New Zeiss Milvus lenses

Started Sep 10, 2015 | Discussions thread
Dave Sanders Senior Member • Posts: 2,610
Re: no no

philip pj wrote:

Depends what you do, perhaps. Ambient lighting in low LV situations, just do a simple comparison with any C/N DSLR and any a7 camera - same manual lens, same setting - examine files later. Use whatever mix of peaking/focus magnification you like. For OVF, for critical purposes the consensus is that the green dot approach is a sad afterthought.

Since adding a D810 to my A7R, I have found the green dot inconsistent. Bang on sometimes, off others. Peaking plus magnification is quite a bit superior for most uses and I enjoy using it more.

Ming Thein has written about the difficulties of obtaining good focus with a Nikon and longer Zeiss MF lenses, and I doubt he works in my conditions.

I suspect Ming works in significantly more difficult conditions, with more pressure to produce better results. His ultraprints are exceptionally demanding of camera and resolution. There are few photographers who require and demand more from their cameras. Your complete loss of objectivity about Ming negates much of what you profess to believe.

Film cameras BTW were a very different kettle of fish, makers knew they needed to provide responsive aids and screens so we had very manual lens friendly cameras (fresnels, split screens, bright VFs), about the same size as a7 Sonys.

Then the two majors bloated their gear out, dropped their manual lenses, and went 99% AF - so no wonder their screens, their lens rings - all of it - is hopeless for manual usage as widely practiced by say, Leica or Sony users. I use this word advisedly by the way, I mean hopeless, not just as hyperbole, for fast lenses when you need accurate focus.

Do the tests. See for yourself - I have.

I have too. While not ideal, they are at least directly linked to the focus mechanism. 
Sony's fly-by-wire approach frequently jumps and can be frustratingly inaccurate at or near MFD. Your uses may not be as demanding as mine for focus precision, though, so YMMV.

'High resolving power = more bulk.'

Then pls explain why the optical performance - that is what MTF is - is exactly the same for all the new heavyweight lenses, outside the much-needed 50/85 pair (to replace the already re-badged ex-Contax ZEF pair)?

I was seriously thinking about the new 50/1.4 and when I looked at the 'Specs' section at B&H, I have to admit that I thought that it was the 85/1.4 and had to double check. Pretty porky and I am not seriously considering it anymore. Perhaps the 50/2.

Again, see the data sheets for verification - I have.

So this new line is pure cosmetics with a few incremental improvements. The lenses have porked up for no good reason, none at all. Good to see two new portrait lenses, but at their weights, they will not be welcomed by more than a vanishingly few photographers.

Unfortunately, you will be wrong on this count. They will be welcomed by a large number of photographers and they will probably sell more of them than they do any of their FE mount lenses. Their next iterations of lenses like the 25/2.8 or 28/2 will then get similar porky updates...sigh.

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow