Very interesting video. This actually made me feel as if the optical differences are pretty hairsplitting and likely not noticeable by anyone but the cinematographer. The 18-35 is a great value IMO.
Very interesting and I 100% agree. You've clearly pointed out the weak point is that chromatic aberration on those Zeiss. But aside from that, and that is a big aside from that, I love the sharpness and vibrance of the lens as you. "so we just ordered - another one." Funny.
the chromatic aberration on the 85, 100mm makes that a hard pick to me. especially as a macro thats the last thing I want around something up close the 50-100 though breaths like craze. maybe get some DZO lenses to test
I hear you on the 85 and 100. I do use the 85 quite a bit, but my most used on branded content are the 50 and 35 1.4's (shooting handheld) alongside the Sigma 18-35. On narrative work the 21 and 28mm tend to get used a lot more, the 100 in some interviews with multiple cameras... I was very aware of the CA but looking at it next to the Sigma's it's really striking the difference. I'd actually been weighing up the 25 and 50mm Zeiss ZF F2's as they are meant to be stellar lenses, much sharper edge to edge and low CA (newer designs I believe). Would like to try the DZO lenses for sure. 2.8 would probably stop me from using them on some branded corporate/commercial work where I'm almost always F1.4-f2 shooting people. But for narrative F2.8 - F4 is often the place to be IMO.
I heard their primes had pretty strong CA.. but havent verified that. I'd be most interested in the zooms for narrative work... but likely wouldn't use them heaps on fast moving branded stories where I'm often shooting wide open
@@AlucinorProductions they've got no longitudinal but they trade that for some normal CA. I'd take that trade as there is no easy way to get rid of longitudinal.
Good thing I'm not a huge fan of shooting wide open. The zeiss classics are the right medium between the milvus and the contax in terms of quality and price, IMO.
@@AlucinorProductions Thanks. I had once used Zeiss CP2 for some project and I was so disappointed for the bad chromatic aberration, so I never used Zeiss CP series again.
Damn... yeah I really want to test out the milvus and cp3s now... I've used the cp2s a few times but alongside the zfs. Other than the CA I love the look
@@Henchproductions I do prefer the aesthetic of the Zeiss lenses but found the chromatic aberration differences here pretty striking. How do you mean blah? Too clinical? (I think I know what you mean but I'd love to better understand your thoughts on this).
@@AlucinorProductions I just found the overal image of my Sigma 18-35 just kinda not inspiring. I switched to voigtlanders and have been very happy with everything I've shit with it.
2:48: "Is there anything you don't like about it?". Well the chromatic Aberration on the Zeiss is terrible. its even clear when you don't zoom in. Sigma is much, much better.
Sigma is def cleaner and generally sharper wide open. But the Zeiss's have a more pleasing look other than that. And the CA is well controlled f2 and down. Most narrative we are in the 2.8-4 range and they shine there. But yeah for wide open high contrast scenes the Sigmas are amazing
@@AlucinorProductions All Milvus is better because of better coating. The Milvus 25, 35, 50, 85 f1.4 are all new optics and are sharp wide open with near zero CA close to Otus.
That's great to hear!!! I love the look and feel of the Zeiss lenses. Just desperately want to get rid of that CA as for branded content I shoot wide open a lot...
@@theboofin That's misinformation at it's best. Yes, almost all Zeiss is beeing made in Japan by Cosina (just like Voigtlander), but they are 100% german design by Zeiss. Even Zeiss Otus lenses are made in Japan, under Zeiss QC, materials, supervision... Just like older very prised Zeiss Contax lens were made in West Germany and also in Japan (by Yashica owned factories), did not made any difference in quality. If you would have taken a look at PDFs from Zeiss website and compare Classic ZF/ZE/ZK lens design vs older Contax lenses you would have known that they share almost same lens design (that beeing the: 21mm 2.8, 25mm 2.8, 28mm 2.0, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4). Most of them designed by the genius Dr Erhard Glatzel. These lenses do have bad CA, but take into account if they are redesigned 70's Contax what do you expect. The Zeiss ZF 25 2.8 actually goes back to the Contarex 25mm 2.8 from the 50s! Give a thank they are not made in China, like the new Hasselblad... Zeiss do not steal designs my friend... it is not the average Joe brand.
It's easy to find zeiss . the sigma is looks flat and the zeiss are 3d lenses .... i had the sigma art 85mm and everything looked un-tasty and boring . i bought the milvus and everything is interesting beautiful . even faces with scars , have an artistic aesthetic ....
@@AlucinorProductions generally it's a very upgraded model of the classic planar . The CA is much much better but existent fortunately only at extreme situations ... At the moment i can;t find photos where in normal conditions there is something my eyes have found out. The only ones i have are when taking photos at the sea surface at extreme angle light , when the all surface shines like small diamonds and there there is a lot purple ca or purple fringing
@@andreasd.barkas4845 thanks for the reply. Good to hear. We are pondering selling our classic set as we have cinema lenses. But I'd consider getting a couple of milvus or otus lenses for single op focus pulling work that I want that zeiss look for
