Dustin, as usual a great set of reviews - thanks for doing these. While the Zeiss lens definitely wins my vote for one of the most beautiful looking lenses available, I'm continually impressed with the performance of the Tamron SP's lenses.
Great review Dustin. Loved your test shots with this lens, especially the Astro shots! Also, digging the wide angle HDR review using the 5D. You're putting this camera to good use! :)
I have to agree. I'm testing a Tokina 17-35mm F4 Pro FX V right now (thanks to Tokina!) and you've helped me think about what I need to be looking for in its performance. Obviously I don't expect it to match the Zeiss, but I have additional things to test - so thanks!
Dustin Abbott thank you for your quick reply. I am sure there is some differences in performance but strange enough not a single video about that lens in RU-vid.
Dustin, I love your reviews. But since I am a Nikon shooter, I wish that you would also do some reviews for Nikon cameras and lenses. That's a compliment from me for how great your reviews are in my opinion.
Nice review! But: as I notice that You do not include the Canon wide-angle zoom in comparison: if I compare the image quality between the Canon EF 16-35 f4 and the Milvus 18 ZE, the Milvus beats the EF 6-0. Sharpness, detail, color, CA..everything. I hope I do not sound like a Zeiss-fanboy, but specially with the video the result is obvious. Would be nice to test a Tamron if it really is that good!
There's no question that the color in particular from Zeiss lenses is always special. Zeiss has been quiet in the past year or so in terms of production.
Great review, I'm also very interested to see how the Sigma Art 12-24 f4 performs & compares to the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 ,Canon 11-24 & Zeiss that you've been covering.
Me, too. I'm less than thrilled with another lens that can't take screw on filters, but the Sigma will certainly be able to use my Fotodiox WonderPana system with the right adapter.
@@DustinAbbottTWII decided not to get the Zeiss Milvus 15mmF2.8 due to the distortion at the edges when using FF so now I have difficulties to make up my mind on what to do. I have decided to get the AFS 19mm F4 PC to my new Nikon D850 and old D800E/D700 but I need an another wide angle lens for free hand use. Do you recommend me to upgrade to a Zeiss Milvus 18mmF2.8 from my old Zeiss Distragon 18mmF3.5? I will use it for woodland. I'm currently saving for a 2nd hand AFS400mmF2.8 E FL VR to use in low light and just got a AFS 200-500mmF5.6 E VR for use during the day for local wild life and corvid. I'm living in Scandinavia and that is as living on the coast of Canada or at the great lakes. I retire in 3 year and have to upgrade my camera system until then to use for the next 10 year. After that I may upgrade only the camera to a 55-60 Mpix Nikon Z8x when one of my old cameras breaks down and use FTZ adapters for my F-lenses.
It seems that a curved front element is a must for those wide angle lenses with large apartures. Also it really kinda sucks that a zoom lens outperforms a prime...especially Zeiss! Awesome video btw!
It does seem to be a pretty common challenge. It's part of what might make the new 16-35L III so attractive, particularly if it delivers in the optical department.
Hey Dustin appreciate your reviews I find them to be some of the most thorough reviews on youtube. I was wondering if you had enough information to make a comparison between the 18mm 2.8 milvus and the 18mm 3.5 classic. I intend to use the lens for cinematography. Thanks!
When i first used my ZE 2/35mm i shot all day at f2, and when i reviewed everything, I was a bit disappointed that it needed LR to sort to the chromatic aberration and vignetting.. I now use it at f5.6 - f8, and I'm now in love with the lens, with beautiful colours and contrast. But like so many - I thought buying a top notch lens would be perfect in every way. But as you point out in this video, there are many ways to judge a lens.... Thanks again for your video... and best regards from the UK... :)
Hey Dustin: What is the difference between this Distagon Milvus 18 mm and the Distagon T* ZM 18mm? I can only afford 2 photo lenses (I already have my canon 5D mark iv and a CP2 zeiss cinema lens.) I was thinking about the 18mm and the 85 mm Distagon, not the milvus. But maybe canon is more affordable. Which glass would you go for: Canon or Zeiss? Thanks for your responses!
The Classic 18mm Distagon had a maximum aperture of f/3.5, not 2.8. It didn't have weather sealing. Different optical formula. Quite a lot of difference, actually.
Mr +Abbott, good morning from Italy. About hyperfocal and using distance marks to get things in focus, I'd like to know how accurate are these marks, because I heard that with high MP count cameras (and also DX factor coming into play) actually the theoretical CoC is no longer 0,0033 rather something else (meaning the photosites are much littler than such size) and you should stop down one or two stops more to get perfect focus on a certain point marked for example 3 meters away. That is, such marks worked with film because a well known medium was used but they are basically useless with high mp count cameras. Is this true and how much this affects critical sharpness ?
I find that I often get better results these days by basically just focusing about 2/3rds of the way into the scene. Some lenses seem to produce the best results by just focusing near infinity. I think you have to spend time with a MF lens and learn how to get the best results out of it.
Hi Dustin. I want to buy a Zeiss Milvus wide angle for my Nikon D810. I am not sure which to go for the 21mm or the 18mm. it's not about the cost, it's all about performance. I want the best performing lens from these 2. The 18mm review you did here you seem not to excited ? and can't find review you carried out on the 21mm can you advise please . thanks.
I did a review of the Distagon version of the 21mm bit.ly/1DpXzNN. I think the 18mm is the better option. It's a bit sharper (and has a more modern optical design) and is a better performer for astro.
I don't have the 21, but I own the 18. I cannot see the 21 being better on any parameter you want to compare it to. I also have the 25/1.4 which is outstanding. You cannot go wrong, but I use the 18 for most of my sunsets/sunrise shots.
I'm giving up my nikon 14-24. I own most of the milvus line. Just because of the quality and outstanding resolution. Which one would you pick up, the new Milvus 15 or the 18mm?
That's a tough question. The 15mm focal length is more dramatic, but this lens is more accessible. I guess it comes down to your focal length preference.
Dustin Abbott thanks for the quick response. I hardly ever took the 14-24 off of 14mm. I was wondering which one was the better over all performer. I don't see any reviews of the 15 mm.
Just look for reviews (I've done one) of the Distagon 15mm. The Milvus adds weather sealing and a removable lens hood, but is optically essentially the same.
Great review Dustin. really you are great. i m nikon shooter please tell me Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZF.2 is sharper lens or new one ZEISS Milvus 2.8/21 is sharper ?and suggest me new one ZEISS Milvus 2.8/18. which one is best for landscape?
The two 21mm Distagon lenses are the same optical formula, so one isn't really sharper than the other (the Milvus has weathersealing and improved coatings). Which focal length do you like better, and will you shoot astrophotography? I would say the Milvus 21mm is a bit sharper in the corners but isn't as good for the stars (more coma).
I do plan to do that, but it will be a while now. I was supposed to do it last December, and now I don't have an opening for a bit in my review schedule.
Dustin Abbott Not saving money no, but when paying well above the normal for any lens it's reasonable to expect significantly better performance relative to a less expensive lens. Having just paid over $12,000 for the new Nikon 400FL I've no issues in paying for a lens that offers superb performance but I saw nothing in your review that made the Zeiss stand out head and shoulders above even the Tamron which was quite surprising. Especially so where the price point of the zeiss is almost double that of the Tamron! That said it's reviews such as your own which really helps people to make informed decisions so many thanks for sharing. John
True enough, though I hold an expensive lens to a higher standard. You charge the price, you need to deliver the goods, so I am more critical in those situations (and I am a Zeiss fan...)
Thank you always for your honest reviews! What really wonders me is how these „cheap“ lenses are now dominating the market? Either Zeiss is charging 1000€ extra for their brand name (Zeiss tax) or Computer Technology and Automatism‘s can make up for cheaper materials. It wasn’t that long ago, where Sigma was at the lowest low of optics. I mean how are Sigma and Tamron earning money, where are they cutting costs what just happened?
I don't entirely have the answer to that. Sigma and Tamron have become much, much more competitive in the past five years. I do think that Zeiss optics are special, and have certain qualities hard to quantify, but they are certainly priced at a premium.
yes, or at least it should, I've seen a comparison over another site that the 18 f/3.5 @f/8 isn't as sharp as the newer one @ f/2.8, mtf curves have improved dramatically over the previous model, not by chance the price basically doubled
This one I would personally have a hard time defending. I own some Zeiss glass, so I'm willing to pay for excellence, but I didn't find this one deserving of its very high price tag.
It is true that I have some friends in the Zeiss organization, but while the lens is not perfect (as I point out in this review), it is far from "sucking".
It's so distorted, vignettes, no AF, overpriced, and comma. Most beautiful lens I've ever seen? Would you bet your life on that statement? LOL Yeah it sucks.
