Thanks so much for doing this review. You’re the only one in the world talking about these lenses. Much appreciated and helpful in making a purchase decision.
Thank you Good Sir, you just saved me a lot of money. For video I was planning on selling my 28mm Distagon to save up for a 25 milvus, since I wanted more bokeh. However, dimensionality is very important to me shooting human faces, and I wasn't aware that the Milvus would underperform in that regard.
I would generally avoid the Distagon 35 f/2 (new or old) due to CAs. There are better options for 35 if you really need one. The Distagon 28/2 is wonderful and use the "Search" option in this channel to see a lot of references to it. As far as the Distagon 25/2, I have a little more at time point 5.32 here: ruclips.net/video/-HQOIPWc3yA/видео.html
I’ve made CA part of my style so i dont care much about it, to be honest, i kinda preffer small amounts of it in my pictures and im recognisable by them and my edit. I was deciding if i should go Milvus for both photo (digital + analogue) and video and keep my autofocus set, or should i sell everything, go for new nano primes for video and buy used classics for analogue. I checked out many videos and consensus right now is both milvus and classic to be able to get both looks. What’s your opinion on the 18mm? Both milvus and classic?
I just purchased a completely brand new Zeiss 25mm f2.0 ZF.2, I've owned the 35mm f1.4 zf2, the 35mm f2, the 28 f2 (which was beautiful as well) However I found that the 25mm fills in the gap between the beautiful 21mm and 28m perfectly, and allows for that special f2 aperature. I recently tried the Milvus 25mm f1.4 although its absolutely beautiful, I prefer the all Zeiss classic lenses over the milvus. I did have to settle for the Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Milvus after owning the 55 Otus, because the Otus was WAY too perfect for my taste. I am so happy to have found this brand new 25mm f2 in 2022, I don't even want to take it out of the box!!
The 25 f2.0 is a lens I've recommended many times in this channel. It's one of the best landscape lenses if you can live with a slight field curvature, because of its *very attractive life-like rendering.* The Milvus 25 is superior (the absolute 10 in landscapes), but I found it heavy and huge, occupying an area in the bag that belonged to two normal size lenses, and with a tendency to black out the shadows far sooner than other similar lenses, requiring it's own over-exposure protocol. I ended up with the Nikon 28 1.4E. The 25 f2.0 would be my second choice.
i think its the CA that helps to give a feel of the dimensionality, which is why the many say the milvus line lacks the 3d effect and many prefer the classic line for this
Dimensional rendering has nothing to do with CAs. As a matter of fact, CAs dramatically decrease micro-contrast, resulting in even less dimensional rendering. The dimensional effect of the 28/f2 is a result of its field curvature (ruclips.net/video/M6j9tQfU70Y/видео.html) You probably need to watch my micro-contrast series, Part I: ruclips.net/video/Cy0fq0FHXDM/видео.html PS. By far the strongest dimensional effect of all Zeiss lens lineup belongs to the Milvus35 f/1.4 and the Otus 55.
@@CameraMystique Nope, I think there is more to the dimensional effect than just field of curvature. There are even several tutorials on adding chromatic abberation to create more realism and 3d effect to images and videos.
@@bijosn I've made many videos and sections on the topic, with actual examples. Just put "dimensional" in the search field. Chromatic aberrations are not realism, they do not exist in every day life, they are a result of a lens not focusing all colors on the same plane. See this 1-minute video and tell me which is more realistic: ruclips.net/video/L-yLsgeP1JY/видео.html Some people like them in "background bushes/plants" due to the added artificial coloring effect (which sometimes can be attractive). The "3D" effect you're talking about is a colorized "dizzy" optical illusion that has to do more with cartoonish concepts, and nothing to do with the capacity of a lens to properly separate the subjects.
Great video! Thanks for the awesome comparison video really loved it. I actually bough the zeiss milvus 25mm 1.4 almost a month ago (after convincing myself of the price hah) and have just been blown away by it's performance. I think it has allowed me to take by far the most incredible detailed pictures that I have ever seen coming out of my Nikon D810. It puts all my other lenses to shame by a long shot. What's incredible about it is that the images I get out of it I really have to do no retouching at all; it is perfect straight out of the camera without any sharpening or messing with the highlights/shadows. It really makes me want to get the Zeiss Milvus 85mm 1.4 next or the 135mm Milvus F2 possibly. There is just something about this Milvus 25mm 1.4 that I can't get enough of. I am literally playing with it every day.
Skip the Milvus 85, you won't use it, it's a boring lens with visible CAs. Get the 135 f2 Sonnar if you find it from Japan in Mint or Excellent condition [I would avoid buying it from anywhere else, there are bad copies from the US out there with worn mounts, decentered elements etc], or the Otus 55 but only brand new (from all that expensive line).
@@CameraMystiqueI have 85 1.4 and I have fun with him, he gives odds to all the GANON L-series I have. So I'm thinking of replacing the 16-35 from Canon with 25 1.4. from Milvus.
I didn't even know that it was available for that mount. At any rate, it's a lens that need to be studied at least in 3-4 aperture values. Not an easy lens to master.
Another good alternative is the Nikon 24 1.8G. Average ("normal") dimensionality, very good micro-contrast, very high resolution, excellent CA behavior and it's AF. And cheap. I'd place it a hair under the 25 f2 Zeiss. For today's "native lens" standards, the Nikon is excellent.
the 2/28 is alos called hollywood lens or so bewcausae of the 3d effect. however the field curvature is huge and makes it very difficult to use (focus and recompose)/
@@CameraMystique The field curvature is not a bad feature because this lens is an artistic lens and therefore creates a beautiful 3d rendering. If you know how to use it, the images art simply stunning of what I have seen. I am using the 2/25 and I have had 2 copied of that lens. I use if for environmental portraits eg in houses and buildings. But also on the street. The lens is very sharp at f2 but hard to focus if things need to go fast.... On F4 I know how to do it blindfolded but the lens is sharp that I need to tone it down. My best glas I have for now.... I just damaged my planar 1.4/50mm. Dropped it while travelling. Rear element scratched. I am looking for a replacement now. Maybe the 1.4/50 Milvus, despite your mediocre review
Which would you choose between the Zeiss 25mm f2 zf2 and Nikon 24mm f1.8g if you were using a d850?cost and autofocus not a consideration.Thank you Really like and value your channel.
Tough call - they're both excellent. I would *slightly* prefer shooting colorful trees and flowers etc with the Zeiss, but everything else with the Nikon. As far as autofocus, it will become an issue at some point, one way or the other. It's not an issue with the Otus or the Sonnar (quick manual is really good with those lenses), but it is an issue with the 25, which needs liveview.
I like your review on the distagon 28 f2. I've seen your review on distagon 35mm f2, which you didnt like. How you rate the 2 focal length on 3D redition, sharpness , color fringing between these 2 ? A lot of online comments prefer the 35mm over the 28mm on the performance.
3D the 28 is better and well known for that. Color I prefer the 28, it's more vibrant. The 35 is a tiny little sharper to the eye, but its CA are more visible too than the 28. Both are difficult to focus on a DSLR, the 35 is outdated (a lot better lenses out there nowadays), the 28 is a good option if you like to experiment with its anomalous field curvature (which gave it the name "Hollywood distagon"). For today's standards, none of them is a "must have".
PS. In 3D rendering, the newer Milvus 35 1.4 wipes the floor with the old distagon. The Milvus 35 1.8 on the other hand is just a small improvement of the old distagon but suffers from the same CAs. If you have Nikon mirrorless, its own 35 1.8S is better than the 35 distagon. If you have Nikon DSLR and you can't live without a 35 prime, get a good copy of the Tamron 35 1.8 VC. A good copy (one that focuses nicely on your camera without dramatic adjustments).
@@CameraMystique Thanks for your advise. I actually own the distagon 28mm and I am still shooting D700 and recently into Nikon F3 Film camera. I might replace the D700 with either an D850 or mirrorless these days. Milvus 35 1.4 is too bulky for DSLR and even worse on mirroless, so I wouldnt consider modern zeiss.
And what can you suggest for the 35mm range with good 3D pop? Milvus 35mm f/1.4 is too big and heavy. What about Milvus 35mm f/2? Probably one of the 35-40mm Voigtländer lenses? Old Nikons? Thanks! :-)
I already have the Milvus 21mm. Do I have a lot to gain in getting the 25mm? Or can I get by just fine? The next step in my lens collection is a 35mm so I’d like something in between 21mm and 35mm for professional work. Suggestions are welcome. Thank you.
@@CameraMystique events where there is a crowd, but not as many as a concert. Just medium sized parties where you want the people but also the ambience of the venue. So I don’t want too much distortion. Also, I will do some landscape but I have the 21mm for this.
@@blainemarcano The 24 1.8G is "pro class" at amateur price level. Though I'm not a fan of the 24 focal, when I tried it my jaw dropped, because it looked like a lens double its price. If you like wide angle, it's a must lens and it could replace all focals you have in that range. But you have to like the focal. For example, I like the 28 but not the 35. Your brain has to like the focal - meaning, "great composition without thinking about it when you shoot". It's pretty much an automatic thing. So I suggest you try focals to see for yourself. Remember: *YOU make the composition, not the subject.* Just because a landscape is wide, it doesn't mean you have to take a pic of the entire thing (usually such compositions are too busy and messy). And just because you have a crowd, it doesn't mean you have to photograph them all at once in one frame - that's also bad composition. The best composition comes from a lens with which your brain is mostly compatible.
I bought the 2/25 in 2014, I believe. It is an incredilbe lens. Basically no CA, really it is just a tiny smidgen. I use it for environmmental portraits and it is basically my favorite lenses. Comment on focussing with lenses that have a lot of CA: I also have the 1.4/50 which I could not deal with. I tried to use is but we never got friends. Focusing was always very difficult and I missed many oppurtinities. I tried it on digital and analogue bodies. I never got it right, except from f2.8 or 4 onwards. Hell ya, that focus shift. the CA but stopped down from f2.8 very beautiful. It is a disappointing lens for me. Last summer I dropped it and damaged the rear lens element. About two month ago, I upgraded to the Milvus 2/50 MP. This is much better. Sharp from wide open. More pleasing bokeh.
The lighting looks different between when the two images with the two different zeiss, almost as if the sun was creeping through... could that have not caused the "pop"? What's the difference in element count between those two lenses?
I'm uploading a different video about this topic now. It will be on in an hour or so. Images that prove, I've spend tons of money. If you' re following the advice of the Angry Photographer on the topic, you' re probably confusing dizziness from high chromatic aberrations with dimensionality. Element count makes no difference. My two most dimensional lenses have high element count. "Pop" (easily achieved with a flash) is different than "Dimensionality" (certain spatial rendering, sometimes even caused by field curvature of the lens), which is also different from "Microcontrast". You will see the explanation, this time with a video targeted for this exact subject.
@@davidellinsworth22 The video is up in 4K at ruclips.net/video/8hBvVlD6IM8/видео.html Also, I'm not following any more channels of non-photographers or people with no formal source of income other than being "online beggars" or people who try to be controversial (the "shock value") to bring more people in their "church". Would you ever invest $1,000 in a stock that some guy without any known source of income told you about? Imagine investing thousands in crappy old lenses that are not even telecentric (!!!) because the same guy advised so...
@@davidellinsworth22 If you start following this trioplan and other "low element" lens count, you're going to waste your time and money and you'll live under the assumption that your B&W tonalities are more, while in reality you' re only seeing greyed-out chromatic aberrations! See a professional Hollywood cinematographer's test on dimensional lenses at ruclips.net/video/LkgTT6vT1Ns/видео.html and another one of mine at ruclips.net/video/OIwITttzELI/видео.html
Cannot find reviews exept yours on the Zeiss Milvus 25 f/1.4 . Do you think it will be good on D850. I use Zeiss 18mm/3.5 on the D300 (DX format)and the 25 f/1.4 will replace that lens on Full format
@@CameraMystique Thank you for your quick response. I will get that lens after I get the D850. I have some thought to get the Zeiss 15mm/2.8 Miluvs but I'm unsure if it’s a good landscape lens. Have you tested that lens? And is it too wide for forest photo? I had a Nikkor 20mm/4.0 that I used on mountains to get a sharp foreground and a sharp background, but I sold it when I went digital. The 18mm/3.5 was the replacement but what I have read about it lately, it has not got good reviews. I used it on crop sensor and it was sharp but it shall be less sharp at its edges compared to other lenses. I will test it on the new camera but I will get the 25mm lens regardless.
@@thomaseriksson6256 If I had to go wider than 25 (which is pretty wide for landscapes), I'd chose the Milvus 18mm 2.8. Much better than the previous. But it's also too wide for my taste.
@@CameraMystique Thank you for the feedback. I use the 18mm mostly in forest on the D300 that is similar to a 27mm on FF, therefore the 25mm/1.4 will cover that. I will test my 18mm first and confirm the lack of sharpness at the edges, then use it in my usual motives in forest and open landscape. If I still need the focal length I upgrade the lens to Milvus. Nikon communicated that they will concentrate on Z-system. The D860/D880 will probably not be released. So it seems the F-system will die sooner than expected. I will not switch over to Z become I have a 300mm/2.8 screw drive lens. I continue to use DSLR on my current lenses and the future Milvus lenses but switch to Fuji GFX in the future due to lack of confides in Nikon F-system future. If they screw you once, Nikon will do that twice.
@@thomaseriksson6256 There's no point in buying expensive F-mount lenses if you're planning to move to the GFX system - you never know how the lenses will perform if you try to adapt them. I have an example of what the Milvus 25 can do on the D850 here: ruclips.net/video/Xc2CSXPErv4/видео.html As far as longevity of a system, it's irrelevant nowadays - there's so much F-mount stuff in excellent condition on the market that the system will be relevant for at least the next 5-8 years. Unless of course a "sensor revolution" happens (maybe true color high speed global shutter sensors?), in which case even the GFX will become old news. What matters is the print size. High quality large prints cost a lot of money and unless you're planning to print very large all of the time, you won't see a difference. I explain more in my video ruclips.net/video/gRxSW6I2ymM/видео.html when I realized that even 36mp was enough for what I wanted to do (even with older lenses such as the distagon 28).
Thanks so much for doing this review. You’re the only one in the world talking about these lenses. Much appreciated and helpful in making a purchase decision.
I bought the 25mm 1.4. Arrives next week.
Thank you Good Sir, you just saved me a lot of money. For video I was planning on selling my 28mm Distagon to save up for a 25 milvus, since I wanted more bokeh. However, dimensionality is very important to me shooting human faces, and I wasn't aware that the Milvus would underperform in that regard.
i came here to decide to go the classic or the milvus route, now i know i'll do both. Thanks bro
I would generally avoid the Distagon 35 f/2 (new or old) due to CAs. There are better options for 35 if you really need one.
The Distagon 28/2 is wonderful and use the "Search" option in this channel to see a lot of references to it.
As far as the Distagon 25/2, I have a little more at time point 5.32 here: ruclips.net/video/-HQOIPWc3yA/видео.html
PS. The Milvus 35 f/1.4 is a wonderful lens if you can carry it around, totally different design than the 35/2.
I’ve made CA part of my style so i dont care much about it, to be honest, i kinda preffer small amounts of it in my pictures and im recognisable by them and my edit.
I was deciding if i should go Milvus for both photo (digital + analogue) and video and keep my autofocus set, or should i sell everything, go for new nano primes for video and buy used classics for analogue.
I checked out many videos and consensus right now is both milvus and classic to be able to get both looks.
What’s your opinion on the 18mm? Both milvus and classic?
@@CameraMystique also i'm daily driving nikon z9 + adapter + 28 1.4E so Milvus + f3 will be less weight while on the z9 it will be 120g more or sth
@@eldengard23 18mm go Milvus.
I just purchased a completely brand new Zeiss 25mm f2.0 ZF.2,
I've owned the 35mm f1.4 zf2, the 35mm f2, the 28 f2 (which was beautiful as well) However I found that the 25mm fills in the gap between the beautiful 21mm and 28m perfectly, and allows for that special f2 aperature. I recently tried the Milvus 25mm f1.4 although its absolutely beautiful, I prefer the all Zeiss classic lenses over the milvus. I did have to settle for the Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Milvus after owning the 55 Otus, because the Otus was WAY too perfect for my taste. I am so happy to have found this brand new 25mm f2 in 2022, I don't even want to take it out of the box!!
The 25 f2.0 is a lens I've recommended many times in this channel. It's one of the best landscape lenses if you can live with a slight field curvature, because of its *very attractive life-like rendering.* The Milvus 25 is superior (the absolute 10 in landscapes), but I found it heavy and huge, occupying an area in the bag that belonged to two normal size lenses, and with a tendency to black out the shadows far sooner than other similar lenses, requiring it's own over-exposure protocol. I ended up with the Nikon 28 1.4E. The 25 f2.0 would be my second choice.
I bought the Zeiss Milvus 25mmF1.4 used and the Nikon AFS 28/F1.4 E used to use on Nikon D850 and D800E
i think its the CA that helps to give a feel of the dimensionality, which is why the many say the milvus line lacks the 3d effect and many prefer the classic line for this
Dimensional rendering has nothing to do with CAs. As a matter of fact, CAs dramatically decrease micro-contrast, resulting in even less dimensional rendering. The dimensional effect of the 28/f2 is a result of its field curvature (ruclips.net/video/M6j9tQfU70Y/видео.html)
You probably need to watch my micro-contrast series, Part I: ruclips.net/video/Cy0fq0FHXDM/видео.html
PS. By far the strongest dimensional effect of all Zeiss lens lineup belongs to the Milvus35 f/1.4 and the Otus 55.
@@CameraMystique Nope, I think there is more to the dimensional effect than just field of curvature. There are even several tutorials on adding chromatic abberation to create more realism and 3d effect to images and videos.
@@bijosn I've made many videos and sections on the topic, with actual examples. Just put "dimensional" in the search field.
Chromatic aberrations are not realism, they do not exist in every day life, they are a result of a lens not focusing all colors on the same plane. See this 1-minute video and tell me which is more realistic: ruclips.net/video/L-yLsgeP1JY/видео.html
Some people like them in "background bushes/plants" due to the added artificial coloring effect (which sometimes can be attractive).
The "3D" effect you're talking about is a colorized "dizzy" optical illusion that has to do more with cartoonish concepts, and nothing to do with the capacity of a lens to properly separate the subjects.
Great review thank you very much!
Great video! Thanks for the awesome comparison video really loved it. I actually bough the zeiss milvus 25mm 1.4 almost a month ago (after convincing myself of the price hah) and have just been blown away by it's performance. I think it has allowed me to take by far the most incredible detailed pictures that I have ever seen coming out of my Nikon D810. It puts all my other lenses to shame by a long shot. What's incredible about it is that the images I get out of it I really have to do no retouching at all; it is perfect straight out of the camera without any sharpening or messing with the highlights/shadows. It really makes me want to get the Zeiss Milvus 85mm 1.4 next or the 135mm Milvus F2 possibly. There is just something about this Milvus 25mm 1.4 that I can't get enough of. I am literally playing with it every day.
Skip the Milvus 85, you won't use it, it's a boring lens with visible CAs. Get the 135 f2 Sonnar if you find it from Japan in Mint or Excellent condition [I would avoid buying it from anywhere else, there are bad copies from the US out there with worn mounts, decentered elements etc], or the Otus 55 but only brand new (from all that expensive line).
@@CameraMystique Hey thanks for the reply :) Interesting. I will keep that in mind!
@@CameraMystiqueI have 85 1.4 and I have fun with him, he gives odds to all the GANON L-series I have. So I'm thinking of replacing the 16-35 from Canon with 25 1.4. from Milvus.
Very interesting analysis, ordered 28mm f2 distagon ZE version for Sony e mount. Thanks
I didn't even know that it was available for that mount. At any rate, it's a lens that need to be studied at least in 3-4 aperture values. Not an easy lens to master.
@@CameraMystique I got my ZE lens(Canon EF mount) so going to test using it with an E mount adapter for Sony. Will share my thoughts.
exactly what i'm looking for :-)
thanks for the mentioning of an alternative lens as well.
Another good alternative is the Nikon 24 1.8G. Average ("normal") dimensionality, very good micro-contrast, very high resolution, excellent CA behavior and it's AF. And cheap. I'd place it a hair under the 25 f2 Zeiss. For today's "native lens" standards, the Nikon is excellent.
@@CameraMystique the Nikon 24mm 1.8G is also in my list of the 24-25mm lenses to choose from.
@@torstenlarsson555 Here you go... ruclips.net/video/NEo9RF-llU4/видео.html
the 2/28 is alos called hollywood lens or so bewcausae of the 3d effect. however the field curvature is huge and makes it very difficult to use (focus and recompose)/
Yes. I 've missed focus a few times with the distagon due to its field curvature.
@@CameraMystique The field curvature is not a bad feature because this lens is an artistic lens and therefore creates a beautiful 3d rendering. If you know how to use it, the images art simply stunning of what I have seen.
I am using the 2/25 and I have had 2 copied of that lens. I use if for environmental portraits eg in houses and buildings. But also on the street. The lens is very sharp at f2 but hard to focus if things need to go fast.... On F4 I know how to do it blindfolded but the lens is sharp that I need to tone it down. My best glas I have for now....
I just damaged my planar 1.4/50mm. Dropped it while travelling. Rear element scratched. I am looking for a replacement now. Maybe the 1.4/50 Milvus, despite your mediocre review
@@oliverlison I know about the 28, I've commented on this in many recent videos.
Which would you choose between the Zeiss 25mm f2 zf2 and Nikon 24mm f1.8g if you were using a d850?cost and autofocus not a consideration.Thank you
Really like and value your channel.
Tough call - they're both excellent. I would *slightly* prefer shooting colorful trees and flowers etc with the Zeiss, but everything else with the Nikon. As far as autofocus, it will become an issue at some point, one way or the other. It's not an issue with the Otus or the Sonnar (quick manual is really good with those lenses), but it is an issue with the 25, which needs liveview.
So my response would be that for an "all around solution" I would go with the Nikon. I will miss less things this way.
@@CameraMystique Very helpful,thank you!
How can I support the channel?
@@riyadhlodewyk502 Just "like" the vids if you like them. Thank you very much.
I like your review on the distagon 28 f2. I've seen your review on distagon 35mm f2, which you didnt like. How you rate the 2 focal length on 3D redition, sharpness , color fringing between these 2 ? A lot of online comments prefer the 35mm over the 28mm on the performance.
3D the 28 is better and well known for that. Color I prefer the 28, it's more vibrant. The 35 is a tiny little sharper to the eye, but its CA are more visible too than the 28. Both are difficult to focus on a DSLR, the 35 is outdated (a lot better lenses out there nowadays), the 28 is a good option if you like to experiment with its anomalous field curvature (which gave it the name "Hollywood distagon").
For today's standards, none of them is a "must have".
PS. In 3D rendering, the newer Milvus 35 1.4 wipes the floor with the old distagon. The Milvus 35 1.8 on the other hand is just a small improvement of the old distagon but suffers from the same CAs.
If you have Nikon mirrorless, its own 35 1.8S is better than the 35 distagon.
If you have Nikon DSLR and you can't live without a 35 prime, get a good copy of the Tamron 35 1.8 VC. A good copy (one that focuses nicely on your camera without dramatic adjustments).
@@CameraMystique Thanks for your advise. I actually own the distagon 28mm and I am still shooting D700 and recently into Nikon F3 Film camera. I might replace the D700 with either an D850 or mirrorless these days. Milvus 35 1.4 is too bulky for DSLR and even worse on mirroless, so I wouldnt consider modern zeiss.
And what can you suggest for the 35mm range with good 3D pop? Milvus 35mm f/1.4 is too big and heavy. What about Milvus 35mm f/2? Probably one of the 35-40mm Voigtländer lenses? Old Nikons? Thanks! :-)
I made a video for this: ruclips.net/video/far_T437408/видео.html
I already have the Milvus 21mm. Do I have a lot to gain in getting the 25mm? Or can I get by just fine? The next step in my lens collection is a 35mm so I’d like something in between 21mm and 35mm for professional work. Suggestions are welcome. Thank you.
What kind of professional work? It matters.
@@CameraMystique events where there is a crowd, but not as many as a concert. Just medium sized parties where you want the people but also the ambience of the venue. So I don’t want too much distortion. Also, I will do some landscape but I have the 21mm for this.
@@blainemarcano Nikon 24mm 1.8G. Or the 28mm 1.4E.
@@CameraMystique thank you.
@@blainemarcano The 24 1.8G is "pro class" at amateur price level. Though I'm not a fan of the 24 focal, when I tried it my jaw dropped, because it looked like a lens double its price. If you like wide angle, it's a must lens and it could replace all focals you have in that range. But you have to like the focal. For example, I like the 28 but not the 35. Your brain has to like the focal - meaning, "great composition without thinking about it when you shoot". It's pretty much an automatic thing. So I suggest you try focals to see for yourself. Remember: *YOU make the composition, not the subject.* Just because a landscape is wide, it doesn't mean you have to take a pic of the entire thing (usually such compositions are too busy and messy). And just because you have a crowd, it doesn't mean you have to photograph them all at once in one frame - that's also bad composition. The best composition comes from a lens with which your brain is mostly compatible.
I bought the 2/25 in 2014, I believe. It is an incredilbe lens. Basically no CA, really it is just a tiny smidgen. I use it for environmmental portraits and it is basically my favorite lenses.
Comment on focussing with lenses that have a lot of CA:
I also have the 1.4/50 which I could not deal with. I tried to use is but we never got friends. Focusing was always very difficult and I missed many oppurtinities. I tried it on digital and analogue bodies. I never got it right, except from f2.8 or 4 onwards. Hell ya, that focus shift. the CA but stopped down from f2.8 very beautiful. It is a disappointing lens for me. Last summer I dropped it and damaged the rear lens element. About two month ago, I upgraded to the Milvus 2/50 MP. This is much better. Sharp from wide open. More pleasing bokeh.
Agree.
are you talking about the 50 1.4 Classic or the Milvus ?
The Milvus is much better without loosing the nice rendering!
@@derblendenmaler4057 I was talking about the classic 50/1.4
The lighting looks different between when the two images with the two different zeiss, almost as if the sun was creeping through... could that have not caused the "pop"? What's the difference in element count between those two lenses?
I'm uploading a different video about this topic now. It will be on in an hour or so. Images that prove, I've spend tons of money. If you' re following the advice of the Angry Photographer on the topic, you' re probably confusing dizziness from high chromatic aberrations with dimensionality. Element count makes no difference. My two most dimensional lenses have high element count. "Pop" (easily achieved with a flash) is different than "Dimensionality" (certain spatial rendering, sometimes even caused by field curvature of the lens), which is also different from "Microcontrast". You will see the explanation, this time with a video targeted for this exact subject.
Ok thank you, I look forward to watching.
@@davidellinsworth22 The video is up in 4K at ruclips.net/video/8hBvVlD6IM8/видео.html
Also, I'm not following any more channels of non-photographers or people with no formal source of income other than being "online beggars" or people who try to be controversial (the "shock value") to bring more people in their "church".
Would you ever invest $1,000 in a stock that some guy without any known source of income told you about? Imagine investing thousands in crappy old lenses that are not even telecentric (!!!) because the same guy advised so...
@@davidellinsworth22 If you start following this trioplan and other "low element" lens count, you're going to waste your time and money and you'll live under the assumption that your B&W tonalities are more, while in reality you' re only seeing greyed-out chromatic aberrations! See a professional Hollywood cinematographer's test on dimensional lenses at ruclips.net/video/LkgTT6vT1Ns/видео.html
and another one of mine at
ruclips.net/video/OIwITttzELI/видео.html
Cannot find reviews exept yours on the Zeiss Milvus 25 f/1.4 . Do you think it will be good on D850. I use Zeiss 18mm/3.5 on the D300 (DX format)and the 25 f/1.4 will replace that lens on Full format
The Milvus 25 1.4 is the best wide angle lens for the D850. I sold it because it was big and heavy.
@@CameraMystique Thank you for your quick response. I will get that lens after I get the D850. I have some thought to get the Zeiss 15mm/2.8 Miluvs but I'm unsure if it’s a good landscape lens. Have you tested that lens? And is it too wide for forest photo? I had a Nikkor 20mm/4.0 that I used on mountains to get a sharp foreground and a sharp background, but I sold it when I went digital. The 18mm/3.5 was the replacement but what I have read about it lately, it has not got good reviews. I used it on crop sensor and it was sharp but it shall be less sharp at its edges compared to other lenses. I will test it on the new camera but I will get the 25mm lens regardless.
@@thomaseriksson6256 If I had to go wider than 25 (which is pretty wide for landscapes), I'd chose the Milvus 18mm 2.8. Much better than the previous. But it's also too wide for my taste.
@@CameraMystique Thank you for the feedback. I use the 18mm mostly in forest on the D300 that is similar to a 27mm on FF, therefore the 25mm/1.4 will cover that. I will test my 18mm first and confirm the lack of sharpness at the edges, then use it in my usual motives in forest and open landscape. If I still need the focal length I upgrade the lens to Milvus.
Nikon communicated that they will concentrate on Z-system. The D860/D880 will probably not be released. So it seems the F-system will die sooner than expected. I will not switch over to Z become I have a 300mm/2.8 screw drive lens. I continue to use DSLR on my current lenses and the future Milvus lenses but switch to Fuji GFX in the future due to lack of confides in Nikon F-system future. If they screw you once, Nikon will do that twice.
@@thomaseriksson6256 There's no point in buying expensive F-mount lenses if you're planning to move to the GFX system - you never know how the lenses will perform if you try to adapt them. I have an example of what the Milvus 25 can do on the D850 here: ruclips.net/video/Xc2CSXPErv4/видео.html
As far as longevity of a system, it's irrelevant nowadays - there's so much F-mount stuff in excellent condition on the market that the system will be relevant for at least the next 5-8 years. Unless of course a "sensor revolution" happens (maybe true color high speed global shutter sensors?), in which case even the GFX will become old news.
What matters is the print size. High quality large prints cost a lot of money and unless you're planning to print very large all of the time, you won't see a difference.
I explain more in my video ruclips.net/video/gRxSW6I2ymM/видео.html
when I realized that even 36mp was enough for what I wanted to do (even with older lenses such as the distagon 28).