Great Review as always, both lenses looks top notch!! I think it is worth mentioning that for Nikon users the Zeiss is without competition since the canon is not an option.
Great review! Direct side by side comparisons are the best way to review. Especially as everyone has a different idea of what 'ideal' is, showing direct comparisons provide opportunities for people to see the real differences and make up their own minds. I wish more people reviewed lenses like this.
It's not a format that lends itself to a quick, five minute review. It takes time, and it requires getting multiple lenses in at the same time. It's work!
I agree with your assessment at 12:30. The Zeiss does have superior micro contrast to my eye. I do see a difference. I'd be interested in seeing a comparison, which I may possibly do myself, when financial opportunity, comparing the Milvus 35 1.4 compared to the previous version 1.4, and hopefully put to rest any concerns that there was any trade off gaining resolution. Of course the concerns hold water, but I'd be interested to see. Thank you for your awesome reviews. You have the best reviews of any that i've seen, both online, or from any other sources. You manage to take everyones voice into consideration and truly do a service to everyone in a friendly and presentable way. You're awesome, I'm setting up online financial resources to that I can become a patreon to yourself and others similar.
Mr. Abbott, it’s good to see that the Milvus redeemed itself in these categories. That said, the sharpness issue is just going to bug me, if I were a Canon shooter I probably would go with the Canon.
Great review Dustin, for me compared to Canon, the Zeiss has that bit better colour rendering and quality that seems to make it special, you can see this in yours and Lloyd Chambers reviews, but with these lenses being so close I think AF will be the biggest decider between them both!
Great review as always Dustin!!! Really hard one to pick out of the two fantastic lenses. But I might tip my hat off to Zeiss. It just has that typical "zeiss" rendering look
Dustin,.... I loved the review. As always, You're the man. ...... Well.... That's what I think. Now I own the Canon 35L ii. In the entire review I noticed you said " splitting hairs " a number of times. No doubt .... You're right! The big deal to me is the auto-focus with the Canon and being so close ....... well ....... let's just say I love this Canon lens that much more!
Hello Mr Abbott. Thank you for this comparison. It would be pretty cool ifyou can make a similar comparison between the canon 35mm 1.4 L II and the sony zeiss 35mm 1.4 distagon, now that you have the A7rii. Thanks a bunch again for all your work
Dustin, nice review, you got me interested in Zeiss. Do you have suggestions on how to use manual focus on a 5d4? Is live-view + magnification the only way to ensure spot-on manual focus?
+Woody Y through careful technique you can use focus confirmation to help, but the best way to ensure accurate focus is the Live View plus magnification
Hands down the Milvus is better and a pretty clever lens too. It prodcues nicer bokeh at wide aperture when you are really in need of blurred background. When stepped down you expect nice sharp contrast and here the Milvus excell. The 3D pop is unrivalled. If AF is important to you then you should pick Canon but everything else its Zeiss.
Hi Kirk, I'm afraid at this point that I'm far too busy to go back and do that kind of comparison. You're talking about a 22 year old lens in the case of the original 35mm
@@DustinAbbottTWI that's true, but just people is talking the magic boke of the 35L mark I. Can't find any video comparing mark I vs II. It's ok I will buy one and test it out.
Hi I have the 35 L version 1 and tried the II. For me no doubt, the 1 is better for Bokeh, and also for the color rendering it's also far much cheeper on second market. You can find one for 600 usd. AF is the same I dont understand why people are interested for manual focus lenses ! Just for studio ok, but for the rest... Worked with Nikon F3 and all manual, it was ok, but the viewfinders of our DSLR are not designed for manual focus
i like the Canon images better.......another great review......Question, do you ever have time for yourself or are you all business all the time? I ask because of your real life.s work......
A lot of thought about how & what one shoots needed. AF v manual , sharpness & rendering, I agree with your assessment & since I don't own any 35mm prime the choice produces something of a headache. A good headache to have I suppose.
Only if you auto focus from f2.8 and higher because Canon most sensitive centre AF point only allows upto f2.8. If you want to AF wider than f2.8 you will struggle.
That's certainly a possibility. It's not unusual for there to be minor variances, as the standard focal lengths are rarely the exact focal length of lenses, so they round up or down to the standard (within limits). That's why we don't have 36mm or 34mm lenses, which would just confuse people.
Anyway I have tested this lens on a Sony ARlll with metabones adapter and I was shocked how well the AF works even on 1.4. There was some issue in close up AF but from one metre forward every shot was spot on. I am seriously thinking of buying ARlll for portraits
You spoil me for your nuanced highly detailed reviews/comparisons! Great job yet again! Thank you
+Bryan Szucs that's kind. Thanks
Great Review as always, both lenses looks top notch!! I think it is worth mentioning that for Nikon users the Zeiss is without competition since the canon is not an option.
+yair tammam That is absolutely true, and I cover that in my final review
And another thumbs-up for another great review. Keep on the great work !
+Dan S. Thanks
Great review! Direct side by side comparisons are the best way to review. Especially as everyone has a different idea of what 'ideal' is, showing direct comparisons provide opportunities for people to see the real differences and make up their own minds. I wish more people reviewed lenses like this.
It's not a format that lends itself to a quick, five minute review. It takes time, and it requires getting multiple lenses in at the same time. It's work!
Well I appreciate the effort and I'm sure many others do too :)
There it is again- the Zeiss factor. Again, I just love the rendering.
+Joh Kem Yep! That's where the specialness shows up
I agree with your assessment at 12:30. The Zeiss does have superior micro contrast to my eye. I do see a difference. I'd be interested in seeing a comparison, which I may possibly do myself, when financial opportunity, comparing the Milvus 35 1.4 compared to the previous version 1.4, and hopefully put to rest any concerns that there was any trade off gaining resolution. Of course the concerns hold water, but I'd be interested to see. Thank you for your awesome reviews. You have the best reviews of any that i've seen, both online, or from any other sources. You manage to take everyones voice into consideration and truly do a service to everyone in a friendly and presentable way. You're awesome, I'm setting up online financial resources to that I can become a patreon to yourself and others similar.
That's kind. Thank you.
Still prefer the bokeh rendering of the original 35L compared to the 35L II. Sharpness isn't everything.
I agree in theory, but I personally love the 35LII and consider it to be the finest non-telephoto prime lens Canon has ever made.
Thanks again Dustin, excellent review as always and perfectly balanced.
+Kaeru V|P My pleasure
Mr. Abbott, it’s good to see that the Milvus redeemed itself in these categories. That said, the sharpness issue is just going to bug me, if I were a Canon shooter I probably would go with the Canon.
+floex831 I get it! I too expected the Milvus lens to be the sharper one
Excellent video. Thanks you.
Great review Dustin, for me compared to Canon, the Zeiss has that bit better colour rendering and quality that seems to make it special, you can see this in yours and Lloyd Chambers reviews, but with these lenses being so close I think AF will be the biggest decider between them both!
+Chris Rout You are absolutely right, though Nikon shooters are in a different boat
Dustin from an astrophotography bent could you comment on the coma from these lenses?
Thanks,
Dan
+Dan Brown Unfortunately I didn't use the lens for astro during my review period
Thank you for your great view. ❤from China
My pleasure.
I was just looking for the update about an hour ago, Thanks
+Color Crush Media good timing!
Great review as always Dustin!!! Really hard one to pick out of the two fantastic lenses. But I might tip my hat off to Zeiss. It just has that typical "zeiss" rendering look
+Project Hydra It definitely does
Dustin,.... I loved the review. As always, You're the man. ...... Well.... That's what I think. Now I own the Canon 35L ii. In the entire review I noticed you said " splitting hairs " a number of times. No doubt .... You're right! The big deal to me is the auto-focus with the Canon and being so close ....... well ....... let's just say I love this Canon
lens that much more!
+MrBillblake123 Right. The 35L II is an awesome lens (I own one myself), and the fact that it has fast, accurate autofocus makes it even more special
Hello Mr Abbott. Thank you for this comparison. It would be pretty cool ifyou can make a similar comparison between the canon 35mm 1.4 L II and the sony zeiss 35mm 1.4 distagon, now that you have the A7rii. Thanks a bunch again for all your work
That's definitely on the radar, though I'll have to fit existing lenses in around the schedule for new releases.
Dustin, nice review, you got me interested in Zeiss. Do you have suggestions on how to use manual focus on a 5d4? Is live-view + magnification the only way to ensure spot-on manual focus?
+Woody Y through careful technique you can use focus confirmation to help, but the best way to ensure accurate focus is the Live View plus magnification
Hands down the Milvus is better and a pretty clever lens too. It prodcues nicer bokeh at wide aperture when you are really in need of blurred background. When stepped down you expect nice sharp contrast and here the Milvus excell. The 3D pop is unrivalled. If AF is important to you then you should pick Canon but everything else its Zeiss.
That's often the case. This lens has the nicest rendering of any 35mm lens I've personally used.
What about with sigma 35mm art vs Zeiss vs canon vs tamron
I'm not a huge fan of the Sigma 35A due to inconsistent focus issues.
Can you do similar on comparing 35 L mark I and II? Do you think mark I also has better bokeh?
Hi Kirk, I'm afraid at this point that I'm far too busy to go back and do that kind of comparison. You're talking about a 22 year old lens in the case of the original 35mm
@@DustinAbbottTWI that's true, but just people is talking the magic boke of the 35L mark I. Can't find any video comparing mark I vs II. It's ok I will buy one and test it out.
Hi I have the 35 L version 1 and tried the II. For me no doubt, the 1 is better for Bokeh, and also for the color rendering
it's also far much cheeper on second market. You can find one for 600 usd. AF is the same
I dont understand why people are interested for manual focus lenses !
Just for studio ok, but for the rest...
Worked with Nikon F3 and all manual, it was ok, but the viewfinders of our DSLR are not designed for manual focus
Was thinking of selling my 16-35 f4 for the new 35 ii do you think it’s worth it.
I love the 35L II, but those are two very different kinds of lenses. Only you can answer that.
the picture shown during 10:23, The zeiss is far better I can tell
It's a lovely lens.
How do you think about between Zeiss Milvus 35.4 and Sigma 35.4 Art？ Thx！
Let's just say I like the Canon much better than the Sigma, so if the Zeiss wins against the Canon....
Dustin Abbott understand！ thank u so much！！！
i like the Canon images better.......another great review......Question, do you ever have time for yourself or are you all business all the time? I ask because of your real life.s work......
I try to balance my time as much as possbile. I'm not perfect.
A lot of thought about how & what one shoots needed. AF v manual , sharpness & rendering, I agree with your assessment & since I don't own any 35mm prime the choice produces something of a headache. A good headache to have I suppose.
+bobbintonn I guess so! We are blessed with a lot of great choices these days
Canon hands down, AutoFocus is a huge issue for me.
+Morvegil Jorsalfar and that will be true for the majority of Canon shooters
Only if you auto focus from f2.8 and higher because Canon most sensitive centre AF point only allows upto f2.8. If you want to AF wider than f2.8 you will struggle.
I think milvus is not real 35 m the subject is closer than canon so this is why you get more bokeh on milvus
That's certainly a possibility. It's not unusual for there to be minor variances, as the standard focal lengths are rarely the exact focal length of lenses, so they round up or down to the standard (within limits). That's why we don't have 36mm or 34mm lenses, which would just confuse people.
Anyway I have tested this lens on a Sony ARlll with metabones adapter and I was shocked how well the AF works even on 1.4. There was some issue in close up AF but from one metre forward every shot was spot on. I am seriously thinking of buying ARlll for portraits
That's a nice combination, actually.