NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: John Koerner on February 12, 2017, 22:28:43
-
Does anyone know of any side-by-side comparisons of these two lenses--or has anyone actually owned/used both lenses to the extent that they can offer a recommendation as to one over the other?
I have been using the Ai-S Nikkor 15mm f/3.5 as an ultra-wide for about a year and am simply unsatisfied with it. It's not very sharp, loaded with CA, and doesn't render color as well as my other Nikkor lenses.
I am wanting to get a premium ultra-wide lens, and I have read mostly great reviews about the AFS Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8, except that it is not optimal at 14mm, is prone to flare, and that the lack of a front filter/protection to the front element is both a cause for concern as well as an impediment to adding a desired filter.
The Zeiss Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 seems to be almost universally "the" ultra-wide Nirvana. However, right now, Zeiss is fading the Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 out of production and is promoting the Milvus 15mm f/2.8 in its place. As a result of this transition, the Milvus is at a premium price point, while prices are dropping on the Distagon T* classic, making the Distagon the more attractive option (to me).
From what I understand, there is no actual qualitative difference in the two lenses, except that the Milvus is water-sealed, where the Distagon T* is not. Style-wise, I actually prefer the elder design.
So I am curious, has anyone actually owned/used or even compared these two lenses? If so, which is superior, or are they in fact virtually identical?
Any first hand accounts, or links to direct comparisons, would be appreciated, thank you.
Jack
-
From what I understand, the coatings are also improved on the Milvus line. Apart from that I think you already answered your own question - there are no differences optically so the images will be the same. The Milvus has a new style barrel with better weather sealing, but if the weather sealing is not important and you prefer the older style (and it is cheaper) then why not go for it?
-
Thanks for the feedback, Roland.
Improved coatings + weather sealing might well be a reason to dig a little deeper and purchase the Milvus.
However, I am most curious as to how the "improvement" manifests itself? (Improved rendering, color transmission, CA correction?)
The weather sealing aspect is attractive, but I can't imagine letting either lens be exposed to the elements without panic :)
If there is no discernible difference in sharpness, color transmission, or CA correction, I would just as soon spend less and buy the Classic Distagon Zeiss ... esp. at a discount as it is phased out 8)
However, if there is an appreciable gain in performance in the Milvus, in criteria that are important to me, then I would be inclined to lean towards the Milvus.
Thanks again,
Jack
-
I have not used either of the Zeiss 15/2.8 for Nikon, Classic or Milvus. I have however used a few other Zeiss lenses ZF for Nikon, ZM for Leica and now Batis for Sony mirrorless. I am pretty sure that the coating on the Classic version will not be a problem. All Zeiss lenses I have used have been first rate quality, and there have been no problems.
If you can save on getting a new Classic ZF.2 15/2.8, then that sounds like a great option to me.
-
Improved coatings + weather sealing might well be a reason to dig a little deeper and purchase the Milvus.
However, I am most curious as to how the "improvement" manifests itself? (Improved rendering, color transmission, CA correction?)
The weather sealing aspect is attractive, but I can't imagine letting either lens be exposed to the elements without panic :)
If there is no discernible difference in sharpness, color transmission, or CA correction, I would just as soon spend less and by the Classic Distagon Zeiss ... esp. at a discount as it is phased out 8)
However, if there is a measurable gain in performance in the Milvus, then I would be inclined to lean towards it.
If the new coating is simply an improved type of multi-layer coating, I doubt there will be a big difference. I'm sure the original coatings were very good to begin with - Zeiss are known for putting quality coatings on their lenses. There may be small improvements in color transmission, or resistance to flare or ghosting, but I suspect you will have to really look to see the difference.
Coatings do not affect CA correction or resolution (unless they are terrible or covered in dust or fungus). These properties are a product of the glass and overall optical design. Good coatings will increase transmission and contrast which can give an impression of greater sharpness though.
To get a dramatic improvement in coatings would require some sort of Nano-Crystal coating which works on a different principle from multi-layer coating. I've not heard anything to indicate that Zeiss uses this technology.
-
The only real difference that will be of any use for these two versions is that the Lens hood was build in and is now removable on the new version, so filters can be screwed in directly without any restrictions.
-
Hi Jack
My used 15mm f2.8 Distagon looks new, and at the cost of 1200 quid in UK was the big deciding factor; another is the use of screw-in filters, especially for protection. Although, subsequently I've learnt I'd been misinformed as to the ability of this lens to use the 100 filter system [see below]
You've likely seen these reviews below. They fully justify this Zeiss as ahead of the pack but I have no plans to test the ability of such an optic to handle bad weather, although African dust is a concern in some places. So not worried about the Milvus upgrade.
http://3d-kraft.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:uwa-comparison&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
https://diglloyd.com/prem/s/ZF/publish/15Distagon.html?dglyPT=true
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120316_1-Zeiss15Distagon.html
https://jebbuchmanphotography.com/2015/04/16/essential-gear-for-a-landscape-shot/
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/988-zeisszf1528ff
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-15mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx
https://dustinabbott.net/2015/01/zeiss-distagon-t-2-815mm-review/
However, I am most curious as to how the "improvement" manifests itself? (Improved rendering, color transmission, CA correction?)
The weather sealing aspect is attractive, but I can't imagine letting either lens be exposed to the elements without panic :)
If there is no discernible difference in sharpness, color transmission, or CA correction, I would just as soon spend less and buy the Classic Distagon Zeiss ... esp. at a discount as it is phased out 8)
However, if there is an appreciable gain in performance in the Milvus, in criteria that are important to me, then I would be inclined to lean towards the Milvus.
I will soon machine off the integral lips of the lens hood, instead of the costs and delays using the orthodox route :
http://www.zeiss.co.uk/camera-lenses/en_gb/service/modification_distagont2815.html
I plan to use my 15mm mainly with a 150 filter system - a Lee holder and also with HiTech and NiSi filters. All add-ons for these ultra-wides, not least PL filters, are expensive, e.g the 95mm Zeiss PL. I'm looking at the 105mm PL by Lee or Marumi on a stepping ring (95 > 105). I have nearly finished machining up my own adapter to fit the Lee holder to the lens, with the mechanism to adjust the PL "internally", using integral rotating cogs that snug up against the PL immediately in front of the lens. Mainly Nylon-6 plate (10mm thick) and 316 stainless steel plate (1.2mm) for the structural parts. The 105 PL is screwed into the lens, via the stepping ring, and the 150 grads / big stopper etc fit into their slots in front. Narrower stepping rings will fit this system on my 21 Zeiss and 24 PCE Nikkor etc. NiSi have a similar PL holder but it only fits to lenses of 82mm and narrower diameter.
Once this PL holder / adapter is up and working, I'll post more details with photos on my website. The machining is not that intricate but one needs a bench milling machine and lathe, and also access to TIG [argon] welding, and a machine shop do the latter. But I now have to wait until i can get the PL and Heliopan stepping ring in UK next month... frustrating interlude until then :-)
kind regards
Woody
-
The only real difference that will be of any use for these two versions is that the Lens hood was build in and is now removable on the new version, so filters can be screwed in directly without any restrictions.
According to Zeiss staff at Photokina 16 the Classic version could be sent in to Zeiss and the hood be removed for a certain fee.
Not sure if they continue that kind of support, though.
Cheers,
Günther
-
This lens is reported to have quite a lot of vignetting. My main application for superwide angle lenses is interiors and I need white walls to stay uniformly white as possible, without extensive adjustment in post. In practice I find that 1-2 stops of vignetting can be easily corrected but 3-4 stops not. If high ISO is used and extensive vignetting corrected, the outer areas of the frame get very noisy after correction and uniformity of colour and tone can be less than perfect. That said, I have not used this particular lens, only looked at reviews. The 14-24 Nikkor seems better in terms of uniform luminosity across the frame and at least photozone's review give it higher MTF as well (at 14mm), but the Zeiss has less CA and distortion, and I would imagine, knowing the flare and ghosting behavior of the 14-24 that the Zeiss is likely to be better in that respect as well. Still, my choice would be the Nikkor given the information available.
-
Hi Jack
My used 15mm f2.8 Distagon looks new, and at the cost of 1200 quid in UK was the big deciding factor; another is the use of screw-in filters, especially for protection. Although, subsequently I've learnt I'd been misinformed as to the ability of this lens to use the 100 filter system [see below]
You've likely seen these reviews below. They fully justify this Zeiss as ahead of the pack but I have no plans to test the ability of such an optic to handle bad weather, although African dust is a concern in some places. So not worried about the Milvus upgrade.
http://3d-kraft.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:uwa-comparison&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
https://diglloyd.com/prem/s/ZF/publish/15Distagon.html?dglyPT=true
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120316_1-Zeiss15Distagon.html
https://jebbuchmanphotography.com/2015/04/16/essential-gear-for-a-landscape-shot/
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/988-zeisszf1528ff
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-15mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx
https://dustinabbott.net/2015/01/zeiss-distagon-t-2-815mm-review/
I will soon machine off the integral lips of the lens hood, instead of the costs and delays using the orthodox route :
http://www.zeiss.co.uk/camera-lenses/en_gb/service/modification_distagont2815.html
I plan to use my 15mm mainly with a 150 filter system - a Lee holder and also with HiTech and NiSi filters. All add-ons for these ultra-wides, not least PL filters, are expensive, e.g the 95mm Zeiss PL. I'm looking at the 105mm PL by Lee or Marumi on a stepping ring (95 > 105). I have nearly finished machining up my own adapter to fit the Lee holder to the lens, with the mechanism to adjust the PL "internally", using integral rotating cogs that snug up against the PL immediately in front of the lens. Mainly Nylon-6 plate (10mm thick) and 316 stainless steel plate (1.2mm) for the structural parts. The 105 PL is screwed into the lens, via the stepping ring, and the 150 grads / big stopper etc fit into their slots in front. Narrower stepping rings will fit this system on my 21 Zeiss and 24 PCE Nikkor etc. NiSi have a similar PL holder but it only fits to lenses of 82mm and narrower diameter.
Once this PL holder / adapter is up and working, I'll post more details with photos on my website. The machining is not that intricate but one needs a bench milling machine and lathe, and also access to TIG [argon] welding, and a machine shop do the latter. But I now have to wait until i can get the PL and Heliopan stepping ring in UK next month... frustrating interlude until then :-)
kind regards
Woody
Hi Chambeshi,
reading your post in this thread I think I learned a few interesting things about you, that I had missed before, please correct me if I am wrong:
1) You live in the UK
2) You are adept with metal milling and have the equipment.
I was wondering if you could help me with a photo project I have going, where I have got stuck..
If so, please send me a PM and I will explain what it is about (I don't want to bring further out of topic this thread).
Thanks
Simone
PS: I also live in the UK, near Manchester
-
Hi Jack
My used 15mm f2.8 Distagon looks new, and at the cost of 1200 quid in UK was the big deciding factor; another is the use of screw-in filters, especially for protection. Although, subsequently I've learnt I'd been misinformed as to the ability of this lens to use the 100 filter system [see below]
You've likely seen these reviews below. They fully justify this Zeiss as ahead of the pack but I have no plans to test the ability of such an optic to handle bad weather, although African dust is a concern in some places. So not worried about the Milvus upgrade.
http://3d-kraft.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:uwa-comparison&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
https://diglloyd.com/prem/s/ZF/publish/15Distagon.html?dglyPT=true
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120316_1-Zeiss15Distagon.html
https://jebbuchmanphotography.com/2015/04/16/essential-gear-for-a-landscape-shot/
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/988-zeisszf1528ff
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-15mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx
https://dustinabbott.net/2015/01/zeiss-distagon-t-2-815mm-review/
I will soon machine off the integral lips of the lens hood, instead of the costs and delays using the orthodox route :
http://www.zeiss.co.uk/camera-lenses/en_gb/service/modification_distagont2815.html
I plan to use my 15mm mainly with a 150 filter system - a Lee holder and also with HiTech and NiSi filters. All add-ons for these ultra-wides, not least PL filters, are expensive, e.g the 95mm Zeiss PL. I'm looking at the 105mm PL by Lee or Marumi on a stepping ring (95 > 105). I have nearly finished machining up my own adapter to fit the Lee holder to the lens, with the mechanism to adjust the PL "internally", using integral rotating cogs that snug up against the PL immediately in front of the lens. Mainly Nylon-6 plate (10mm thick) and 316 stainless steel plate (1.2mm) for the structural parts. The 105 PL is screwed into the lens, via the stepping ring, and the 150 grads / big stopper etc fit into their slots in front. Narrower stepping rings will fit this system on my 21 Zeiss and 24 PCE Nikkor etc. NiSi have a similar PL holder but it only fits to lenses of 82mm and narrower diameter.
Once this PL holder / adapter is up and working, I'll post more details with photos on my website. The machining is not that intricate but one needs a bench milling machine and lathe, and also access to TIG [argon] welding, and a machine shop do the latter. But I now have to wait until i can get the PL and Heliopan stepping ring in UK next month... frustrating interlude until then :-)
kind regards
Woody
Woody, I appreciate the thought and time that went into this post, thank you.
The 4 stops of vignetting was the worst thing I saw about the Zeiss, although it really only occurred that badly at f/28, and was mostly gone by f/5.6. (Another thing I noticed about the vignetting comments was that this was in jpegs taken right out of the camera, which I would never do.)
Since I plan on shooting mostly between f/8 and f/11, what happens at f/2.8 will seldom be a bother for me. What I noticed about the Photozone test (to be taken with a grain of salt, as they tested it on an outdated D3), is that sharpness peaks at f/4.0, and falls by f/5.6, on the Distagon T*—whereas the Milvus finds its best scores in the f/8-f/11 range, which is precisely where I plan to be in my own landscape habitat shooting:
See ePhotoZine MTF Chart and Review (https://www.ephotozine.com/article/zeiss-milvus-15mm-f-2-8-distagon-t--review-30186).
(These tests were done on a D810 and the scores were pretty incredible for any lens, but especially an ultra-wide lens.)
I've not seen any complaints yet about the Milvus' vignetting ...
As far as the filter goes, I don't think I have the skill or resources to be milling my lenses, so I will leave such projects to you :)
Interestingly, filter-use was often cited as a cause of vignetting, with very thin (or no) filters being recommended. The MTF chart on ePhotozine kind of makes me lean more toward the Milvus, actually, if the Distagon is strongest at f/4, a place where I will almost never be with that kind of lens.
-
Airy reported that The flare problem in certain conditions of Classic Makro Planar 50/2.0 is significanltly improved on the Milvis version. Maybe not only the coating but the also inner construction of the lens barrel could have been redesigned. The same may go with other Milvis lenses that took over the same optical designs from the Classic versions.
-
Photozones test of the 15mm ZF.2 2.8 is on a D3X not a D3
-
Airy reported that The flare problem in certain conditions of Classic Makro Planar 50/2.0 is significanltly improved on the Milvis version. Maybe not only the coating but the also inner construction of the lens barrel could have been redesigned. The same may go with other Milvis lenses that took over the same optical designs from the Classic versions.
Thanks. I think you may be right, as the Milvus 100 is ever-so-slightly better than the 100 planar macro, while the 21mm is a pretty good improvement over the Distagon 21mm.
Interestingly, though, the price on the elder Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 just went back up to $2,950 (after dropping $600 for 3 days) ... while the newer Milvus stays at $2,650 :-\
The Milvus design is just unimpressive; I prefer the Classic Distagon lines in almost every iteration.
-
I also prefer the conventional styling of the older series, aesthetically speaking. However, if the new 15/2.8 Milvus has a plastic lens shade instead of metal, I'd rather have that for its shock absorption qualities. The old 15/2.8 had either the non-removable 2-petal shade or no shade, depending on which version you bought or ordered.
A full 4-petal but removable unit is preferable.
-
As strong believer of the Bauhaus' motto "Form follows function", I prefer the Classic design, but, for the same reason, I'm not big fan of the glaring black finish of the Classic and prefer more matte finish of Milvis. So far as the hood ls concerned, I would most definitely prefer the plastic for the reason Keith mentioned.
-
The Zeiss Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 seems to be almost universally "the" ultra-wide Nirvana.
WoW. That is a big "erroneous" statement.
I tried the Zeiss 15mm and have somewhere a forgotten Nikkor 15/3.5
The universally known cream of the crop which is sitting pretty in it's leather sheath sleeping in my cabinet is the:
Leica R Super Elmarit 2.8 Asph (which in fact is a Schneider-Kreuznach)
Unfortunately, I don't use it much as I do not do landscape or architectural photography.
-
WoW. That is a big "erroneous" statement.
I tried the Zeiss 15mm and have somewhere a forgotten Nikkor 15/3.5
The universally known cream of the crop which is sitting pretty in it's leather sheath sleeping in my cabinet is the:
Leica R Super Elmarit 2.8 Asph (which in fact is a Schneider-Kreuznach)
Unfortunately, I don't use it much as I do not do landscape or architectural photography.
Big erroneous? Almost every site or measuring platform places the Zeiss as the pinnacle and doesn't mention the Leica (although that could be because so few people can afford Leica.)
I am grateful for any new information, so thanks for bringing this up. I did an online search for it, and it looks like a very expensive, discontinued lens. The price is still $6000-$7,000, despite its being discontinued, so I am sure it is a great lens.
I tried to look it up on LenScore, and couldnt find it. However, of the top 20 lenses at LenScore, Nikon made 9, Canon 6, Zeiss 3, and Leica only 2. (As far as Schneider-quality goes, compared to Zeiss-quality, the only 2 Schneider lenses measured were at the 28th and 30th positions, one a macro, the other a tilt-shift, respectively. Their best lenses may not be well-represented here though.)
While 2 50mm Leicas did occupy the top 10 area, most of the Leica lenses were in the middle, to lower-middle level, including the Leica Super-Elmar-M 1:3.4/21mm ASPH, which not only had an unimpressive score (despite its expensive price), but was a few notches down from its equivalent, the Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21 (which itself did not rank as high as the Zeiss Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8).
In doing even more research, what I found interesting was that Zeiss actually refurbished its own 15mm to make the original ultra-wide for Leica, the 15 f/3.5, whereas Schneider made the f/2.8 15mm lens for Leica (as you mentioned). As for comparisons between this Schneider version and the Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 of my inquiry, the only semi-comparison I found came from Fred Miranda's site (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/237992/0), which said,
- 3) Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 15mm F3.5
An amazing accomplishment at this super wide angle that met a lot of challenges of the super wide angle lens. 1) The most resilient lens against CA that I ever tested only second to the Zeiss Mirotar 500mm F4.5. 2) It is superb against flares. 3) It is a very sharp lens and well distributed across the whole entire image. 4) The only negative down side which lead to some folks stay away from rectinlear lens is the 4% distortion. It very well built and has a built in filter turrret. Will work on any Canon 1 series camera with an adapter.
- 4) Leica Super-Elmar-R 15mm F3.5
This is the same lens that Carl Zeiss designed for Contax above. This lens will work on your Canon 1 series camera with an adapter since it is a Zeiss design thus the rear element is further away from the mirror. The one thing that I love about this lens more than the Contax version is that I have not come across one lens that has stiff focusing mechanism. However, the aperature opening is typical of Leitz and not Zeiss where the Contax Distagon 15mm F3.5 with wide open f stops yield the Ninja Star.
- 5) Leica Super-Elmarit-R 15mm F2.8
This is a very recent lens thus all of them comes with ROM. The production start in 2002 and it is by Schneider Optics. This lens pick up where Zeiss left off and corrected the 4% barrel distortion all the way down to 2% barrel distotion. Thus, it give us a very pleasing looks and for those that shy away from this focal length due to distortion will love this lens. The image is the sharpest super wide angle lens that I have ever seen especially in the center. It even beat the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 and is as sharp as the Leitz 60mm macro lens. However, on the edges it is a little soft compared against the standard Zeiss 21mm F2.8 but similar to the Zeiss Distagon/Super-Elmar-R 15mm F3.5 on the edges. Thus, this is a great accomplishment by Schneider. The only other thing is that the CA is not as well control as the Zeiss Distagon/Super-Elmar-R 15mm F3.5. This lens has a built in filter turret. It required mirror modification in order to work on Canon 1 series DSLRs since the mirror hisses the rear element housing.
Keep in mind, this compared the Leica Super-Elmarit-R 15mm f/2.8 against the Zeiss Distagon T* 15mm f/3.5 not Zeiss' improved f/2.8
From what I understand, while the Leica/Schneider f/2.8 is sharp, the newer Zeiss Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 is sharper than the Zeiss 21mm also. Meanwhile, even the elder f/3.5 Zeiss has much better CA control than the Leica, as well as the best anti-flare resistance of any ultra-wide. So it looks like a trade-off. By all accounts, the same superior rendering qualities were passed to Zeiss' f/2.8 upgrade, which improved barrel distortion and sharpness as well (the development of which came after the Super-Elmarit-R 15mm F2.8 was discontinued). And we haven't even discussed the Milvus, which likely has improvements also.
In closing, the only "universal" statements I have seen is that the Zeiss Distagon has superior color color rendering, CA control, and anti-flare control. However, I would be curious to learn of your sources (other lab results, or links) which definitively show the Leica R Super Elmarit 2.8 Asph to be measurably-superior in various important respects to the Zeiss Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8?
If not, is it possible that your "big erroneous" statement was itself erroneous, and merely your subjective opinion formed by not owning the Zeiss f/2.8 and not really using the Leica?
Thanks.
-
Any of these mentioned lenses likely will help a photographer make useful images.
-
..........
.....If not, is it possible that your "big erroneous" statement was itself erroneous, and merely your subjective opinion formed by not owning the Zeiss f/2.8 and not really using the Leica?
Thanks.
Erroneous or not Erroneous. The fact of the matter and irrelevant of CA and LA and all the alphabet letters. I shot with the Zeiss and the Leica. My preference is for the Leica colors - luminosity - DOP and so on.
But please, do indulge yourself with a Zeiss. I am sure you will be very pleased.
-
Erroneous or not Erroneous. The fact of the matter and irrelevant of CA and LA and all the alphabet letters. I shot with the Zeiss and the Leica. My preference is for the Leica colors - luminosity - DOP and so on.
Erroneous or not erroneous is a pretty significant distinction to get clarified on, don't you think? ;)
The fact of the matter and irrelevant of CA and LA and all the alphabet letters. I shot with the Zeiss and the Leica.
Which Zeiss, the f/3.5 or the f/2.8 upgrade?
Seeing as the f/2.8 Leica came out before the Zeiss got upgraded, my suspicion is that you're talking about the elder version.
My preference is for the Leica colors - luminosity - DOP and so on.
Interesting. Zeiss color rendering, as well a CA, are its most dominant advantages ... by all accounts ... though not specifically-referencing the Leica.
But please, do indulge yourself with a Zeiss. I am sure you will be very pleased.
Thank you, I will :D
To me, flare is the most annoying aspect of any bulbous-fronted, ultra-wide lens ... and the fact that the Zeiss 15 (even the elder Zeiss) has superior flare control over every other option (plus superior CA correction) is reason enough to move in that direction.
Unless otherwise proven, I believe that the sharpness (and barrel distortion) superiority of the Leica was over the f/3.5 Zeiss 15, not the f/2.8, the newer version of which is likewise much sharper than the Zeiss 21 (to which the Leica was also favorably-compared).
In the end, I am sure we are splitting hairs here, as they're both excellent by all accounts. I really do appreciate you making me aware of its existence.
However, given the price point of the Leica, and given the fact I would then have to add modifications to it (or to my camera) in order to use it ... all so I could get worse CA/flare handling ... in the hope for an alleged, minuscule (subjective and dubious) sharpness/color enhancement ... I will stick with the Zeiss, as color/rendering is a department the Zeiss is similarly-renowned for.
-
"universally THE Ultra-wide nirvana" is a claim without much room for alternate views.
And alternate views are what every photographer on the planet has.
Use what you like. Like what you use.
-
The Leica R 15/2.8 unit will have no aperture actuation from the Nikon body (referred to as 'auto-diaphragm' in the old days) and therefore would be slow for tripod work, and intolerably slow for fast moving focus and shoot operations. Even the inexpensive Rokinon 14/2.8 has aperture actuation.
-
The Rokinon, Samyang Et Al. are all very low build quality often with decentring and focus issues, the 14mm 2.8 has some strange distortion that is difficult to remove in post processing,,,
The Zeiss has normal barrel distortion so quite easy to correct in PP - But if you have to remove vignetting and also remove distortion you will suffer in image quality,,, So take care while framing etc.
Comparing these Super Wide's with the Leica M lenses are not Apples to Apples; The Leica M lenses are only about 1/4 the size and less weight as well,,, Ditto for the Voigtlander 15mm mark III,,,
If one really has an addiction for manual focus lenses with outstanding image and build quality there is no way around the Leica M lenses - The Leica M WATE 16mm-18mm-21mm is outstanding, and again please consider the size and craftsmanship,,,
Zeiss also makes a 15mm 2.8 ZM - in Leica M Mount, very highly regarded.
I have the Nikkor 14mm 2.8 AF-D - in ACR there is a profile that removes the distortion it works really well.
Sometimes the images are crisp and sharp across the whole frame - Sometimes it's disappointing with corners lacking definition sharpness etc,,, so very unreliable.
In IR on a DX camera it's joy to shoot it! Very good.
Therefore I have been looking very closely at the 15mm Zeiss ZM.2 2.8 it's very affordable New here in EU at 1500€ The Milvus is about 2300€ but since the first version looks so nice and I don't care for filters it's a good deal IMHO!
BTW The flare from the 14-24mm AFS is so strange - I sold that lens quickly...
-
Zeiss is not always the holy grail. I just received an 85/1.4 ZF.2 and am disappointed by its flawed handling. Ergonomics of the 85/1.4 Nkkor AIS beat the Zeiss by miles. The Milvus designs look to be even worse in that respect.
Optically the 85/1.4 is nice, but so are a lot of Nikkors. I added a rubber grip to the Zeiss so at least the focusing collar can have a non-slipping surface. On our next meet-up, Erik will be allowed to remove the aperture locking mechanism which is the worst I've seen.
I do agree about the 14/2.8 Nikkor. 'Inconsistent' is the phrase I'd apply to the results. A pity as the lens itself is handling quite well.
-
The Rokinon, Samyang Et Al. are all very low build quality often with decentring and focus issues, the 14mm 2.8 has some strange distortion that is difficult to remove in post processing,,,
The Zeiss has normal barrel distortion so quite easy to correct in PP - But if you have to remove vignetting and also remove distortion you will suffer in image quality,,, So take care while framing etc.
Comparing these Super Wide's with the Leica M lenses are not Apples to Apples; The Leica M lenses are only about 1/4 the size and less weight as well,,, Ditto for the Voigtlander 15mm mark III,,,
If one really has an addiction for manual focus lenses with outstanding image and build quality there is no way around the Leica M lenses - The Leica M WATE 16mm-18mm-21mm is outstanding, and again please consider the size and craftsmanship,,,
Zeiss also makes a 15mm 2.8 ZM - in Leica M Mount, very highly regarded.
I have the Nikkor 14mm 2.8 AF-D - in ACR there is a profile that removes the distortion it works really well.
Sometimes the images are crisp and sharp across the whole frame - Sometimes it's disappointing with corners lacking definition sharpness etc,,, so very unreliable.
In IR on a DX camera it's joy to shoot it! Very good.
Therefore I have been looking very closely at the 15mm Zeiss ZM.2 2.8 it's very affordable New here in EU at 1500€ The Milvus is about 2300€ but since the first version looks so nice and I don't care for filters it's a good deal IMHO!
BTW The flare from the 14-24mm AFS is so strange - I sold that lens quickly...
My thoughts exactly. I almost never use filters ... only the standard drop-in in my 300 VR II. No Ai-S I use has a filter.
I may use Zeiss' cripplingly-expensive $396 UV filter (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/856521-REG/Zeiss_1970_245_95mm_Carl_Zeiss_T.html/pageID/accessory) to protect this one though (and it supposedly renders blue skies better than without.
Bjørn's observations that some Zeiss lenses don't handle well have not been referenced in regard to the 15mm Milvus. On the reviews I have seen, where people have actually used both, there is an almost 100% consensus that, good as the Classic was, the Milvus is noticeably sharper across the frame and handles better (because of the removable filter). Still, like you, the Classic design looks so much more refined and elegant than the Milvus (I really am underwhelmed by the Milvus look.)
Anyway, the 15mm Milvus does have a rubber focusing ring, but it's weird (and a downgrade) for a Zeiss to have rubber and plastic at all, IMO. Much prefer the metal grooves in the classic design also.
-
I went ahead and purchased the classic design and it is scheduled to be delivered Tuesday ;D
The Milvus may be slightly-ahead optically, but its design/plastic/rubber is a downer to me every time I look at it at that price point.
The Classic may be slightly-behind optically, but its uber-quality, machined design makes me crave to own it every time I look at it :D
Optically, it will be splitting hairs to discern the difference in quality. Handling it is up to me.
At the end of the day, the difference will be in my happiness and enthusiasm seeing it at the end of my D810 (or not).
I will also add that, in 5 years, I will bet a million dollars to a penny that a 5-year-old Classic design lens is worth more than a 5 year old Milvus ;)
Jack
-
Received the Zeiss Distagon T 15mm today.
Much larger than my Nikkor AI-S 15mm f/3.5.
Interestingly, while the Zeiss looks "sexier" in the photos, the old Nikkor AIS actually feels better-made when you compare them in your hands. Though smaller, the Nikkor feels more "dense" per cubic centimeter.
People rave about Zeiss build quality, but (to me) the AI-S lenses seem built better and, I would bet, will last longer.
I haven't had a chance to shoot the Zeiss yet, but I am sure the optical quality will be superior to the old film lens, but I am actually going to miss the ol' Nikkor AI-S, as it sold on Ebay today, literally within an hour of the arrival of the Zeiss.
-
Received the Zeiss Distagon T 15mm today.
Zeiss just announced a price drop.
The 15/2.8 is now $1999.00 instead of $2950.00
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/850104-REG/Zeiss_1964830_Distagon_T_15mm_f_2_8.html
The 135mm as well as the new Sigma Art 135/1.8 just killed it.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909191-REG/Zeiss_1999_676_135mm_f_2_0_Apo_Sonnar_ZF_2.html
I hope you got your lens at the new lower price.
This is one of the reasons that Zeiss are alienating their customer base by releasing new products and making old ones loose value.
The Leica R 15/2.8 is a better lens in terms of color render and luminosity. The Leica R 15/2.8 value goes up and never down.
Told ya.
-
Of course they sell the discontinued models at a discount why wouldn't they,,,
Leica R and Leica M mostly hold their prises well, some of the items even increase in value, just look at 'Black Paint' versions :o This is mostly due to collectors. There are not many Zeiss collectors,,,
-
Of course they sell the discontinued models at a discount why wouldn't they,,,
Leica R and Leica M mostly hold their prises well, some of the items even increase in value, just look at 'Black Paint' versions :o This is mostly due to collectors. There are not many Zeiss collectors,,,
Hummm. I wonder about the obvious reasons as to why there are not "many Zeiss collectors".
Don't ya?
-
Leica R lenses are probably easiest to use on the Sony A7 series these days, or on the new Leica SL, with an adapter. Leica R lenses are cumbersome on Nikon, been there done that. You learn that auto aperture actuation is really a nice invention. ;) Nikon and Zeiss ZF are so much easier to use. :)
I think too, like Erik, that the Leica M system is the best platform for Leica wide angles, where you get the Leica Tri-Elmar 16-18-21/4 and e.g. the Leica 21/3.4. The Leica 21/3.4 is really nice. Besides, you get newer lens designs and even better coatings than the Leica R lenses had.
-
Zeiss just announced a price drop.
The 15/2.8 is now $1999.00 instead of $2950.00
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/850104-REG/Zeiss_1964830_Distagon_T_15mm_f_2_8.html
The 135mm as well as the new Sigma Art 135/1.8 just killed it.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909191-REG/Zeiss_1999_676_135mm_f_2_0_Apo_Sonnar_ZF_2.html
I hope you got your lens at the new lower price.
I did.
The Sigma Art hasn't "killed" anything.
The Zeiss APO Sonnar 135 is being discontinued to make room for the Milvus 135, which remains a the same price the discontinued Sonnar held.
The price drop has nothing to do with Sigma.
This is one of the reasons that Zeiss are alienating their customer base by releasing new products and making old ones loose value.
The Leica R 15/2.8 is a better lens in terms of color render and luminosity. The Leica R 15/2.8 value goes up and never down.
Told ya.
Why do you say Zeiss is losing its customer base?
As for the "superiority" of the Leica (really, Schneider) over Zeiss, we're back to square one: do you have any reference data to support this position?
I am not sure I will keep the Zeiss at this point. Its greater size is less convenient for hiking.
However, its front lens element is less bulbous, and more recessed, also allowing for a thin filter, which is nice.
I will be going to Mammoth soon, and will have a chance to give it a spin.
-
Leica R lenses are probably easiest to use on the Sony A7 series these days, or on the new Leica SL, with an adapter. Leica R lenses are cumbersome on Nikon, been there done that. You learn that auto aperture actuation is really a nice invention. ;) Nikon and Zeiss ZF are so much easier to use. :)
What I really like about the Leica is the small sizes of their lenses.
For example, the Leica Apo-Summicron-M 1:2/50mm ASPH is on a par with the Zeiss Apo Distagon T* 1.4/55 Otus optically ... but the Leica weighs only 300g whereas the Zeiss weighs almost 1000g.
However, the Leica (while a third the weight) is twice the price of the Otus.
The Leica is not any better optically than the Zeiss; it's just twice the price.
However, the tiny size of the Leica (while sporting that kind of quality) is not only more convenient, it's less obvious and obtrusive.
-
The weight/size differential between f/2 and f/1.4 is always substantial.
-
The weight/size differential between f/2 and f/1.4 is always substantial.
The slightly lower-ranked (but still similar-quality) Leica Summilux-M 1:1.4/50mm ASPH is only 335g.
-
I did.
The Sigma Art hasn't "killed" anything.
The Zeiss APO Sonnar 135 is being discontinued to make room for the Milvus 135, which remains a the same price the discontinued Sonnar held.
The price drop has nothing to do with Sigma.
Why do you say Zeiss is losing its customer base?
As for the "superiority" of the Leica (really, Schneider) over Zeiss, we're back to square one: do you have any reference data to support this position?
I am not sure I will keep the Zeiss at this point. Its greater size is less convenient for hiking.
However, its front lens element is less bulbous, and more recessed, also allowing for a thin filter, which is nice.
I will be going to Mammoth soon, and will have a chance to give it a spin.
There is a song which title is: Do you believe in Life after Love (Cher)
Do you believe in coincidences where Zeiss announced a price drop "few hours" after Sigma announced their new lenses.
Do you believe that all interested photographers are going to make the jump to the 135 A.
Zeiss are alienating their Love base.
As for me, I am enjoying the music 8)