Milvus!

The new Zeiss Milvus manual-focusing lenses for Nikon and Canon

I love 35mm lenses, even if the affection is half sentimental and nostalgic at this point. We all like lenses of our "home" focal length, if we have one—the lenses that see pictures the way we most easily do, the lenses we'd like to have on our cameras if we could have only one. Over the years I've owned and used more 35mm lenses than any other kind.

Zeiss's Milvus lenses—"Milvus" is Richard M. Nixon's middle name*—stands for a group of manual-focus full-frame lenses in Canon EF and Nikon F mounts. (Basically the successor to the ZF.2 and ZE manual-focus lines, and B&H still labels them as such, no doubt to assist searchers.) There were previously nine, from 15mm to 135mm, including several macro lenses.

Now there's one more, a second 35mm lens in the Milvus lineup, the Milvus Distagon T✻ 35mm ƒ/1.4. It's what I would call a super-premium lens—very high cost (two grand) and no punches pulled: weather sealed, a rubberized focusing ring in a metal mount, and a whopping fourteen elements, including one aspherical element and five (count 'em, five) anomalous partial dispersion elements. That's luxo. Zeiss, accordingly, claims near zero chromatic aberration. It had better have near zero distortion, too, and I'll bet it does.

The bokeh is a bit complicated but looks very coherent and not at all ugly. Like I could live with it. Although let's face it—although bokeh is touted in the marketing materials because it's an alleged benefit of full-frame, you seldom really care that much about bokeh with a medium wide-angle.

Sung to the tune of "She's Crafty": It's Hefty

There's a downside, although it might not be a downside to those at whom the product is aimed: the newest Milvus is a bit of a brick at more than 41 ounces (1170 grams) for the EF version. Just about the same weight as an adult male red kite**. Coincidence? You decide.

That would stop me from buying a zoom, but then, some guys lift weights.

Some competitors? Well, Canon and Nikon both make their own 35mm ƒ/1.4's. Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 35mm ƒ/1.4G ($1,497, 601 g) was one of the nicest 35's I had ever used when I used it to review the original D800E, and Canon's EF 35mm ƒ/1.4L Mark II ($1,649, 760 g) garnered some very high words of praise from Roger Cicala, In Whose Name We Trust. Roger said, in a glowing teardown report, "If I had to summarize the mechanical design of this lens, I would say simply that no expense was spared, no corner was cut. Sometimes things are expensive because they’re worth it. Sometimes they’re heavy because they’re so solidly constructed. This is one of those times." Of course, Sigma makes the very fine autofocus ART lens as well ($899, 665 g. Sign of the times: when I heard about this new Zeiss I caught myself thinking, "I wonder if it's as good as the Sigma?").

I'd say the problem if you were in the market for a fast 35mm for a full-frame Nikon or Canon would not be whether there's a great lens out there, but which great lens to get. If this one is going to be your choice, though, I have little doubt it would last as a prized possession while many cameras came and went. What a beaut.

Mike

*No it's not. It's the genus name of a group of medium-sized birds of prey that includes red kites and black kites.

**Just checking to see if you read the footnotes.

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP/Yale Spring Photo Book Offer
(Ends June 30th or when supplies run out)

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Kenneth Tanaka: "The rise of these über primes has made me wonder just who their target markets are. Living in a heavily touristed area and often traveling to even more popular and scenic places I rarely see anyone carrying anything as large as a DSLR any more, and then it's usually a Rebel-size camera with a kit zoom (with the hood mounted backwards). I rarely see anyone carrying a big rig and can't remember noticing anyone carrying a brick-sized prime. And I can tell ya I'm certainly not in the market for any 600+g prime, regardless of its 'bokeh' or optical purity. I'd love to see the Powerpoint slides used to pitch these lens lines. There's clearly something afoot that escapes me."

Mike replies: I can't really help, but a story occurs to my mind—many years ago I chanced across a then-friend, Jeff K., in a ski-lift line. At that particular resort the "bunny hill" lift was also the first stage up to the lifts for the more difficult slopes higher up, so Jeff and I were in the same line despite the fact that he was a champion skier, just below Olympic caliber, and I was a beginner. (I went on to the top with him on that occasion, because we were talking, and after he disappeared in the distance carving moguls effortlessly I had a terrifying hour or so attempting to get to the bottom again without tumbling downhill arse over teakettle, but that's another story.) What struck me in this context was that Jeff was dressed in a poncho and old jeans, wearing only a headband to keep his ears warm, with ancient leather ski boots and battered skis with no noticeable logos on them—whereas many of the bunny-hill neophytes were equipped to the gills with brightly-colored bespoke ski clothing, helmets with bronze-look goggles, giant plastic boots, and the most expensive models of the most fashionable skis, ablaze with logos.

I'm not suggesting that you can't be a good photographer and use an "über prime"—of course. But ever since that day at the ski resort it has struck me that you make yourself look faintly ridiculous when your equipment is radically out of keeping with your skill level.

Then again, I have a very nice bicycle (named Gruesome) and if I have put an aggregated thousand miles on it in the eight years I've owned it I'd be surprised. So people in glass houses, etc.

However, Gruesome, an Asian-made Trek, is the bicycle equivalent perhaps of a Micro 4/3 ƒ/2.8 zoom, not the equivalent of a raptor optic like the 1,170-gram, $1,999 Milvus. (That would be a Rivendell.)

This is one of the reasons I like Miatas—they fit my driving skill. I'm a decent driver with some modest skills (my pinnacle was driving a Cayman around an autocross course with the head instructor of the Porsche Sport Driving School in the passenger seat, and receiving a few compliments), but I drive on real roads and very seldom at more than 80% of what even a Miata can do. I don't need 700 horsepower at the wheels. It wouldn't be modest or seemly. I'd rather be a good Miata driver than a chucklehead Z06 driver.

Maybe this is one of the appeals of possessions that do not require any skills—like another of my historical passions, audio. You can geek out all you want to with fine hi-fis and never run into any dissonance between the equipment and your own abilities—because all you have to do to use the gear is listen to music, and anybody can do that. Maybe you can't hear the difference between one component and the next, but nobody can prove it. Nobody really knows what you hear with your own ears but you.

Anyway back to the Milvus...my own position for many years is that anybody can have fun with photography however the heck they want to, as long as it's not hurting anybody else. So if anyone's way of having fun is to have and enjoy a superlative lens, whether they need it or not, I'm all for 'em.

Bernard: "To reply to Kenneth Tanaka's question who the target audience is: The only time I've ever seen one of these Zeiss lenses 'in the wild' was on the Canon 5D Mark-something used by the wedding photog at my brother's wedding. When I inquired whether is wasn't a hassle using a manual focus lens on a body designed for autofocus, she explained she shot a lot of video, which was manual focus anyway. And then it was a lot easier to use a lens actually designed for MF, instead of a short-throw AF lens."

Comments

[Sal Santamaura]

"*No it's not. It's the genus name of a group of medium-sized birds of prey that includes red kites and black kites.

**Just checking to see if you read the footnotes.

Yes, I do. And scrolled down to them immediately upon seeing the first asterisk. In this time when Watergate is repeating before our eyes, "Milhous" was as obvious as the back of my hand. :-)

[Stephen Gilbert]

Not just "milvus," but "milvus milvus."

[hugh crawford]

Frankly I'm a lot more interested in that cute little Samyang AF 35mm f/2.8 FE for the Sony. With it's cute little price too.

Apparently glider pilots need special clothing http://www.milvus.aero/ but these guys sell nice Milvus hats and pilot's shorts with see through map pockets.

[Douglas Chadwick]

I look at this and think about my 35mm Summicron and the old 35mm Summilux M and think "why so big" and I wouldn't bother with it. It would make my Sony a7 into something gross and bloated. And pretty much the same on my D600.

Hopefully somebody will buy it, not me.

Probably a good alternative to medium format on a high rez Canon or Nikon on a tripod. For my sort of work, and probably most of us,not so much.

[James Symington]

In my Nikon DSLR days I had the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZF2 and it was a beauty but experimentally I bought the much cheaper Sigma ART equivalent and that instantly relegated the Zeiss to the back of my lens cupboard from which it only re-emerged to be sold. Autofocus, an object of my disdain once upon a time, is now becoming essential to me as my middle-aged eyes are playing a few tricks.

These days I am a Sony A7R user and have the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 EF for that. Again a magnificent lens with good bokeh but just a bit too big to be carried around the whole time. Won't sell that in a hurry.

[Jeff]

Leica will introduce a 35 Summicron (f2) for the SL, likely by early 2018. And I expect the price to be near double the Zeiss.
http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2016/09/setting-a-new-standard-with-leica-sl-lenses-a-discussion-with-peter-karbe-at-photokina-2016/

[Oskar Ojala]

The problem nowadays is not finding a suitable fast 35 mm lens, the problem is finding a suitable compact 35 mm lens ;-)

Disclaimer: I do use the Sony 35/2.8 a lot, but it's certainly not perfect, character being the word.

[BERND REINHARDT]

If you are someone that spends $2,000 on a 35mm 1.4 lens in this day and age of super high ISO capable cameras, you had better care about bokeh. What else would you need this fast glass for?

[Mike Plews]

Samyang and Rokinon make 35mm 1.4 lenses and there are also used 35mm 1.4 Nikkor AIs lenses out there. I wonder how they might stack up? Probably not as good but by how much?

[Tom Duffy]

From Oskar Ojala's post:
"The problem nowadays is not finding a suitable fast 35mm lens, the problem is finding a suitable compact 35mm lens."

I think the problem is finding a suitable Canon camera that can effectively use a manual focus lens. DSLR viewfinders are terrible for manual focus use to the point of "Why bother?"
Can anyone name a Canon DSLR that is reasonably priced with a user replaceable manual focus screen? Who does Zeiss expect the target audience is for this lens?
Don't we remember how good focusing a fast lens on a bright microprism screen can be?

[Herb Cunningham]

People still shoot dslrs? I was at a function recently and saw a friend who makes his living in photography, carrying his Nikon and a zoom, flash and remote, was amazed at the physical size of the rig, never mind the weight. A one KILO lens? No thank you sir.

[Richard Jones]

There's a downside, although it might not be a downside to those at whom the product is aimed: the newest Milvus is a bit of a brick at more than 41 ounces (1170 grams) for the EF version.

Whew! I'm glad I'm not one at whom the product is aimed. Not needing f/1.4, I'm happy with a little guy:

About "Milvus": Zeiss seems to like names of birds:

Otus
Batis
Loxia
Touit

regards,

- Richard

[Ken Tanaka]

Aha, yes, Bernard makes a keen point that video shooters must be the target market for these behemoths. (Of course that raises a new question: what are people doing with all these home movies? But that's for another day and venue. )

[Chris Fuller]

$2,000 for a 35 prime???!!! If I am going to get a manual focus Zeiss lens for my Nikon D700, it's going to be the 35 f/2 ZF for about $670 on Ebay. One extra stop is not worth $1,300. Better, yet, the Voigtlander 40 f/2 for about $375 on Ebay. I'll give the 5mm and the one stop for $1,600.

[Michael Perini]

Re Zeiss Target Market for Otus / Milvus
I think first and foremost they are 'statement lenses' that reinforce and polish the Zeiss brand.
Zeiss sells tons of lenses that benefit from their reputation.
Second I believe has to be video, current Nikon & Canon lenses are electronic aperture, and very short throw for focusing.
That's the main reason behind the Cinema EOS lenses which have aperture rings, external gearing and are T-stopped
But as has already been pointed out modern focusing screens are more viewing screens that make small focus adjustments on short lenses very hard to see. Both Nikon & Canon offer focus confirmation but not Peaking.
I own a set of Canon's T/S lenses which are manual focus and I get great results but accurate focusing is slow, but because of their special function , worth it for me.
If you don't shoot video the Nikon & Canon 35's are already so good, that in my view, you have to have a special need to give up AutoFocus.

[Gordon Lewis]

Aside from the focusing challenges with today's optical viewfinders, which are quite real, lenses such as the Zeiss Distagon Milvus 35mm f/1.4 illustrate the law of diminishing marginal returns: the cost and effort to produce a lens that produces superior optical performance at f/1.4 results in a lens that is also large, heavy, and expensive -- so much so that the market for it is marginal as well. In short, it's a boutique lens made for a "select" audience. Only a miniscule number of photographers are included in this selection or would want to be.

[JG]

Bernd Reinhardt wrote:

If you are someone that spends $2,000 on a 35mm 1.4 lens in this day and age of super high ISO capable cameras, you had better care about bokeh. What else would you need this fast glass for?

As one data point, I own several f1.4 lenses (fortunately, they are all made by Sigma, so are not $2k lenses!) and I have never, not even once taken a photo at f1.4 (or at any aperture even close to that, actually.)

I own them because I'm 58-years-old and need their extra speed to compose and (roughly) focus my nighttime photos, which are taken with the aperture stopped down, using long exposures and with the camera very firmly mounted on a tripod.

The one or two stops of extra light compared to smaller and lighter lenses really does make a difference. Enough so that I grudgingly put up with the larger size and weight of these f1.4 behemoths as necessary evils. 8^(

[David Raaum]

It was Richard Milhous Nixon - not Milvus

[I know. Just joking. --Mike]