Zeiss Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 vs. Zeiss Milvus 15mm f/2.8

[John Koerner]

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

[Roland Vink]

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?

[John Koerner]

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

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

[bjornthun]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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

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.

[Erik Lund]

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.

[chambeshi]

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

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

[Danulon]

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

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[simato73]

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

[John Koerner]

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.
(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.

[Akira]

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.

[Erik Lund]

Photozones test of the 15mm ZF.2 2.8 is on a D3X not a D3

[John Koerner]

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.

[pluton]

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.