measured on it’s own, the lens has a number of significant strengths. It may be the best corrected wide angle lens for chromatic aberrations that I’ve yet seen. Even in the most challenging of situations I never saw any kind of CA. This was an extremely strong performance.
Flare resistance was also a strength. Contrast remains essentially perfect with the sun in the frame, and while the lens isn’t entirely ghost free, I found the ghosting to be both minimal and actually aesthetically pleasing. No big blobs of random color anywhere. This is very important to me, as the likelihood of the sun being in the frame with a wide angle lens is much higher than with a telephoto. With the sun in the frame and lens stopped down the lens produces a nice looking sunstar/sunburst while also retaining strong contrast. Ghosting artifacts are not really an issue, either. It gives a stronger performance here than its 15mm big brother.
Zeiss color is always a strength, and I’ve found that the images I’ve taken with the lens look great and process well. Distortion is also very mild, and I find little need for correction in real world usage. I shot in a staircase thinking about wedding photographers and noted that the challenging lines when shooting up a staircase to, say, a landing, were handled well.
There is one principle weakness for the lens, and that is a noticeably heavy vignette. The predecessor to this lens had an incredibly heavy vignette (over 4 stops in the extreme corners), and that vignette extended very far into the frame. This is a weak point for Zeiss wide angle lenses (and, in my experience, Zeiss lenses). The Distagon 15mm was even a bit worse. I don’t do chart testing, so I can’t say if the vignette is quite as bad, but it is definitely still a weak point optically. Vignette can be corrected for fairly easily in stills images, but this is going to be a real issue for video shooters.
While the Milvus 18mm sharp, it is not exceptionally so. Images have a nice, crisp amount of detail. I’ve been able to shoot with the lens on the new Canon 5D Mark IV and its fairly high 30.6MP of resolution with good results. There’s no question that my images taken with it look great, and in many ways it is more technically complete than the other two. I’ve done a far bit of comparing to my current wide angle lens of choice – the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 VC lens. I did a shootout of wide angle zooms (along with the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 prime) a couple of years ago and determined that the Tamron handily outperformed the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II while strongly competing with the newer Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS optically and giving a little wider perspective along with the larger f/2.8 aperture. It was also my favorite of the four lenses for astrophotography. It was the one that made it into my kit and I’ve gotten a lot of exceptional results with it. It’s not perfect, however. It is large and heavy, and the bulbous front element precludes the use of traditional filters in favor of much more expensive add on filter systems (I use the Fotodiox Pro WonderPana system myself). The bulbous front element also puts it at risk for some ghosting when the sun is in the right position, too.
The Tamron is almost exactly half the price of the Milvus 18mm, but because it is optically strong and since I can set it to 18mm and f/2.8 (and because I have it on hand!), it became my de facto competitor to throw into the ring with the Zeiss. I also did a single comparison with the Rokinon 12mm f/2 NCS mirrorless lens. On a Canon APS-C body (Canon EOS M3, in this case), the focal length equivalent is pretty similar 19mm, so it provides a fair comparison in many ways. The Rokinon is a true bargain at just a little over $300 USD.
In some ways the Milvus is my favorite of three to use. I like the form factor, and the lens focuses beautifully. Using filters is a breeze. Its full compliment of electronics means that it lacks all of the shooting/handling quirks of the Rokinon. The Tamron has autofocus, of course, and adds the image stabilizer, but it also doesn’t handle as nicely (zoom and focus rings aren’t incredibly smooth) and is a pretty bulky lens. You don’t just throw it in a bag and forget about it. But it is also very sharp, particularly in the middle of the focal length. How did the Milvus 18mm fair against this strong performer?
When I compared it directly in a controlled test with the inexpensive Rokinon 12mm f/2 NCS lens for APS-C mirrorless (on a EOS M3 body), I found that there was some give and take at varying apertures, but I could not in all honestly conclude that the Milvus lens was sharper, nor did it seem to have an edge in contrast despite having the advantage of the superior full frame sensor of the 5D Mark IV. The latter surprised me, as I’ve always found this a Zeiss strength. The Rokinon lens was sharper in the corners, although I did note a fair amount of green and purple fringing that simply don’t exist on the Milvus 18mm. This is certainly a Milvus strength; I didn’t find any CA in any of my images taken with the Milvus 18mm, and there isn’t even a profile to correct for it yet. I realize that in some ways the comparison to the Rokinon this isn’t an apples to apples comparison, and I noted in my review of the Rokinon 12mm that it punched way above its weight optically, but I’m a little disappointed that a lens that costs some six and half times more isn’t able to easily prove its sharpness superiority. The Milvus is on the left and the Rokinon on the right in this comparison.
How about the Tamron 15-30 VC? This is a direct comparison, as I could use the same camera body and identical settings. I did multiple comparisons at 18mm using 10x Live View, mirror lock-up, a two second timer, and with the same camera (a Canon 5D Mark IV). I’d encourage you to view the video review to see these result in an interactive fashion, though I’ll summarize here.
In this test I discovered that, once again, the Milvus didn’t stand out in the sharpness department. Center sharpness was similar, but the Tamron seemed to have an advantage towards the edge of the frame. The heavy vignette (it is noticeably heavier than the Tamron and requires near maximum manual settings in Lightroom to eliminate it) at wide apertures contributed to this, and the vignette caused the details to render a little more “murky” along the edges, though when I stopped the lens down (and vignette began to clear) I still noticed the Tamron rendering more crisply in the corners.
Once again the Zeiss exhibits less CA (this is a definite strength), and another odd/interesting pattern emerged as I stopped the lenses down. Wide open the Zeiss is brighter in the center of the frame, though the vignette (when uncorrected) detracts from that along the outer portion of the image. The Tamron has more even illumination across the frame. Besides that, however, the exposure values were reasonably close. When the lenses were stopped down, however, the Tamron needed more and more light in comparison to the Zeiss. By f/5.6 I had to manually reduce the light by over 1.5 stops on the Zeiss to equalize the histograms (the images were shot within 4 minutes of each other, so it wasn’t a significant change in ambient light).
The margin appeared even greater by f/8. Strange behavior, but there’s no question the Zeiss has superior light transmission. It’s a shame that the vignette is so heavy that it mars that performance without correction.
Stopping down helped reduce the vignette (though traces remain even by f/8 and beyond), but I still didn’t see any real advantage for the Zeiss in resolution or contrast at smaller apertures. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with the Zeiss; it’s just that the competition has caught up. It is my opinion that the 18mm resolves roughly on par with the 15mm and 21mm, which is to say excellent but no longer exceptional. I suspect that the newly announced Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III may provide serious optical competition at an equal price.
Please note that this particular test does not mean that the Milvus 18mm is bad; far from it. I’ve been very pleased with the results that I’ve been able to produce with the lens (check out my image gallery for proof!), and those results have caused a lot of people to write to me anticipating my final review. The look of images captured with a Zeiss lens still have that “special something” that sets them apart, but at the same time one shouldn’t expect this lens to blow away the competition when it comes to raw resolution. A decision to purchase this lens should not be predicated on resolution superiority alone…because I cannot say that the lens is superior in resolution despite its other strengths.
I’ve noted in the last two years that there have been so many optically excellent lenses released that the difference between many of them in terms of raw resolution is so minimal that you really would be unable to see the difference in the field. There is a certain parity that has been achieved as existing optical advances have filtered down to less expensive lenses (and brands). Until the next big breakthrough in optical technology I think you will see a law of diminishing returns. I’ve had many people ask me if Lens A is sharper than Lens B, and I have told many of them that there isn’t enough of a difference to make their decision based on that. I challenge them to consider their own shooting needs and make their decision based on the features of a lens (autofocus consistency, build, does it have image stabilization, etc…) more than just saying, “How sharp is it?”
It’s always worthwhile to see some real world images. I recommend that you spend some time looking at the image samples in Lens Image Gallery here. Most of these are straight from camera and are representative of real world performance, which is arguably more instructive than chart testing.
Coma Performance
Coma performance is a key issue for wide angle lenses. This is from Wikipedia: “In optics (especially telescopes), the coma, or comatic aberration, in an optical system refers to aberration inherent to certain optical designs or due to imperfection in the lens or other components that results in off-axis point sources such as stars appearing distorted, appearing to have a tail (coma) like a comet.” This is a pretty huge consideration for a lens like this. This is an area where some of the standard zooms fall short (even otherwise excellent lenses like the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS). A poor coma performance results in a night sky that looks distorted along the edges and lacks crisp definition in the stars. Photographers that are serious about astrophotography are often willing to absorb a little extra cost to get superlative performance, so this represents a key performance figure for Zeiss.
My favorite Zeiss to date for astrophotography has been the Distagon 15mm. It has a wonderfully wide field of view for this type of shot and has low comatic aberrations. It was the standard that I used to compare the 18mm too, though I’ve also done a direction comparison to the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC that I’m currently using for the purpose. There is some very good news on this front: I was actually surprised to find a better performance from the new Milvus 18mm than the Distagon 15mm. This isn’t to say that it is entirely free from coma; in the corners there are a few star points that become a little more wedge shaped. This is still a better performance than most, however, and the news gets better. The wider focal lengths like the Distagon 15mm or the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 can “stretch” some of the stars along the very edge of the frame. This is due to perspective distortion. The 18mm exhibits less perspective distortion and has fairly low native distortion and thus has a nice clean result right out to the edge of the frame. This is a very good lens for astrophotography.
I see only one issue that will negatively impact astrophotography use, and that is the heavy vignette already mentioned. This is correctable, obviously, but astrophotography is also often done at higher ISO settings so there is some risk of introducing noise or color banding in that correction.
Conclusions:
I have noted a trend with recent lens reviews (I’ve reviewed more than 40 lenses in the past two years); in many cases the playing field has leveled out. Third party lenses are no longer distant seconds; in most cases the lenses optical performance isn’t significantly different in raw resolution. They have varying strengths and weaknesses, and sometimes an optical edge here and there, but it is rare that a lens blows my mind like the first Otus lenses did. It is my feeling that it is this “law of diminishing returns” that has caused me to feel less enthusiastic than expected about the Milvus 18mm.
The actual optical flaws of lens are really limited to one – heavy vignette. This will impact video shooters more than stills photographers. The lens produces nicely detailed, visually rich images. It worked admirably for achieving my vision for each situation I put it in…including the very important area of astrophotography. What it didn’t do, however, was wow me with its exceptionalism in any particular area save the utter lack of chromatic aberrations. Perhaps I have become jaded with using so many incredible lenses in the past few years, but this one didn’t “blow me away” in the way that Zeiss lenses so often do. If I were to own and use the lens on a regular basis I have no doubt that I would love using it; it does all the things I like to do with a wide angle lens very well. But neither did it inspire in me a strong desire to acquire it. I think that boils down to the high price of entry; this lens doesn’t perform like a $2300 lens.
The Zeiss Milvus Distagon T* 2.8/18mm is a beautiful lens to look at and is a beautiful lens to use, but I’m afraid the high price (combined with being manual focus only) is going to limit its mainstream appeal. But this is familiar territory for Zeiss. They have managed to have a successful business model doing pretty much the opposite of what the rest of the market does. I just wish the results from the lens wowed me as much as the beauty of the lens itself.
Pros:
Beautiful design and an exceptional build
Well executed weather sealing
Near perfect chromatic aberration control
Strong flare resistance
Relatively low distortion
Uses reasonably sized, common 77mm filters
Great focus ring that is beautiful damped
Great size and form factor
Very good coma performance
Cons:
Manual focus only
Too expensive
Heavy vignette
Not exceptionally sharp in the corners
Special thanks to Zeiss North America for providing me with a review sample of the lens for evaluation. They are great people!
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52016DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
When the Milvus line launched in 2015 there were six concurrent lens releases. Of those six, two were brand new lenses replacing very different lenses in the “Classic” lineup (1.4/50mm and 1.4/85mm). Four others were “reskinned” lenses built around existing optical formulas but with a new look and build. But fast forward to September of 2016 and what Zeiss calls the “second wave” of the Milvus line. Two of these lenses are once again refreshes of existing optical formulas, though these two lenses are already some of Zeiss’s very best: the 2.8/15mm and the 2/135mm. The Milvus 2.8/18mm is a brand new lens, and I have it in hand and will be releasing my review of it shortly. Today’s review is of one of my absolute favorite lenses ever from Zeiss; the Zeiss Milvus APO Sonnar 2/135mm. This lens is what I like to call a “little bit of perfect.”
I recognize that this lens is not for everyone despite its near optical perfection, so let me get the qualifiers out of the way right up front. The Milvus 135mm is heavy, expensive, and manual focus only. If that rules you out, feel free to stop reading now. If you choose to read on, be warned: the image quality from the Milvus 135mm is addictive…and just might convert you!
When Zeiss sent me the 2/100mm lens for review they offered to let me have a sneak peek at an unreleased lens. I’d be a fool to pass up an opportunity like that, and my Momma didn’t raise no fool! I said “yes”, but literally didn’t know what I was getting until I rather impatiently opened up the box that FedEx brought to my front door. Inside I found the Milvus 135mm. I was delighted that this lens received the Milvus treatment, as it is truly a special lens. It’s predecessor, the “Classic” APO Sonnar 2/135mm was the first Zeiss lens I formally reviewed (you can read my review here), and it was a revelation. It came shortly before the first Otus lens, and after the Otus line was released many (myself included) kind of considered the Sonnar 2/135mm to be an “unofficial” Otus lens because it truly was an exceptional optical instrument in the same vein of those lenses. You can criticize the price, the fact that it is manual focus only, or perhaps the weight, but there just isn’t anything to criticize optically. It is pretty much flawless. In some ways the lens was caught in “no man’s land”; it wasn’t officially an Otus lens (though it optically belongs), but neither was it a part of the first wave of the Milvus lenses (and thus missed out on the weather sealing and improved build). The Otus lenses grabbed the spotlight, and the Milvus line represents the future of Zeiss SLR lenses. Where did that leave the APO Sonnar 2/135mm?
Part of the second wave, apparently, and this second wave includes two of Zeiss’s very best lenses (which means two the world’s best lenses). I have yet to deliver my verdict on the new Milvus 18mm f/2.8 lens (stay tuned), but I’ve reviewed the Distagon 15mm f/2.8 (and it stands as the best wide angle lens that I’ve used thus far) and the APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 (and it along with the Otus 85mm are the best short telephoto lenses I’ve used). I’ve owned the Canon EF 135mm f/2L for some years, and had always considered it a pretty exceptional lens, so it came to me as pretty huge shock when the APO Sonnar 135mm just completely demolished it when I put the two lenses head to head. I even got accusations from readers that I had somehow fudged the results.
But other reviews verified my results, and I will do a fresh comparison in this review. The (now) Milvus 135mm builds on that amazing lens with an improved barrel design and coatings, and, of course, the now familiar exceptional Milvus build. The Milvus 135mm now looks a lot like the Otus lenses that it was so optically comparable to.
Build and Handling
Zeiss lenses are all metal and glass and have a unique density that no other lens quite has. They have a unique feel in the hand; you KNOW you are holding a Zeiss. The build quality surpasses any equivalent lens and feels designed to last for a lifetime or two. The only interruption of metal (a nicely anodized black with a satin finish) is the rubberized focus ring. The focus action is purely Zeiss, which is pretty much perfect. Beautiful damping, smooth movement, and just enough resistance to be able to locate and hold the right focus position. I break down the primary changes to the lens in this video segment:
Zeiss lenses have always been beautifully made, but the Milvus series upped the ante by implementing a Zeiss first: weather sealing. In typical Zeiss style this implementation is actually more thorough and rigorous than the competition. The lenses sport the standard rear gasket (though in a stylish Zeiss blue) but also have internal seals to help prevent in intrusion of dust or moisture. This is something that sets the Milvus 135mm apart from the competing 135mm available in a Canon mount; I’m not aware of any other of them having weather sealing. The Canon 135L certainly doesn’t, nor does the Samyang/Rokinon 135mm that I reviewed in early 2015.
There is a significant variation between the Canon and Nikon version of Zeiss lenses. The Canon versions (ZE) have an electronically controlled iris diaphragm for the aperture that functions just like any other lens. The Nikon versions (ZF) have the option to control the iris diaphragm electronically from within the body (though with slightly fewer “steps” at each aperture value), but also include a manual aperture ring. The extra trick for Nikon shooters is a nice one; you have the option to put the lens into “declicked” mode where there are no defined aperture positions and you can rack the aperture – useful for certain pulls in video use.
The Milvus 135mm has 11 elements in 8 groups and an aperture range of f/2-22. One strength of the Milvus 135mm relative to other 135mm lenses is its minimum focus distance (2.62’/80cm) which results in a 1:4 or .25x maximum magnification. This is a very strong figure, and one I find very useful. By comparison the 135L can only focus down to 3 feet (91.4 cm), which results in a significantly lower 1:5 (.19x) magnification ratio. Here’s a visual comparison of how much of a difference that makes:
The Milvus 135mm has nine aperture blades and retains a roundish aperture for a stop or two, but by f/5.6 the nonogonal shape has pretty clearly emerged. The Canon (ZE) mount that I reviewed the lens on has a fully electronically controlled aperture iris; you set the aperture in the camera body (or allow the camera to choose in different shooting modes) just like any other lens. The only difference in operation is that the Zeiss has no autofocus. It has a 77mm front filter thread, and, while that is a bit larger than the 72mm threads of the 135L, 77mm is a much more common filter size and more likely to be shared with other lenses.
No one will accuse the Milvus 135mm of being light. The Classic (hard to call a three yer old lens a classic!) APO Sonnar was already a significant 33 ounces (930g), but this Milvus design has put on some extra weight and is now 39.6oz (1123g). The Nikon version is almost 65 grams lighter despite having the manual aperture ring, but neither version will be considered svelte. You will feel this amount of weight, and, depending on your camera body, the lens might feel a little front heavy when holding it with one hand. In normal shooting the lens feels hefty but still comfortable for me to use, but I’m also very accustomed to shooting with heavier gear. Weight certainly joins price as one of the few criticisms that one could offer.
The physical design has changed somewhat. The Classic APO Sonnar extended during focus at two points: before and after the zoom ring. The largest extension was before the focus ring. The new version has a fixed barrel with only the inner barrel extending near the front of the lens. It extends for 3cm, if you’re counting. While the overall length of the Milvus version is a bit longer, I suspect the length when fully zoomed out is about the same because of this. It helps the lens to be better sealed, however, and the lens is really stunningly crafted.
This is a manual focus only lens, but the quality of that manual focus is unparalleled. It is incredibly smooth and perfectly damped. The focus ring has about 270 degrees of throw, which is pretty much perfect for being able to accurately nail focus at a variety of distances. There’s enough friction to slow down and nail the right spot. The quality of the focus will definitely spoil you for inferior lenses. While I have a 6D body set up for my manual focus lenses, the new 5D Mark IV that I also shot the lens on just has the standard focus screen. The traditional focus screen doesn’t accurately show depth of field, and, as a result, I had to rely more on the focus confirmation chipset. I was relieved to discover that it was nicely calibrated, though, and I got accurate focus results through this method.
The Milvus 135mm is very close to optical perfection. I’ve had a chance to not only shoot it on the Canon 6D body that I have set up for manual focuse with an EG-S Precision Matte Screen but also with the brand new Canon EOS 5D Mark IV. While the Milvus 100mm f/2 lens that I recently reviewed had one flaw (some chromatic aberration), it’s hard to find any real optical flaw with the Milvus 135mm. It is worth noting that DXO Mark actually gives an edge to the APO Sonnar 135mm over the Otus 85mm f/1.4. It is incredibly sharp across the frame. In fact, let’s pause for a moment to directly compare the Milvus 135mm and the Canon 135L. The Canon has long been regarded as an exceptional optical performer (and it exceptional in many ways), but a head to head comparison reveals the Canon is strongly outclassed by the Milvus lens. I encourage you to watch this video to get an interactive breakdown of how the two lenses compare.
First of all, as noted the Milvus has a much stronger maximum magnification figure, so when we compare at minimum focus the Zeiss image is more magnified. This view only compares center of the frame performance (which favors the Canon), but even at this most advantaged situation the difference in the optical performance is pretty glaring.
The Zeiss is noticeably sharper, has much stronger contrast, and doesn’t exhibit any of the chromatic aberrations of the Canon. People have heard me mention “microcontrast” in reviews (often Zeiss ones) and wondered what exactly I was referring to. You will see it plainly in these series of comparisons. At high magnification one can clearly see that textures are more clearly rendered by the Zeiss lens. Where they come across as being somewhat flat and hazy in some areas on the Canon they have a very sharp, three dimensional rendering on the Zeiss.
When you compare the lenses at a distance where you can get a flat plane of focus you find the Zeiss is noticeably superior, well, everywhere. The difference in contrast and definition is obvious across the frame, and while the Zeiss is very consistent in its sharpness from edge to edge, the Canon’s sharpness falls off towards the edges. The 135L exhibits a fair bit of chromatic aberration as well. Note the indefinite haze along the edges of the text imprinted on the lenses on the Canon image and then compare it to the crisp delineation of Zeiss rendering. That microcontrast is very obvious too in the various textures on the lenses.
At further distances I noted a lot of the same trends. The area of focus here is the transformers on the utility poles, and it is easy to see the difference the improved contrast makes on the textures there and in the trees around them.
It is worth noting that in all of these tests I shot multiple apertures and could still see an advantage for the Zeiss even stopped down to f/5.6.
The only real optical weakness for the Milvus 135mm is some veiling when the sun is put in the corner of the frame. I list this as a flaw, but some may find it a strength, as the veiling has a very artistic mild prismatic effect that, used properly, will add to rather than detract from the image. There isn’t really any ghosting artifacts at all, so it handles much better than the Canon 135L. This series of shots shows the progression of the veiling when the sun is put in the frame. The Otus lenses retain stronger contrast than the Milvus 135mm in this scenario, though.
This prismatic veiling can be used to artistic effect if desired, though. Look at these portraits.
In this set I’ll show the out of camera look and then a minor tweak to restore contrast.
Only you can decide if this is a desirable or undesirable quality for you.
There’s literally nothing else to criticize. The amount of contrast, sharpness, and color rendition is shockingly good. Distortion is near non-existent (this showed up in the real world test where I could definitely see the distortion on my 135L). There is some vignette at f/2 (about 2 stops in the corners), but it moves into the frame in an almost perfectly linear fashion and results in an often useful, flattering result. I don’t find that I’m interested in correcting it very often. Stopping down to f/2.8 brings it down to less than a stop in the extreme corners.
Chromatic aberrations just don’t exist, and that makes images look even sharper. I tested the lens on the 5D Mark IV in a controlled environment to see how the Milvus 135mm handled the higher resolution. This shot was most informative. Take a look at the image and the crops – incredible!
In this setting I also compared it with a modern, excellent lens (Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 VC). I was actually surprised by how notable the difference was in this comparison and was reminded of just how good the Milvus 135mm really is. This is a series of comparison crops from that comparison. The Tamron is clearly outclassed.
The only lens that I have on hand that [somewhat] competes at wide apertures is actually the Milvus 100mm (see the bottom for that comparison).
Perhaps most importantly, however, is that the lens does more than just perform well on chart testing. The lens has character, soul. I LOVE shooting candid photos of people with this lens (posed portraits are obviously exceptional, too). Backgrounds melt away, and the subject stands out with startling good three dimensional character. Faces seem to come alive, and I’ve had many moments where I looked at the LCD afterward and just said, “Wow!”
A moment on the 135mm focal length. It has both strengths and weaknesses. It is one of my favorite focal lengths for environmental portraits. It allows you to shoot from a fair distance away and still have great subject isolation. It creates really magical looking shots. It is a nice event focal length.
But it can also be too long for certain shooting situations (many indoor venues). There will be moments where you back up, and back up, and still discover it is too tight. I also find that for really tight headshots that it can have a little too much compression of the features. Some choose an 85mm or 100mm lens as their preferred portrait focal length for these reasons, but at the same time some of my favorite portraits are taken with the 135mm focal length. Look at the bottom of this review for a look at a few options to the Milvus 135mm.
Do yourself a favor and spend a few minutes in the Image Gallery from this lens. It is the greatest testament to it’s magic.
Conclusions
This little anecdote says it best. I had a nearly week long session of board meetings, and sat next to a friend of mine who is highly successful. He isn’t a photographer, per se, but has expressed some interest in getting some gear as he enters into a project trying to document some family history back in Jamaica. I happened to have this lens attached to the 5D Mark IV sitting with me as part of my responsibilities include doing headshots for the corporate website. My friend knows that I do reviews, so he asked what “toys” I was playing with at the moment. I explained to him about the lens that I was reviewing and the camera that I had actually purchased but was also reviewing. I highlighted how expensive everything was. Here in Canada the lens is $3000 and the camera is $5000. But then I told him about the kind of results I could get with the combo.
I shot some of the faces around the room and showed him on the back of the camera. We popped out the SD card and stuck it in his MacBook. He zoomed in…and in…and said, “Wow” over and over. He held the combo and tried focusing and taking some shots. When he felt the beautiful precision of that focus ring and the experience of it all, he [reluctantly] handed it back and said, “You’ve almost persuaded me”. I wasn’t trying to persuade him of anything, but anyone who enjoys beautifully made things is going to enjoy this lens. Something about Zeiss lenses brings a special pride of ownership. They are special.
The nature of Zeiss lenses makes them niche products. Some photographers aren’t interested in expensive, manual focus lenses. One consolation is that the Milvus version of the APO Sonnar has added weather sealing, optimizations, and better coatings while retaining an identical MSRP – $2199 USD. It’s expensive, yes, but undercuts the Otus line that it optically competes with by a large margin (it is about half the price of the Otus 85mm, for example). It is fairly large and definitely heavy, but this isn’t unusual in the current trend of full frame lens design. Despite these very real challenges the lens is a masterful option for those looking for the ultimate 135mm lens. It’s a joy to shoot with, and produces images that look amazing right out of the camera. If you pride yourself on doing minimal post processing, you will love the Zeiss Milvus APO Sonnar 2/135mm; images look great without being touched. If you are looking for a magical telephoto for shooting video, you will love this lens. It is special, and I’m so glad that it has found its way into the Milvus lineup. I’ve been eyeing a Milvus lens for my own kit, and this is very likely the one that I will choose. I guess I too am almost persuaded…
Pros:
Superb optical performance that is rarely matched and never outdone
No distortion or chromatic aberration
Incredibly smooth and creamy bokeh
Beautiful build and advanced weather resistance
Perfect focus ring
No price increase on Milvus version
Amazing contrast at all focus distances
Cons:
Manual Focus only
Expensive
Heavy
Some veiling when the sun enters the frame
Alternatives:
The Canon and Nikon 135mm options are long in the tooth, but there are a few strong alternatives from third parties.
Ironically, the strongest alternative argument to the Milvus 135mm is the Zeiss Milvus 100mm f/2. Although the Milvus 135mm is the sharper lens, it is hard to really see that difference in the field. The Milvus 100mm exhibits chromatic aberrations that don’t exist on the Milvus 135mm, but it adds the benefits of twice the maximum magnification (1:2 vs 1:4, or .50x vs .25x). It is also smaller, lighter, and cheaper, and a lot of people love the lens. The lenses are close enough in real world use that I would suggest you choose your preference in focal length. The Milvus 135mm is the better lens optically, but perhaps the poorer lens in versatility. Bryan over at the Digital Picture has good comparison tool for showing chart tests of the optical performance. Here’s some crops from a real world comparison that I shot at f/2.
You can see the superior resolution and contrast if you look close, and the Milvus 135mm has less CA. But the performance is close enough that it would be hard to tell the difference when, say, shooting portraits. The shots from the 135mm will look a bit “closer” in the comparisons below.
While few photographers are directly cross-shopping Zeiss and Samyang, there is no question that the Samyang 135mm f/2 offers up a pretty remarkable budget alternative at 1/4 of the price. While it doesn’t quite reach the lofty standard of the Milvus 135mm, it is closer than most. It too is a manual focus only lens, though the biggest difference between the two lenses is in the ergonomics. The Samyang isn’t in the same ballpark as the Zeiss in the build department, and the little details (smoothness of the focus ring, precision of focus) detract a bit from the joy of use, but if you are on a budget you can cope with those things. If you are shooting with a Canon version there is no focus confirm or electronic connection to the camera with the Samyang, so there are a few handling issues that come with that. Still, if you are budget conscious and can deal with a few annoyances in operation, it is an impressive lens for the money.
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52016DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This articles contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. This helps support the review channel, this website, and allows me to continue to produce content for you. Thank you for the support!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Until this point my coverage of the Milvus line from Zeiss has focused on the the lenses with new optical formulas, namely the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 lenses. Over this past year, however, I’ve gotten a lot of requests to review the Milvus 2/100mm (100mm f/2), a rebuild of the Classic lens line Makro Planar T* 2/100mm. While I did review the Makro Planar 2/50mm, I had never gotten around to reviewing the 100mm lens (though I had planned to do so). As a result, when I had a little lull in my review schedule (before the September flurry of announcements and releases), I asked Zeiss to send the Milvus 100mm to me and they obliged. I’ve spent the last several weeks with the Zeiss Milvus 2/100mm, and I’m happy to bring you my findings. One thing to notice here is that the name of this lens has been shortened in its Milvus form. It was called the Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100mm, but now it is simply the Zeiss Milvus 2/100mm. Read on to see why that subtle difference is probably a smart move by Zeiss…
My first surprise upon opening the custom made lens box (each Milvus and Otus lens comes in a display box with custom molded foam inserts) was that the lens was smaller than what I expected. My experience with the Milvus line has been that they tend to both larger and heavier than what you expected, and so I was surprised to find that while the heft of the lens was as expected (1.85lbs/843g), the overall length was shorter than I anticipated. It is only 3.17”(80.5mm) around and 4.09” (104mm) long, or really not much longer than the Milvus 1.4/50mm that I recent reviewed (3.84”/98mm long) and surprisingly a little bit lighter (Milvus 1.4/50mm is 2.03lb/922g). As the series goes it is a fairly compact lens, and is actually shorter than the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM that I own and will be using as a comparison. The Canon 100L is 4.84”/123mm long, but weighs in at a considerably lighter 1.38lb/625g.
Here’s a video look at the build, design, and specifications:
Note that I am reviewing a copy from Zeiss that had been put in “stealth mode” before the public could see it, so all of the badges have been removed and covered with gaffer tape.
While the Canon has autofocus and an image stabilizer, it is easy to see where the extra heft comes from. Zeiss lenses are all metal and glass and have a unique density that no other lens quite has. They have a unique feel in the hand; you KNOW you are holding a Zeiss. The build quality surpasses any equivalent lens and feels designed to last for a lifetime or two. The only interruption of metal (a nicely anodized black with a satin finish) is the rubberized focus ring.
My only real criticism of the Makro Planar 50mm f/2 was the surprisingly stiff/heavy action of the focus ring which remains as the lone Zeiss lens that I’ve used that I didn’t love focusing. I was told that the extra resistance was to help keep the lens from drifting/creeping when in some macro shooting positions. Knowing the practical purpose didn’t really improve my impression of the focus action, though. I’m happy to report that the Milvus 100mm focuses perfectly. The action is incredibly smooth and precise, allowing you to both easily focus but with just enough friction to find the perfect focus point and leave it there. Zeiss has this down to a literal science, and the Milvus 100mm is a joy to focus.
That’s great news for a lens that does duty as a macro lens, as many of us who do macro prefer manual focus at macro distances. It can be hard to put an autofocus point exactly where you want, and those tiny margins means that even a slight miss can make or break the image. The Milvus 100mm is a lot of fun to use at those close focus distances because of the incredibly smooth and precise focus ring.
The Milvus 100mm is most certainly NOT an internally focusing lens. Both the inner barrel extends along with the center focusing portion of the lens (it extends both before and beyond the focus ring). This looks ungainly in photos, but you don’t actually notice this in practice. It becomes longer than the Canon 100L when fully focused toward the macro position, but the Canon has a longer lens hood and as a result they are almost identical in length with the lens hoods in place and the Zeiss fully “zoomed out”. Unlike some lenses, however, the Milvus 100mm has a long enough minimum focus (or “working”) distance that you won’t have to worry about shading or bumping against your subject. While I prefer internally focusing macro lenses, I can appreciate the compact nature of the Milvus 100mm; it is easy to bring along in a bag because of its relatively short length. Even in a protective bag (the EasyCover 105x160mm case fits perfectly) the lens can stand upright in my camera bags.
Zeiss lenses have always been beautifully made, but the Milvus series upped the ante by implementing a Zeiss first: weather sealing. In typical Zeiss style this implementation is actually more thorough and rigorous than the competition. The lenses sport the standard rear gasket (though in a stylish Zeiss blue) but also have internal seals to help prevent in intrusion of dust or moisture. That is particularly comforting in a lens with a design like the Milvus 100mm that has so many externally moving parts. If your portrait or wedding session turns inclement you can continue shooting without fear.
There is a significant variation between the Canon and Nikon version of Zeiss lenses. The Canon versions (ZE) have an electronically controlled iris diaphragm for the aperture that functions just like any other lens. The Nikon versions (ZF) have the option to control the iris diaphragm electronically from within the body (though with slightly fewer “steps” at each aperture value), but also include a manual aperture ring. The extra trick for Nikon shooters is a nice one; you have the option to put the lens into “declicked” mode where there are no defined aperture positions and you can rack the aperture – useful for certain pulls in video use.
Like the Canon the Milvus 100mm has a highly standardized 67mm front filter thread, though the Zeiss sports metal rather than plastic threads. The front element is quite recessed in the Zeiss design, so under most circumstances it is going to be pretty well protected even without a filter, but using an ND or CPL filter under the right conditions is often a smart move.
As the front barrel extends into the macro range, magnification ratios start to appear. The highest magnification value is 1:2, which we will elaborate on in a moment.
I really like the implementation of the lens hoods on this series; the lens looks finished with the hood attached. Some lenses look like a cheap plastic afterthought has been tacked on the front. On the Milvus line the design flow moves in one comprehensive direction throughout the whole lens with the hood attached.
I miss one thing on this design: there is no front bezel surrounding the front element with the Zeiss/Lens information there. I love to shoot stylish product shots of lenses, and while the finely machined metal ridges in the front look good, I miss the lens info being there.
While some Zeiss purists are opposed to the new Milvus/Otus look, I think that like the Classic lenses this is a design that will still look good and current in decades. Here are a few more photos of this beauty.
Who Is the Milvus 100mm For?
The Milvus 100mm is something of a hybrid lens. I find it interesting that Zeiss dropped the Makro Planar designation, and from a marketing perspective I think it might be a smart move. Marketing this lens as a macro lens puts it at a disadvantage, as unlike many competitors it isn’t a true 1:1 (life size) macro lens. It’s maximum magnification ration is 1:2 (think 50% life size instead of 100%). Here’s the difference between the Canon at 1:1 and the Zeiss at 1:2.
The difference is noticeable, obviously, and in the minds of some this disqualifies the Zeiss from being a “true” macro lens. And, in all honesty, if your purpose is only (or primarily) macro, the Zeiss might not be the best lens for you (though obviously that magnification ratio can be extended through the use of extension tubes).
Experienced photographers know that macro lenses are extremely versatile tools that are good for much more than just macro shooting. They make good portrait lenses, general purpose, and even landscape lenses. Many of them are extremely sharp, produce nice bokeh, and are at key focal lengths for portraiture. All of this is very true of the Milvus 100mm. I think of it more as an extremely versatile lens that just happens to focus very close. All of these reasons plus the incredibly precise focus ring makes it an equally compelling tool for video. Zeiss’ decision to market the Milvus version as just the Milvus 100mm f/2 allows the lens to compete as an exceptional short telephoto. The 1:2 magnification becomes an asset rather than a liability. Canon’s own 100mm f/2 lens has a rather pathetic .14x magnification (much like 85mm lenses), so the Milvus 100mm and its .50x magnification suddenly looks pretty good.
Another unique feature of the Zeiss 100mm has been a maximum aperture of f/2 which allows in twice the light of competing f/2.8 lenses. As a macro lens the f/2 aperture is arguably somewhat useless; depth of field at macro distances (even 1:2 magnification) is incredibly small and most macro photographers are rarely using their macro lenses even at f/2.8 for macro. Case in point: the minimum focus distance for this lens is .438m/1.44ft. At f/2 the depth of field is a tiny 2.31mm or 0.09 inches. In many situations that just isn’t enough depth of field to hardly have anything in focus. But as a general purpose, wedding, or portrait lens the f/2 aperture is a huge asset, allowing for a more three dimensional image with greater background blur and, of course, allowing one to keep their ISO settings lower when shooting in low light situations.
In many ways this lens is best suited for wedding photographers. It is incredibly versatile, allowing one to both shoot closeups of the rings, shoes, dress, or decorations while then allowing one to shoot posed shots with beautiful rendering. The one exception to this rule is that the Milvus 100mm, like all Zeiss lenses for Canon and Nikon, is manual focus only. It has a very long focus throw of nearly 360 degrees, which is great for precision focus but not for trying to keep up with the action. An experienced manual focuser could make this work during the ceremony, but an amateur would be better served with a good autofocus lens. I used the lens for one of my summer weddings, and while I never use a tool I’m not familiar with for the critical moments in a wedding (learned that lesson the hard way!), I did use it extensively during the more relaxed reception portion with delightful results. Awesome bokeh, beautiful rendering, and a great angle of view for that kind of setting. Here’s a little gallery of wedding related images:
How’s the Image Quality?
Let’s take a closer look at the image quality. Zeiss didn’t mess with the optical formula of the MP 100 very much because it was already exceptional. There have been some incredibly sharp lenses released in the last couple of years, but the Milvus 100mm has no problem holding it’s own. I encourage you to visit the Lens Image Gallery and see a number of images for yourself!
Here are a series of comparisons between the Zeiss and the Canon 100L at various distances. I encourage you to watch the video review to get my commentary on these.
At minimum focus (Canon, Milvus @ f/2, Milvus @ f/2.8)
At Medium Distance (Both images full frame wide open | Comparison Crops from Left to Right Comparing the Two):
Here’s a similar series of crops with both lenses at f/5.6:
Finally, at infinity focus (Canon at f/2.8, Zeiss at f/2):
As you can see, the Milvus 100mm is delivering a very impressive optical performance against a very sharp lens. Perhaps most important here is the consistency of the sharpness across the frame; that makes it great for macro shooting, but also great for portrait work. The Zeiss is capable of delivering just as good of image quality at f/2 as the Canon is at f/2.8. Vignette is also about equal, but when the Zeiss is stopped down to f/2.8 its vignette is basically gone. The Zeiss also exhibits better contrast at essentially all aperture values. There is only one real optical flaw that I can find, and that is in spherical and axial chromatic aberrations. These result from unequally focused colors, but this can result in reduced contrast in areas where the color fringing exhibits itself. You can see what I mean in this shot of glasses at a wedding reception:
Note the fairly obvious fringing on the glasses? This was by far the most obvious example that I saw during my review period, though I could see a bit during my sharpness test using the vintage lenses above. I also felt that this reduced some of the apparent contrast wide open in the infinity focus test. This can be eliminated by stopping down a bit, and even by f/2.8 there is a significant improvement, but I did notice a few traces even in the medium distance f/5.6 samples. This is the one area where the Canon has the edge, and is the one fly in the ointment for the optical performance of the Milvus 100mm. I loved using the lens for video (I use it for a lot of focus pulls in the early part of this Milvus 135mm preview video) with the exception of the moments that a bit of fringing showed up.
I use a Canon 6D body setup for MF glass (with an EG-S Precision Matte focus screen involved). My hit rate with MF glass is very high with this setup, and I’m able to take advantage of the great sensor on the 6D without concerns over its less than amazing AF system. With a precision matte screen you see true depth of field, and thus can literally watch focus moving from one object to another as you focus. It’s surprisingly fun, and those who have never experienced something like it might be astonished at how much they actually might enjoy the MF experience. Focusing in this way is not dependent on focus points at all, so you can compose just as easily with your subject right on the edge of the frame for creative purposes, and the fact that the sharpness extends there means that you can compose however you want.
The bokeh quality is likewise exceptional. Check out this photo of lights at a wedding reception.
There is no trace of “onion bokeh”; the bokeh highlights are extremely clean and have a very nice transition without line doubling or hard edges. The result? Nice, soft bokeh. I was very pleased with all of the defocused regions in photos I took with the Milvus 100mm.
Distortion is virtually non existent, and the lens has very good flare resistance as well. It makes for a lovely portrait lens. I did a direct comparison with both the Canon 100L and the brand new Milvus 135mm f/2 lens (a virtuoso of a lens) in a portrait setting. I shot from a tripod, used 10x Live View, got the model to hold static poses, and equalized the white balance so that you can focus on the compression, rendering, sharpness, and bokeh. A couple of observations: even with equal white balance the Canon renders warmer than the Zeiss lenses. The Canon has a less shallow DOF because of a smaller maximum aperture, but that is a bit less of a penalty here because there is a lot of separation from the background. The 135mm provides a different kind of compression (both of features and the background) at both distances. I’ll let you determine your favorite.
Milvus 100mm:
Canon 100L:
Milvus 135mm:
This test favors the Zeiss lenses because of the careful focus and use of the tripod. In the real world the Canon has two significant advantages: autofocus and an image stabilizer. I’ve always found it an underrated portrait lens. Each one of these lenses is a fantastic portrait lens in its own way: different strokes for different folks. They are all tremendous sharp even wide open for portraits.
Watch for a future article where I compare the strengths and weaknesses of the Milvus 100mm f/2 and the brand new Milvus 135mm f/2. A lot of people may choose between these two options, and I want to spend more time with that subject.
Conclusions
I have heard reports from some people that this lens is their favorite in the Milvus lineup. I can see why, as it brings a tremendous amount of versatility with it. The large aperture makes it a great portrait and wedding lens, while the close focus ability and .50x magnification makes it ready for shooting the details. The buttery smooth focus ring and long focus throw makes it a compelling video lens, and the inclusion of quality weather sealing is a huge asset. The icing on the cake is the exceptional image quality that combines a lovely degree of sharpness and resolution with exquisite bokeh. The only optical stumble that I can see is more chromatic aberrations than what I would like. All in all this a very compelling lens, though it comes at a premium price tag. It is also a premium lens, though, and if your tastes run towards things that are made exceptionally well, this lens (like many Zeiss lenses) may just be your cup of tea. Just be prepared to manually focus. If Zeiss lenses had autofocus they would undoubtedly be more mainstream, but Zeiss continues to defend the role of manual focus lenses in an autofocus world. For some of you that completely rules their lenses out of the equation, but there is also a certain niche of photographers that have fallen in love with not only the images that Zeiss lenses can produce (we can all agree on that), but also in the rich, nuanced process of the manual focus experience.
The Zeiss Milvus 2/100mm may or may not be the lens for you. It may or may not be a macro lens (depending on your perspective of what makes a lens truly a ‘macro’ lens). But it isunquestionably is another superlative optical instrument from Zeiss. It is beautifully made, extremely versatile, and generally a joy to use. Perhaps a few extra shifts here and there to help pay for it?
Pros:
Perhaps the most versatile lens in the Milvus lineup
High degree of weather sealing
Buttery smooth focus action
Beautiful, soft bokeh
Excellent sharpness across the frame from wide open
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52016DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
I’ve had a great opportunity to get an early look at the just announced today Zeiss Milvus Distagon T* 18mm f/2.8 (2.8/18mm). I love the look of this lens, love the focal length, and now I get to find out if I love the image quality. It stands as a more compact option (with an arguably better focal length) than the Milvus 21mm, and a much smaller, more accessible lens than the expensive yet amazing Milvus 15mm (also just announced in Milvus build). I’ll be giving it a rigorous review over the next few weeks, so stay posted. My hope is that it lives up to its beautiful build and optical promise…along with its eye watering price tag of $2299. In the meantime watch for images to continue to be added in this space during my review!
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52016DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Sony FE 50-150mm F2 GM Gallery 
Sony FE 50-150mm F2 G Master Review 
Viltrox AF 35mm F1.2 LAB FE Gallery 
Viltrox AF 35mm F1.2 LAB FE Review 
