Zeiss Milvus 25mm f/1.4 ZE Lens For Canon

Have migrated from Canon L Zooms and 24tseii, to Zeiss Milvus Primes 25,35, 85,135 (and 21 distagon) for sharp, contrasty, detailed landscape images with best color out of the camera. I'm still testing, but here is some early feedback. I do not regret my expensive and heavy decision. Far better than Canon across the board.The 135 defies belief in every category. Stunning lens, prints are unbelievable.The 85 have good, but not OTUS contrast, but is crazy sharp at distance up to f8, though I still having questions and will test more on color, and focus stacking isn't great. I just finished a 10 shot pano 13 foot wide print file that has unbelievable detail.The 35 is a very nice lens at distance, and focus stacks very well. With a 5dmkiv at 30 megapixels, f8 is ... MoreHave migrated from Canon L Zooms and 24tseii, to Zeiss Milvus Primes 25,35, 85,135 (and 21 distagon) for sharp, contrasty, detailed landscape images with best color out of the camera. I'm still testing, but here is some early feedback. I do not regret my expensive and heavy decision. Far better than Canon across the board.The 135 defies belief in every category. Stunning lens, prints are unbelievable.The 85 have good, but not OTUS contrast, but is crazy sharp at distance up to f8, though I still having questions and will test more on color, and focus stacking isn't great. I just finished a 10 shot pano 13 foot wide print file that has unbelievable detail.The 35 is a very nice lens at distance, and focus stacks very well. With a 5dmkiv at 30 megapixels, f8 is still very sharp.25..Still testing. Color looks warm like the Otus 28. My copy seems less sharp than the 35 f1.4, and a bit less contrast than my 21 Distagon. Easy to use. No odd shifts while focusing. First sunrise with sun near corner had decent Zeiss sunstars, but had some flair that reduced their quality. Also had ghosting across the lens.I had been using the Zeiss 21 distagon and was sold on color, contrast, sharpness, and character. Everyone goes straight to the Zeiss prints and marvels at them. They are very easy to focus even on 5d mkiii and iv. Manual focus with the Canon 24TSEIi gave my eyes fits. And I had a really, really good sharp copy. I tested 6 before I bought it. While it was a bit sharper with more resolution than my Zeiss 21, I just couldn't always tell when it was in focus.The prints while clinically sharp didn't inspire me like the Zeiss prints. Zeiss images drew more comments and purchased prints. Zeiss was ez from day 1. I rarely miss a shot. The new 1.4-2 Milvus are also very bright. I can often focus in broad daylight without a hoodman, or focus cloth. Ez.I'll be shooting for 7 weeks this summer out west, and will update after I finish processing those images.

The brand "Zeiss", the nostalgia of my first Zeiss film camera and Zeiss binoculars some 5 decades ago, and all the reviews, perhaps set this lens up for unreasonable expectations? You be the judge:I had the lens for only a few days, and compared its performance briefly to my canon 24-70 2.8L II at 25 mm, on a tripod, both opened at 2.8 , 4 and 8, and shooting a skyline, 2 hours before sunset, with the sun over my right shoulder. I could not see any difference between the photos on large monitor. I cropped hard the pix from both lenses at 2.8, and printed them on 17x22 paper. Can't see a difference. The pros would probably do more agressive testing? Can my Zeiss copy be just slightly off?I can't recal whether I had rated the canon 24-70, which I had liked a lot ... MoreThe brand "Zeiss", the nostalgia of my first Zeiss film camera and Zeiss binoculars some 5 decades ago, and all the reviews, perhaps set this lens up for unreasonable expectations? You be the judge:I had the lens for only a few days, and compared its performance briefly to my canon 24-70 2.8L II at 25 mm, on a tripod, both opened at 2.8 , 4 and 8, and shooting a skyline, 2 hours before sunset, with the sun over my right shoulder. I could not see any difference between the photos on large monitor. I cropped hard the pix from both lenses at 2.8, and printed them on 17x22 paper. Can't see a difference. The pros would probably do more agressive testing? Can my Zeiss copy be just slightly off?I can't recal whether I had rated the canon 24-70, which I had liked a lot upon receiving. If I had rated it 5, would it be fair to rate this 4 because it didn't rise to my very high expectations?The Zeiss is built like a tank, beautiful, and makes you feel good about having it (how important is that?) and I can open it to 1.4. While it is manual focus, it does signal to the camera when focus is achieved, and I could hear the beep, and see the dot in the view finder, indicating that it's in focus. Good help.I can't remember whether others had compared the Zeiss to the canon 24 L 1.4, which I don't have.I'll keep the lens because it's faster, but it is good to know that the much more versatile/flexible zoom is as good. I will probably use the canon zoom more than the Zeiss, but the latter will have its uses/niche.An after thought: in some reviews, people have not found much difference between some Milvus lenses, of which this is one, and top of the line Zeiss Otus. Is there room for some extrapolation here ? I suppose all is in the eye of the beholder

Short answer: it's phenomenally good - the best lens I've used in this range (24-25mm). It beats the older ZE 25/2, ZF 25/2.8, and Canon 24/3.5 tilt-shift "ii" in corner to corner resolution. Great color; very nice 3D wide open or slightly stopped down.As hinted above, it's excellent into the corners and frame ends; much superior to the ZE 25/2 that it replaces, which goes a bit soft at the frame ends. With focus very close, bokeh at f/1.4 is soft and attractive; with focus farther out (let's say 3-6 feet away), bokeh is sometimes not as good with subjects such as distant trees. With torture-test subjects such as twigs against open sky, there is a small amount of purple fringing, but I've not noticed it in the vast majority of compositions.It's large, heavy, and ... MoreShort answer: it's phenomenally good - the best lens I've used in this range (24-25mm). It beats the older ZE 25/2, ZF 25/2.8, and Canon 24/3.5 tilt-shift "ii" in corner to corner resolution. Great color; very nice 3D wide open or slightly stopped down.As hinted above, it's excellent into the corners and frame ends; much superior to the ZE 25/2 that it replaces, which goes a bit soft at the frame ends. With focus very close, bokeh at f/1.4 is soft and attractive; with focus farther out (let's say 3-6 feet away), bokeh is sometimes not as good with subjects such as distant trees. With torture-test subjects such as twigs against open sky, there is a small amount of purple fringing, but I've not noticed it in the vast majority of compositions.It's large, heavy, and bulky, but you likely already know that. I'm well pleased with the purchase, which has erased my former lust for an Otus 28. I use it exclusively on Sony A7RII and III with a Metabones adapter.