Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Zeiss Milvus 100M vs Milvus 135 | Which One for You?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 сер 2024
- Zeiss Milvus 100M vs Milvus 135 | Which One for You? | Both the Zeiss Milvus 100mm f/2 Makro and the Zeiss Milvus APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 are exceptional lenses with optical quality at the top of the heap. But which is the better lens for you? Join photographer Dustin Abbott as he breaks down the image quality of both lenses along with their strengths and weaknesses. Zeiss Milvus 100M review: bit.ly/2c3xCXC | Zeiss Milvus APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 Review: bit.ly/2cVZOCj | Milvus 100M Image Gallery: bit.ly/2bUTKHQ | Milvus 135 Image Gallery: bit.ly/2c1hYQ9 | Buy the Milvus 100M: bhpho.to/2bR1yaL | Buy the Milvus 135: bhpho.to/2bYOYtH
Want to support this channel? Use these affiliate links to shop at:
B&H Photo: bhpho.to/1TA0Xge
Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/dustinabbott
Ebay: bit.ly/DustineBay
Make a donation via Paypal: paypal.me/dustinTWI
Get a discount off all Skylum Editing Software (Luminar, Aurora HDR, AirMagic) by using code DUSTINHDR at checkout: bit.ly/LuminarDLA
Become a Patron: / dustinabbott | Check me out on: Personal Website: dustinabbott.net/ | Sign up for my Newsletter: bit.ly/1RHvUNp | Instagram: bit.ly/DLAinsta | Google+: bit.ly/24PjMzv | Facebook: on. 1nuUUeH | Twitter: bit.ly/1RyYxIH | Flickr: bit.ly/1UcnC0B | 500px: bit.ly/1Sy2Ngu
My filming setup: Sony a7R III: B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2D6ibNO or Amazon: amzn.to/2CNxOvH | or | Sony a9 @ B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2HyWIyt or Amazon: amzn.to/2s1vYE0
Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 RXD @B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2FA00la or Amazon amzn.to/2G2kaEr
Lights: Rotolight AEOS @B&H Photo bhpho.to/2IK7mqV | Genaray Contender @B&H Photo: bhpho.to/33HbGNM | and Aputure AL-MW: bhpho.to/2N3MtZV
DISCLAIMER: This video and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Nobody comes within a country mile of your reviews, you are so thorough and honest. You know everything there is to know about specs and design. Thank you as always for all the effort you put in for our benefit. Great guy.
That's high praise. I appreciate it!
Thanks for the great reviews Dustin! Many years ago, I used to own some of the ZF2 lenses in their “Classic” form (25 f/2, 35 f/2, 50 f/2, 100 F/2 and 135 f/2), before migrating from Nikon to Fujifilm. Now that I am back into the Nikon fold and the happy owner of a D850, I am looking at the Milvus generation, simply because my old photos with the Classic line systematically jump out as the obvious best when I go through my archives. In particular the 50/100/135 ones.
One element that bugged me with both the 50 and the 100 back then was the focus throw, but with a very different approach to yours. You mention for both that you find the focus throw too LONG, and that this slows down the process. While that might be true as you get near minimum focus distance (macro or near macro), I found on the the contrary that the focus throw was much too SHORT at portrait distances, making the focus process very sensitive and twitchy at those distances and further out (one slight touch on the ring, and focus was lost or overshot). I found the 135 much easier to focus for portrait, landscape, etc because of that, and I suspect I’d feel the same way if I compared the 50 f/2 to the 50 f/1.4....
As where I live I have no option of trying or renting those before purchasing, I was wondering if you had noticed any change in focus throw between the Classic and Milvus generations of those lenses? Or might any of the other users reading this noticed any change?
Thanks again for all this work!
Those are all very good lenses. It takes good techniques with DSLRs, though the D850 does give you a few focusing aids.
Great comparison. I've decided to keep the 100 and also get the 135. For stills and video they both have a unique purpose. Macro shots on people's eyes with the Milvus 100 is nothing short of amazing. And I also like the compression and bokeh of the 135 more.
Now I would like to see you review the Milvus 15mm since the 18mm was pedestrian. Then compare it to the cheaper Rokinon 14mm 2.8.
I'll probably do the Milvus 15mm around December. That's as early as I think I can fit it in.
Dustin Abbott Thanks
I do not need either of the two lenses in this video because:
1. I own and use the 135mm f/2 Zeiss Sonnar. It is great for photojournalism and documentary work.
2. For portrait and macro work, I own and use the 105mm f/2.8 Nikkor macro.
Fair enough.
Buying a Zeiss lens takes a lot of thought and consideration due to the expensive cost and extensive reviews like this one are so important. I want to get the Milvus 85mm, but for now my Nikon 85mm 1.8 g works fine. I have macro covered with my Tokina 100mm 2.8 and my Sigma 150mm 2.8 macro. I don't have anything like the Milvus 135mm and you have shown it to be a amazing full body portrait lens. It will be a long save, some O.T. at work and lots of coffee thinking about it. Helpful review as always. Thanks for your insight.
I do think of Zeiss purchases as long term investments. I ended up purchasing the Milvus 135mm myself.
+Dustin Abbott See, when shooting from the same place with the 100 and 135 the perspective distortion doesn't change and you get the same facial features. It's not just looking close because the focal lengths are close, it's because you did not reframe (and hence move closer) with the 100mm, if you did shoot them with the same framing, then the facial features will look different.
+zvxcvxcz I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you. I've shot a LOT of portraits with different focal lengths and at similar distances, and I believe feature compression with longer focal lengths does exist in real world usage. At the same time, I won't argue the point any further. You are free to use whatever focal length you like for portrait work, of course.
+Dustin Abbott "In real world usage," I would agree, because in real world usage you shoot from different distances when using different focal lengths. What I don't understand is why you seem to want to deny what is at this point obvious, that if you shoot from the same place, then you get the same feature compression. You can even do it the other way, if you stitch images from a 180 macro lens shot very close, it will have the same feature compression (or rather extension here) as using a wide angle lens from the same distance. Really, take a good hard look at the sample shot you took in this video, then try it as you normally would for portraits where you change the distance to frame the same way and see the difference.
It's not like this is just my opinion, it's physics, and it works. It has nothing to do with what focal length I would actually use for portrait work, as a matter of framing, processing convenience, and working distance I most prefer around 135.
I'm sorry, but I get frustrated when people don't believe factual truth. I really like your reviews and enjoy the channel but really, why don't you do us the favor of doing as I suggest and putting the results in a video on your channel if you believe in it so firmly. Take the 5DIV and lenses with correction for optical distortion from say 28 to 200mm, shoot them all from the same place (same distance to the subject), and take the crops. It's not that hard of a test. Go on, show me how wrong I am based on your subjective experience of using lenses at DIFFERENT distances. Good luck and best wishes. If you don't reply or put up a video then this is the last I'll bother you about it, but this has got to be like trying to convince people the Earth isn't flat, they can see the ships going over the horizon too, but somehow evidence isn't evidence to them. -_-
For any readers:
My own extremely different focal length example:
ttbek.deviantart.com/art/Example-wide-angle-telephoto-perspective-659407670
And in this video Dustin Abbott himself shows shots at 100 and 135 from the same distance for your perusal, not with intent to demonstrate this, but it does nonetheless.
Dustin will you ever review any Sony Emount lenses? You're pretty much the best reviewer out there.
Probably not unless I invest in a Sony body at some point. I may take a look at the new a6500. Having a touchscreen makes a big difference, and I wouldn't mind having a quality video-centric mirrorless.
Best reviewer on youtube ,yet.
Thanks, Yan
Dustin, although i am a nikon user , i really enjoyed your videos, especially the beautiful photos you put in . Also your plain and clear english make us non- english speakers easy to understand. Thankyou.
Wei Yan
I hear that often from those who don't speak English as their first language.
Bullseye! There are many reviews on youtube, but usually reviewer's speech too fluently and inarticulate for non-english speakers. Dustin, you make big deal, thanks a lot for your job!
Сергей Васильев
Thank you!
Great review as always , keep up the good work.
Another great review Dustin. I'd really love to shoot with one of these Zeiss lens, but with my aging eye site and no ability to change the screen on my Mark IV, I just can't live without auto focus I'm afraid. Any idea why Zeiss seems to refuse to add auto focus to their Canon/Nikon mount lenses?
I don't fully have the answer to that question. They have a very devoted market that prefers MF, but that market is a tiny compared to those who purchase AF lenses. If they had AF there would be a LOT more Zeiss lenses in my own kit!!
+wjfmarketing The live view magnification is a great option that shouldn't make it too hard. The downsides are less support without your eye to the camera and faster battery drain.
Hi Dustin, thanks for this comparison between the 100 and 135 Milvus options. I like your work throughout all your reviews! What I realized in this comparison though is, that you did not treat the 100mm fairly vs. the 135. The point is, the portrait was shot from the same distance and therefore the 135 reproduced a larger image resulting of course in a more pleasing bokeh. Why have not you tried both options and walked a bit closer with the 100mm to get the same subject representation on the image? To me, this would be the right comparison when it comes to portraiture decision.
Thanks for your reply, Cheers, Pavol
The point I was making was how the lenses would behave at a fairly typical portrait distance, not trying to equalize them. Moving closer doesn't always improve the result, particularly if you wanted to make it more environmental. One of the great strengths of the 135mm focal length is the ability to retain shallow DOF even when shooting full body portraits.
Thanks for the clip! I used to own the classic 100, 135 and also the milvus 100. Currently I own the 100 classic on nikon. I found the focus throw on the 100 very nice somehow, I can not explain it. I did not test the 135 milvus yet, so I dont know about that. It is certainly easier to focus the 100(milvus and classic) as it is lighter on the cam as well. How is your experience on this?
The 135 focuses beautifully - very smooth and perfectly damped.
I love the music in your videos, but this one in particular :)
+Entubatu Mahumasu Thanks!
I want both lol. I have the 135mm classic and it's amazing. The 100mm seems to have a more dreamy bokeh.
They are both lovely lenses.
Classic versions of both for me.
They are optically the same, so that can be a way to get great glass on a smaller budget.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I actually prefer Classic versions unless the Milvus version has a better optical formula, e.g. 35mm f1.4, or doesn't exist as a Classic, e.g. 25mm f1.4, although I have the 50mm f1.4 in both.
I still think about switching from 85 min to 100mm. It is easier to carry one lens instead of multiple lenses. However Milvus 85 is so good and I could not give up on that one.
I think you've answered your own question, then.
I would have thought the true rival to the Milvus 135 f/2 was the Samyang 135 f/2 since it costs a fraction of the price and has astounding image quality. Consider a sample review (and I have not seen any dispute) tested on a 36MP camera at:
www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Samyang_Rokinon_135mm_f2_ED_UMC/verdict.shtml
and concluded "All-in-all I actually prefer the images from the Samyang over the Zeiss."
I've also tested both lenses, and the Samyang is incredibly sharp (in fact, because no one had tested it when I had, I got a lot of people calling me a liar when I showed how it blew away the Canon 135L in sharpness). In terms of "preference", however, I differ from Gordon. I personally definitely prefer the rendering of the Zeiss myself.
The reviews are impressive, there is no doubt. I had the opportunity to test it out some on my Nikon D750 back in November when I visited B&H in New York (while covering the world chess championship), and I really liked its performance, but hated the immense difficulty in nailing focus, so after a lot of chest-heaving sighs of regret, I renounced the idea of buying it. In a studio I don't doubt it is a great purchase, but I don't shoot in a studio so...
AmericanCarioca That's the bottom line. Most DSLRs are just not very accommodating to manual focus. There is some great glass out there that few photographers will use because of it.
color saturation looks much better on the 100mm
Interesting observation. I don't know that I would say that in real world shooting, but they are both special lenses.
What camera and lens did you use to film this video? It's stunning!
I used the Canon 5D Mark IV + the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS.
Dustin Abbott beautiful !
Dustin Abbott excellent comparison - You can only have one, Milvus 85 or Milvus 135?
Since I bought the Milvus 135, I guess that is your answer!
Thanks!
I'm looing forward to the up coming Sigma/Zeiss 135mm breakdown.
Great review
Is there a way to attach these to fujifilm?
I think there is an adapter that would work, but Im not familiar with it.
Yes, but I’ve never seen a chipped adapter, if you care
you are legend mate
LOL. Thanks, I guess.
Why does a telephoto "135" look sharper then a macro "100" that's strange. The 100 had a closer focal length. So why does the 135 look cleaner. Please explain. Trying to choose between the two
The Milvus 135 has less chromatic aberration and is the sharper lens overall. The Milvus 135 is one of the sharpest lenses in the world...period.
Dustin Abbott so if you had two lenses in your bag... the 100 and the 135mm the job was simply macro. Take pictures of flowers and bugs. What lens do you choose
General HowTo The macro lens. That's what it's for. The 135 works well with extension tubes, but you might as well go for the 100mm. It's very versatile, and very sharp.
Dustin Abbott thank you so much for the time you took to respond. I really appreciate that.
Come on man, it's not A.P.O. It's Apo, like apochromatic. Love your reviews but this is a pet peeve of mine.
Only Zeissaholics...:)
shooting 100mm and 135mm from the same spot is NOT how you compare sharpness. SHOOT THE SAME FRAME AND THEN COMPARE DOF AND SHARPNESS.
The point of this was less about sharpness and more about the difference in framing and comparative sharpness for portrait shooters.