ZEISS MILVUS 15MM F2.8 LENS

paulr

Anybody using this latest version on D8xxx Would be interested in factional opinions from actual owners

[Deleted User]

Email Hans Strand who has used the predecessor for some time (check his website).
Also both photozone and ephotozine have tested the milvus version. Best understanding is optics have not changed.
Heavy beast though.

paulr

There are some differences Removable lens shade, extra coating, On the Nikon version the aperture ring can be made silent for video work. I have ordered one some will inform members once I have had chance to use it.

paulr

Nikon 14-24 2.8 G Lens Vers Zeiss Milvus 15 2.8 Prime

After using both lenses and own both, is there a difference. Well there’s a big difference in price , The Zeiss is nearly £ 1000 00 more. So what do you get for your £1000 00, The Zeiss is manual focus , but very easy at this focus length to focus,Its a prime lens so 15mm is it, a little bit lighter than the Nikon but about the same size.
When using it with a Nikon D810 the image is lighter in the corners when looking through the viewfinder. The feel of the Zeiss fits comfortable in the hand and balances well,not that the Nikon is a problem.
The Zeiss will fit external filters, however at 95mm these are not cheap and why would you put a cheap filter on such a lens.The Nikon can have filters fitted but you need special kits like Lee or Fotodiox 145 both expensive.
I have used the Zeiss and been used to using ultra wide angle lenses found it be a beautiful lens to work with, and when looking at the images on a 4k Mac screen the quality both in colour and dynamic range is better than the Nikon, The 36mp of the D810 certainly take advantage of the lens even in poorly lit areas and the full resolution of the D810 comes to full use with the Zeiss.
Is it worth a £1000 00 more , well thats subjective to the would be buyer and maybe Nikon are going to improve the 14-24 2.8 in the future, like the 24-70 and the 70-200.
Im happy with my purchase but that does not mean the Nikon 14-24 is dormant.

[Deleted User]

You piqued my interest.

I am assuming the relative sharpness is somewhat equal at most aperture, but can you speak to color and contrast differences. Which will produce better prints?

The flexibility of the Nikkor would likely win out if I had to choose one over the other.

Thanks.

paulr

Flip There are lots of reports of the Zeiss lens that why I did not go into definitive detail.It was more on how it felt to use has a photographer. I have printed some A1 cropped prints and the clarity and colour are incredible. The lens is not for everybody but if you need a `Ultra wide lens, the Zeiss is brilliant. The Milvus has better coating and the lens hood is now detachable, if fact the whole shape is different to the old version. I do find the weight of the 14-24 after a days work does get heavy which I have not noticed with the Zeiss lens.

paulr

Left Zeiss Milvus 15 2.8 Lens Right Nikon 50 1.4 Lens

Ironheart

You have a spec of dust on the right side of that zeiss... Have you taken any astrophotography shots with it? I'm curious about coma and other astigmatism, and a field of stars is the torture test for that.

15mm f/2.8 would be 30sec at ISO 3200 for the 500 rule and -7EV. This would be for a dark area and the sky will be gray not black, you will need to pull it down in post (this is my Milky Way formula). @spraynpray would probably cut that exposure time in half, as he's allergic to any star trailing...

paulr

Thanks for the Information Ironheart Astrophotography is not really my scene.However I will take note of your recommended settings if I venture into that field. The Zeiss Blurb are very positive with regard to the points you made.

spraynpray

Ironheart said:

You have a spec of dust on the right side of that zeiss... Have you taken any astrophotography shots with it? I'm curious about coma and other astigmatism, and a field of stars is the torture test for that.

15mm f/2.8 would be 30sec at ISO 3200 for the 500 rule and -7EV. This would be for a dark area and the sky will be gray not black, you will need to pull it down in post (this is my Milky Way formula). @spraynpray would probably cut that exposure time in half, as he's allergic to any star trailing...

Halve it? An image that you are going to print will need max 13 secs in my opinion. Of course that assumes no tracking head used.

WestEndFoto

But then how do you keep the ground from blurring. Or perhaps it doesn't matter with a one minute exposure.

Ironheart

Ideally you keep your exposure time short enough to prevent major trailing, it's always a compromise, since you are balancing time vs. ISO. If you use an equatorial tracking mount, you will need to make a composite image with any ground features. Unless they are completely black, and then you can cheat. I'm sure you could get by with 15sec (e.g. half of my 30sec). Not sure if the diff. between 13 and 15 is significant at 15mm. I would be at 25 or 30 but, I'm not afraid of a bit of trailing, which would only happen at the edges if you are pointed at polaris. Perhaps we need an astrophotography thread

spraynpray

It's not that I'm afraid of a bit of trailing, it is that I believe that if I am making images, they could end up in competitions or exhibitions. I therefore expect they will be printed large. If I take a macro shot, it needs to be of sufficient sharpness that I can print it at minimum 16 x 24 and see the scales on the wings of a butterfly clearly. If that isn't the case, I bin it. Same with nightscapes - there are ways of avoiding aberrations, but out of focus and it is binned. Slotting - binned.

MegapixelSchnitzel

Ironheart said:

You have a spec of dust on the right side of that zeiss...

OMG! You're right! I see it. I do believe you're as anal as I am!