Laowa 15mm f2 Zero-D (M mount) vs Zeiss Milvus 15mm f2.8 (SLR mount)

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am considering a super wide lens in the range of 14~17mm for Leica M. Two come to my radar, the Laowa 15mm f2 (M mount) and Zeiss Milvus 15mm f2.8 (Canon or Nikon SLR mount). According to some reviews, Zeiss wins at least in the corner performance and the weather seal. Laowa supports coupled range finder. Laowa requires external EVF while Zeiss requires either external view finder or EVF. Of course, image quality is the first priority.

Direct experience and comment?

 

Edited August 23 by Einst_Stein

[Dan Bachmann]

The Voigtlander 15mm VM would be another one for your radar. 

[Einst_Stein]

8 minutes ago, Dan Bachmann said:

The Voigtlander 15mm VM would be another one for your radar. 

Thanks, Tried. Slighthly prefer Laowa, but hoping Zeiss Milvus the best choice, just cannot find an example nearby.

Edited August 23 by Einst_Stein

[J S H]

Those two lenses are worlds apart. I wouldn't even spin your wheels thinking about the Zeiss. It's nearly 3x the size of the Laowa and the IQ between the two lenses will be very comparable at F/2.8. The Zeiss uses the same optical formula as the older Zeiss classic 15mm 2.8. I owned 3 copies of that lens over the years...it was a decent lens but vignetting was off the charts. It was huge even on a 1DX and the size would be comically disproportionate with any M body. Also, weather sealing doesn't really come into play if there is an adapter inserted in the equation. 

I tested the Laowa against the Zeiss ZM 15mm 2.8 in an astrophotography setting and with both lenses at F/2.8, the Laowa was better corrected across the board with less vignetting. F2 is amazingly fast for a small 15mm rangefinder lens and wide open performance at F2 is excellent for most all uses - the only thing that I'm not completely happy with is coma at F2. This cleans up at F/2.8 with the copy I own.

Here are the test images I shot when I had the Zeiss ZM. Laowa first, then Zeiss. Both at F/2.8. Even in these low res images, you can see the Laowa is much better corrected, especially in the outer third of the frame. 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[J S H]

Also, I meant to ask - what are your intended uses? If astrophotography is not a priority, I would recommend the Laowa 12-24 5.6. It is an exceptional performer on a full frame camera right from wide open. With ultra-wide lenses, sometimes it is nice to be able to go either wider or tighter and the 12-24 shines in that regard. I use it on both the M11 and the GFX - it fully covers the larger sensor from 17mm onwards and is quite sharp across the frame. It's a bit of a novelty as one of the only rangefinder zoom lenses, but it is wonderful in use. 77mm filters work great with no vignetting. 

[Einst_Stein]

I had Contax Zeiss N 17-35mm, while it is an excellent lens, I don't use much between 18-27mm, I almost always jump from 28mm to 17mm when I need super wide. So I am not interested in 12-24mm zoom. I have also tried 12-24mm as a shift lens on APS-C, not impressed either. 

Thanks for showing the two pictures. I don't shoot astro, but the difference you show does raise a concern on Zeiss's quality. 

I have quite some expereince with Laowa and I am quite impressed, but I didnt expect it to exceed Zeiss that much. 

Thanks,

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Got a chance to compare three Zeiss 15mm f2.8: ZM Mount, Milvus Nikon mount, Classical Nikon mount.

The ZM version and the SLR verfsion are quite different. Immediately ZM stands out, but it is much more expensive and harder to buy from used market. The classical version and the Milvus version are hard to compare, the Milvus has better specs and is cheaper in the used market, but my friend told me that rumor is Milvus version has bad quality control and was reported bad sample variations. Google and Microsoft AI also said Milvus has inferior corner performance. (Would I believe these AI summary? Nay, too many false summary already).

Between Zeiss Nikon mount (adapted to M 240) and Laowa M mount, a simple test does not show Zeiss compelling advantage yet. I think it will need to sit down to conduct a quality test. Laowa feels better in build quality, partcularly in the sense of focus ring. Laowa feels solid while Zeiss has developed a backlash. It's my experience common to modern (Corsina?) 35mm Zeiss lens. Will Laowa evetually develop the same problem? It will take time to tell, but so far recently Chinese made lenses, including TTartisan, 7artisans, Laowa, and Thepoch, seem fine according to friends working in lens service. 

Also, Zeiss Nikon mount is significantly lighter than Canon mount, both Milvus and Classical. The difference can be close to 100mg. Weird. 

If I can sell some of my gears, I would get ZM if available. I can wait till end of September. Otherwise I would be back to my original position: Laowa or Zeiss classical Nikon mount. 

[Einst_Stein]

On 8/23/2025 at 5:10 PM, J S H said:

Those two lenses are worlds apart. I wouldn't even spin your wheels thinking about the Zeiss. It's nearly 3x the size of the Laowa and the IQ between the two lenses will be very comparable at F/2.8. The Zeiss uses the same optical formula as the older Zeiss classic 15mm 2.8. I owned 3 copies of that lens over the years...it was a decent lens but vignetting was off the charts. It was huge even on a 1DX and the size would be comically disproportionate with any M body. Also, weather sealing doesn't really come into play if there is an adapter inserted in the equation. 

I tested the Laowa against the Zeiss ZM 15mm 2.8 in an astrophotography setting and with both lenses at F/2.8, the Laowa was better corrected across the board with less vignetting. F2 is amazingly fast for a small 15mm rangefinder lens and wide open performance at F2 is excellent for most all uses - the only thing that I'm not completely happy with is coma at F2. This cleans up at F/2.8 with the copy I own.

Here are the test images I shot when I had the Zeiss ZM. Laowa first, then Zeiss. Both at F/2.8. Even in these low res images, you can see the Laowa is much better corrected, especially in the outer third of the frame. 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Your Zeiss picture is a little shifted to the left. If I ignore that, the common part of the two do not show much difference in terms of distortion, but Laowa has better contrast (or, has more exposure). I would not prefer Laowa yet, unless I missed some points.

Edited August 25 by Einst_Stein