All I can say is, Oh My God, Wow. This review was the most refreshing thing to watch that i've seen in a long time. Definitely the most refreshing thing in photography since I discovered Ken Wheeler's and Yannick Khongs demonstrations of micro contrast. The fact that your taking a completely open minded approach, is not only valuable to the photography community, but is brave as well. I've been wishing the Canon eco system for a while, and the testing involving detailed and specific information such as rendering characteristics, has been virtually unavailable up until this point. Thank you so much for this.
Hm interesting. Look at the silver parts of the metal roof at 8:45. The Zeiss almost looks backfocused, because in all the other areas that were closer on the side of the barn it was softer, then at a slightly further distance it was sharper. Maybe a little focus error. I noticed with my Milvus lenses, the camera will give you focus confirmation over a bit of a range, but there is a *sharpest* focus somewhere in there. Long focus throw is tricky sometimes. Lot of glass though on this Milvus, the Canon looks to be doing a great job here.
+Photo314159 I noticed the same thing. The sharpness advantage for the Zeiss on the lower central roof (the plate undulations) at 8:45 is very apparent, as if the Zeiss was focused slightly further back.
I used 10x Live View manual focus...I get this from people every time I do these kinds of comparisons, but I don't casually focus for these tests. They are focused to the best of my ability, and I've used more than 100 MF lenses.
+Dustin Abbott I'm sure you did, and I don't question your test accuracy. And I don't know the cause, but I do see a certain phenomenon (at 8:45); and I'm not the only one, as it seems. It could be some strange slope of curvature of field...
Hello Dustin, thank you for comparison and examples. The truth is that, Canon highly experienced and innovative in photography and lens manufacturing.We will see much more excellent lenses in the coming years. They develop themselves day by day at other companies investing in lenses. I have a front view, quality and detail differences will be further reduced. Thank you and I'm waiting for new comparison videos.
At 8:10, looking at both lenses at f1.4, I see a difference in focus. The Canon in the foreground is more blurry compared to the left image (Milvus). So focus point is slightly off (focusing on dark barn wood, which is low contrast, is difficult). Also, look at the tall grass in front of the barn.....they are equally sharp for Canon and Milvus at f1.4. The barn on the other hand is further back, and the reason the Canon was better focused on the barn is seen by looking at the foreground in the Canon image, which is bit more out of focus (meaning it was focused slightly further). You can also tell the Canon was focused a bit further when you look at the barn on the far left in the distance (Canon was bit sharper). Again, slight difference in focus point, and I assume focus was never changed during aperture changes. The Landscape shot (with lake), really showed the advantage the Milvus had, even at f1.4 edges were sharper. The canon even at 5.6 did not get really sharp into the corners. The haze you mentioned in the landscape scene (with lake) for the Milvus is because the image is a bit lighter, therefore less blacks, less contrast. Very slight difference.
I'd say IQ wise the Zeiss wins slightly because of slightly better corners, less vignetting and better transmittance, but considering the price and the lack of autofocus Canon is definitely the winner, impressive.
Thank you very much for a great review, again! As a Nikon User we don’t have the canon as an option sadly. I own the 35 ART for 2 years now and it is a fine lens, yet it’s rendering in general and particularly of the transition area is far from perfect. It shows the most when there are green in transition combined with highlights.
The 35 ART is very sharp, but it isn't really the equivalent of either of these lenses in actual rendering. The Milvus is tops in terms of absolute optical quality.
Dustin Abbott I wanted to thank you again !!! I received my copy of the 35/1.4 and it is simply amazing, my Sigma 35 ART is a good yet it is far from being a contest to the Zeiss. Just like in the 85mm FL i am keeping both ART and Milvus yet trying to use the Milvus as much as possible, Thank you!!!
Impressive from the Canon 35L. Prefer the colour from the Zeiss as you pointed out though - actually quite apparent in some shots. Thanks again Dustin.
The difference between most lenses and Zeiss/Voigtlander is like the difference between hammering in a nail with the heel of your shoe, versus using a finely balanced and perfectly weighted hammer. Both can get the same end result, but you'll end up hammering more nails with the hammer because it's simply more satisfying... and I'm talking about IQ rather than focus speed here.
Nice review Dustin! I really love the new 35 mm L 1.4 II from canon... I use it with the 1Dx mkII. What I like most is the AF accuracy... even in the outer focus points. For that reason I sold the 50 mm 1.4 sigma and I get this one :)
@@DustinAbbottTWI With manual focusing I would probably care, if I paid that amount for the sharpness that these lenses offer. With AF in the real-world where everything is moving yes, it probably does not matter at all in this case. But, for instance with the RF 24-105mm f4 at the tele end, it is quite noticeable.
Love your videos, no one does in depth like you do and no one does Zeiss like this! I'd like to recommend a two way milvus 35 1.4 vs Sigma 35 1.4 art or a 3-way with the two above adding the new canon 35 1.4! Please
Regarding your landscape results... In my opinion an assessment of infinity performance should be primarily concerned with how lenses render distant elements of the scene not foreground objects. (You did not compare the background resolution and contrast, only the center of frame and the foreground.) Looks like the Zeiss field curvature bends to the foreground in the corners of the frame while the Canon is flatter or bends slightly backwards hence the stronger Zeiss performance in terms of resolution in the foreground. Side note: If the Milvus does exhibit forward bending field curvature then perhaps this can be advantageous in bokeh tests. What is confusing is how the Canon produces roughly the same brightness at shorter distances with a third of a stop less less light but at long focus distance (with the same amount of light as the Zeiss), it produces a darker image even stopped down to f/5.6. Was the lighting changing or are these just weird transmission properties of the lenses?
+Omesh Singh the images were taken just a few minutes apart, but outdoors lighting can change quickly. I didn't observe any weird transmission issues in regular shooting
Hi Dustin, first of all, thank you very much for all your reviews! Do you think that, since the Milvus line focuses more on the resolution aspect, the pictures that you can obtain with the Milvus lenses have less micro-contrast than the picures that you can obtain with the classic Zeiss lenses? I'm asking this question because I am hesitating between the 35 mm distagon that you can still buy in France and the 35 mm Milvus.
+Pierre-Louis Herin I have seen absolutely no evidence of less microcontrast with the Milvus line. When I compare them to other lenses I almost always see the difference
Thanks Dustin for your reply. Actually, I am refering to the videos of the Theoria Apophasis channel that say for example that the lenses of the Otus Line were focused so much on the resolution aspect that the pictures taken with an Otus lens have less micro-contrast than a picture taken with a Distagon lens. So, in this regard, I was wondering whether the Milvus lenses had the same issue as the Otus lenses if, of course, Ken (I think it is his first name) from Theoria Apophasis is right on this matter. I guess you would not share the same opinion as him because unlike Ken (he doesn't seem to like them because they have less micro-contrast according him), you said in your videos that the Otus lenses were great lenses. For your information, I do own distagon lenses such as the 100 mm (great lens by the way), but I have never used Otus lenses since they are really expensive...
Dustin! This is going to be a possibly ridiculous question but after all of this time of watching your videos I’ve never asked: The wooden shed, how did it get that most artistic and impressive texture? Is that paint? Burnt? I simply would love to know 😃😃👍👍
Very interesting comparison, it really got my attention to see some of the flaws of the new Zeiss.... Could you mention the price range of each of them? Thanks again for a nice video!!!
I see what you mean. That is a bit weird. I'm on the road right now without access to the originals, but I'll have to take a look at the original image.
Dustin, something strange is happening with this video, the green bush in front of you is changing it's tones between green/yellowish/blueish and overall you are too far away from the camera. Not cool. This new types of videos (garden style) are not very good, as in the first ones you were quite overexposed and your face was glowing very bright. As always great info about the lens and great comparison!
+Carly that's definitely something I would like to see happen, however, the Tamron is delayed in a Canon mount, and so I may not have them at the same time. I have the Sigma already
Wow this is the only test that I have seen where a lense really comes close to the Zeiss. I would prefer the AF if the Canon has the same quality. REALLY impressive performance by the Canon lense. Thanks again for the test.
The Canon is very sharp in terms of absolute sharpness, but, as we'll see in the next video, the Zeiss is superior in terms of overall rendering bokeh.
I am sincerely flabbergasted at the subpar performance of the Zeiss wide open. Canon did a really good job with their new 35 mm. I’m not a Canon shooter but I am still very impressed by its performance.
I honestly cant see why anyone shooting a Canon (5dmkiv) would pay MORE for a Manual Focus lens. Seem's like I should be getting a discount to have to do extra work...plus miss a ton of shots.
I own the Canon 35L mark I. Expensive at the time i bought it, say 9 years ago. Never was overwhelmed by this so called holy lens. Oké, sharpness at 1.4 is oké, but the CA is very bad. Build quality, my suncab has to go back for repair. I never, never bought this lens if I knew this all before. I use the lens, it is not to big, at 5.6. But in a way Canon fucked me. So never a Canon 35 mm for me. It was a mistake to buy this lens. Hope you have a lot of fun with the mark II. (I do not trust it anymore)
All I can say is, Oh My God, Wow. This review was the most refreshing thing to watch that i've seen in a long time. Definitely the most refreshing thing in photography since I discovered Ken Wheeler's and Yannick Khongs demonstrations of micro contrast. The fact that your taking a completely open minded approach, is not only valuable to the photography community, but is brave as well. I've been wishing the Canon eco system for a while, and the testing involving detailed and specific information such as rendering characteristics, has been virtually unavailable up until this point. Thank you so much for this.
+This Is Thanks for the positive feedback
Hm interesting. Look at the silver parts of the metal roof at 8:45. The Zeiss almost looks backfocused, because in all the other areas that were closer on the side of the barn it was softer, then at a slightly further distance it was sharper. Maybe a little focus error. I noticed with my Milvus lenses, the camera will give you focus confirmation over a bit of a range, but there is a *sharpest* focus somewhere in there. Long focus throw is tricky sometimes. Lot of glass though on this Milvus, the Canon looks to be doing a great job here.
+Photo314159 I noticed the same thing. The sharpness advantage for the Zeiss on the lower central roof (the plate undulations) at 8:45 is very apparent, as if the Zeiss was focused slightly further back.
I used 10x Live View manual focus...I get this from people every time I do these kinds of comparisons, but I don't casually focus for these tests. They are focused to the best of my ability, and I've used more than 100 MF lenses.
+Dustin Abbott I'm sure you did, and I don't question your test accuracy. And I don't know the cause, but I do see a certain phenomenon (at 8:45); and I'm not the only one, as it seems. It could be some strange slope of curvature of field...
Hi Dustin, i been following your video for a while now!! all your review is so specific and informative at the same time!!! VERY GOOD !!
+Harn Teh Thank you for the feedback
Hello Dustin, thank you for comparison and examples. The truth is that, Canon highly experienced and innovative in photography and lens manufacturing.We will see much more excellent lenses in the coming years. They develop themselves day by day at other companies investing in lenses. I have a front view, quality and detail differences will be further reduced. Thank you and I'm waiting for new comparison videos.
At 8:10, looking at both lenses at f1.4, I see a difference in focus. The Canon in the foreground is more blurry compared to the left image (Milvus). So focus point is slightly off (focusing on dark barn wood, which is low contrast, is difficult). Also, look at the tall grass in front of the barn.....they are equally sharp for Canon and Milvus at f1.4. The barn on the other hand is further back, and the reason the Canon was better focused on the barn is seen by looking at the foreground in the Canon image, which is bit more out of focus (meaning it was focused slightly further). You can also tell the Canon was focused a bit further when you look at the barn on the far left in the distance (Canon was bit sharper). Again, slight difference in focus point, and I assume focus was never changed during aperture changes. The Landscape shot (with lake), really showed the advantage the Milvus had, even at f1.4 edges were sharper. The canon even at 5.6 did not get really sharp into the corners. The haze you mentioned in the landscape scene (with lake) for the Milvus is because the image is a bit lighter, therefore less blacks, less contrast. Very slight difference.
I'd say IQ wise the Zeiss wins slightly because of slightly better corners, less vignetting and better transmittance, but considering the price and the lack of autofocus Canon is definitely the winner, impressive.
The 35L II is perhaps Canon's best lens outside of the super teles.
Thank you very much for a great review, again!
As a Nikon User we don’t have the canon as an option sadly.
I own the 35 ART for 2 years now and it is a fine lens, yet it’s rendering in general and particularly of the transition area is far from perfect.
It shows the most when there are green in transition combined with highlights.
The 35 ART is very sharp, but it isn't really the equivalent of either of these lenses in actual rendering. The Milvus is tops in terms of absolute optical quality.
I ordered the Milvus 35!!!
I love the samples , there is an unexplained propriety that makes you look at the pictures and smile
+yair tammam enjoy! It is an amazing optic. You'll enjoy the next segment
Thanks!!
Dustin Abbott I wanted to thank you again !!!
I received my copy of the 35/1.4 and it is simply amazing, my Sigma 35 ART is a good yet it is far from being a contest to the Zeiss.
Just like in the 85mm FL i am keeping both ART and Milvus yet trying to use the Milvus as much as possible, Thank you!!!
Impressive from the Canon 35L. Prefer the colour from the Zeiss as you pointed out though - actually quite apparent in some shots. Thanks again Dustin.
+Kaeru V|P some of those type distinctions will be even more clear in the second episode
The difference between most lenses and Zeiss/Voigtlander is like the difference between hammering in a nail with the heel of your shoe, versus using a finely balanced and perfectly weighted hammer. Both can get the same end result, but you'll end up hammering more nails with the hammer because it's simply more satisfying... and I'm talking about IQ rather than focus speed here.
Nice review Dustin! I really love the new 35 mm L 1.4 II from canon... I use it with the 1Dx mkII. What I like most is the AF accuracy... even in the outer focus points. For that reason I sold the 50 mm 1.4 sigma and I get this one :)
+Isaias Mena it has great AF, for sure
The Canon has a little bit of focus shift, if it was corrected it would have been just as sharp at close distances at f/5.6 as the Milvus.
Not a big factor at the end of the day either way.
@@DustinAbbottTWI With manual focusing I would probably care, if I paid that amount for the sharpness that these lenses offer.
With AF in the real-world where everything is moving yes, it probably does not matter at all in this case. But, for instance with the RF 24-105mm f4 at the tele end, it is quite noticeable.
There is some type of brackground noise..like wave sound? Great job..as always.
It is passing traffic.
Love your videos, no one does in depth like you do and no one does Zeiss like this! I'd like to recommend a two way milvus 35 1.4 vs Sigma 35 1.4 art or a 3-way with the two above adding the new canon 35 1.4! Please
+Bryan Szucs Thanks. I don't have the Sigma, though, and the Milvus goes back this week
Would love to see how the sigma 35 1.4 art stacks up to these two lenses or at least the new Zeiss milvus 35
+Bryan Szucs the Sigma is a sharp lens, but not quite in the class of either of these in real world settings
Regarding your landscape results... In my opinion an assessment of infinity performance should be primarily concerned with how lenses render distant elements of the scene not foreground objects. (You did not compare the background resolution and contrast, only the center of frame and the foreground.) Looks like the Zeiss field curvature bends to the foreground in the corners of the frame while the Canon is flatter or bends slightly backwards hence the stronger Zeiss performance in terms of resolution in the foreground.
Side note: If the Milvus does exhibit forward bending field curvature then perhaps this can be advantageous in bokeh tests.
What is confusing is how the Canon produces roughly the same brightness at shorter distances with a third of a stop less less light but at long focus distance (with the same amount of light as the Zeiss), it produces a darker image even stopped down to f/5.6. Was the lighting changing or are these just weird transmission properties of the lenses?
+Omesh Singh the images were taken just a few minutes apart, but outdoors lighting can change quickly. I didn't observe any weird transmission issues in regular shooting
Hi Dustin, could you add a test for night stars ? especially coma and astigmatism on the corner.
I doubt I'm going to be able to fit that in. My schedule is crazy at the moment, and the clouds are rolling in!
Hi Dustin, first of all, thank you very much for all your reviews! Do you think that, since the Milvus line focuses more on the resolution aspect, the pictures that you can obtain with the Milvus lenses have less micro-contrast than the picures that you can obtain with the classic Zeiss lenses? I'm asking this question because I am hesitating between the 35 mm distagon that you can still buy in France and the 35 mm Milvus.
+Pierre-Louis Herin I have seen absolutely no evidence of less microcontrast with the Milvus line. When I compare them to other lenses I almost always see the difference
Thanks Dustin for your reply. Actually, I am refering to the videos of the Theoria Apophasis channel that say for example that the lenses of the Otus Line were focused so much on the resolution aspect that the pictures taken with an Otus lens have less micro-contrast than a picture taken with a Distagon lens. So, in this regard, I was wondering whether the Milvus lenses had the same issue as the Otus lenses if, of course, Ken (I think it is his first name) from Theoria Apophasis is right on this matter. I guess you would not share the same opinion as him because unlike Ken (he doesn't seem to like them because they have less micro-contrast according him), you said in your videos that the Otus lenses were great lenses. For your information, I do own distagon lenses such as the 100 mm (great lens by the way), but I have never used Otus lenses since they are really expensive...
Can you give some comments for the comparisons in term of image quality like sharpness and etc, between milvus 35mm f2 and 35mm f1.4? Thanks a lot.
I haven't used the Milvus 35mm F2 (just the Loxia 2/35)
Dustin! This is going to be a possibly ridiculous question but after all of this time of watching your videos I’ve never asked: The wooden shed, how did it get that most artistic and impressive texture? Is that paint? Burnt? I simply would love to know 😃😃👍👍
Unfortunately I think the answer is mostly time and natural weathering. It has a fantastic texture to it, though.
Very interesting comparison, it really got my attention to see some of the flaws of the new Zeiss.... Could you mention the price range of each of them? Thanks again for a nice video!!!
+Daniela Argandoña The Milvus will look much better in the next episode. Milvus is $1999 USD, the Canon about $1849 USD
What's going on with the board in the Canon shot at 6:41?
I see what you mean. That is a bit weird. I'm on the road right now without access to the originals, but I'll have to take a look at the original image.
Dustin, something strange is happening with this video, the green bush in front of you is changing it's tones between green/yellowish/blueish and overall you are too far away from the camera. Not cool. This new types of videos (garden style) are not very good, as in the first ones you were quite overexposed and your face was glowing very bright. As always great info about the lens and great comparison!
+Nikolay Nikolaev I'm experimenting with some new equipment and so there is a learning curve on how to get the best out of it
Great to read it :) I'm really enjoying your videos! Keep going!
Very good. Thank you :)
+NimbusKhan NK my pleasure
so amazing like it
Thanks
so the ZM 35 renders better then the 35L 2 but the 35L 2 ls a halr sharper ?
+Unusual Suspect That's the extremely simplified conclusion. 😀
Hi Dustin,
Will you be doing any shootout comparing videos with the Sigma and Tamron 24-70mm when they come out?
As always, I love your content!
+Carly that's definitely something I would like to see happen, however, the Tamron is delayed in a Canon mount, and so I may not have them at the same time. I have the Sigma already
I did not know that the Tamron for the Canon mount has been delayed; thank you for the info. I can't wait to see your review on the Sigma.
Did you notice any purple fringing on the Canon?
Almost none. It is very well corrected.
No mention of price (price differences) in a couple of reviews I've watched. I'd find that info helpful.
+PAUL JORDON The US list price for he Milvus 35 is $1999.
Thanks - fast response 👍
Hi Dustin
when you gonna get and review the All new Tamron 24-70 G2 and the new Sigma 24-70
Many thanks
Nadav
The Tamron is delayed (in a Canon mount). I've got the Sigma in hand now.
Thank you Dustin..
looking forward for your review
Wow this is the only test that I have seen where a lense really comes close to the Zeiss. I would prefer the AF if the Canon has the same quality. REALLY impressive performance by the Canon lense. Thanks again for the test.
The Canon is very sharp in terms of absolute sharpness, but, as we'll see in the next video, the Zeiss is superior in terms of overall rendering bokeh.
Zeiss is awesome
I agree.
I am sincerely flabbergasted at the subpar performance of the Zeiss wide open. Canon did a really good job with their new 35 mm. I’m not a Canon shooter but I am still very impressed by its performance.
+floex831 Im guessing from your comment that you meant that Canon DID a good job
+Dustin Abbott I agree, by the way
Yes I did mean they DID a good job, sorry.
I honestly cant see why anyone shooting a Canon (5dmkiv) would pay MORE for a Manual Focus lens. Seem's like I should be getting a discount to have to do extra work...plus miss a ton of shots.
+Morvegil Jorsalfar That is probably true for most shooters, but I do own Zeiss lenses and can tell you they are special
I cant beleive that Zeiss is worse than Canon.. But it looks like
There are pros and cons, but yes, the Canon is a fantastic lens.
I own the Canon 35L mark I. Expensive at the time i bought it, say 9 years ago. Never was overwhelmed by this so called holy lens. Oké, sharpness at 1.4 is oké, but the CA is very bad. Build quality, my suncab has to go back for repair. I never, never bought this lens if I knew this all before. I use the lens, it is not to big, at 5.6. But in a way Canon fucked me. So never a Canon 35 mm for me. It was a mistake to buy this lens. Hope you have a lot of fun with the mark II. (I do not trust it anymore)
Well, if you want an extremely well made, optically incredible 35mm lens - the Milvus is exceptional.