Zeiss Milvus 85mm vs. Zeiss Planar 85mm Contax/Yashica

<p>These days, most of my freelance photography involves shooting corporate portraits. Back when I used film, my lens of choice was a Zeiss Planar 85mm (MM) on a Contax RTSII. Moving ahead into digital, I use Canon's 85/1.8 for most head shots, but have been unable to part with the older Zeiss 85. In fact, I've put a mount on it to use with my Canon system. Wide open really isn't that great until you stop it down to f/2 or more.<br>

<br />I'm curious to hear any user experiences with the new Zeiss Milvus 85mm, (not the<strong> über-pricy Otus 85/1.4</strong>) as it interests me to explore improvements to equipment and technique, versus staying in the same place.</p>

<p>I enjoyed trying it out but realized that auto focus is such a part of my shooting that it did not make sense to start to invest in manual focus lenses. Also the fact that canon 85 is 1.2 is a big plus over Zeiss. I do miss my Hasselblad with carl Zeiss lenses but that is in the past now. Like a death in the family.</p>

<p>Michael, I hear ya. I still have a Hassy 500 C/M with a couple lenses gathering dust, and I just can't part with it. And a Rolleilex. And a Leica. Digital makes perfect sense to me; and I've fully embraced it as a viable medium, yet I love beautifully-made equipment that has nothing to do with modern electronics and/or plastic.<br>

Kind of like keeping a beautiful old clock or two: the new quartz ones keep time perfectly (and are cheap, and plastic) but I like holding onto a few beauties from the past.</p>

<p>I guess this is a Canon question. My only Zeiss lens for the Sony A7 system does not include an 85mm but my reading of reviews to date informs me that the 85mm Milvus is not all that dissimilar in quality to the Nikon and Canon lenses of similar speed and is better at f2 and smaller f stops, especially for prints exceeding 11x14 inches. If you need the f1.4 diaphragm, the very expensive Otus may be your only choice in a modern optic with high quality at f1.4, unless the manual focus 80mm f1.4 Leica R lens of some decades ago can offer high performance (its quality drops only very gradually when going to the corners at f1.4, but it is a 1980s lens).<br /> .</p>

<p>I have yet to see a review of the new Zeiss 85/1.4 Milvius.The original ZE/ZF one was rather ordinary by most accounts. Have you tried the Sigma 85/1.4? That's what I have ended up with.</p>

According to Sean Reid of reidreviews.com, the 85/1.4 Planar is designed with spherical aberration to enhance its

performance as a portrait lens. The OOF background is smoother as a result, and appears more gradually away from the

plane of focus.

 

I've seen no definitive reviews of the Milvus version, but Zeiss' philosophy for similar lenses, Otus and Batis, is to strive

for high sharpness across the field and at all apertures. According to Zeiss, Milvus and Batis suffer some distortion, easily

corrected in processing, and color fringing in OOF highlights to keep cost and weight down. I own the Batis 85/1.8, and

find nothing to fault with it. It is auto focus, but with a very tractable manual focus mode. The Milvus is MF only.

<p>Robin and Edward, here is one of a number of current reviews, if you Google Milvus 85mm f1.4 lens review or just Milvus 85mm review:</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-Milvus-85mm-f-1.4-Lens.aspx</p>

<p>Having a small camera like the Sony A7RII makes me wish I had small and fast single focal length rangefinder optics (or even some former prime SLR optics) rather than these large and heavy Zeiss lenses, whatever their high quality might be. My first zoom in a long while is the Sony 16-35mm OSS Zeiss design lens, but its size (and lack of direct controls other than optional manual focussing) takes some getting used to and I look forward to using my fairly slow RF single focal length lenses (f2 to f4, 35mm to 135mm) for their familiar ease of handling.</p>

 

<p>Missed this one Arthur. Thanks. TDP seems to like the Sigma as much as I do. Personally I would not touch these Zeiss monsters as their weight excludes them from my consideration, although they are good. I tried the 50 Milvus and it was excellent, but frankly I could not see the difference when comparing it with the Sigam 50 ART (which I also don't have) nor really with the 50mm Otus.</p>

<p>Robin, I've been hoping the persistent rumors are true and that Sigma are going to release an 85mm 1.4 "Art" lens later this year. That definitely would get my attention as a potential upgrade to my existing setup.</p><div></div>

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>Getting a bit off-track, the Batis lenses are much lighter than they appear, and not particularly large either. The lens barrel is 3" in diameter, about the same as a Nikon prime lens, as well as the 16-35/4 and 70-200/f zoom lenses. The 85 mm is about 3.5" long without the hood. Milvus lenses are brass monsters, weight wise, and the Otus 85/1.4 is heavier yet. The Batis has an aluminum shell, stylishly modeled after the Otus. It feels solid, but balances well on A7 bodies.</p>

<p>The 16-35/4 is a little shorter than a Leica 90 Summicron, and an ounce or two lighter. It's a good lens, if not a great one compared to the world-class primes in the Sony/Zeiss stable. If you don't shoot a lot of ultra-wide, it's worth considering. Otherwise there is the new Loxia 21 (MF) lens, 2" x 2" or so - a little larger than one expects from Leica, but still compact with smooth operation, and a handful of Voigtlander FE lenses between 10 mm and 15 mm.</p>

<p>Edward,</p>

<p>The nearly 3 pound weight (43 ounces?) of the Milvus lens is a bit of a disadvantage but perhaps something one can get used to if it is only occasionally on the camera. I usually use prime lenses for critical work but find that a zoom like the 16-35/4 can be useful and knowing its sweet spots, and/or not expecting perfection in the corners wide open at 35mm, can make it also useful within its optimum range. But my knowledge of zooms and autofocusing lenses is limited and there are no doubt better ones available, at a price. When Leica came out with their 50mm aspherical Summicron lens at the price of their latest digital camera I decided that my needs in full frame digital photography did not require such perfection and for B&W images I can rely on my medium format film cameras to provide the higher quality I may need, albeit with less convenience than my digital system. As for compact high speed prime lenses, some of the RF lenses by Zeiss, V-C and Leica, up to and including 75 or 80mm, come in at little more than one pound weight andare relatively compact. The autofocus and OSS mechanisms of some optics makes them large and heavy. </p>

<p>The 85mm Milvus is nonetheless a fine lens at a bargain price. As portrait photography and a lot of other photography do not usually need highest possible resolution in the outer parts of the frame it can be a very good acquisition. It is heartening to note that the quality/price curve for most lenses is not at all linear. One arrives at a very high standard of quality at a moderate price, but to attain fairly small improvements over that, or the best that present consumer technology can provide, requires a very high investment. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Dan, I agree with you. I'll probably get the 85 ART. The non-ART is already good, so I have high hopes for the ART. The only problem will be the price, as the non-Art is already c$800-900.</p>

<p>My error in saying that the Milvus is available at a bargain price, unless 1800$ versus more than twice that amount for the Zeiss Otus lens is considered a bargain. I admit to being out of my depth in regard to 85mm lenses for the Canon but I believe that for most purposes a manual focus 85mm lens should be quite praticable, given that many portraits are composed on tripod and not in a hurry. In that case, the competing manual focus lenses are usually less expensive, lighter and smaller (Zeiss 85mm f1.4 ZE lens) except perhaps the f1.2 Mitakon (Zhongyi lens) which appears particularly bulky. It seems from what is reported that obtaining high resolution and contrast at f1.4 requires a considerable investment, and one must question if it is that necessary (given also the focus difficulty wide open).</p>

<p>I have the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Milvus ZF.2 which is a little different to the Canon version. It is a little lighter and has a aperture ring (with the option of clickless aperture).<br /><br />The 85mm Milvus takes a lot of leaves from the Otus and feels some what similar. Optically, it isn't as good as the Otus but it isn't too far off in most areas. Compared to the Zeiss 85mm Classic, it really blows it away in most areas.<br /><br />The Milvus is up to the normal build of Zeiss and there is a lot of metal used. It feels big in the hand and rather heavy (more than the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II and Otus). The lens is quite long (particularly with the lens hood attached) but it is the diameter of the lens which is most noticeable. I would say that the Classic is a much nicer lens in hand and where as the Milvus feels unbalanced on anything other than a large DSLR (I am using a D800) the Classic can be used on any DSLR/SLR or mirrorless camera.<br /><br />The Unlike the Classic and Otus, the whole barrel moves when focusing and the lens extends around half an inch, which isn't an issue but is noticeable when the lens hood is mounted. Focusing is very smooth and there is enough resistance and throw to make exact focusing pretty easy. One slight issue I have is the placing of the rubber grip, which is at the bottom of the lens barrel. I find that most of the time when I focus my fingers are on the metal (particularly on a D4 or D800 with battery grip). Some are also worried that the rubber grip is going to wear over time, we won't know for a good few years whether this is a big design flaw with modern Zeiss lenses.<br /><br />A small but rather big improvement with the Otus and Milvus is that the horrible lens caps that Zeiss used to use have been replaced and the new lens cap is exceptional.<br /><br />Optically the Milvus is exceptional in most areas. It isn't as sharp as the Zeiss Otus wide open but it is at least as sharp as the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 and Sigma 85mm f/1.4, (probably slightly sharper) I haven't compared the lens to the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II yet but I would imagine it would compare very well. The 85mm Classic isn't the sharpest of lenses and it shows its age rather badly compared to the Milvus. <br /><br />The Milvus is quite a contrasty lens. Easily more so than the Nikkors 85mm I have used. The Sigma is closer and the Otus and Classic are very similar.<br /><br />Bokah on the Milvus is lovely and easily compares to most other 85mm and is probably slightly better. I would say it is slightly better than the Classic but it is very close.<br /><br />The Milvus is good at handling chromatic aberration but not perfect and it is noticeable at f/1.4. It can't compete against the Otus but is much better than the Classic.<br /><br />Distortion isn't a big issue with the lens and isn't noticable.<br /><br />An area it doesn't do particularly well in is vignetting. It is noticeable worse than the Zeiss 85mm Classic wide open. <br /><br />As a lens the Milvus isn't perfect and for anyone investing in their first 85mm, I would say go with either a Nikkor/Canon or Sigma, just because of the issues with manual focus with modern DSLR's. Saying all that, the Milvus is a great portrait lens wide open, particularly mounted on a tripod (using the rear screen to focus). It is possible to manual focus through the view finder but only with very contrasty subjects (and that is not guaranteed) Unfortunately, the range finder system of the D800 isn't accurate enough to get sharp focus.<br /><br />I already had an Nikkor 85mm with autofocus and knew exactly what I wanted the Milvus for, so am very happy with the lens. If I was going to shoot using film, I would probably go for the Classic, it is much more practical and should be sharp enough for a 35mm film. With the current crop of modern DSLR sensors though the classic shows its age and the Milvus is a good compromise compared to the Otus if you want a Zeiss and don't want to spend £3K.<br /> <br /><br />If you want to see a really good technical review of the Milvus. I would highly recommend this review: http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-milvus-851-4-vs-zeiss-otus-851-4-vs-zeiss-planar-851-4-comparative-lens-review-2/<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Michael,<br>

Many thanks for posting your own detailed observations. And the link to the online review is invaluable. Much appreciated!</p>

<p>Michael, I join Dan in thanking you for your user comments and especially for the link to the people in Prague who seem to be doing some very good reviews of a variety of lenses and cameras of interest. Victor Pavlovic and his associates are very down to earth, knowledgeable, humorous and humble in their approach to testing and those qualities inspire some confidence. A pleasure to read.</p>