Zeiss Milvus 25mm f1.4 vs Leica Summilux-M 24mm F\1.4 ASPH

[Brian C in Az]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm considering a wide angle prime. I have the SL16-35 zoom, which is a great lens. It's also my 1st lens under 35mm, so I am learning how to look at things differently. My complaint though is that SLOW f4 aperture. Pretty much makes the lens very limited in low light situations, which is why I am considering the 24 or 25mm f1.4. I think that Leica's thoughts on the slow aperture SL is that the higher ISO of the SL sensor will make up for it for the majority of users and I can see that point. I'm planning to use the 24 or 25mm f1.4 for astrophotography and very low light landscapes; moonlit and pre-sunrise, etc. so the ISO won't make up for the lack of speed of the SL lens.

Either lens will require an adapter, the Canon adapter is about the same price as the M adapter, so that's a wash.

The Milvus 25mm uses 82mm filters, which I have since the SL16-35 uses 82mm filters. The M 24mm uses Series VII filters. I haven't found any online direct comparisons. The reviews that I read on the M 24 is that is has a large amount of distortion. Reviews for the Milvus indicate that it is low distortion, .25 correction I think.

I want to hear from anyone with hands on experience with either lens.

Educate me please.

Thanks

 

[thighslapper]

I'd love to do astrophotography, but from my research there are no perfect lenses or ones that don't have some compromises. I've found it hard to justify another lens that will probably only have one use and be forgotten after the novelty of milky way shots wears off. 

If I was tempted to spend any money on serious astro I would get an iOptron Sky Tracker (or Skyguider) and just use my existing lenses. You can combine the sky and foreground in post. One of these gadgets would support the SL plus a compact manual lens of any speed and are small and portable.

The cheaper and more sensible solution to your other uses is a tripod. Anything else is going to be ultimately unsatisfactory regardless what fancy ultra fast WA lens you get .... 

I doubt this is the advice you want to hear though ....... 

ps. You can hand hold the 16-35 @ 16mm at 1/8sec or 1/4 sec with care, and slower if you can rest against something. I've spent years refusing to take a tripod and have nearly always found some work-around in low light conditions, even if it involves wedging the camera in trees or propping it up on walls with my wallet or other dodges. There are plenty of very lightweight compact carbon fibre tripods these days and despite disliking carrying one there are times when it is the only sensible solution. I have a tiny Sirui T-025X which is only just over a foot long and weighs about a pound ... combined with an Arca Swiss P0 ball head and Arca quicklink system which allows the head to be carried separately and attached in seconds ..... perfectly adequate unless it's windy or you are using very big lenses. Even a diehard tripod hater like me can't grumble about carrying it just in case. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Brian C in Az]

I agree that a tripod is invaluable, I have 2 heavy Manfrotto tripods that are designed for large format cameras. I decided many years ago that a heavy stable tripod is cheap insurance against unexpected wind gusts (and kids and dogs  )

I'm not opposed to carrying them whenever necessary, it is part of the routine; just strap one of them to a backpack and go.

My concern is that at f/4, the lens is just too slow and if I am going to have to buy a lens, I would rather buy a quality lens that holds some value and won't disappoint me versus buying junk. I realize there is a trend to buy cheap disposable junk, but that is just an exercise of frustration and futility. On the other hand, I don't have to buy the most expensive just because it's supposed to be the bestest of the best. I think the Milvus is probably on equal in some areas and maybe better in others than the M 24 f/1.4. Unfortunately, there is not a single direct comparison of the two.

From what I have read, the Otus 28 and the Milvus 25 have less curvature of the focus plane than the M24. The focus at infinity is only at 50 feet along the edges of the frame. The lens is designed to be soft in those areas to cover/ blend that out of focus area. But the M24 is designed to straighten the light rays to be more perpendicular to the sensor even to the corners which is a definite design plus. There is no mention of that by Zeiss or about the Zeiss lenses. I would presume that Zeiss knows as much about lens design and sensors as Leica, I would presume they incorporate that, but maybe the Canon and Nikon sensors don't benefit from it due to their thicker micro-lens design.

 

[thighslapper]

Most of the astro guys use cheap Rokinon, Samyang or Tamron lenses from what I can see. They are more bothered about chromatic, spherical aberration, astigmatism and coma, particularly in the periphery. Even expensive lenses can fall foul of these as they are not designed with rendering of point sources of light in mind. You may find it difficult to find a quality fast WA lens that does well for both daytime/low light AND astrophotography. Maybe just get a cheap Rokinon just for astro and something else for the rest. Then you are spoilt for choice. Most of the Zeiss's give Leica a run for their money. I have the Zeiss 35/1.4 and the image quality is on a par with the Summilux 35/1.4. Don't forget that the SL 24-90 zoom has OIS and that gets you the equivalent of 3-5 stops handheld ... depending on how much you have had to drink.... which effectively negates the advantage of a 24/1.4 prime lens..... 

More to ponder on, rather than any help in making decisions I'm afraid. 

I've spent most of this year researching all this and confess I am still undecided on exactly what the best astro set up would be. If I didn't live in such a cold damp country with extensive light pollution I might be a bit more motivated into making a decision and getting on with it .....  

Edited December 12, 2018 by thighslapper

[Brian C in Az]

Yes, many do use cheap lenses, but they also use cheap everything else when they mention their other gear. That was the target of my comment regarding the trend to buy cheap disposable junk. After doing more research, I'm inclined to wait a while regarding the purchase of a faster lens and use a tracker to give me the necessary light gathering exposure necessary with the SL16-35. 

I think if Zeiss would offer the Otus and Milvus lenses in M and L mounts, they would hit a homerun in sales, but there are "political" issues working behind the scenes, so we may never see that option. 

My climate is the opposite of yours, excessively dry with very little atmosphere and only an hour's drive to escape all light pollution.

[mmradman]

1 hour ago, Brian C in Az said:

Yes, many do use cheap lenses, but they also use cheap everything else when they mention their other gear. That was the target of my comment regarding the trend to buy cheap disposable junk. After doing more research, I'm inclined to wait a while regarding the purchase of a faster lens and use a tracker to give me the necessary light gathering exposure necessary with the SL16-35. 

I think if Zeiss would offer the Otus and Milvus lenses in M and L mounts, they would hit a homerun in sales, but there are "political" issues working behind the scenes, so we may never see that option. 

My climate is the opposite of yours, excessively dry with very little atmosphere and only an hour's drive to escape all light pollution.

Nikon mount lens can be attached via dummy adapter, I believe Milvus 15 and 18mm are f2.8 and very good.  I use Nikon F to M adaptor stacked with Leica M-L adaptor for couple of long Zeiss ZF lenses (pre-Milvus), works like a charm.