Zeiss Milvus 50mm F2 Makro Planar

[JJChan]

I've had a bad run with Nikon gear lately - so I had a play with the Milvus makro to replace my 60mm whilst in Singapore and of course could not resist buying it - I don't know why I go into camera shops....

Some thoughts:
It is solid and heavy but balances well on Df and D800. I prefer all metal like classic Zeiss but accept that rubber grip is good and more comfortable when freezing etc. It is about 330degrees from infinity to max mag ~1:2 the last 50cm to 22cm focus about 200degrees rotation of focus barrel. It is larger than the ZF2 makro planar it has replaced and I believe the coatings are better although formula is essentially the same (classic not available new in Australia or Singapore).

About the pictorial quality:
It has unbelievably excellent flare resistance (see streetlight photo at F2) even with filter on
Nice transitions in front and behind focal plane in macro
High micro and high macro contrast
Mild spherochromatism at 1:2 and F2 (see shot of Zeiss 28mm at the shop)
It is not as neutral as the 60mm (which can be a little bit boring), there feels as if there is some field curvature and vignetting at short to medium distances hence giving a very modern slightly hyper look but with distinct point of light separation giving it a 3Dish rendition.

Overall it is an impressive bit of glass and I'm not unhappy with it

[Airy]

I have the old version, and your description of the new one could fit the old, except flare resistance.
However your test shot (f/2 at night) could also have been delivered by the old one. I have found f/2 to be uncritical with that lens - the problem is
1) when shooting a dark subject against the light (not the contrary), AND
2) when stopping down,
in which case an extensive purple flare would spoil the image, rising from zilch at f/2 to unbearable at f/8.
Can you try that with the new one ?

Note: I am nevertheless using the 50/2 extensively, and more than any other 50mm. I spent the WE with it, together with the Zeiss 25/2 and the Nikkor 105/2.5 AIS. But for the case described (typically, organ cases near stained glass windows), I have to switch to another lens, e.g. Zeiss 35/2 which is maybe the best lens I ever tested under such circumstance.

[Airy]

... and for reference, this is what I particularly like with the Zeiss 50/2 (here: the old version). Here shot at f/2.8; there is reasonable DoF on her face, very high sharpness, and a very nicely blurred background. The direct sunlight needed some corrections to be done in PP, of course. This is not what one would buy a macro lens for, but it does it veeeeery well. Slightly cropped in the shortest edge (ca. 90%), and more so vertically, to get a 4x5 ratio.

[richardHaw]

nice flat field.

[JJChan]

I have the old version, and your description of the new one could fit the old, except flare resistance.
However your test shot (f/2 at night) could also have been delivered by the old one. I have found f/2 to be uncritical with that lens - the problem is
1) when shooting a dark subject against the light (not the contrary), AND
2) when stopping down,
in which case an extensive purple flare would spoil the image, rising from zilch at f/2 to unbearable at f/8.
Can you try that with the new one ?

Hi Airy
I was looking forward to seeing more of your 50/2 ZF - it was some of your shots that made me want to test it but found was replaced in our part of the world.
I left home when it was dark and got home when it was dark and didn't get a chance to take anything useful today.

Any chance of giving examples of 1) and 2) and I will try to emulate?

JJ

[Airy]

Yes, thanks to the metadata filtering in LR, this will be easily done. But I first need to access my hard disks, as I do not put all photos on the cloud, and certainly not the raw file... by the way, which was the "tempting shot" ? this one I cannot remember.

[Airy]

Here's one (extreme) example. Zeiss 50/2 at f/2, f/4, f/5.6.

[Airy]

... at f/2, it is incredibly good. That's the chocolate side.

[John Geerts]

What a strange behaviour of a lens, one would expect stopping down would decrease the (coma?) flare...

[Airy]

Indeed. I suspect reflections on the diaphragm blades to play a role here, but I have no explanation. Another way to look at it is to consider that flare always exists, and can be measured in terms of signal to noise ratio. On stopping down, the signal gets reduced by the diaphragm. Even if the noise coming from internal reflections would remain constant, the ratio would decrease.

Strangely, the Zeiss guru (see diglloyd.com) did not spot the issue, and on the contrary praises the flare-free character of the lens with one or two shots as evidence. On my side, I observed the phenomenon repeatedly, the above scene really being the "acid test" (from experience with many other lenses). I did not however inspect the full range of angles of incidence, etc. Be assured that in most cases, the flare is milder and/or localized rather than generalized. This lens remains my favourite - just not for shooting organs in churches, in which case I'd revert to the Zeiss 35/2, or Nikkor 50/1.8 G or 50/1.2 maybe, to remain around 50mm.

Coma is a different phenomenon, and a predictable aberration rather than a design flaw. The coma of the 50/2 MP is moderate, and no real issue for night photography. Also, since night shots are essentially underexposed (the night sky is expected to be dark, not 18% gray), and using apertures around f/2.5-f/4 typically, the flare issue is not acute. I have used it for such purpose. I guess the Milvus version is at least as good, and this is supported by JJChan's night shot.

In search of the universal 50mm, I could not find one but the Zeiss comes close to it. The Milvus might be even closer. Now let us see if the strange behaviour of the Zeiss MP is still observable here.

[pluton]

I have read that in all camera lenses, flare almost always increases as the lens is stopped down.  Why?  The iris blades are a reflecting surface.  Some aspect of the optical design of the 50/2 Makro obviously accentuates the blade-caused flare effect way beyond what we are all used to seeing with most lenses.  More effective blackening of the blades is one answer;  The blades of the 50/2 Makro have what appears to be the same blackening as the other Zeiss lenses...(I looked at my 100/2, 35/2, etc), so it appears to be a deliberate choice by the designers.

[esym]

I use the older metal version a lot and have not seen this. I've read that the Milvus version is the same lens so am surprised with these results.  Could there have been a skylight filter on the lens?  It would be interesting if someone with another lens copy could duplicate this.  The earlier Makro is quite a good lens.

[Michael Erlewine]

I had both the older 50mm and 100mm Makro-Planar Zeiss lenses. Sold them both. Of the two, the 50mm was more useful to me, if only because I have a lot of lenses at the 100mm range for close-up and macro. Both of these lenses were sharp enough. What they were not “enough” is corrected. Also, too “contrasty” IMO. The chromatic aberration finally made me sell what otherwise was a well-built, sharp, and very nice lens, one with its own character IMO.

[Airy]

Bill, I never use skylight filters in general, and in the particular case shown there was no filter at all. I bought the lens new, and I cannot see what kind of trouble this should come from except a design issue. Please note however that the scene illustrating the flare is a bit extreme.

Michael, the 50/2 MP is definitely not apochromatic, but much less troublesome that many other 50ies in that respect. In conjunction with LR autocorrection, it is nearly trouble-free (some very mild LoCA as mentioned by JJChan, that's all). The 100/2 is supposedly worse in that respect. In the case of your search for perfection, you need APO. For more casual shots as I normally shoot, the 50/2 is really a good fit.

[Michael Erlewine]

Michael, the 50/2 MP is definitely not apochromatic, but much less troublesome that many other 50ies in that respect. In conjunction with LR autocorrection, it is nearly trouble-free (some very mild LoCA as mentioned by JJChan, that's all). The 100/2 is supposedly worse in that respect. In the case of your search for perfection, you need APO. For more casual shots as I normally shoot, the 50/2 is really a good fit.

Yes, I saw that the 50mm was better in that regard, but many people have found the combination of excess contrast and CA to be enough not to use the lens. I am not the Lone Ranger in that.