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

[Akira]

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.

[Ethan]

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.

[John Koerner]

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..

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, 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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Any of these mentioned lenses likely will help a photographer make useful images.

[Ethan]

..........
.....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.

[John Koerner]

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

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.

[Jack Dahlgren]

"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.

[pluton]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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...

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[John Koerner]

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 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.

[John Koerner]

I went ahead and purchased the classic design and it is scheduled to be delivered Tuesday

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

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

[John Koerner]

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.

[Ethan]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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  This is mostly due to collectors. There are not many Zeiss collectors,,,