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.
I’ve been covering the Sigma ART series since early on (I actually covered the 50mm f/1.4 before the 35mm f/1.4, but I’ve basically only missed the 24mm f/1.4 in the entire series), but there is one focal length that more photographers have asked me about than any other. “When is the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART coming?” I didn’t really have an answer to that, as the Sigma EX 85mm f/1.4 (which I reviewed here) was a relatively new lens (released in 2011) and was already quite good. Beyond that, it also was fairly expensive (right around $1000), which has [previously] been the limit of the ART series’ price point. I didn’t think Sigma was in a rush to replace that lens. And while Sigma did release a number of other lenses in the series first, they have now gotten around to building the lens that a lot of fans wanted the most. The 85 ART is now here!
Prefer to watch your reviews? Click the video below to watch my coverage of the lens.
I think the initial reaction of every person who first sees the new 85 ART will be, “Wow, that thing is huge!” Sigma has clearly gone a completely different route with this lens as opposed to the EX version released just five years ago. The ART version has grown in every possible way.
Here’s a quick look at the raw stats:
Focal Length
85mm
Aperture
Maximum: f/1.4
Minimum: f/16
Camera Mount Type
Canon EF
Format Compatibility
35mm Film / Full-Frame Digital Sensor
Angle of View
28.6°
Minimum Focus Distance
33.46″ (85 cm)
Magnification
0.12x
Maximum Reproduction Ratio
1:8.5
Elements/Groups
14/12
Diaphragm Blades
9, Rounded
Filter Thread
Front: 86 mm
Dimensions (DxL)
Approx. 3.73 x 4.97″ (94.7 x 126.2 mm)
Weight
Not Specified By Manufacturer
It’s that last thing that had caught my attention from the very first press release. It is completely out of character for Sigma to not release the weight of a lens, and I’ve actually had a number of people ask me the question of how heavy the 85 ART was. I threw it on a highly precise kitchen scale and found the following truths:
Weight with hood and lens caps is 1227 grams/43.3oz on my scale. Without hood or caps it weighs 1139g. I weighed the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC at the same time with the caps and hood on and got a 787g/27.75oz weight. Since the Tamron is officially listed as being 700 grams I suspect the typical weight of the lens is done with the bare lens without caps or hood, so 1139g or 40.18oz. It’s heavy. This definitely puts the 85 ART in Otus 85mm (1200g) or Milvus 85mm (1280g) range when it comes to weight.
The 85 ART is also big. Really big. It is 3.73”/94.7mm in diameter and is 4.97”/126.2mm long. With the sizable petal-shaped hood attached it is over 7”/18cm long. The Otus lens is a little bit thicker around (3.98”/101mm) but isn’t quite as long (4.88”/124mm). No matter how you slice it, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART is a BIG lens. The previous generation Sigma EX 85mm f/1.4 was only 3.4”/86.4cm in both length and girth and weighed 725g, making the new lens 40% bigger overall. Sigma clearly took a page out of Zeiss’s book with the Otus series and decided that they would make an optically superior lens without worrying about typical engineering restraints (small and light).
But that decision does have repercussions. There are a lot of photographers that are concerned about the runaway train of ever growing lenses. The Otus lens was never really designed to be a mass market lens. It was a niche tool for those that needed the absolute best (in actuality or for their egos). But Sigma is in a different kind of market. This lens needs to have some mass market appeal, and I fear the massive size is simply going to put off a number of photographers. It is approaching the weight range of the 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms (typically around 1400 grams), but, unlike them, it doesn’t have an image stabilizer. Higher resolution bodies are growing in number, and they tend to be very punishing of motion blur. The 85 ART weighs enough to feel front heavy even on my full frame 5D Mark IV body, and I’ve been surprised at a few photos where I’ve seen motion blur despite shooting with a reasonable shutter speed range (160-250th, most often). A lens this long and heavy could have used Sigma’s OS, which in turn would have made it longer and heavier!
A young lady asked me through Twitter what the weight of the 85 ART was, and, when I told her, her response was that she had better hit the gym. You have to admire her determination, but there are a number of photographers who will take the easier route and choose a lighter lens.
That’s not to say there aren’t payoffs for Sigma’s choice to “go big or go home”. This lens has (by far) the lowest amount of vignette I’ve ever seen with an 85mm lens. Even at f/1.4 it is minimal, and by f/1.8 it is pretty much nonexistent. Light transmission is excellent through the lens, and I wouldn’t be surprised if its T-stop (light transmission) is pretty much equivalent to its F-stop (aperture size) value.
We will see how Sigma’s choices further play out as we examine the image quality from the lens.
Massive size aside, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART is a beautiful lens. It has Sigma’s now familiar modern design language, which is very nice. Pretty much everything is black, but Sigma uses different textural finishes (from piano black to near matte) to create nice visual distinctions. The lens has a number of ever wider sections, with much of the lens dominated by a very big (2”/5cm) ribbed focus ring. That ring moves smoothly and has about 175 degrees of focus throw. The front element is massive, and the filter thread is 86mm, which puts filters into the rare and expensive category.
I had to laugh when I read this in the press release, “It is made from a thermally-stable composite material that is light and durable and it has a brass bayonet mount.” The material may be light, but the lens mostly certainly is not! There is a brass mount and other metals in the construction, but the primary material in the outer shell is engineered plastics like most Canon/Nikon lenses. Sigma is to be praised, however, for using materials on their modern lenses that “feel” a lot like metal (more so than Canon L lenses) but with the durability of modern engineered plastics. Tamron has elected to go with a lightweight aluminum in their new SP line, while Zeiss uses what feels like pig iron (I joke!). They actually use metal alloys. I honestly don’t know what material is the most durable for the long haul, as I try not to make a habit of dropping expensive lenses, but I suspect that most modern lenses are quite durable. I’ve certainly not heard any feedback from longer term ART series lens users having issues with the build, and the fit and finish is impeccable on the 85 ART.
The lens has a distance window with minimal MF aids (clearly not a priority here) and a single switch for AF/MF (though full time manual override is available through Sigma’s HSM motor). The 85 ART is the first of the ART series that I’ve used that has a rear gasket near the lens mount, though I can’t find any mention of weather sealing anywhere in Sigma’s literature. The new 12-24mm f/4 ART also has a rear gasket, but Sigma does actually mention some weather resistance for it. Curious. Still, if nothing else I am glad to see the gasket here. It does help prevent dust and moisture from entering in near the mount.
While the first impression might be all about the size of the lens, I think that many people will be equally impressed by the handsome look and build of this lens. Everything looks and works as it should. You can find more photos of this beauty in the lens image gallery.
85 ART Autofocus Performance
This is the part of the review that I often dread with Sigma lenses, as I have often struggled to get excellent autofocus performance out the ART series. There is rarely a problem with speed or sound from Sigma’s HSM motors. They focus quickly and quietly. My issue has been with autofocus accuracy, and from the feedback of other reviewers and anecdotal evidence from users, it clearly isn’t just me. Sigma knows how much is resting on this lens, though, and they have worked to fix it. They said this in their promotional materials, “The newly updated Hyper Sonic Motor (HSM) allows for 1.3X the torque of previous generations for fast and efficient autofocus.” Higher torque is a good start. It helps get the lens elements aligned quickly, which, in theory, should help them also align accurately on a more consistent basis.
Those that have been shooting with the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II will notice a big difference in focus speed when shooting with the 85 ART. It makes short work of every focus task save a rack through the whole focus range (from minimum to infinity). In head to head comparison with the Tamron 85 VC the Sigma had a slight edge in both initial focus speed and final lock-on. But I’m rarely disappointed with the focus speed from Sigma ART lenses; what I want to know is if I can rely on the focus results.
Ironically I felt like I got pretty good focus results from the 85 EX (previous generation) when I reviewed it; better results than I’ve had with a number of the ART series lenses.
So how about this lens?
I spent some time calibrating the 85 ART to give it the best chance. I used the optional USB dock along with the Reikan FoCal software I use for calibration to dial in AFMA values at different focus distances. I had no red flags during the calibration process, but that means little to me. I rarely have issues at the calibration stage with Sigma lenses; it is field use where I’ve run into more of the issues.
One nice thing about being to calibrate at different points is that it quickly became apparent to me where the weak link in my autofocus was. I was nailing shots out to about 12 feet with regularity, but wasn’t convinced that the accuracy from 12 feet to short of infinity was quite right. The USB dock allowed me to tweak only that value and allowed me to get more consistent results.
After shooting hundreds of real world shots with the lens from everything from portraits to landscapes to fine art shots to events, I felt like I got a pretty good sense of the performance. The good news is that I definitely felt my keeper rate was better than most ART series lenses I had previously used. In most shots I felt like the focus was either nailed or within acceptable ranges. There was an occasional inexplicable miss, but in the real world that does happen. I did notice a trend, however, and that was if I strayed outside of the center group area on my 5D Mark IV review body (which has one of the best AF systems in existence) my keeper rate with the 85 ART definitely dropped.
Time for a controlled test.
AF Repeatability
I set up studio lighting on a high contrast target (a reindeer statue with a lot of crystal parts that makes AF misses very obvious because of CA). I put the camera on a stable tripod, used a second second delay, shot a Live View focused image first for a control shot, and then shot a series of ten frames with the lens defocused between them. I switched to the Tamron 85 VC and did the same.
I was pleasantly surprised when reviewing the results. The ten shots were all accurately focused, with only the extremely minor shifts of framing that happen even with the best lenses. You can first see the AF point selected, and then the result of the 10 shots.
The Tamron delivered the same result, which didn’t surprise me as I’ve been using it for about six months and know it to be a very accurately focusing lens for me after tweaking it through Tamron’s own Tap In Console.
But things went rapidly downhill when I shifted my focus point to one on the outer left third of the frame (where you might focus on an eye in a portrait to maintain a rule of thirds composition). I repeated the sequence as before with five frames using the outer point. The Live View image was correctly focused, of course, but not one of the traditional Phase Detect (viewfinder) images were perfectly focused. A few were reasonably close, but at least three were within the range I would call unacceptable. Focus moved a bit, but it was clear from the green (rather than purple) chromatic aberrations in the images that they were all front focused. It creates a challenge, obviously, when there is a variance between your center point focus (accurate) and front focusing on the outer points. Here’s a look at the focus point selected on the shot (right at the tip of the reindeer’s nose) and the five shots.
The Tamron delivered equally consistent results for me in this test as before, which didn’t surprise me as I’ve used it quite a bit for events and portraits using any and all points with good results. Now, to be fair, the Sigma has slightly more pressure on the AF system due to the wider maximum aperture.
Your mileage may vary, as they say, but if I were to own this lens I think I would use the focus and recompose method (focus with the center group focus points on your camera and then compose the shot how you want) or use Live View when shooting off center. I’ve actually been pretty happy with my real world focus accuracy, though I have been favoring that technique anyway because of the feedback I was getting by looking at the back of the camera. I’ve shot a few events with the lens and have been quite pleased with the focus results (with some minor exceptions). Years of shooting the Canon 6D definitely taught me how to focus and recompose due to the huge disparity between the strength of its center focus point when compared to the outer focus points!
Baby steps, perhaps, but I do think Sigma is moving in the right direction. I would consider this lens as good at focusing as most lenses that I use, and I feel like the lens has given me consistently good results in a lot of different settings.
I’ve shot three portrait sessions exclusively with this lens, most recently for a professional client looking for a new branding look. I shot almost his session at f/2.8 (so most of his fact would be in focus instead of just parts), and was very pleased with the overall focus accuracy. I did have a few shots that weren’t perfectly focused (typically when shooting with outer points), but that would have been true with any lens that I used. Basically every image was usable, however, and the vast majority of the nearly two hundred photos from that session were very well focused. Most importantly, I didn’t have those random complete misses that I’ve sometimes seen with some recent Sigma lenses. Let’s put it this way: the lens has focused well enough for me that I’ve used it a few times for work for paying customers – and that’s really the best compliment I can give it. Here’s a few portrait samples, and you can see many more in the Image Gallery.
85 ART Image Quality Results
It’s pretty clear when you pull the lens out of the nicely padded case that Sigma decided to go all out on this one. It is a huge lens, and has an impractical, massive 86mm front element. This is a lens designed around serious optical performance. It also uses two SLD elements, one anomalous partial dispersion/high-refractive index element, and one aspherical element that minimize aberrations and ensures a crisp, clear image. A Super Multi-Layer coating helps by suppressing flare and ghosting.
I want to be very clear that the very size of this lens shifts my scrutiny of its all out performance. I will make allowances for compact lenses because they are clearly a compromise between size/portability and performance. I actually purchased a Voigtländer 20mm f/3.5 lens earlier this year after I tested a copy even though I didn’t find it nearly as sharp as what I liked. Why? Because it was a pancake lens and perfect for bringing along a wide focal length when focused on other focal lengths for trips or excursions out. I wouldn’t have bought a big lens with that level of optical performance, but in this case the convenience of the lens won out; it is a great “extra” lens to bring along. But the size of this Sigma means it won’t often be an “extra” lens. It will stand upright in most camera bags (if the hood is reversed), but you will definitely know it is there. This lens needs to deliver in the image quality department.
I shot a number of controlled tests at different focus distances where I compared the image quality with the Tamron. Here’s a look at a few of these…
Short Distance Test
I wanted to test chromatic aberrations and bokeh using a decoration in our house that I’ve shot with a LOT of lenses. I directly tested it against the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC for a few reasons. Most importantly, I had it on hand, but it’s also a third party lens that I do think will be cross shopped with the 85 ART. Here are a few of my observations:
Despite being much shorter in length (I didn’t move the tripod when switching lenses) and thus a bit further away from the subject, the Tamron clearly frames tighter. The official listing only has a .6 variance in the angle of view (28 vs 28.6 degrees), but my eyeball test says more. Either the Tamron is longer than 85mm or the Sigma is shorter. My money is on the latter…or maybe both.
The Sigma is pretty fantastic in the vignette department. That huge 86mm front element pays dividends here with negligible vignette even at f/1.4. The Tamron is only a hair worse than the Sigma EX 85mm and reaches -2.5 EV in the extreme corners (the EX is about 2 stops in the corners). I would think that the 85 ART has no more than 1.5 stops (if that) of vignette in the extreme corners and is essentially vignette free by f/1.8. Very nice.
Light transmission also seems very good on the Sigma (credit that big front element once again). It sucks in a lot of light and delivers a demonstrably brighter image at equivalent aperture and shutter speed compared to the Tamron. I would be shocked if the T stop rating on the Sigma is any higher than T1.5, which would equal the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II despite its larger maximum aperture and undercut the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G.
The Sigma is a bit sharper at f/1.4 than the Tamron is at f/1.8 and definitely has the advantage when stopped down to f/1.8. By f/2.8 I would give a [very] slight edge to the Sigma, but both are exceptional.
The Sigma clearly has more chromatic aberrations. I was surprised by this. By f/2.8 the image from the Tamron is flawless while a bit of chromatic aberration remains on the Sigma. Ironically I’m not completely bothered by this, as sometimes the pursuit of completely eradicating chromatic aberration can rob a lens of its soul. The Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II has loads of chromatic aberration and yet has a fabulous rendering. I’ve also fallen in love with the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC, which also has a fair bit of chromatic aberration, and yet I really like the way it renders. I’ll follow up on this more…
I followed up on several of these findings with further tests. I addressed the framing/focal length issue by shooting similar tests at different focus distances. The Sigma’s “shortness” is not focus breathing; the Tamron framed equally tighter at infinity. I shot comparisons at 4 feet, about 9 feet, and then at about 75 feet with equal results. At the 75 foot distance I added a 70-200mm lens set at 85mm and found that it too framed tighter than the Sigma but perhaps not as tight at the Tamron prime. My guess is that the Tamron 85 VC is more like 86mm and the Sigma is more like 83mm. The bad news is that this does affect compression, and I found that backgrounds weren’t as diffused as what I’ve seen with other 85mm f/1.4 lenses at similar distances. Check out this comparison with the Zeiss Otus. I shot the image from the Otus about 2 years ago, and was actually a little closer to the subject this time. Both frames were shot at f/2. Despite the framing advantage for the Sigma, the Otus image clearly has a more diffused background.
I also followed up the CA test by shooting text and comparing it with a similar shot taken with the Otus 85mm. The purple fringing is clearly evident, and I feel that it is robbing the lens of some “micro contrast”, which I feel is backed up in my field results.
When comparing the result from the AF repeatability test there is pretty massive difference between the amount of purple fringing on the Sigma compared to the Tamron, and as a result the Sigma results look softer even though it is technically sharper. This is also bad news for wedding photographers – all of those shiny surfaces you want to shoot at shallow depth of field are definitely going to show some CA. While just clicking the “Remove Chromatic Aberrations” box didn’t remove the CA, I was able to use the eyedropper and successfully clear it up. There is some resulting loss of contrast, though, which makes the end result suffer when compared to the Tamron result. You can see the comparison before correction with the Tamron, the comparison of the result before correction with the corrected image, and then a final comparison with the Tamron that illustrates the loss of contrast due to the correction of the CA.
Frankly, I’m disappointed after more closely examining these issues. It seems strange that such a huge lens would actually come up a bit short in focal length, and equally strange that a lens so clearly designed around optical performance would have so much chromatic aberration. The lens has less compression than it should because of the former issue and less contrast than it should because of the latter.
But that’s not the last word on the lens. I’ve highlighted some of the weaknesses here, but there is some very promising results ahead.
85 ART Sharpness Test
I like to test lenses not only at closer focus distances (like one might get in lab testing), but also in landscape scenes at much further distances. Many people don’t think of using a telephoto lens for landscape work, but often the greater compression of a longer focal length is perfect for a landscape scene and helps major elements seem closer to each other and brings it all closer to the viewer. I did a direct comparison to the Tamron again, using a tripod with mirror lockup and 2 second delay. I manually focused both lens using 10x Live View. I’d encourage you to watch this video where I interactively break down the overall resolution and image quality.
Here are my observations:
That great handling of vignette is on display with the landscape scene. The corners are clearly darker on the Tamron image even when both lenses are wide open.
I was interested to see if the framing difference was still there. Sometimes you don’t get the whole picture at close focus distances because of a phenomenon called “focus breathing” in which some lenses “breathe” and become shorter than their actual focal length at or near minimum focus. One of the most notorious examples of this is the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, which is well documented to be more like 135mm than 200mm at minimum focus but is pretty much 200mm at infinity. The good news is that the 85 ART doesn’t focus breathe; the bad news is that it still doesn’t frame anywhere as tightly as the Tamron does. My suspicions regarding the focal length being a bit shy of 85mm were reinforced.
The 85 ART renders a bit warmer than the 85 VC even with equal white balance. It is not significantly different, but I might compare it to a standard Canon lens vs. a Zeiss lens. There isn’t a right or wrong answer here; it just comes down to your personal tastes. I found I liked the Tamron’s color better outdoors and the Sigma’s more in the studio.
I do think the Sigma is slightly sharper at f/1.4 than the Tamron is at f/1.8, though there is some give and take across the frame. Stopped down to f/1.8 the Sigma is stronger yet, particularly along the edge. The Sigma is aided by having negligible vignette by this point.
At f/2 the Sigma is essentially vignette free, and the Tamron has cleared up a surprising amount but still lags in this area. The Sigma shows a small advantage throughout most of the frame in resolution, with the greatest strength being in the extreme corners.
At f/2.8 both lenses are essentially perfectly sharp, though the extreme bottom left corner favored the Sigma. Draw distance (contrast and textures at infinity) favors the Tamron. At f/4 and f/5.6 the lenses are both perfect. Don’t expect a big sharpness jump from either after f/2.8, and expect a law of diminishing returns after f/5.6 (particularly if you are using a high resolution body). After f/2.8 aperture will be more about depth of field, not increased sharpness. The 85 ART is essentially as sharp at f/2 across the frame as it is at f/4 (with perhaps a hint more contrast at the smaller aperture). The Tamron seems to have more contrast and “bite” at the smaller apertures.
The Sigma 85 ART copy I have shows very good centering, with an nicely even performance across the frame.
Thanks to a helpful reader I have a direct chart test between the 85 ART (first image) and the Otus 85mm f/1.4 on a Nikon D800 body.
You won’t be able to see this quite as well as I can by viewing the full size NEF (RAW) image, but here are my observations. There is some give and take across the frame, but the Sigma is very, very close to the Otus. It is worth noting that the Sigma is notably shorter than the Otus, too (look at the difference in framing along the edges). My guess is that the 85 ART is about 83mm. You can also see the brighter corners from the Sigma due to having less vignette. You can see a hint of the chromatic aberrations in the chart that does reduce the apparent contrast a bit, though it doesn’t show up the same way with a completely flat plane of focus like a test chart. This shows the advantage of test charts (by demonstrating just how sharp the lens is), but I’m also reminded of why I think doing real world tests is so important. This chart result doesn’t tell the whole story in the real world. The chromatic aberration doesn’t impact contrast a lot on the flat test chart, but in the real world it has more of an impact and is part of the reason why I feel the Otus has more “bite” in actual field use. Still, this is a very impressive result from the Sigma, and if that chromatic aberration didn’t exist this lens would be right there knocking on the door of one of the world’s highest resolving lenses.
Stopped down to landscape apertures, however, there is no problem. The CA is slow to clean up, but it does clean up by f/4 and that results is very crisp, highly detailed results. The 85 ART is a beautiful landscape lens.
The 85 ART in a Portrait Setting
Arguably the most important environment to test the 85 ART in is by shooting portraits with it. Unfortunately the lens was released at a pretty poor time of year for shooting outdoor portraits in Canada! I’ve had to mostly confine my shooting efforts to indoor portraiture, but I am happy to say that the lens shines in that environment. We have already established that it is incredibly sharp, and while your clients may not appreciate the detail with which their features are rendered, it is my opinion that it is better to start with a very sharp image and soften it then to try to sharpen a soft image. Beyond that, it is incredibly easy to combine this lens with modern high resolution bodies and have incredible versatility for cropping. This photo, for example, is a deep crop from a vertical three quarter length portrait. When I zoomed in I loved the intimate framing of the face, so it was easy to crop deeply while retaining a final product with plenty of detail for printing or sharing.
It may seem that some of these tests have favored the Tamron (and some have), but I do think the 85 ART is king in the portrait department. In the side by side portraits that I have shot, I’ve noted a difference in the nuance of the way that skin textures are rendered and the transitions of light on the face. There is also an advantage for the Sigma in the difficult transition zone that comes shortly after the plane of focus. There’s an extra degree of subtlety in these transitions that may not be visible to the untrained eye but will certainly be apparent to discerning professionals. I think in day to day use I would personally prefer the Tamron, but in the studio I would prefer the Sigma.
I also did a quick full length portrait comparison outside to show the difference between f/1.8 (Tamron) and f/1.4 (Sigma). When looking at the actual out of focus region the differences are slight (but not nonexistent). Unfortunately the shorter focal length of the Sigma robs it of a bit of compression (which really aids in background blur). As a result the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 (about 2/3rds of a stop) don’t make as much of a difference in background blur because of the difference in focal length for the two lenses. But I did notice that the transition zone about five feet after the subject looked more “nervous” on the Tamron and that a few of the edges in the background were more pronounced due to the smaller maximum aperture. So while this may be a slight win for the Sigma 85 ART, it is still a win.
Bokeh Examination
I’d encourage you to watch this video segment where I really get into the nitty gritty of the bokeh from the 85 ART.
Looking at circular bokeh highlights (“bokeh balls”) is pretty positive from the Sigma. While there is some “cat eye” look near the edges of the frame wide open, there is a sweet spot at f/2 where everything across the frame is pretty much perfectly round (see the image below). That, combined with the great light transmission and low vignette, makes for a great looking result. At a pixel level there is a bit of general busyness in the bokeh circle (it reminds me a lot of the 35mm f/1.4 ART lens), but isn’t pronounced enough to really be distraction. Nothing like onion bokeh, though.
The Tamron has less chromatic aberration in the bokeh (there’s a little bit of green fringing on the Sigma bokeh highlight edges) and a smoother inner circle, but the “cat eye” look along the edge of the frame is more pronounced and really doesn’t disappear at wide apertures.
In the real world I find bokeh to be smooth from the lens and that images look good, though I don’t find the overall rendering “magical”. This is a very subjective category, however, and you may feel differently.
Flare Resistance
The Sigma 85 ART is a roughly average performer with the sun in the frame…for a modern lens. This is an area where many modern lenses have made a significant improvement, and the 85 ART is a strong performer compared to a short telephoto like the Canon 135mm f/2L, for example. Unlike that lens, the Sigma does not really lose contrast with the sun in the frame. There is some prismatic haze near the epicenter of the sun in the frame, but many people will find this artistic and use it to good effect. There is also some ghosting, however (green color blobs) caused by the flare, and those rarely have any artistic effect. Fortunately these are reasonably small, as I can say from experience that ghosts can be a pain to remove in post. Here’s a few samples at different aperture values.
A word to the wise: don’t be afraid to shoot into the sun, but compose with the ghosts in mind (you can usually see them in the viewfinder). Don’t place them somewhere that they would be hard to remove if you wanted to later. Stopping the lens down produces some pretty decent looking sunstars, but these are usually more pronounced (and useful) on wide angle lenses anyway. Overall this is a good if not exceptional performance.
In Conclusion
The Sigma 85 ART comes with great expectations and no small degree of hype. Sigma has really captured the attention of a lot of photographers with their ART series, and the 85 ART has been at the top of everyone’s wish list. The versatility of the 85mm focal length is well documented, and it stands as perhaps my favorite overall portrait length. In some ways I feel like the weight of expectations is a little too much for the broad shoulders of the 85 ART. Talk of benchmarking the Zeiss Otus doesn’t help, and while I do think that the 85 ART comes close to matching the overall resolution of the Otus 85, the Sigma is a more deeply flawed lens. It has a fairly strong amount of chromatic aberration that robs it of some overall contrast (and the microcontrast that some Zeiss lenses like the Otus excel at). Its “not quite” 85mm focal length robs it of a bit of the compression that should allow it to stand out from the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC’s smaller maximum aperture. It’s heavy enough that some shooters are going to really miss having an image stabilizer while others will probably just pass on the lens entirely.
But viewed without the burden of expectations there is also a pretty great lens here that in many ways was worth the wait. When allowed to stand on its own, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART is pretty fabulous. It is impressively sharp at all apertures, has the lowest vignette I’ve yet seen from an 85mm lens, and has fantastic light transmission. The lens is beautifully built, has an exceptional nice manual focus ring, and focuses extremely quickly and quietly. It is also the best focusing ART series lens that I’ve used, with much more consistent, reliable results (though focus accuracy drops when using outer focus points). The bokeh is quite smooth, the transition and fall off from the lens is good, and images look great. It is a great performer in the studio, and should be a serious consideration for portrait shooters. The speed of the autofocus will make it a more attractive option for some wedding and event shooters disappointed with the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II and its notoriously slow focus speed. Some have pointed out that Canon is rumored to be releasing a new 85mm f/1.4L IS lens in 2017 (an intriguing thought!), but who honestly believes that such a lens will come at a cost anywhere less than twice what the Sigma is retailing at? The reality is that the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART is a lot of lens for the opening price of $1199 USD, and, while it may not be the absolute knockout that some thought it might be, it is still a pretty special lens.
Pros:
Extremely sharp
Incredibly low vignette
Great light transmission
Fully circular bokeh highlights across the whole frame at f/2
Very fast and quiet autofocus
Improved autofocus accuracy
Beautifully designed and constructed
Good price to performance ratio
Comes with a nice padded case
Cons:
Size and weight at the top of the class (it’s big and heavy!)
86mm filters aren’t common and are expensive
Fairly pronounced chromatic aberrations
Autofocus accuracy dips when using outer focus points
Focal length is a little shy of 85mm
Chromatic aberrations rob the lens of some contrast at wide apertures
Thanks to Sigma Canada for providing me a loaner copy of this lens for 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.
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.
Wow! When I made a video about preordering the day of the formal announcement of the 5D Mark IV, I had no idea that I was about to become embroiled in controversy. The initial response was positive from viewers (others than some complaints about the high price; complaints I shared). Then again, I’m rarely happy about the initial price of new Canon gear. Recent Canon lens releases (particularly the better ones) have been very expensive, though the lenses themselves have mostly been excellent (the new 35mm f/1.4L II is a great example). But over the next 48 hours the Internet hype machine got itself worked into a frenzy and before long I was getting more negative comments and dislikes than at any point in my decidedly non-controversial stint as a [very] minor YouTube personality. Why all the drama? Because I had the audacity to say that I was happy about the announced spec list of the 5D Mark IV and that I was preordering one.
Before I proceed to my actual review of the camera, here’s why I was happy. While reviewing the Canon 5Ds R, I found that it’s MRAW setting of 28MP hit a sweet spot for resolution for me, so I was very happy at the 30.6MP count of the 5D Mark IV. It also featured a number of the new innovations that the 5DsR had that really made life easier; things like a built in intervalometer, flicker detection, the white priority white balance, the Fine Detail Picture Style, and HDR mode. While reviewing (and owning) the 80D, I learned that I loved its responsive touch screen, it’s improved DPAF, the ability to focus at f/8 with a wide range of focus points, the improved dynamic range, and its improved video spec list. The 5D Mark IV had all of that. Finally, my most read article ever was about why I chose a Canon 6D over a Canon 5DIII in the previous generation, and some of the main reasons were its low light performance (both the sensitivity of the center focus point down to -3 EV, cleaner shadow performance, better high ISO performance) along with the useful features of Wi-Fi and GPS (both features that I have used a lot). Guess what? The 5D Mark IV had all of that, too. I was happy with the spec list because it combined a lot of features that I really like and use in real world shooting (and photography work) in one camera. So I preordered.
And caused a lot of controversy, apparently.
Before we move on to the actual review, let’s acknowledge the chief criticisms. Most of the complaints are actually from the video front. I heard a lot of “2012 tech” complaints that are mostly centered around the 5D4’s approach to 4K Video. People were disappointed at first that it featured only the 4K 30P standard; no 4K 60P. Then people discovered that the 4K video was delivered with a 1.7x (approximately) crop factor, and, to add insult to injury, at the space swallowing MJPEG codec. Lost in the shuffle was the fact that this would only be the second full frame camera (after the premium 1Dx II) from Canon to feature DPAF servo AF in video and a touchscreen to control video performance, or that it improved the 1080P capabilities all around. I can’t say whether or not the chief complaints were from those who actually use a DSLR for filmmaking or from those that are more into spec lists than real world cameras. Perhaps some of both. But this was the most vehement complaint.
One of the other major complaints was over the memory card slots. One CF, the other SD. People wanted CFast and XQD (or at least support for UHS II) cards. I’ll address those complaints in the review, but one of the first things I did was stick in a Lexar Professional SDXC 1000x card (150 Mbps transfer rate) and rattle off a burst. The result? 22 full RAW frames before it began to slow, which exceeds the 21 frame buffer rating. And this was from a UHS-II card, which is operating in “backwards compatible” mode. Furthermore, I was able to review the images by the time I had brought the camera down (though the red writing light stayed lit for a second or two longer). I shot another burst until it slowed, paused for a second, and then began shooting another burst. According to the time stamp I got 34 full 30.6MP RAW images in 8 seconds of shooting…on a SD card (and not even the best kind for this camera). My initial burst had 24 RAW images. When I got home I swapped out that card for my best UHS-1 card and upped that total to 28 RAW images before slowdown. The reality is for me (and most all non-sports shooters) is that this is plenty of performance from the SD standard. And beyond that, you can add more performance in burst situations be electing to go with a CF card.
I chose a Lexar Professional 1066x UDMA 7 as my primary CF card. This card had the fastest transfer rate. Using the CF card in optimal conditions I produced a burst of 32 frames before slowdown began. Clearly Canon has chosen to be very conservative with the buffer rating on this camera. That is more frames than what I am personally ever likely to need, and that’s probably true for 90% of shooters. True sports shooters will be better served by the 1Dx series or perhaps a 7DII (depending on the lighting conditions you shoot in).
I hear some complain that if Canon had gone with CFast that you could have unlimited buffer and just shoot RAW until the card is full. That does sound very cool, but how many shooters actually do that? When is the last time you just stood and shot as many frames as you possibly could of the same thing? By the way, if you really want to do that, just switch to JPEG and you can shoot until your card runs out of space. I personally tend to be a little more selective in my shooting because I know I’m going to have to edit all of those files when I get home!
My reviews are not of spec lists, though, but rather of relatively long term actual real world use of products. In the case of the 5D Mark IV I have been working on this review for 2 1/2 months, and am only now reporting my final conclusion on the camera. I have been publishing a number of videos that detail different aspects of the camera’s performance. You can view that playlist here, or you can elect to watch my final review here:
Ergonomic Improvements:
The physical body of the 5D Mark IV is going to feel very familiar to anyone who has used a 5D3, 5Ds, or 5DsR. Little has changed on the exterior with a few minor exceptions.
The remote cable port has moved. The 5Ds/R body featured the change to the USB 3.0 standard (appropriate to accommodate the increased data flow). The female USB 3.0 port takes up significantly more real estate than the USB 2.0 port, however, so something had to give. What was lost on the 5Ds/R body was the headphone monitoring jack; a significant loss for videographers. The 5D Mark IV solves this problem by moving something to a different location, namely the remote trigger port. It now occupies the spot where the “Mark III” logo used to be on the front of the camera. The 5D Mark IV says “Mark IV” right under the 5D logo up top, with the “EOS” label in a slightly odd location above. It works, though, and we get the headphone jack back.
New AF Mode selection button. The 5D Mark IV adds a little nub underneath the thumb stick that provides a redundant AF Mode selection (the little button near the shutter release still exists). This provides an improved ergonomic experiences as you are often using the thumb stick already to select an AF point. You can also reprogram it to some other function if you prefer.
A touch screen! It cannot be overemphasized how big of a difference having a touchscreen makes. It makes navigating menus simpler. It makes using the the Q menu extremely quick and intuitive. It is also the touchscreen that makes DPAF so special for either stills or video use. Simply touch where you want the camera to focus…and it does.
It bears mentioning that they stopped short, however. The 5D Mark IV could really have used an articulating screen like the 80D. The touchscreen eases the blow of having to move/eliminate a few of the buttons, and the lack of the articulating screen makes using the 5D Mark IV less practical than the 80D for Vloggers, YouTubers, and other solo video creators. DPAF and the touchscreen is really cool when you are behind the camera, but who touches the screen when you are in front of it? I’ve already had a few segments blown where the camera did not grab focus on me for some reason and I couldn’t tell until after investing the 15+ minutes in shooting the segment. I discovered the workaround after a while, though, as the Canon Connect app now supports video monitoring. I can use my phone or a tablet to get a wireless live feed from the camera via WiFi, change settings, and even direct focus by touching the screen. It doesn’t solve the camera angle problem for shooting at high or low angles, though. I just feel that an articulating screen allows you to take full advantage of that great touchscreen and the extremely rapid DPAF focus. It not here, though.
Still, overall the 5D Mark IV is a very well executed camera ergonomically. It is very easy to do what you want on it, and I have quickly adapted to its layout and prefer it to any other camera.
It is also worth noting that the 5D Mark IV has a great viewfinder. You have the ability to really customize what information is shown in there, and the way the level is implemented has really helped me (particularly with certain lenses where I’m trying to minimize distortion). The only downside here is that I suspect trying to change out the focus screen for something oriented for manual focus (a matte precision screen) isn’t going to be easy (more like the 5DIII; less like the 6D).
Vastly Improved GPS
One of the things I really liked about the 6D was the inclusion of GPS. I’ve done a lot of traveling with a 6D body (or two), and coming home to images already accurately geotagged was very nice indeed. But I had one chief complaint about the implementation of the GPS on the 6D; you had two choices – ON/OFF. If you chose “ON”, it meant that the GPS was literally always on…even if the camera was turned off. This meant that if you happened to not turn the GPS off it would slowly be draining battery life off all the time. There was no practical limit to this. If the camera sat for a week or so the battery would go completely dead. I had hoped that Canon would fix this via firmware update, but that was not be case.
Fortunately it HAS now been addressed…in the 5D Mark IV. The Mark IV includes two different modes. One is like the 6D’s “always on” and should be chosen if you are in a circumstance where you are frequently turning the camera on and off and want to be sure every single image is properly geotagged. But the second mode is going to be far more practical for day by day use. In this mode the GPS is on but only when the camera is powered on (or in standby mode). When you physically turn the camera off the GPS is fully powered down and will not be sucking the life out of the battery.
Even in the latter mode, however, be prepared for battery life to take a hit when compared to the 5D Mark III.
Early Adopter Issues:
My 5D Mark IV was delivered literally minutes before I left for an extended business trip. I happened to have my Tamron SP 15-30 f/2.8 VC lens along (I’m was using it as a comparison point for my review of the brand new Zeiss Milvus 18mm f/2.8), and I noted that when I tried to activate Live View mode to test DPAF that the camera would not activate Live View with the Tamron attached (the Zeiss lenses were fine). It’s not unusual for Canon to introduce some new quirk for third party lenses when releasing a new camera body. Firmware update time; one of the downsides of third party glass on new camera bodies. Tamron happily agreed to take all of the my three “pre Tap In” lenses (24-70 VC, 70-200 VC, and 15-30 VC) to update in one fell swoop. While on this topic I should note the that 85 VC is a great fit with the new 5D Mark IV; it focuses very quickly and very accurately. The time invested via the Tap In console meant that it focused better than most of my other lenses before AFMA on the 5D Mark IV itself. The end results are gorgeous. I’ve seen more of an impact from the second microprocessor in the 85 VC’s focus on the 5D IV (which also has an added Digic 6 chip dedicated just to autofocus) than I did on previous bodies.
The older three Tamron lenses were back in my hands within a week and the Live View issue is fixed. The experience was quick, and relatively painless, but it was a reminder of why Tamron and Sigma’s move to create their consoles for quick updates at home on their newer lenses was such a smart move.
Another bit of good news is that Reikan FoCal support has arrived more quickly than expected. Over the past couple of months I’ve gone through the process of using it to calibrate my rather extensive collection of lenses. It’s a somewhat laborious process when you have so many lenses to calibrate, but getting optimal performance from my lenses is important to me. I will note that the addition of the touchscreen made this process much simpler when it comes to something like changing values in camera.
Adapting to a New Sensor
Whenever you move to a new camera there is a period of adjustment where you learn to either unlock the potential or accept the limitations of the camera. While the 5D Mark IV does have some limitations, I have found that it is a highly adaptable, customizable camera that in many cases can be set up to do what you want it to do. This does make the camera a little more intimidating for inexperienced shooters, but the 5D series is really marketed to more experienced photographers. My initial concerns about the image quality (and perhaps those from other reviewers) came before I had learned to unlock the potential of the camera.
At full resolution “out of the box” I found the JPEGs had too much “smoothing” for my tastes. I preferred the native JPEG profile from the 6D. I wasn’t blown away by the TIFF files I was getting from DPP, either, but on September 20th Adobe added RAW support for the 5D Mark IV and I was quickly in heaven. The RAW files are BEAUTIFUL out of the 5D Mark IV. So much sharper and such incredible processing latitude. HDR is going to be far less necessary in the future; the dynamic range from the 5D Mark IV is impressive!
Update as of September 29th, 2016: I did some tweaking to the profile in the camera (JPEG), and made sure all of the noise processing settings were off. I also did a firmware update today (1.0.2). Between those two things I am much happier with the JPEG images I am getting. They actually look pretty great now, and give a bit of a processing guideline for tackling the RAW images. They look good enough that when shooting RAW + JPEG you may be able to give your clients the JPEG images and they’ll be happy right out of camera. The JPEGs have really rich color and look like they’ve already been “post-processed” in a good kind of way. I have chosen the Fine Detail profile as my default mode, though with some tweaks to the sharpness and contrast. As I continued to fine tune the profile to my unique preferences I found that I was happier and happier with the JPEG output. After getting things where I want I’m now pretty delighted with the 5D Mark IV’s JPEGs and RAW files alike. The JPEG files also benefit from the improved sensor performance of the 5D Mark IV; you definitely have more leeway to “push” them a bit compared to the previous generation.
It is worth noting that the MRAW (17MP) setting is also very nice on the 5D Mark IV and provides one of the best options for shooting in very high ISO settings (more on this in a moment).
Resolution and RAW
If you compare the RAW files side by side with the Canon 6D (as I’ve done a lot of during my various comparisons), the RAW files from the 5D Mark IV seem a bit “flatter”. The contrast is a bit lower, and the “sharpness” is a little less pronounced. This is actually a good thing. Video shooters are familiar with a LOG type profile for video that delivers a fairly flat image that you can then impose your unique preferences to during color grading. I feel like a somewhat similar concept is at work here, and the added dynamic range produces a RAW file with less extremes “baked in”. Similarly it seems that the files both need and can tolerate more sharpening than what I’m accustomed to. Perhaps the antialiasing filter is more aggressive, but I find that the images DO sharpen up better and when I downsample the RAW images to the dimensions of the 6D or 5DIII there is clearly more sharpness in the 5D Mark IV images.
I do feel that there is a bit of a learning curve to unlock the full potential from the camera, and as photographers become familiar with it they will ultimately appreciate that potential.
Here’s a video where I break down the overall resolution and image quality from the camera.
As anticipated, I feel that the 30.6MP pixel count is a “sweet spot” for me. Images have noticeably higher amount of information to work with, there is more latitude for cropping, and yet the file size (and impact on your computer when processing) is far less onerous than it was with the 5DsR. Canon was able to successfully raise the bar in all other areas of sensor performance while also increasingly resolution by about 39% over the 5DIII (and 52% over the 6D). I loved the 5DsR, but I’m not finding that I miss the extra 20MP and the additional challenges that it’s extreme resolution provided.
I enjoy being able to significantly crop an image and still retain similar resolution to my 6D. Higher resolution bodies bring a pixel density closer to that of crop sensor bodies (though only the 5Ds/5DsR have a pixel pitch that completely rivals that of the higher resolution APS-C bodies), so the additional “reach” benefit of APS-C bodies is somewhat undone, particularly when one considers the image quality strengths of the full frame sensor. Look at this photo of a squirrel:
In this second shot I have cropped the image to the exact same pixels of my Canon 6D; look how much extra reach I had “baked into” each frame while still retaining as much resolution as the previous generation.
I’m definitely happy with the megapixel value that Canon chose here.
Dynamic Range
I ran a controlled test with the Canon 6D (rated as having the best dynamic range of Canon’s previous generation), the Canon 80D (Canon’s best APS-C sensor), and the 5D Mark IV to test dynamic range performance. The 5D Mark IV is rated by DXO as having Canon’s best sensor…ever, though in their tests it still lags a slight bit behind the Sony A7R II and a bit further behind the Nikon D810. I’m a Canon shooter, however, so I’ll confine my comparison to what I’m familiar with.
In this controlled test it quickly became clear that as you pushed the limits further the 5D Mark IV distanced itself from the pack. The 80D showed a clear improvement over the 6D, but the 5D Mark IV showed an equal advantage over the 80D in my tests.
Real world shooting has demonstrated the value of this to me. I find that I have more processing latitude, and it affects me in the real world. I’m better able to recover skies, and, as is common in Canada, I will often lift the shadows in trees. In the scenes that I frequently shoot there is often a pretty big exposure difference between the tree line and the open areas, so I often lift the shadows in the forested area. In the past this has often resulted in shadow noise as well as textures becoming a bit muddy. I’m delighted to be able to lift those shadows in files from the 5D Mark IV and retain great detail with minimal color noise. Here’s a number of photos before and after applying Lightroom sliders to recover them.
Not only that, but I was frequently up against the limits of how much I could raise shadows in the past. While I still frequently reduce highlights by 100% in Lightroom’s sliders, I’m finding that it is rare that I need to raise the shadows 100%. Often a value between 40-60% is plenty. I do find that there is increased latitude in the highlights, too, meaning that I am able to better recover highlights, though not even close to the extent with which I can recover shadows. As a result I’m finding far fewer situations where I feel that I need to employ exposure bracketing or HDR. The advantage to the single exposure is that you don’t have to worry about movement or other factors that are a threat to typical HDR work. Here’s a comparison of a 3 stop underexposed image processed as I would process the HDR image (second image is a three bracketed exposure HDR).
While I do prefer the overall tonality of the HDR image, this is an extreme example (-3 EV). A slightly underexposed image that retained highlight information (between -1 to -2 EV) actually often produces a better result in all but the most extreme situations. In these images the first image is a single RAW with the shadows recovered. At a pixel level all the textures are very sharp and crisp. There is no issue with the wind moving the grasses and creating ghosts because it is just one exposure.
The second image is a combination of three bracketed exposures. It shows some ghosting artifacts in the grasses and trees but also isn’t quite as sharp as the single exposure.
In this video I demonstrate the superiority of the 5D Mark IV to previous generation cameras.
I can tell that you that in a very real way I am discovering an improved workflow due to the enhanced dynamic range of the 5D Mark IV. Even the JPEGs have more processing latitude than previous generation cameras. From portraits to event shots to landscapes I’m finding that it is easy to produce a balanced, great looking image from the RAW files.
Canon’s claim of improved dynamic range is backed up in the real world.
High ISO Performance
In the previous generation the 6D outperformed the 5D Mark III at higher ISOs. Is there an improvement in the new generation? Canon’s challenge here is that higher resolution results in more apparent noise, as was made clear by their limiting the normal range of the 5Ds/R at ISO 6400. The 5D Mark IV has 52% more pixels than the 6D and 39% more than the 5D Mark III. Despite this they have increased the ceiling of the normal range to ISO 32,000 (from ISO 25,600). This is a somewhat odd jump and equates to roughly a third stop more, while the expanded range remains the same (ISO 51,000 and 102,000). The latter two should be considered useful only in the most extreme of circumstances, and, in fact, one might be better off shooting at a lower ISO and pushing the results in post.
Compared head to head to the 6D at native resolution I didn’t see much of an advantage for the 5D Mark IV, though when compared at downsampled resolution it looks better at most all ISO settings. It did exhibit less color banding than the 6D for the most part save at ISO 25,600 (and beyond). It is a clear advantage over the 5DIII, however, which was more prone to color noise and banding in the shadows. I did discover a potentially helpful trick, though. Using the MRAW setting (17MP) resulted in a demonstrably cleaner looking image at ISO 32,000 (or 25,600). Better contrast and apparent detail despite technically having less resolution due to fewer pixels. I consider this to be a very valid alternative in low light situations. Here’s a sample at ISP 32,000 at the MRAW setting.
It is worth noting that JPEGs at high ISO look pretty good and could potentially be “improved” by enabling some of the noise reduction settings for High ISOs (this is a matter of preference). Some prefer more sharpness even it means more noise, while others prefer a “smoother” image even it comes at the cost of some of the detail. The 5D Mark IV gives you some options for getting the results you want.
If you want more detailed coverage of this aspect of the 5D Mark IV’s sensor performance, I recommend that you spend a little time and watch this video episode.
I didn’t see a major step forward at higher ISO settings, but that is in part due to adding a significantly larger amount of pixels into the equation. The fact that Canon has managed to do this while still making some minor gains at higher ISO settings is positive. This is pretty much where sensor performance is at, and the competitors from other brands are delivering a similar performance with some give and take. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that this will be an area of strength for the new 6D Mark II (expected next year) which will almost certainly have a lower megapixel rating (current rumors have it at 24-25MP).
The bottom line is that once you learn how to take advantage of the potential of the 5D Mark IV you will find that it can deliver excellent results in just about every situation.
Autofocus Observations
While on paper the focus system is a similar 61 AF points to that of the 5D Mark III, this is an improved AF system in every way. Some have called the revised AF system in the 5D Mark IV its biggest upgrade. While the number of AF points is the same, they aren’t as tightly clustered as before, resulting in higher coverage of the frame. The top to bottom measurement of the two groups on the left and right has increased by 24%, while the larger center group’s measurement has increased by 8%.
It is now easier to get an AF point where you want it. I tested the 5DsR a few months ago, and while it was improved over the 5DIII in its metering system and added a bit more f/8 support, I still noticed a significant improvement in the 5D Mark IV. Everything seems to focus faster, including third party lenses, and I’m noting good focus accuracy from the system, too. As more and more people get the 5D Mark IV in their hands their feedback has been universally very positive. Focus is simply awesome in the 5D Mark IV.
Another strength of the AF system is tracking. It has Canon’s EOS iTR AF (Intelligent Tracking and Recognition) that works to recognize faces, colors, and shapes to help select the proper AF point and allow for more accurate tracking. The AF system in the 5D Mark IV actually employs a dedicated Digic 6 processor (in addition to the main Digic 6+ processor), which is part of why it is so vastly improved. The end result is that tracking a moving subject has never been easier.
You can unlock the potential of the AF system by becoming familiar with the 6 different “cases” that you can choose from in the AF menu. Each of these is customizable, but they have descriptions in which they detail the scenarios that they were designed for. Choosing the right case for your situation helps establish the focus priorities and will result in better tracking and focus priorities.
You have a number of choices for what focus points are active. Spot AF utilizes a reduced size single point (a dot within the AF point box) for the situations where you want pinpoint accuracy (put this point on the subject’s eye when shooting portraits!). Single point AF utilizes the single point but the whole focus point box rather than the inner point. The coverage grows a bit as does the potential for focus to be on something other than what you want (a nose rather than an eye, for example). AF Point Expansion mode supports the selected point with four surrounding points (to the four points of the compass). Zone AF utilizes the selected point plus the 8 surrounding points in a large square. Zone Large AF allows you to select the large group on the left, right, or center. Auto AF point has all 61 points active. Getting the most out of the AF system will require you to pair the right selection to your task. Put simply, the more AF points that you activate will result in the camera doing more of the thinking. In some situations this is advantageous (it’s quick!), but if you are shooting in more precise situations (and with large aperture lenses where depth of field is very small) you may want to use fewer points and make sure focus is happening exactly where you want it to.
You now have two choices for making the selection of how many points are active. The M-Fn button near the shutter release is the standard method (clicking it will cycle through the options), though there is now a redundant control right under the thumb stick on the back of the camera. I’ve been using it more often, as I’m usually there selecting focus points anyway.
The focus system of the 5D Mark IV is somewhat complex, and the reality is that some photographers will find themselves overwhelmed by it. I’ve had a number of photographers that have expressed to me that they preferred the simpler focus system in the 6D over the 5D Mark III because they understood how to the use the former but were overwhelmed by the second. Others strongly prefer the more complex system because of its many advantages. There’s no question that the more complex system is better in an absolute sense, but whether or not it is better for you will come down to your own comfort level with the more complex or your willingness to learn how to best utilize it. If you were already using the 5DIII, for example, you will probably be delighted with the 5DIV. If you are upgrading from the 6D you may be initially overwhelmed.
One of the great features on the 6D was the excellent sensitivity of its center point, which would focus down to -3 EV (moonlight, essentially). In some ways this actually made it a better performer than the 5D Mark III in low light despite having an inferior AF system. The 5D Mark IV has inherited that greater center point sensitivity, and even one-upped it by allowing for -4 EV focus in Live View via DPAF. Bottom line: you shouldn’t ever find yourself in a situation where you can’t autofocus some way!
I’m also finding that my third party lenses are now more confident in focusing – both in speed and in my ability to use outer points with them. The new Tamron 45mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 VC lenses are standouts in this regard (I’ve tweaked them through Tamron’s Tap In Console). Here are a few samples:
F8 Focus
One of the biggest improvements made to the 5D Mark III via firmware was the addition of the ability to autofocus at a maximum aperture of f/8 (the standard limitation is f/5.6). This allows one to shoot an f/5.6 lens (like a telephoto such as the 100-400mm II) with a 1.4x extender attached (which reduces the amount of light that can reach the sensor by 1 stop, meaning that maximum aperture is now f/8). Still, the 5DIII was only able to use the extra sensitive center point in this kind of situation. That meant that 60 of the 61 points were completely unusable in this situation. The 6D did not support f/8 focus at all.
I was impressed by the improved performance of the 80D with a lens like the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II and a Canon 1.4x teleconverter. It allowed one to shoot with that combination (a maximum aperture of f/8) at a variety of focus points – far more than what was previously possible (27 of the 45). The 5D Mark IV takes this a step further, however, and enables f/8 focus on ALL AF points, and 27 of them remain cross type for extra sensitivity to boot. This makes a huge difference, and I can honestly say that I saw little difference in the autofocus capabilities in this scenario than I did in any other situation. What has been (to me) a somewhat frustrating scenario now just works. AF is extremely quick and accurate with this combination. I was able to focus with this combination effectively even in low light conditions. It is as if Canon has figured out this tech (probably with the help of that dedicated processor) and it now finally lives up to its potential.
This section has included some shots taken at 560mm, f/8 (400mm + 1.4x TC).
DPAF
If you have never used Canon’s DPAF (Dual Pixel Autofocus), you are in for a treat. I’ve been shooting a number of comparison series with the 6D over the past month, and it shocking how painful traditional Live View focus feels after having used DPAF. The technology debuted on the 70D (and was revelatory then), matured on the 80D, and is simply a delight on the 5D Mark IV. Touch the screen (about 80% of the sensor area is covered) and the camera focuses almost instantly. While still not quite as fast as the traditional phase detect AF (through the viewfinder), the difference is now almost imperceptible. Focus is incredibly fast in DPAF and makes tripod based shooting in particular a real joy. Now if only the 5D Mark IV had come with that articulating screen…
Tracking is also very impressive in DPAF mode. The face detection is almost eerily accurate, and I’ve been using this feature on xxD bodies for my YouTube channel for the past several years as it allows me to film my episodes at larger apertures without worrying that my face will be out of focus when I’m in front of the camera. The addition of DPAF to the full frame 5D Series gives it a serious advantage over the competitors.
Video Observations
Bottom line: Canon has made a lot of people mad on the video front with the release of the 5D Mark IV. What’s interesting is that the implementation of 4K video isn’t radically different on the 5D Mark IV than it was on the 1Dx Mark II, though the release of that camera didn’t have nearly the same amount of drama. What’s mostly different is that the 5D series A) has broader market appeal and B) is viewed as more of a hybrid/general purpose camera than the more sports/wildlife oriented 1D series. But let’s step back and take a rational look at the reality of the video features of the 5D Mark IV.
It is actually a better video camera than the 5D Mark III…without question. It has more shooting options, a better sensor to work with, produces sharper video than the 5D Mark III, has a useful HDR video mode, and most importantly, it has DPAF video servo focus and that great touchscreen. It adds the ability to create time lapse movies in camera. It is one of Canon’s best ever 1080P cameras, lacking basically only a 1080 120FPS mode (that frame rate is limited to 720P). The footage looks great, and no one is talking about how incredible DPAF is at tracking and how nice this is to have on a full frame body. I loved DPAF beginning on the 70D, found the 80D even more improved, and this is a great implantation here. If you are behind the camera it really opens up so many options. Canon’s major misstep here was not going ahead and implementing the articulating screen that makes using the camera for vlogging and/or YouTube so much easier. If you missed the tip before, you can remotely monitor video through the Canon Connect app on your mobile device, controlling not just settings and modes but also simply pressing on your screen where you want the camera to focus. Very, very nice! Still, a lot of YouTubers and Vloggers want that articulating screen, and in the “selfie age” that we now live in I think Canon may have missed an opportunity to move YouTubers and Vloggers upmarket.
If the camera only supported 1080P, people would have loudly complained over the lack of 4K support, but would have had to conclude that at the least the 1080P performance was very good. But the camera does support 4K, at least nominally, and it is the nature of that support that raised so many people’s ire. The criticisms are largely focused on 1) the codec (MJPG) and 2) the crop factor.
The codec. Canon’s decision to only support the massive MJPG codec has caused a lot of hair pulling for a number of reasons:
It’s huge. A 64GB card will only hold about 16 minutes of 4K footage because the bitrate is so high. Battery consumption is also pretty huge while recording 4K, and, of course, the massive file size adds a lot of stress on the processing end back at your workstation, too. If you move up to a bigger card (say 256GB), your battery will go dead before the card is filled.
The footage is not correspondingly epic. That massive, uncompressed footage should blow highly compressed h.264 footage away, right? Not according to a thousand head to head comparisons already out on YouTube. The 5D Mark IV footage has pros (mostly due to the nature of Canon’s superior color rendition) and looks great, but not really better than the footage from other cameras at a tenth of the file size. The MJPG codec is clearly not implemented because of its intrinsic advantages.
The crop factor. There was a collective groan when it was discovered that Canon’s 4K support would not be utilizing the full frame coverage but would instead be a cropped portion of the sensor. That crop factor is, in fact, is a significant 1.74x. This means that shooting wide angle video is difficult. My widest lens goes to 15mm, which with this crop factor is slightly over 26mm. Ah, but it gets worse. Canon has persisted in not allowing EF-S (APS-C crop specific lenses) to be mounted here, which means that Canon’s lenses designed for a crop factor cannot be used here. The end result is there is going to be a lot of videographers mounting Sigmas and Tamrons on there (a lens like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 ART will mount and function perfectly). Third party crop sensor lenses utilize the EF and not the EF-S mount, so they will attach to the camera where Canon’s own crop lenses will not. I’ve just started testing the new Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero D lens and it is actually a very intriguing lens for shooting 4K video with on the 5D Mark IV as the focal length after the crop factor is about 20-21mm; right in the sweet spot for wide angle footage.
There is, however, one very positive aspect of the 4K support. Canon has designed the implementation so that right in camera you go through footage frame by frame and grab JPEGs at a decent 8MP size. I can attest first hand that this in fact valuable, as the files are large enough (and detailed enough) to actually be useful. I’ve got an image gallery of images like this. Here’s one of those screen grabs here:
This could be valuable for catching crucial moments like the first kiss at a wedding, or to grab segments in portraits where your subject moves into position and you can choose that perfect moment from the sequence. It will also be useful for getting clean images of fast moving subjects like insects and hummingbirds.
There are other lesser complaints. While the 5D Mark IV does support HDMI out, it is limited to 1080P, and there is not a true neutral profile (C-LOG) that provides the kind of footage that filmmakers most value. The 4K framerate options are limited to 24 and 30FPS with no 60FPS option (which the 1Dx Mark II does have).
The 4K footage does look quite good. Here’s a few unedited samples of it (only transcoded into MP4 and pieced together).
I’m not a videographer, and to be honest I don’t have a screen in the house at the moment that supports 4K, although I do like the idea of having some crop latitude in my footage without sacrificing quality. I find 1080P content painful enough to upload to YouTube, so I’m in no rush to switch to 4K, but there is also no question that Canon did a lackluster job of implanting 4K support in the 5D Mark IV. This is something that people value and even something that many people expect in a modern DSLR. Canon is clearly trying to push serious filmmakers towards their more expensive cinema line, but there’s one problem: people have options these days. They can move to a far less expensive Sony a6300 and get very good 4K support (though that new camera has already been replaced with the recently announced Sony a6500…ouch!).
But you know what? I’m actually really enjoying the 5D Mark IV for video work. After I accepted the limitations of the 4K video, I’m actually enjoying using it here and there and marveling at the tremendously detailed footage. I love the 1080P on the camera due to the great DPAF, sharp footage, and flexible video modes. I wasn’t using any of my full frame cameras for video work before, but the 5D Mark IV has rekindled my interest in using full frame for video. The moire suppression is the best I’ve seen so far. I did an extensive video for my YouTube channel covering all the highs and lows of the 5D Mark IV’s video features here.
Despite the video implementation actually being good in a number of areas, I think that this was perhaps Canon’s greatest misstep. If they had included a MP4 option for 4K they would have had a much more positive reception from the video crowd. I think they may have underestimated how much backlash there would be over its omission.
Battery Hungry?
Canon’s DSLRs are usually pretty fantastic when it comes to battery life. The 5D Mark IV used the LP-E6N battery that has been the staple in the newest generation of Canon bodies, though it is also backwards compatible with the older LP-E6 batteries. Though the rating for the number of shots isn’t really down all that much, I found that due to all the tech on the 5D Mark IV I’ve been burning through batteries faster than typical. The primary culprit is probably the GPS logging, and make sure that Wi-Fi isn’t on when you don’t need it, too. Even using the GPS in the Mode 2 (where it shuts off when the camera is off) has an impact on battery life. I suspect the extra voltage going into focus has a negative impact on battery life as well. If you shoot 4K video, too, you are very likely to see serious battery drain. The bottom line is that I’m seeing a low battery indicator more often now.
I’d recommend putting a backup battery or two on your wish list.
Conclusions
The Canon EOS 5D Mark IV is a bit of paradox. It is simultaneously one of the best cameras Canon has ever created along with being one of its most divisive ones. Whereas the 5D Mark III was universally accepted as an excellent choice for both professional and amateurs alike, things have changed. It is my opinion that the 5D Mark IV is a better camera in every measure than the 5D Mark III, but is that enough for the 2016 market that it is released into? It has better autofocus performance (including vastly improved performance with teleconverters), better resolution, better dynamic range, better high ISO performance, and faster shooting and buffer performance. And, despite all of the drama surrounding the video performance, it is actually a better video camera than the 5D Mark III. It has more shooting options, a better sensor to work with, time lapse movie mode, a useful HDR video mode, and most importantly, it has DPAF video servo focus and that great touchscreen. While the 4K support is unquestionably flawed, the reality is that it does serve some purpose, the footage looks great, and the image grab from 4K video is actually useful.
If the 5D Mark IV was being compared only to Canon cameras, it would be declared a smashing success. But things have changed since the release of the 5D Mark III, particularly on the video front. Nikon’s D810 still combines a higher resolution sensor with even better dynamic range, and the D820 may not be far off. Sony and smaller players like Fuji and Panasonic have demonstrated that quality 4K video can done in a mirrorless or DSLR form factor. Canon’s choices regarding the 4K implementation on the 5D Mark IV seem to have disenfranchised a lot of people, particularly considering that it is more expensive than its competitors (in some markets by a LARGE margin) and when one considers that the 5D series created the hybrid video/stills market. Time will tell whether these protests will affect sales, but the initial “mood” towards the camera was mostly negative (watch that change as people actually USE it!) In short, people expected more, realistically or not, and even the most positive are having a hard time justifying the implementation of the 4K video.
5D bodies are known for implementing some new technology, and while Dual Pixel RAW undoubtedly has useful future applications, the current form has extremely limited value. The amount of adjustments that you can make to focus, bokeh shift, and flare are so small as to be mostly imperceptible. Having Dual Pixel RAW enabled essentially doubles your file sizes, making them larger than those of the 5DsR and its massive 50+ megapixels of resolution. It also ties you (at least for the present) to Canon’s own Digital Photo Professional software to enable those effects. In its current form DPRAW holds no real attraction for me.
But at the same time I pride myself in be reasonably objective. I’m not going to fuss and complain over a camera I’m actually very happy with. If you, like me, are primarily a stills shooter who does some video, then you are going to love this camera. I think it may just be Canon’s best stills camera so far, combining a high resolution, high dynamic range sensor around Canon’s best focus system so far outside of the 1Dx series. The camera is ergonomically excellent and I find shooting with it a joy. It just does what I want, without fuss. A tear down from Roger over at Lens Rentals shows that it is more robustly sealed then previous generation 5D bodies. I love the images that it produces, and the file size is fully manageable. After some tweaking I love the JPEGs, and the RAW files have loads of processing potential. Most important to me is the ability to create amazing images, and I genuinely feel like I have greater potential to do that than before.
In short, Canon has (mostly) lived up to the potential that I saw when I looked at the specs and was delighted by them. After two and a half months of using the camera I am confident that this will be my workhorse for the next three or four years. I find it hard to rant and rave over a camera I’m personally very happy with.
But neither can I disagree with those who are highly disappointed over certain aspects of this camera, particularly when it is coming in at a very expensive price point that is significantly higher in every market save the US, it seems. Even though I had the money put aside for the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, I almost changed my mind over putting in my order. But now that the money is spent and I plan to focus on enjoying the camera and letting it pay for itself. Bottom line: if you are debating whether or not to purchase the 5D Mark IV, do a realistic evaluation of your shooting needs and then consider if the 5D Mark IV meets those needs. It is in most ways an exceptional camera despite some of the early ranting on YouTube and the message boards. But once the drama is over and people move on, I suspect that you’ll find a whole lot of people shooting with and loving this camera. I will be one of them.
Pros:
Improved autofocus performance that is now exceptional
The best rated sensor from Canon yet
Great dynamic range
Strong high ISO performance despite MP upgrade
Higher resolution while retaining reasonable file sizes
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.
LAB vs GM – Sony 35mm Showdown 
Sigma 300-600mm F4 SPORT Gallery 
Sigma 300-600mm F4 DG OS | SPORT Review 
LAB vs PLENA: Nikon 135mm Showdown 
