35sl compared to Milvus 35 f2

[JohnQ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the opportunity to purchase a new Milvus 35 f2 quite cheaply. Would anyone wish to comment on the comparative  image quality of the two lenses? 
 

Many thanks.

[douglas ball]

I have the three SL zooms and the APO 35 and 75. All terrific lenses. Searching for something smaller I dug out my old Zeiss Contax Yashica lenses which were smaller and optically excellent. I recently acquired a Milvus 18 2.8 and use it with  a Novoflex EF to L mount adapter and this has seriously wetted my interest in Milvus lenses. With the adapter you get all the lens info in Lightroom, just just as you do the SL lenses. The quality in this 18 is superb. If Leica ever gets around to actually produce an 18 or 21 for that matter, I doubt if they will surpass the Milvus, with the exception of having AF of coarse, which is not needed on a wide that much. 

There is just something very special with these Zeiss lenses that I love. The APO 35 is a super lens, but I find that most days I go for the Zeiss. This is due to the fact that most days I do not need AF and prefer manual focusing. The Zeiss lenses are designed for that, and IMO are just better than most AF lenses which focus manually by wire. Since I am most often stopping down to F8 - 11 for landscape, I can preset the focus, and I know I have the shot. This is not always the case with the SLs. If action, and wider apertures are called for, then the SL's and AF are preferred.

I would say that if you can get a good deal on the MIlvus, you should go for it. The results will be less clinical, and will be more organic in character. I like a little vignetting on occasion. With the APO 36 that is all removed so that the image is super clean. Sometimes that is what you want. Other times not so much.

[JohnQ]

Thank you for your detailed response. I found your comments interesting and encouraging. In the past I have come to regret purchasing non-Leica lenses and did not want to embark down the same road again.

Best wishes.

[cpclee]

On 12/10/2021 at 12:25 AM, douglas ball said:

I have the three SL zooms and the APO 35 and 75. All terrific lenses. Searching for something smaller I dug out my old Zeiss Contax Yashica lenses which were smaller and optically excellent. I recently acquired a Milvus 18 2.8 and use it with  a Novoflex EF to L mount adapter and this has seriously wetted my interest in Milvus lenses. With the adapter you get all the lens info in Lightroom, just just as you do the SL lenses. The quality in this 18 is superb. If Leica ever gets around to actually produce an 18 or 21 for that matter, I doubt if they will surpass the Milvus, with the exception of having AF of coarse, which is not needed on a wide that much. 

There is just something very special with these Zeiss lenses that I love. The APO 35 is a super lens, but I find that most days I go for the Zeiss. This is due to the fact that most days I do not need AF and prefer manual focusing. The Zeiss lenses are designed for that, and IMO are just better than most AF lenses which focus manually by wire. Since I am most often stopping down to F8 - 11 for landscape, I can preset the focus, and I know I have the shot. This is not always the case with the SLs. If action, and wider apertures are called for, then the SL's and AF are preferred.

I would say that if you can get a good deal on the MIlvus, you should go for it. The results will be less clinical, and will be more organic in character. I like a little vignetting on occasion. With the APO 36 that is all removed so that the image is super clean. Sometimes that is what you want. Other times not so much.

Does the Novoflex do anything in terms of causing a lens profile to be chosen by the camera?  I assume not, so what do you do there?  Thanks.

[douglas ball]

If need be one can go to Profiles in Lightroom and select the correct profile for that lens. With Zeiss most of the profiles are there. For Contax, being older, you would simply select the one for the comparable Classic EF or ZF series. I find I rarely have to do this as the lens is well corrected enough. The main reason might be for vignetting, but even then I often leave it as it is because I prefer some shading. 

This raises an interesting issue. Many modern lenses today are designed to rely on profiles to correct optical problems. The SL lenses rely on the app codes to correct distortion, colouring, vignetting etc. This can result in a more perfect and some  think sterile picture.  I find it galling that with the SL 50 Summilux, for example, the actual barrel distortion is simply horrible, but is corrected by stretching the image and reducing some resolution. You don't have the option of even bypassing this process. About the only SL lens that was designed to not require OPP codes was the SL APO 35. 

The older lenses, like Zeiss, were designed before OPP codes were created and things like distortion were much better controlled to start with. One of the pleasures in using Zeiss is that 'what you see is what you get'. The computer can not influence the image unless you chose to let it do so.

[cpclee]

On 12/14/2021 at 1:14 AM, douglas ball said:

If need be one can go to Profiles in Lightroom and select the correct profile for that lens. With Zeiss most of the profiles are there. For Contax, being older, you would simply select the one for the comparable Classic EF or ZF series. I find I rarely have to do this as the lens is well corrected enough. The main reason might be for vignetting, but even then I often leave it as it is because I prefer some shading. 

This raises an interesting issue. Many modern lenses today are designed to rely on profiles to correct optical problems. The SL lenses rely on the app codes to correct distortion, colouring, vignetting etc. This can result in a more perfect and some  think sterile picture.  I find it galling that with the SL 50 Summilux, for example, the actual barrel distortion is simply horrible, but is corrected by stretching the image and reducing some resolution. You don't have the option of even bypassing this process. About the only SL lens that was designed to not require OPP codes was the SL APO 35. 

The older lenses, like Zeiss, were designed before OPP codes were created and things like distortion were much better controlled to start with. One of the pleasures in using Zeiss is that 'what you see is what you get'. The computer can not influence the image unless you chose to let it do so.

Thank you for sharing your experience. 

I began my photography with Zeiss and only moved into Leica later so I've always had a soft spot for their lenses.  Their Milvus and Otus lines are very interesting to me, and like you I am okay without AF for certain applications.  

Some time ago I discovered this official Zeiss page comparing their different lens lines:

https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/article/zeiss-classic-milvus-otus-what-is-the-best-lens-family-for-portraits

[cheuwi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am a relatively new (3 weeks old) SL-2 owner and like some of you, I have purchased the Novoflex LET/NIK adapter and snapped a Milvus 85 1.4 on it.  I finally had the opportunity to go out with it over the weekend and I am VERY HAPPY with the combo.  There is no comparison with the pic I used to get from my D800E, the SL-2 sensor render a totally different look than the Nikon.

I have one question though, since it is a Zeiss lens and there is no lens profile that I can find in the profile, can I assume the IBIS does not work when I use this combo?

[hansvons]

I’d try to cheat the camera by choosing a 90mm profile in the R lens menu.

[cheuwi]

I'll give that a shot.. thanks

[ZHNL]

Your smart adapter (have electric contacts) will tell camera it is a 85mm lens. (Novoflex have two, one is smart and the other is a tube )

 

[cheuwi]

I thought the "smart adapter" is only for E type Nikkor lens - the ones without aperture ring or the G lens.  My Milvus Zf2 has an aperture ring and hence I bought the "not so smart" adapter 🙂

[JohnQ]

I purchased the Leica 16-35 sl.