I appreciate the detailed and very objective review. The results for a particular lens may not be what 100% of people might hope for, but your methodology is excellent and we just have to let the results speak, for themselves. Keep up the excellent work!
Dustin is one of the best reviewers i ever have seen......unbiased and very clear.....i love both sigma and zeiss, but really autofocus is really a deal breaker for me....
Thank you so much for providing a head to head comparison between these 2 lenses! Happy with my Milvus 135 and will stay that way (for now). The Sigma really gives you the greatest bang for your buck but after using the Zeiss I don't think I'll ever be satisfied with a lens that renders and produces less resolution and microcontrast than a Zeiss. Thanks again much appreciated!
Yes!!! Finally, thanks so much for the comparison! Seems like I will get another Milvus because the IQ is just superb. The Sigma is a really nice lense, but the direct comparison especially the real world examples were really helpful for me to make a decision.
@Dustin Abbott - Yeah, that is the only negative thing about the Zeiss. But I am planning to use it for still portraits and I think that the manual focus should be no problem in that situation.
Thanks Dustin, on target again, I own 2 milvus lenses, 21mm and the 135, absolutely amazing glass......... on the canon just focus till the beep, your in perfect focus, or zone focus, either one perfect...
Great comparison as always Dustin! I think you're the most objective camera gear reviewer on youtube!!! I would opt for the Zeiss, if I were in the market for a 135mm, its rendering just looks so much better...!
Excellent review Dustin very detailed and informative 👍 Being a Milvus owner for the last few months I can truly say that this lens does everything it says on the tin! Results are superb and extremely consistent. Regarding the vignetting, well being a C1Pro user you can very easily create lens aperture profiles which accurately removes any vignetting at effected apertures without loss of quality, so for me I have the best of both worlds where I can remove it or simply leave it in for effect, result 😊
+Chris Rout When shooting RAW vignette is rarely a big issue. It's more of an issue if/when you need to shoot JPEGs, and more objectionable (IMO) on wide angle lenses.
Dustin Abbott Yes agreed, if you are a jpg shooter then this is maybe more of a concern, but you know what, and as you've mentioned previously, photographers are spoilt these days with the superb optics available on the market today so can't really go wrong for whatever subject they shoot
Wow, I really like the color rendition on the Milvus. For what I plan to shoot with it, I believe the price is justified. Thank you for the great review!
I'd like to see (even though it is probably in the history books!) the comparison of the 35mm Sigma Art to the competitive Zeiss 35mm lens - if you have such a video, that would be wonderful! ALL Due Honesty, I really appreciate your reviews over most others on UTube! Good Stuff!
That last area you pointed out around 9:20 is what popped out most to me regarding the bokeh, so that's a strong point for the Sigma in my eyes. Same at 10:30, the Sigma just melts those background branches so much better. Got the Sigma for my mother, she does not shoot manual, so it was really a fight between the Canon and the Sigma for that buy. The Milvus is worth considering for buying for myself ^_^ since I don't mind manual.
+zvxcvxcz I've noted a trend when the lens with the biggest maximum aperture often just creates softer bokeh, period, even when stopped down. That's a definite plus for the Sigma. In an absolute sense the Milvus has higher end optics, but the Sigma is very, very good.
I think the Sigma, at f2, has a softer out of focus area than the Milvus at f2, is it? Amazing comparison Dustin, great video as always! Thank you for that.
Nice review thanks. Love the Zeiss. I'm thinking about doing a 35mm Art vs Milvus review myself. The milvus version being older and with more CA and just one low dispersion element. Could be interesting comparing the rendering/color/microcontrast vs sharpness. I own the Art lens, put I'd keep the winner of the test if it was the Zeiss. 35mm is just so useful.
If you want the best 35mm lens (and are a Canon shooter), the Canon 35L II is the most Zeiss-like Canon lens I've ever used...and with deadly AF to boot!
I love your videos and they have become known as the most credible and detailed photography gear review videos of to date . This comparison is interesting although I think you defunct the whole comparison in one abbreviation - AF . So I feel potential buyers of the Milvus or Sigma wont be swayed regardless of any comparison. A comparison between the 135mm Milvus and Samyang 135 f2 - game on , same customer catchment , aperture , manual focus but with one huge difference, price
Dustin Abbott I'm very comfortable with manual lenses. I find it rewarding to use and enjoy the process. I guess you're leaning toward Zeiss! I have to agree with the Zeiss coloring. I've found that I rarely have to post process Zeiss images very much.
That's a bit of a harder comparison because the Batis has such a smaller maximum aperture (and is built for a different system, though you can compare them on the a7R II with the MC-11). I found that the Batis delivers more contrast and "bite" in general (and even lower vignette), but neither did I compare them side by side. But stopping down the Sigma to f/2.8 would probably make things much closer anyway.
Yes, I am aware of the aperture difference, but what really interest me is the difference in color rendition and microcontrast. So you partly answered my question. Thanks again.
Thanks for this brilliant comparison. I am happy with this presentation. Btw, could you please compare the image sharpness between the Sigma 50-100mm and the Sigma 135mm though they differ in their focal lengths. Just wanna know which one will I buy. My concerns are the image sharpness and the bokeh. Thanks!
Man, your reviews are just too good. They make it more difficult to decide - I guess this is a paradox :) I agree with what bobbintonn remarked: the head says sigma, the heart zeiss. I just have 1 question, though: how do you estimate, would the same photo under exact the same lighting conditions & so on, come out in very large print, for those 2 lenses? I wouldn't mind the fact that the sigma photos may take some more work in post.
I think that both could produce an excellent result. The Milvus result, in my opinion, will have that subtle extra in color rendition and accuracy, but yes, with the right post work the Sigma result could probably be very close.
The heart says Milvus, the head says Sigma. I haven't used manual focus lenses before & have doubts that like many shooting in tourist mode if I'd have time to manually focus in many situations. Things happen quickly & you move place to place quickly.
I was also really skeptical at first about the manual focusing and sometimes people are joking about me taking longer that ordinary photogs to get the setup for the shot, but if I show them the results with my Milvus lense I always get great feedback. You can also learn the focus trapping technique for shooting moving targets, but anyway it is harder to do than just using autofocus.
It is amazing then how people managed to get great shots of moving subjects when all you had was manual focus! I find this aversion toward manual focus to be a fad. It tales 1 minute to learn how to focus manually and with today's focus assist cameras, I rarely miss a shot with my Nikon 50mm f/1.2 and Zeiss Otus 1.4/85mm. If you are in a situation where the subject changes rapidly, pre-focus and use a hyperfocal aperture.
Good review I also like the look of the Milvus. But I do have a question. In this test did you use auto focus on the Sigma when doing the test. Was just thinking if you used auto focus one and manual on the other. Is it possible the cameras auto focus would be a little different from the exactness of the users eye?
Good to know you thought about consistency also. I haven't bought a Milvus yet. It's on my list. Not afraid of manual focus. In fact I seem to do that a lot on my Sigma 85 Art. Thanks Mr. Abbott keep up the great reviews.
Thanks Dustin for the very interesting review. Keep on the good work. It seems that CA is much better controlled by the Zeiss, especially at MFD (as in your flowers example).
I would love to hear your thoughts on the new Sony A7R-iii, which is my current daily working professional body, simply because of your technical testing and overall content quality is second to none IMO, and I love your fair and accurate testing. I would also REALLY love to see you specifically show us a comparison between the Zeiss Batis 85mm EF vs. The Sony EF 85mm 1.8, or even better, the GM 85mm 1.4 vs. The Sony EF 85mm 1.8, since I have considered the GM option but currently only own the Sony 85mm 1.8 simply because I wasnt sure if the GM's price could be justified by its optics, although I am sure it is superior, but I wasn't sure if it was necessary for my work at least, and the 85mm 1.8 is truly sharp with great bokeh for $600 , anyways I would LOVE to see any of those comparisons, as there aren't any side by side style VS. videos out there that I have found, and I respect your opinions as I have been watching your channel for years now, and have been very happy with every purchase that I have made after watching your reviews. I am amazed by Sony's Mirrorless technology , but being fairly new in the context of digital imaging, there arent as many reviews of this quality out there yet on most of the EF native lenses and bodies. Keep up the great content, I and many others truly benefit from your tests and reviews!
Dustin Abbott Awesome!!! Thank you for your reply and Im very much looking forward to it! I am simply amazed by both the A7Riii body as well as the native lenses I have purchased so far, especially when comparing them against my prior Canon gear. I love Canon, but I think that Sony truly has a ton of advantages, especially for the work that I do. Glad to hear that you have an A7Riii on the way, Hope you enjoy it as much as I have been and Im very much looking forward to some Sony reviews!!!
My history with the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART was not a very good one, I had to return the lens for another copy due to focus inaccuracies, it would acquire focus very fast, but lacked any sharpness or detail and it would often just fail to acquire accurate focus. Did you find that you had to calibrate either lens to your camera, either in camera or using the Sigma Dock?
I have to calibrate pretty much every AF lens. I actually find that my own 5D Mark IV seems to require more lens calibration than previous FF bodies, and more than what my 6D requires. The Milvus doesn't really require calibration because it has no autofocus. The AF confirm chip seems reasonably accurate though.
Yes I was not thinking when I posted my comment, I forgot that the Milvus is a manual focus only lens, but it's far out of my price bracket and for my type of shooting the manual focus lens would not be to my benefit. And last price check the Milvus is $2200.
+Dvir Kinarty Unfortunately I don't have either lens on hand, but should I get another copy of the Sigma in hand in a few weeks I might be able to make that happen
lm getting the Zeiss Milvus 135mm but lm also getting the 135mm art for when l feel real lazy. but the Zeiss Milvus 135mm lm getting flrst for my CANON 5DSR.
I wish the 5DsR would allow for more easy swapping of focus screens. It would be an incredible platform for MF glass if you could put something like an EG-S focus screen in there
It is hardly a bad choice going with a Zeiss lens, more like a sound investment you wont regret later on. Not sure the same could be said about Sigma. That's not saying Sigma hasn't improved, as they have, however they got a long ways to go before they can catch up to Zeiss engineering and even longer... their reputation!
I also noted in my Sigma Art 24-35 f/2 lens which is very sharp and bright, with much less distortion than the older Nikkor 35mm f/2 D; lacks the same color retention of the later lens as well as saturation. Many Nikon photographers who own the flagship D810 with its high resolution of 36 mpx, are actually using the older 35 f/2 D because of its color retention rather than the much newer 35mm 1.4 Sigma Art and dealing with the distortion of the older lens in post processing. There is much more to a lenes quality than just sharpness.
It's much like what I would say about any 85 vs 135 lens: the Milvus 135 produces more "special" images, IMO, but the 85mm focal length is more versatile.
Dustin Abbott do u use any specific tool for precise mannual focus ....currently in my country zeiss providing 30 % discount on mrp which makes price very close to Sigma art line up ... I already have a nikon 70-200 FL F2.8 ....So 135 maybe not appropriate for me
The Milvus is the same optical design as the classic 135mm right? Stunning lens, one of my favorites for sure. This was one of the first images I took with it, but the contrast and rendering blew me away tjholowaychuk.imgix.net/image/collections/victoria/DSC_1866.jpg
Dear Dustin, First I really appreciate your reviews and thank you very much for them. Yet shaolin95 is right, first I done my own testing with the two lenses and clearly the sigma at distance greater than 2.5 meter is sharper than the Zeiss and the opposite is true as well close to MFD the Zeiss wins. Second the 135 ART is sharper than the 85 ART in all tests. The Sigma also has quite a bit less CA a point that effects the color rendition. The Zeiss 135 is clearly a super lens and you can’t get anything better below 2 meters but And this is clear but the ART 135 is the better lens above 2.5 meter and it is much better at infinity. It won’t be fair to ignore shooting at normal distance and rate the sigma 2 second, since it is not. As for other tests, they found the sigma sharper here is the links: www.lenstip.com/501.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_135_mm_f_1.8_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html Some found them have area where they are better or worst. www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-135mm-f-1.8-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx I think this a very good summary. I quote from TDP: At the Sigma 135 Art lens' introduction, the lens to beat was the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Milvus Lens. The recently-prior-introduced Milvus lens utilized the same optical design as its predecessor, the Classic version, and the likely reason for the design carry-over was because it was already awesome. In the anticipated Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art Lens vs. Zeiss Milvus 135mm f/2 Lens image quality comparison, we see a 50 megapixel sensor struggling to show any differences at f/1.8 vs. f/2. If forced to pick a winner, I'd lean toward the Zeiss, but ... it is better by only the slimmest of margins. At f/2, the Sigma is slightly better in the center of the frame with the Zeiss still having a tiny corner advantage. At f/2.8, determining a winner will make your eyes hurt. So, both are excellent lenses on a similar optical performance, yet the sigma is cheaper and has AF, While the Zeiss has a proud of ownership you can ignore Thank again. Yair
With all due respect, I have not found that to be true in my testing. Secondly, the LensTip article does NOT say that the lens is sharper than the Milvus. In fact, LensTip has not reviewed the Milvus, and it's review of the APO Sonnar (Classic) version was done not only on a different camera body but a different camera system. At no point does Bryan say that the Sigma is sharper, either. In fact, his summation states that if he were forced to pick a winner, he would lean towards the Zeiss (though both lenses are very close). Finally, Lloyd Chambers has tested the lens at more than MFD, though not all results are publicly published. Have you published your methods and results?
I am sorry I didn’t to upset no one, I have a lot respect for you and the work you do. You are a reviewer and I am just end user , I don’t have a web site nor a you tube channel. I am not questioning anything what you say, I am just saying our experience doesn’t match. (I hope we can agree to disagree ) The fact is that in your review I didn’t see any portrait distance or infinity comparison and my findings were the sigma is better those applications. Regarding Bryan, please read again, this is why I quote directly from him. “At f/2, the Sigma is slightly better in the center of the frame with the Zeiss still having a tiny corner advantage” On the same aperture the Sigma in the center is sharper than the Zeiss according him. It is on 5DSR so it is the hardest test possible. The copy of the Zeiss I rented was clearly superior at the near field yet inferior at the distances I shoot. I am registered to Lloyd Chambers’s web site, so once he will publish his tests I will be see them and learn. I am just sharing my experience. I might get a very good copy of the ART 135 and a bad one of the Zeiss. Have a great day and continue the great job.
Thank you for your clarification, and I'm not really upset. What does bother me is that often people will cast doubt on my testing methods and/or conclusions without providing any documentation of their own. We can certainly agree to disagree, and, in fact, if Sigma does send me another copy of the lens I will be sure to include infinity testing in my comparison.
That is my main problem with sigma the QC/QA is simply not there yet. I had to go through a process with all of my ART lenses until my copy was good enough. It never happened to me with Zeiss or Nikon. But I guess it is all in the pricing, you get what you pay for. You can check roger testing, he just started by testing a little off copy.. www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/04/sigma-135mm-f1-8-art-mtf-charts-and-a-look-behind-the-curtain/ Don’t know why but with sigma It always happened to me that the copy I picked had issues ATB Yair
I think you have the most thoughtful lens reviews on RUclips. Yet, I do wish you would reflect on your original overview video for your youtube video web site. In it you said your reviews are NOT of pixel peeping test charts. Now that seems to be the standard you seem to employ over the last year as a core part of many/all of your lens reviews. I am reminded of the CNET commentary on 1080 vs 4K TV on resolution (reference: www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/) " The eye has a finite resolution This is basic biology. The accepted "normal" vision is 20/20. In response to my previous articles on the stupidity of 4K TVs, many people argued they had better vision, or some other number should be used. This is like arguing doors should be bigger because there are tall people. Also, just because you have better vision, doesn't mean most people have better vision. If they did, it wouldn't be better, it would be average. Try this. Go to the beach (or a big sandbox, or a baseball diamond). Sit down. Start counting how many grains of sand you can see next to you. Now do the same with the grains of sand by your feet. Try again with the sand far beyond your feet (like, say, 10 feet away). The fact that you can see individual grains near you, but not farther away is exactly what we're talking about here. The eye is analog. Randomly analog at that. So of course some people are going to see more detail than others, and at different distances, but 20/20 is what everyone knows, and it is by far the most logical place to start any discussion." Yes, pixel peeping becomes more of an issue if you crop extensively but once you look at reasonable practical scale I doubt the difference is a difference. For example, in your review of generation one of the Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 VC you choose it over the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II saying your liked the rendering better and thought if anything the Tamron was a bit sharper. Now in reviewing the Tamon 70-200 F/2.8 VS II you state that the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II is a better lens from 150-200mm. Well, isn't the long end what most people buy a telephoto for and the wide end for a ultra wide. Is the pixel peeping test charts of your recent reviews causing you to be with your nose on the beach sand (see above) and not where it should be looking at the practical differences that matter in the real world as in printing and/or non-pixel peeping test charts ? I wish your reviews would go back to the impact an imagine gives in terms that are meaningful when not zoomed into the pixel scale.
Roger, thanks for the feedback. The reality is that I don't please everyone with how I choose to review gear. My current philosophy is to try to mix empirical data with real world observations. My hope is that I can reflect the realities of absolute sharpness (which many people, right or wrong, value) along with observations as a photographer on things like rendering and real-world performance.
My thoughts are that you were not wrong before about not pixel peeping. Your strength was emphasizing what matters to help people save money on real substantial, meaningful differences including it is not about scales that are not seen but colors, contrast, boken, and flare resistance that are at any scale.
Dustin, I agree with Roger. Scrambling to please everyone ends up pleasing no one including reality as you define it. So if you want to be like everyone else than you will differentiate yourself to no one. I much preferred your essence of real world based reviews rather than "mine is bigger than yours" chasing the cats tail of minimal consequence. Like Roger, I historically have trusted your previous reviews as the best !
+Noel Anderson I'll definitely take your input under consideration. Ultimately what I do is mostly about what I feel is the best way to cover the various aspects of lens performance, and I'm still growing as a photographer myself.
You are very quick to judge, shaolin95. This episode was shot while I had all of the lenses on hand, and I can only report on what I have - not what might be theoretically possible. This is true of all reviewers. If Sigma does send me a second copy for evaluation, I will report accordingly. I haven't yet heard any reviewer say that the Sigma is sharper or have more contrast than the Milvus, though. Sample variation exists in the real world, and you may have a very good copy of the 135. To my knowledge, however, you are not sharing your testing methods to the world for critique, either. BTW, I know of a number of other reviewers that are drawing the same conclusions, including Lloyd Chambers, for example.
You are so correct Dustin, the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 was the first lens that I have purchased that was a total fail and after much research there's many variations that exists that would cause a lens to fail and I also found it's not uncommon for professionals to return a lens until they have acquired a good copy. And believe me I was not ready to purchase a $1400 lens that would not focus correctly and have a total lack of sharpness and detail, even after calibration. This experience has been eye opening for me.
First thanks for the reply, I do mostly portraits where manual focus is not a big deal, but I have many grandchildren that will not sit still long enough for me to capture their photos and from time to time I do take jobs where action is important to capture and stop it and I just can't see spending $2200 for a lens that's so specialized, narrow DOF and manual focus, I know I know the sharpness is a must, but for my shooting style I would need the fast accurate auto focus and razor sharpness, I need both. I returned the lens and will try another copy or until I get a good copy, I am searching to upgrade my lens calibration methods to ensure the lens and body are in harmony, any suggestions?
Thanks for the reply, all input helps me or someone else. When I started in photography in the 70's everything was manual focus including exposure, not sure if you remember the Canon AE1 era, I had a Nikon FM film camera and you were limited to 36 shots, before you had to change the roll, but I don't want to go back to the 70's so a lens that can achieve fast, accurate focus, with sharpness and detail is the life for me "green archers". reference. I know with lots of practice I could remaster manual focus again, but I just don't want to do the work at this time and spending tons of money on a lens where fast, accurate focus is a must should not be this hard, unless Sigma is poorly lacking in quality control, I don't doubt the design but poor quality control must play a part in Sigma's failure rate. I was warned before I made the purchase but I had never had such a bad experience before and I took the chance and it was a bad one, but as soon as my refund hits my account I will order again and try another copy.
SONY HAS ABANDONED THEIR A MOUNT LENSES..........NO ICON LENSES FOR THE A MOUNT A99ll sony, the best camera out there.....Sony, you messed up, you have destroyed the top full frame camera on the market.....
Why in the world would you compare a manual focus lens against a auto focus lens...... Would not comparing a Zeiss (Sony) 135mm f1.8 vs sigma 135mm f1.8 lenses which are both auto focus a much better test????.....I am aware that the Milvus and Sigma lens are not made for the Sony "A" mount as the other is......You should have included the Zeiss (Sony) 135mm f1.8 auto focus lens in this test.......Another question.....What kind of clarity would your images be if you set up the Milvus lens for Zone focus?????
if you buy that zeiss lens, make sure it is for a Nikon or Canon AND NOT A SONY....I had an interesting conversation with Zeiss concerning the Zeiss lens they made for Sony....We are talking about the Zeiss (sony) 135mm f1.8 lens....Zeiss does not support or service this lens, if the lens was made for nikon or canon, yes, but no service for this lens made for Sony....I called Sony, they told me, even though i bought that lens from their online store when it was operating, cost 1,798.00..... Sony does not support or service that product, they told me to contact Zeiss....This is just another example of Sony's rotten no good customer service....I would urge everyone not to trust Sony on any level.... I would say any negative so called ranting on Sony they have it coming.........
Thank you Dustin. You're basically the only reviewer on RUclips for Zeiss Milvus lenses which need more attention. Glad to see your channel growing!
+Stephen An It's true that few reviewers spend much time on MF glass. I can't really say why that is
Still right today.. sad.
that micro contrast out of the milvus is just spectacular!
It really is. It's an Apochromatic lens, though, so that makes a huge difference.
now this what I call a detailed, based on the facts, sound standing shootout.
Professionalism.
Thank you!
I only have the Milvus 50 1.4. But one touch of the lens barrel with my hand, and I know that this baby is something very special.
They do have a gorgeous build quality.
I appreciate the detailed and very objective review. The results for a particular lens may not be what 100% of people might hope for, but your methodology is excellent and we just have to let the results speak, for themselves. Keep up the excellent work!
Thanks, Kirk. That's my aim.
Dustin is one of the best reviewers i ever have seen......unbiased and very clear.....i love both sigma and zeiss, but really autofocus is really a deal breaker for me....
Thank you! No AF is a deal breaker for a big percentage of shooters.
Thank you so much for providing a head to head comparison between these 2 lenses! Happy with my Milvus 135 and will stay that way (for now). The Sigma really gives you the greatest bang for your buck but after using the Zeiss I don't think I'll ever be satisfied with a lens that renders and produces less resolution and microcontrast than a Zeiss. Thanks again much appreciated!
That's the problem with using a Zeiss lens - it spoils you!
Even Sigma did great job this time, but the image quality of Milvus 135 and 85 is unbelievable ... Thanks Dustin, very detailed comparisionl!
+Peicong Li I agree. There is no loser here.
Yes!!! Finally, thanks so much for the comparison! Seems like I will get another Milvus because the IQ is just superb. The Sigma is a really nice lense, but the direct comparison especially the real world examples were really helpful for me to make a decision.
As long you don't mind manually focusing, it is a great choice.
@Dustin Abbott - Yeah, that is the only negative thing about the Zeiss. But I am planning to use it for still portraits and I think that the manual focus should be no problem in that situation.
That sounds like a safe use of the lens!
Thanks Dustin, on target again, I own 2 milvus lenses, 21mm and the 135, absolutely amazing glass......... on the canon just focus till the beep, your in perfect focus, or zone focus, either one perfect...
It's an amazing lens.
Thanks for this comparison. I've been a big fan of the Milvus series, very underrated due it not being AF. The extra microcontrast is what I want.
+Color Crush Media That's definitely there...and something that no one does quite like Zeiss.
Great comparison as always Dustin! I think you're the most objective camera gear reviewer on youtube!!! I would opt for the Zeiss, if I were in the market for a 135mm, its rendering just looks so much better...!
+Sir Sam Interesting that you see such a significant advantage for the Zeiss. I too think it is better, but in a more marginal kind of way
I thoght the Sigma hat sort of a faded look compared to the punchier looking zeiss
Ahh, I agree on that point. The Zeiss has more contrast at wide apertures - a perennial Zeiss strength.
I just bought 35/50/135 Art lenses for D750....
Excellent review Dustin very detailed and informative 👍 Being a Milvus owner for the last few months I can truly say that this lens does everything it says on the tin! Results are superb and extremely consistent. Regarding the vignetting, well being a C1Pro user you can very easily create lens aperture profiles which accurately removes any vignetting at effected apertures without loss of quality, so for me I have the best of both worlds where I can remove it or simply leave it in for effect, result 😊
+Chris Rout When shooting RAW vignette is rarely a big issue. It's more of an issue if/when you need to shoot JPEGs, and more objectionable (IMO) on wide angle lenses.
Dustin Abbott Yes agreed, if you are a jpg shooter then this is maybe more of a concern, but you know what, and as you've mentioned previously, photographers are spoilt these days with the superb optics available on the market today so can't really go wrong for whatever subject they shoot
Wow, I really like the color rendition on the Milvus. For what I plan to shoot with it, I believe the price is justified. Thank you for the great review!
+opwave79 It's a gorgeous lens...if you can handle MF
I'd like to see (even though it is probably in the history books!) the comparison of the 35mm Sigma Art to the competitive Zeiss 35mm lens - if you have such a video, that would be wonderful! ALL Due Honesty, I really appreciate your reviews over most others on UTube! Good Stuff!
That last area you pointed out around 9:20 is what popped out most to me regarding the bokeh, so that's a strong point for the Sigma in my eyes. Same at 10:30, the Sigma just melts those background branches so much better. Got the Sigma for my mother, she does not shoot manual, so it was really a fight between the Canon and the Sigma for that buy. The Milvus is worth considering for buying for myself ^_^ since I don't mind manual.
+zvxcvxcz I've noted a trend when the lens with the biggest maximum aperture often just creates softer bokeh, period, even when stopped down. That's a definite plus for the Sigma. In an absolute sense the Milvus has higher end optics, but the Sigma is very, very good.
Any new thoughts after potentially buying both?
I think the Sigma, at f2, has a softer out of focus area than the Milvus at f2, is it? Amazing comparison Dustin, great video as always! Thank you for that.
I agree.
Nice review thanks. Love the Zeiss. I'm thinking about doing a 35mm Art vs Milvus review myself. The milvus version being older and with more CA and just one low dispersion element. Could be interesting comparing the rendering/color/microcontrast vs sharpness. I own the Art lens, put I'd keep the winner of the test if it was the Zeiss. 35mm is just so useful.
If you want the best 35mm lens (and are a Canon shooter), the Canon 35L II is the most Zeiss-like Canon lens I've ever used...and with deadly AF to boot!
Wow quick response, lol. I am a Nikon shooter however. The SIgma Art beats the Nikkor pretty well IMO. I'm starting to be a Zeiss fanboy though, haha.
Zeiss rendering is more than a little addictive. I've had a chance to use quite a few of them, and I'm rarely disappointed by IQ!
Fantastic comparison Dustin. Thank you for your efforts.
My pleasure!
I love your videos and they have become known as the most credible and detailed photography gear review videos of to date . This comparison is interesting although I think you defunct the whole comparison in one abbreviation - AF . So I feel potential buyers of the Milvus or Sigma wont be swayed regardless of any comparison. A comparison between the 135mm Milvus and Samyang 135 f2 - game on , same customer catchment , aperture , manual focus but with one huge difference, price
Fair enough. Sometimes I do comparisons with lenses I own (the Milvus, in this case), as it gives a standard that I'm familiar with.
Oh I already have the Samyang 135mm, Rokinon 12mm and 24mm.
Terrific recipe Dustin. very nicely done. I'm deciding between the Zeiss 135 or the Nikon 105...
Tough choice. It really comes down to how comfortable you are with MF.
Dustin Abbott I'm very comfortable with manual lenses. I find it rewarding to use and enjoy the process. I guess you're leaning toward Zeiss! I have to agree with the Zeiss coloring. I've found that I rarely have to post process Zeiss images very much.
+silvere36 I can't really advise you as I haven't used the Nikon lens. I do know the Milvus is special, though.
Thanks for the great review! There is just only one thing left to find out - how does the Sigma 135 compare to the latest Batis 135.
That's a bit of a harder comparison because the Batis has such a smaller maximum aperture (and is built for a different system, though you can compare them on the a7R II with the MC-11). I found that the Batis delivers more contrast and "bite" in general (and even lower vignette), but neither did I compare them side by side. But stopping down the Sigma to f/2.8 would probably make things much closer anyway.
Yes, I am aware of the aperture difference, but what really interest me is the difference in color rendition and microcontrast. So you partly answered my question. Thanks again.
Thanks for this brilliant comparison. I am happy with this presentation. Btw, could you please compare the image sharpness between the Sigma 50-100mm and the Sigma 135mm though they differ in their focal lengths. Just wanna know which one will I buy. My concerns are the image sharpness and the bokeh. Thanks!
Man, your reviews are just too good. They make it more difficult to decide - I guess this is a paradox :) I agree with what bobbintonn remarked: the head says sigma, the heart zeiss. I just have 1 question, though: how do you estimate, would the same photo under exact the same lighting conditions & so on, come out in very large print, for those 2 lenses? I wouldn't mind the fact that the sigma photos may take some more work in post.
I think that both could produce an excellent result. The Milvus result, in my opinion, will have that subtle extra in color rendition and accuracy, but yes, with the right post work the Sigma result could probably be very close.
The heart says Milvus, the head says Sigma. I haven't used manual focus lenses before & have doubts that like many shooting in tourist mode if I'd have time to manually focus in many situations. Things happen quickly & you move place to place quickly.
This is well said, and the reason why relatively few people are shooting Zeiss glass.
I was also really skeptical at first about the manual focusing and sometimes people are joking about me taking longer that ordinary photogs to get the setup for the shot, but if I show them the results with my Milvus lense I always get great feedback. You can also learn the focus trapping technique for shooting moving targets, but anyway it is harder to do than just using autofocus.
It is amazing then how people managed to get great shots of moving subjects when all you had was manual focus!
I find this aversion toward manual focus to be a fad. It tales 1 minute to learn how to focus manually and with today's focus assist cameras, I rarely miss a shot with my Nikon 50mm f/1.2 and Zeiss Otus 1.4/85mm.
If you are in a situation where the subject changes rapidly, pre-focus and use a hyperfocal aperture.
Good review I also like the look of the Milvus. But I do have a question. In this test did you use auto focus on the Sigma when doing the test. Was just thinking if you used auto focus one and manual on the other. Is it possible the cameras auto focus would be a little different from the exactness of the users eye?
+jariol I used 10x Live View focus for both.
Good to know you thought about consistency also. I haven't bought a Milvus yet. It's on my list. Not afraid of manual focus. In fact I seem to do that a lot on my Sigma 85 Art. Thanks Mr. Abbott keep up the great reviews.
Very useful review! I am with Zeiss glass anytime. However, my aging sight requires an autofocus lens. Sadly.
You're not alone in that. And, of course, many modern cameras aren't as accommodating to MF glass in terms of their focus screen and MF aids.
Thanks Dustin for the very interesting review. Keep on the good work.
It seems that CA is much better controlled by the Zeiss, especially at MFD (as in your flowers example).
+Dan S. There's no question that the Zeiss is optically at another level when all things are considered. It's also much more expensive, though.
Dustin...did you by chance have to calibrate the Sigma with the Sigma dock?
Yes. I try to make that my practice.
Dustin should I get the Canon 6D mark 2 or just get Zeiss 135mm f2 and use my old 6D? I'm a photographer but it's all the hobby for me.
I can't answer that until I've reviewed the 6D Mark II
I would love to hear your thoughts on the new Sony A7R-iii, which is my current daily working professional body, simply because of your technical testing and overall content quality is second to none IMO, and I love your fair and accurate testing. I would also REALLY love to see you specifically show us a comparison between the Zeiss Batis 85mm EF vs. The Sony EF 85mm 1.8, or even better, the GM 85mm 1.4 vs. The Sony EF 85mm 1.8, since I have considered the GM option but currently only own the Sony 85mm 1.8 simply because I wasnt sure if the GM's price could be justified by its optics, although I am sure it is superior, but I wasn't sure if it was necessary for my work at least, and the 85mm 1.8 is truly sharp with great bokeh for $600 , anyways I would LOVE to see any of those comparisons, as there aren't any side by side style VS. videos out there that I have found, and I respect your opinions as I have been watching your channel for years now, and have been very happy with every purchase that I have made after watching your reviews. I am amazed by Sony's Mirrorless technology , but being fairly new in the context of digital imaging, there arent as many reviews of this quality out there yet on most of the EF native lenses and bodies. Keep up the great content, I and many others truly benefit from your tests and reviews!
I’m waiting for my a7R 3 to arrive, and I’ll see what Sony reviews I can fit it for the future.
Dustin Abbott Awesome!!! Thank you for your reply and Im very much looking forward to it! I am simply amazed by both the A7Riii body as well as the native lenses I have purchased so far, especially when comparing them against my prior Canon gear. I love Canon, but I think that Sony truly has a ton of advantages, especially for the work that I do. Glad to hear that you have an A7Riii on the way, Hope you enjoy it as much as I have been and Im very much looking forward to some Sony reviews!!!
Thanks a lot, Dustin! You're the best :)
+Yasser Sultan Thank you!
My history with the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART was not a very good one, I had to return the lens for another copy due to focus inaccuracies, it would acquire focus very fast, but lacked any sharpness or detail and it would often just fail to acquire accurate focus. Did you find that you had to calibrate either lens to your camera, either in camera or using the Sigma Dock?
I have to calibrate pretty much every AF lens. I actually find that my own 5D Mark IV seems to require more lens calibration than previous FF bodies, and more than what my 6D requires. The Milvus doesn't really require calibration because it has no autofocus. The AF confirm chip seems reasonably accurate though.
Yes I was not thinking when I posted my comment, I forgot that the Milvus is a manual focus only lens, but it's far out of my price bracket and for my type of shooting the manual focus lens would not be to my benefit. And last price check the Milvus is $2200.
Great review as always
Enjoy!
hi, can you do a Comparison between the sigma 135 to the caon 135 l ? it will be very interesting to see
+Dvir Kinarty Unfortunately I don't have either lens on hand, but should I get another copy of the Sigma in hand in a few weeks I might be able to make that happen
Dustin please compare Canon 135L vs sigma 135 art
please
No guarantees, but if I happen to have them at the same time...
please review the 50 art and milvus together
I'm afraid my schedule is far too busy to do that comparison right now. I'm backlogged as it is with new equipment!
lm getting the Zeiss Milvus 135mm but lm also getting the 135mm art for when l feel real lazy. but the Zeiss Milvus 135mm lm getting flrst for my CANON 5DSR.
I wish the 5DsR would allow for more easy swapping of focus screens. It would be an incredible platform for MF glass if you could put something like an EG-S focus screen in there
l agree
Love my Canon 135 f2; has its own "je ne sais quoi" that can't really be quantified or analyzed using rational methods....
I would agree with that assessment.
Though we always appreciate your even-handed, meticulous, and highly intelligible reviews, pastor. Shalom uvracha lekha!
Blessings to you, too.!
I love your reviews!!
Thank you!
thanks*
It is hardly a bad choice going with a Zeiss lens, more like a sound investment you wont regret later on. Not sure the same could be said about Sigma. That's not saying Sigma hasn't improved, as they have, however they got a long ways to go before they can catch up to Zeiss engineering and even longer... their reputation!
I also noted in my Sigma Art 24-35 f/2 lens which is very sharp and bright, with much less distortion than the older Nikkor 35mm f/2 D; lacks the same color retention of the later lens as well as saturation. Many Nikon photographers who own the flagship D810 with its high resolution of 36 mpx, are actually using the older 35 f/2 D because of its color retention rather than the much newer 35mm 1.4 Sigma Art and dealing with the distortion of the older lens in post processing. There is much more to a lenes quality than just sharpness.
Definitely agree with your final statement. It's something that Zeiss has in spades, but not everyone else has.
Zeiss 135 APO > Milvus 135
Nope. They have the same optical formula, but it has been optimized and the coatings improved in the Milvus version.
Dustin Abbott oh I know, but the body of the APO is just so sexy, and the milvus doesn't quite do it for me haha
I would get the weather sealing on the Milvus any day. Even if you do not shoot in rain it is still a good protection against dust.
great video!!! tahnks
You're welcome!
Hi Dustin Optically among Zeiss Milvus 85mm f1.4 and 135 f2 which is best ?
It's much like what I would say about any 85 vs 135 lens: the Milvus 135 produces more "special" images, IMO, but the 85mm focal length is more versatile.
Dustin Abbott ok how abt resolution at higest aperture ?as i know 135 is almost perfect and very close to otus equivalent ...
I do like the Milvus 135 best. I purchased it.
Dustin Abbott do u use any specific tool for precise mannual focus ....currently in my country zeiss providing 30 % discount on mrp which makes price very close to Sigma art line up ...
I already have a nikon 70-200 FL F2.8 ....So 135 maybe not appropriate for me
Sigma just keeps getting better
+Morvegil Jorsalfar That's very true. I feel like the 135 ART is their most complete effort
I''m holding my breath for a competitor to the Canon 16-35 f/4 L
That could be an interesting lens, although the Canon is already an excellent value.
The Milvus is the same optical design as the classic 135mm right? Stunning lens, one of my favorites for sure. This was one of the first images I took with it, but the contrast and rendering blew me away tjholowaychuk.imgix.net/image/collections/victoria/DSC_1866.jpg
Right. There are a few minor tweaks (coatings and barrel optimization), but the IQ difference is minuscule.
Any reviews with the Samyang as well?
I have reviewed the Samyang, but I didn't have it on hand for this comparison.
And which one is ending up in your personal kit :)
I'll share that information down the road. I'm not looking to influence people's decision.
Dear Dustin,
First I really appreciate your reviews and thank you very much for them.
Yet shaolin95 is right, first I done my own testing with the two lenses and clearly the sigma at distance greater than 2.5 meter is sharper than the Zeiss and the opposite is true as well close to MFD the Zeiss wins.
Second the 135 ART is sharper than the 85 ART in all tests.
The Sigma also has quite a bit less CA a point that effects the color rendition.
The Zeiss 135 is clearly a super lens and you can’t get anything better below 2 meters but
And this is clear but the ART 135 is the better lens above 2.5 meter and it is much better at infinity.
It won’t be fair to ignore shooting at normal distance and rate the sigma 2 second, since it is not.
As for other tests, they found the sigma sharper here is the links:
www.lenstip.com/501.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_135_mm_f_1.8_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html
Some found them have area where they are better or worst.
www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-135mm-f-1.8-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx
I think this a very good summary. I quote from TDP:
At the Sigma 135 Art lens' introduction, the lens to beat was the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Milvus Lens. The recently-prior-introduced Milvus lens utilized the same optical design as its predecessor, the Classic version, and the likely reason for the design carry-over was because it was already awesome. In the anticipated Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art Lens vs. Zeiss Milvus 135mm f/2 Lens image quality comparison, we see a 50 megapixel sensor struggling to show any differences at f/1.8 vs. f/2. If forced to pick a winner, I'd lean toward the Zeiss, but ... it is better by only the slimmest of margins. At f/2, the Sigma is slightly better in the center of the frame with the Zeiss still having a tiny corner advantage. At f/2.8, determining a winner will make your eyes hurt.
So, both are excellent lenses on a similar optical performance, yet the sigma is cheaper and has AF,
While the Zeiss has a proud of ownership you can ignore
Thank again.
Yair
One more issue, Lloyd Chambers tests published until now are all around MFD where you are both right the Zeiss is much superior.
With all due respect, I have not found that to be true in my testing. Secondly, the LensTip article does NOT say that the lens is sharper than the Milvus. In fact, LensTip has not reviewed the Milvus, and it's review of the APO Sonnar (Classic) version was done not only on a different camera body but a different camera system. At no point does Bryan say that the Sigma is sharper, either. In fact, his summation states that if he were forced to pick a winner, he would lean towards the Zeiss (though both lenses are very close). Finally, Lloyd Chambers has tested the lens at more than MFD, though not all results are publicly published. Have you published your methods and results?
I am sorry I didn’t to upset no one,
I have a lot respect for you and the work you do.
You are a reviewer and I am just end user , I don’t have a web site nor a you tube channel.
I am not questioning anything what you say, I am just saying our experience doesn’t match.
(I hope we can agree to disagree )
The fact is that in your review I didn’t see any portrait distance or infinity comparison and my findings were the sigma is better those applications.
Regarding Bryan, please read again, this is why I quote directly from him.
“At f/2, the Sigma is slightly better in the center of the frame with the Zeiss still having a tiny corner advantage”
On the same aperture the Sigma in the center is sharper than the Zeiss according him.
It is on 5DSR so it is the hardest test possible.
The copy of the Zeiss I rented was clearly superior at the near field yet inferior at the distances I shoot.
I am registered to Lloyd Chambers’s web site, so once he will publish his tests I will be see them and learn.
I am just sharing my experience.
I might get a very good copy of the ART 135 and a bad one of the Zeiss.
Have a great day and continue the great job.
Thank you for your clarification, and I'm not really upset. What does bother me is that often people will cast doubt on my testing methods and/or conclusions without providing any documentation of their own. We can certainly agree to disagree, and, in fact, if Sigma does send me another copy of the lens I will be sure to include infinity testing in my comparison.
That is my main problem with sigma the QC/QA is simply not there yet.
I had to go through a process with all of my ART lenses until my copy was good enough. It never happened to me with Zeiss or Nikon. But I guess it is all in the pricing, you get what you pay for.
You can check roger testing, he just started by testing a little off copy..
www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/04/sigma-135mm-f1-8-art-mtf-charts-and-a-look-behind-the-curtain/
Don’t know why but with sigma It always happened to me that the copy I picked had issues
ATB
Yair
I just realize the Zeiss is not AF, and $1000 more expensive than the Sigma.
That's the two big knocks against it, for sure!
I think you have the most thoughtful lens reviews on RUclips. Yet, I do
wish you would reflect on your original overview video for your youtube
video web site. In it you said your reviews are NOT of pixel peeping
test charts. Now that seems to be the standard you seem to employ over
the last year as a core part of many/all of your lens reviews. I am
reminded of the CNET commentary on 1080 vs 4K TV on resolution
(reference:
www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/)
" The eye has a finite resolution
This is
basic biology. The accepted "normal" vision is 20/20. In response to my
previous articles on the stupidity of 4K TVs, many people argued they
had better vision, or some other number should be used. This is like
arguing doors should be bigger because there are tall people. Also, just
because you have better vision, doesn't mean most people have better
vision. If they did, it wouldn't be better, it would be average. Try this. Go to the beach (or a big
sandbox, or a baseball diamond). Sit down. Start counting how many
grains of sand you can see next to you. Now do the same with the grains
of sand by your feet. Try again with the sand far beyond your feet
(like, say, 10 feet away). The fact that you can see individual grains
near you, but not farther away is exactly what we're talking about here. The eye is analog. Randomly analog at that.
So of course some people are going to see more detail than others, and
at different distances, but 20/20 is what everyone knows, and it is by far the most logical place to start any discussion."
Yes, pixel peeping becomes more of an issue if you crop extensively but once you look at reasonable practical scale I doubt the difference is a difference. For example, in your review of generation one of the Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 VC you choose it over the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II saying your liked the rendering better and thought if anything the Tamron was a bit sharper. Now in reviewing the Tamon 70-200 F/2.8 VS II you state that the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II is a better lens from 150-200mm. Well, isn't the long end what most people buy a telephoto for and the wide end for a ultra wide. Is the pixel peeping test charts of your recent reviews causing you to be with your nose on the beach sand (see above) and not where it should be looking at the practical differences that matter in the real world as in printing and/or non-pixel peeping test charts ? I wish your reviews would go back to the impact an imagine gives in terms that are meaningful when not zoomed into the pixel scale.
Roger, thanks for the feedback. The reality is that I don't please everyone with how I choose to review gear. My current philosophy is to try to mix empirical data with real world observations. My hope is that I can reflect the realities of absolute sharpness (which many people, right or wrong, value) along with observations as a photographer on things like rendering and real-world performance.
My thoughts are that you were not wrong before about not pixel peeping. Your strength was emphasizing what matters to help people save money on real substantial, meaningful differences including it is not about scales that are not seen but colors, contrast, boken, and flare resistance that are at any scale.
Dustin,
I agree with Roger. Scrambling to please everyone ends up pleasing no one including reality as you define it. So if you want to be like everyone else than you will differentiate yourself to no one. I much preferred your essence of real world based reviews rather than "mine is bigger than yours" chasing the cats tail of minimal consequence. Like Roger, I historically have trusted your previous reviews as the best !
+Peter Anderson Thank you for your feedback
+Noel Anderson I'll definitely take your input under consideration. Ultimately what I do is mostly about what I feel is the best way to cover the various aspects of lens performance, and I'm still growing as a photographer myself.
zeiss milvus 135 winner. King of lens.
It's a fabulous lens, to be sure. Very much an Otus in performance
You are very quick to judge, shaolin95. This episode was shot while I had all of the lenses on hand, and I can only report on what I have - not what might be theoretically possible. This is true of all reviewers. If Sigma does send me a second copy for evaluation, I will report accordingly. I haven't yet heard any reviewer say that the Sigma is sharper or have more contrast than the Milvus, though. Sample variation exists in the real world, and you may have a very good copy of the 135. To my knowledge, however, you are not sharing your testing methods to the world for critique, either. BTW, I know of a number of other reviewers that are drawing the same conclusions, including Lloyd Chambers, for example.
You are so correct Dustin, the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 was the first lens that I have purchased that was a total fail and after much research there's many variations that exists that would cause a lens to fail and I also found it's not uncommon for professionals to return a lens until they have acquired a good copy. And believe me I was not ready to purchase a $1400 lens that would not focus correctly and have a total lack of sharpness and detail, even after calibration. This experience has been eye opening for me.
First thanks for the reply, I do mostly portraits where manual focus is not a big deal, but I have many grandchildren that will not sit still long enough for me to capture their photos and from time to time I do take jobs where action is important to capture and stop it and I just can't see spending $2200 for a lens that's so specialized, narrow DOF and manual focus, I know I know the sharpness is a must, but for my shooting style I would need the fast accurate auto focus and razor sharpness, I need both. I returned the lens and will try another copy or until I get a good copy, I am searching to upgrade my lens calibration methods to ensure the lens and body are in harmony, any suggestions?
Thanks for the reply, all input helps me or someone else. When I started in photography in the 70's everything was manual focus including exposure, not sure if you remember the Canon AE1 era, I had a Nikon FM film camera and you were limited to 36 shots, before you had to change the roll, but I don't want to go back to the 70's so a lens that can achieve fast, accurate focus, with sharpness and detail is the life for me "green archers". reference. I know with lots of practice I could remaster manual focus again, but I just don't want to do the work at this time and spending tons of money on a lens where fast, accurate focus is a must should not be this hard, unless Sigma is poorly lacking in quality control, I don't doubt the design but poor quality control must play a part in Sigma's failure rate. I was warned before I made the purchase but I had never had such a bad experience before and I took the chance and it was a bad one, but as soon as my refund hits my account I will order again and try another copy.
SONY HAS ABANDONED THEIR A MOUNT LENSES..........NO ICON LENSES FOR THE A MOUNT A99ll sony, the best camera out there.....Sony, you messed up, you have destroyed the top full frame camera on the market.....
Why in the world would you compare a manual focus lens against a auto focus lens...... Would not comparing a Zeiss (Sony) 135mm f1.8 vs sigma 135mm f1.8 lenses which are both auto focus a much better test????.....I am aware that the Milvus and Sigma lens are not made for the Sony "A" mount as the other is......You should have included the Zeiss (Sony) 135mm f1.8 auto focus lens in this test.......Another question.....What kind of clarity would your images be if you set up the Milvus lens for Zone focus?????
if you buy that zeiss lens, make sure it is for a Nikon or Canon AND NOT A SONY....I had an interesting conversation with Zeiss concerning the Zeiss lens they made for Sony....We are talking about the Zeiss (sony) 135mm f1.8 lens....Zeiss does not support or service this lens, if the lens was made for nikon or canon, yes, but no service for this lens made for Sony....I called Sony, they told me, even though i bought that lens from their online store when it was operating, cost 1,798.00..... Sony does not support or service that product, they told me to contact Zeiss....This is just another example of Sony's rotten no good customer service....I would urge everyone not to trust Sony on any level.... I would say any negative so called ranting on Sony they have it coming.........
You are talking about a completely different lens, Howard. The Milvus 2/135mm is only made in Canon and Nikon mounts.
Great, because Zeiss does not support the lenses they make for Sopny, and Sony does not either........Do not buy anything from Sony any longer