Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Nikon D3 with Zeiss Milvus 85mm or Zeiss Otus 85mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:07 pm    Post subject: Nikon D3 with Zeiss Milvus 85mm or Zeiss Otus 85mm Reply with quote
Clever people,


Thought this would be good place to ask for experiences, feedback & inputs on the difference between the Zeiss Milvus 85mm 1.4 and Zeiss Otus 85mm 1.4 on an older camera body as the Nikon D3 (or similar model from Canon) that I've become interested in after doing a macro-photography of vacuum tubes for my Leben CS-600 amplifier using the Milvus 2.0 macro lens.

I have a range of other 50mm, 55mm & 60mm manual lenses, both vinage and new, but would like to add some from Zeiss upper ranges.

Has anyone here had the chance of doing 1 1:1 comparison between the Milvus 85mm 1.4 & the Otus 85mm 1.4?

I know that upgrading the Nikon D3 would presumably be money well spent in comparison to the two expensive lenses from Zeiss, but I'd like to save that upgrade for later and see how the camera does with cream of the crop lenses.

Moreover, both the Milvus & the Otus can be found for reasonable prices on the second-hand market.


Thanks in advance,

Kasper

Last edited by kasperbergholt on Sun May 19, 2024 9:33 am; edited 10 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Nikon D3 with Zeiss Milvus 85mm or Zeiss Otus 85mm Reply with quote
kasperbergholt wrote:
Clever people,


Thought this would be good place to ask for experiences, feedback & inputs on the difference between the Zeiss Milvus 85mm 1.4 and Zeiss Otus 85mm 1.4 on an older camera body as the Nikon D3 (or similar model from Canon).

I have a range of 50mm, 55mm & 60mm manual lenses but would like to add some from Zeiss upper ranges.

Has anyone here had the chance of doing 1 1:1 comparison between the Milvus 85mm 1.4 & the Otus 85mm 1.4?

I know that upgrading the Nikon D3 would presumably be money well spent in comparison to the two expensive lenses from Zeiss, but I'd like to save that upgrade for later and see how the camera does with cream of the crop lenses.

Moreover, both the Milvus & the Otus can be found for reasonable prices on the second-hand market.


Thanks in advance,

Kasper


I have no experience with the Otus / Milvus 1.4/85, but I have been using the Otus 1.4/28mm for images taken in Rome, using 43 MP Sony A7RII. I suspect the entire Otus line to have a similar resolution, both wide open and stopped down. Therefore I'll add a few remarks.

I am sure the Otus/Milvus 1.4/85mm will be much better than vintage 1.4/85 lenses, including the Zeiss CY 1.4/85mm (which I have been testing as well). However - whether this will visible on a 12 MP FF DSLR I don't know. To be honest: I doubt it.

Back in 2008, when the first 24 MP FF camera was introduced (Sony A900) I got one of the first samples arriving here in Switzerland. During the months before delivery, a lot of discussions were on-going about the (missing) ability of then existing lenses to take advantage of such a "high res sensor" (at that time it really was). Most people were sure only the most expensive glass would result in better images, compared to the existing 12 MP DSLRs.

As soon as I got my A900, I took pictures using the cheapest Minolta "plasic fantastic" 3.5-5.6/28-80mm D kit lens. And I did compare those images to images taken with the most expensive Sony Zeiss 2.8/24-70mm ZA on the 12 MP Sony A700.

Long story short: The 24 MP A900 images using the cheap kit lens had more detail than those taken with the expensive Zeiss glass on 12 MP.

My experience with the D3 is non-existent, and I have only very lmited experience with the D3x (which has the same Sony sensor as the A900). Nevertheless I assume that a more modern Nikon DSLR such as the D850 would give you more improvements than a Milvus/Otus 1.4/85 on the D3. Those Otuses (or "Oti"??) are huge and heavy. Using the Otus 1.4/28 was a pain, even though the detail resolution at f1.4 was very good (and superb at f2.Cool.

But then maybe that's exactly what you are looking for Wink. If so: get it and have fun!

S


PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Nikon D3 with Zeiss Milvus 85mm or Zeiss Otus 85mm Reply with quote
Errorenous doubleposting deleted - sorry for my mistake!

S

Last edited by stevemark on Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:16 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:23 am    Post subject: Re: Nikon D3 with Zeiss Milvus 85mm or Zeiss Otus 85mm Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
kasperbergholt wrote:
Clever people,


Thought this would be good place to ask for experiences, feedback & inputs on the difference between the Zeiss Milvus 85mm 1.4 and Zeiss Otus 85mm 1.4 on an older camera body as the Nikon D3 (or similar model from Canon).

I have a range of 50mm, 55mm & 60mm manual lenses but would like to add some from Zeiss upper ranges.

Has anyone here had the chance of doing 1 1:1 comparison between the Milvus 85mm 1.4 & the Otus 85mm 1.4?

[...]

Thanks in advance,

Kasper


I have no experience with the Otus / Milvus 1.4/85, but I have been using the Otus 1.4/28mm for image taken in Rome, using 43 MP Sony A7RII. I suspect the entire Otus line to have a similar resolution, both wide open and stopped down. Therefore I'll add a few remarks.

I am sure the Otus/Milvus 1.4/85mm will be much better than vintage 1.4/85 lenses, including the Zeiss CY 1.4/85mm (which I have been testing as well). However - whether this will visible on a 12 MP FF DSLR I don't know. To be honest: I doubt it.

Back in 2008, when the first 24 MP FF camera was introduced (Sony A900) I got one of the first samples arriving here in Switzerland. During the months before delivery, a lot of discussions were on-going about the (missing) ability of then existing lenses to take advantage of such a "high res sensor" (at that time it really was). Most people were sure only the most expensive glass would result in better images, compared to the existing 12 MP DSLRs.

As soon as I got my A900, I took pictures using the cheapest Minolta "plasic fantastic" 3.5-5.6/28-80mm D kit lens. And I did compare those images to images taken with the most expensive Sony Zeiss 2.8/24-70mm ZA on the 12 MP Sony A700.

Long story short: The 24 MP A900 images using the cheap kit lens had more detail than those taken with the expensive Zeiss glass on 12 MP.

My experience with the D3 is non-existent, and I have only very lmited experience with the D3x (which has the same Sony sensor as the A900). Nevertheless I assume that a more modern Nikon DSLR such as the D850 would give you more imporments than a Milvus/Otus 1.4/85 on the D3. Those Otuses (or "Oti"??) are huge and heavy. Using the 1.4/28 was a pain, even though the detail resolution at f1.4 was very good (and superb at f2.Cool. But then maybe that's exactly what you are looking for Wink. If so: get it and have fun!

S


Thank you very much for your reply, Steve. It was exactly thoughts / inputs like these I was looking for Smile

Would you happen to have a link to the images taken in Rome with the 28mm?

I like your analysis of camera vs lens balance, including that the Otus 85mm might be overkill - and somewhat difficult to handle due to weight, long throw and perhaps also lack of image stabilization in the D3.

Speaking of it benefitting more from a better / more modern camera what's the defining factors at play in relation to image quality? Megapixels, the sensor, the processing 'engine' or something else / a combination of all?

I can see myself upgrading to a D5 a couple of years down the road.

Good question regarding the plural form of Otus - my initial thought would be 'Otuses' similar to 'octopuses'.


Thanks again,

Kasper


PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Nikon D3 with Zeiss Milvus 85mm or Zeiss Otus 85mm Reply with quote
kasperbergholt wrote:

Would you happen to have a link to the images taken in Rome with the 28mm?

I have them somwhere in the archive, but I'd have to look for them -no time at the moment. And I'm sure there are lots of better images than mine to be found online ...

kasperbergholt wrote:
I like your analysis of camera vs lens balance, including that the Otus 85mm might be overkill - and somewhat difficult to handle due to weight, long throw and perhaps also lack of image stabilization in the D3.

I do use lenses with the same weight as the Otus 1.4/85 regularly on my A900 cameras (Zeiss 2.8/16-35, Zeiss 2.8/24-70 and Minolta and Sony 2.8/70-200 APO G SSM), often one A900 with the 2.8/16-35 and the second A900 with vertical grip plus 2.8/70-200 APO. That's OK for me since the A900 has an excellent vertical grip, much better than any Nikon (D)SLR (see here for details: http://forum.mflenses.com/show-us-your-cameras-t78192,start,117.html). However that gives me all the focal lenghts I need between 16 mm and 200 mm! Imagine using the same range with Otus primes ...

kasperbergholt wrote:

Speaking of it benefitting more from a better / more modern camera what's the defining factors at play in relation to image quality? Megapixels, the sensor, the processing 'engine' or something else / a combination of all?

Kasper


That very much depends on your photographic needs. I myself do mainly

1) landscapes/cityscapes and
2) architecture
3) lens testing

For 1) I still use the A900, due to its excellent JPGs at ISO 100 if the camera is properly adjusted (!!). Unitil about 2020 I have been testing lots of other cameras (Nikon D800, A7R, A7RII, Leica M9, Leica S system, Fuji GFX ...), but none of them gave the combination of accurate, vivid and lucent/luminous colors I get from my A900 cameras. I have not tested the newer Canon / Nikon / Sony mirrorless cameras, though.

For 2) I currently use A7II and A7RII cameras, mainly because I can adapt whatever I need (including the excellent Canon TS-E 4/17mm and Zeiss PC Distagon 2.8/35mm shift lenses)

For 3), usually an A7II is used

Before buying, I strongly recommend you to play around with the camera you might want to buy.

I remember well when the A7RII came out; I decided to buy it since, of course, it had to better than my A900. The then Sony head of digital cameras Switzerland however recommended me "to try before buying". I took the A7RII to a trip to Umbria/Italy, and soon was pretty disappointed about my (seemingly) declining photography skills. At the end of the week I didn't have a single really good image, and I started to suspect the camera being the culprit.

Changing to the A900 immediately resulted in much more "translucent" images, and I started comparing the A7RII and the A900 side-by-side (as I should have done right at the beginning, of course). It soon was obvious that the A900 did handle the dark shadows much better than the A7RII, especially in the narrow streets of the small Umbrian towns and villages.

Of course, if you compare A900 JPGs and A7RII JPGs at ISO 3200, things look completely different: The A7RII JPGs are much better at high ISO ...!

S


PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2023 8:41 am    Post subject: Re: Nikon D3 with Zeiss Milvus 85mm or Zeiss Otus 85mm Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
kasperbergholt wrote:

Would you happen to have a link to the images taken in Rome with the 28mm?

I have them somwhere in the archive, but I'd have to look for them -no time at the moment. And I'm sure there are lots of better images than mine to be found online ...

kasperbergholt wrote:
I like your analysis of camera vs lens balance, including that the Otus 85mm might be overkill - and somewhat difficult to handle due to weight, long throw and perhaps also lack of image stabilization in the D3.

I do use lenses with the same weight as the Otus 1.4/85 regularly on my A900 cameras (Zeiss 2.8/16-35, Zeiss 2.8/24-70 and Minolta and Sony 2.8/70-200 APO G SSM), often one A900 with the 2.8/16-35 and the second A900 with vertical grip plus 2.8/70-200 APO. That's OK for me since the A900 has an excellent vertical grip, much better than any Nikon (D)SLR (see here for details: http://forum.mflenses.com/show-us-your-cameras-t78192,start,117.html). However that gives me all the focal lenghts I need between 16 mm and 200 mm! Imagine using the same range with Otus primes ...

kasperbergholt wrote:

Speaking of it benefitting more from a better / more modern camera what's the defining factors at play in relation to image quality? Megapixels, the sensor, the processing 'engine' or something else / a combination of all?

Kasper


That very much depends on your photographic needs. I myself do mainly

1) landscapes/cityscapes and
2) architecture
3) lens testing

For 1) I still use the A900, due to its excellent JPGs at ISO 100 if the camera is properly adjusted (!!). Unitil about 2020 I have been testing lots of other cameras (Nikon D800, A7R, A7RII, Leica M9, Leica S system, Fuji GFX ...), but none of them gave the combination of accurate, vivid and lucent/luminous colors I get from my A900 cameras. I have not tested the newer Canon / Nikon / Sony mirrorless cameras, though.

For 2) I currently use A7II and A7RII cameras, mainly because I can adapt whatever I need (including the excellent Canon TS-E 4/17mm and Zeiss PC Distagon 2.8/35mm shift lenses)

For 3), usually an A7II is used

Before buying, I strongly recommend you to play around with the camera you might want to buy.

I remember well when the A7RII came out; I decided to buy it since, of course, it had to better than my A900. The then Sony head of digital cameras Switzerland however recommended me "to try before buying". I took the A7RII to a trip to Umbria/Italy, and soon was pretty disappointed about my (seemingly) declining photography skills. At the end of the week I didn't have a single really good image, and I started to suspect the camera being the culprit.

Changing to the A900 immediately resulted in much more "translucent" images, and I started comparing the A7RII and the A900 side-by-side (as I should have done right at the beginning, of course). It soon was obvious that the A900 did handle the dark shadows much better than the A7RII, especially in the narrow streets of the small Umbrian towns and villages.

Of course, if you compare A900 JPGs and A7RII JPGs at ISO 3200, things look completely different: The A7RII JPGs are much better at high ISO ...!

S


Thank you for your reply and recommendations, it's appreciated!

I'm afraid it won't be possible to borrow or rent where I'm based, so I guess I'll have to rely on online recommendations & technical go-throughs even though it's not optimal.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2023 3:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Stephan gave some good information. I'll expand on it a little here.

I have none of the mentioned lenses here, so I cannot speak to them based on lack of experience.

Firstly, I'd give the lenses a good run on what you have, just for the heck of it. Wink
Go all out and try everything- even with camera based monochrome. Those older sensor's can yield some some-times interesting monochrome renderings. You won't get much done from a technical test stand-point, but the idea for me at least, is to try and have a little fun.

As to the camera recommendations, I'd start with at least the D-810. Good clean functional copies can be had for about 1/3 of the factory new cost. Pixel count is high enough here, without the clanking mirror dampening system of the D-800.
Some dealers still have the D-850 in brand new stock yet, which may be a good place to go, given you have the financial where-withal. I would avoid the flagship D-5 and D-6 based on the prohibitive arm and a leg cost. The D-850, and to a lesser(?) extent D-810 are so much more camera, for a lot less money.

Have fun with it, and be sure to let us know how you make out.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2023 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Milvus cost half price of Otus now. There is a reason for that. Buy the best lens you can afford is my advice, regardless whether you would see any difference on your current camera. With your budget I'd rent those lenses and a more modern camera to play with to answer all the questions empirically.

EDIT: oh I see this is old thread. Now I wonder which lens you bought. D.S. camera advice is probably timely! Smile


PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2023 8:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
Stephan gave some good information. I'll expand on it a little here.

I have none of the mentioned lenses here, so I cannot speak to them based on lack of experience.

Firstly, I'd give the lenses a good run on what you have, just for the heck of it. Wink
Go all out and try everything- even with camera based monochrome. Those older sensor's can yield some some-times interesting monochrome renderings. You won't get much done from a technical test stand-point, but the idea for me at least, is to try and have a little fun.

As to the camera recommendations, I'd start with at least the D-810. Good clean functional copies can be had for about 1/3 of the factory new cost. Pixel count is high enough here, without the clanking mirror dampening system of the D-800.
Some dealers still have the D-850 in brand new stock yet, which may be a good place to go, given you have the financial where-withal. I would avoid the flagship D-5 and D-6 based on the prohibitive arm and a leg cost. The D-850, and to a lesser(?) extent D-810 are so much more camera, for a lot less money.

Have fun with it, ahend be sure to let us know how you make out.

-D.S.


Sorry for the delayed response! I thought I had notifications set (correctly) up, but it doesn't appear so.

Thank you for the good advice. Status is that I got the Milvus 50mm macro after reflecting on needing the shorter minimum focusing distance for a couple of art projects I work on involving flowers.

Next step, I think, is upgrading from the D3 to a D5 - and adding an Otus 55mm somewhere down the road when budget permits - I see some popping up second hand resonable priced. Perhaps because people are moving from dslr to mirror less with Z mount instead of F mount.

Thanks again for the inputs!


PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2023 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Milvus cost half price of Otus now. There is a reason for that. Buy the best lens you can afford is my advice, regardless whether you would see any difference on your current camera. With your budget I'd rent those lenses and a more modern camera to play with to answer all the questions empirically.

EDIT: oh I see this is old thread. Now I wonder which lens you bought. D.S. camera advice is probably timely! Smile


I missed it too. Thank you for the inputs. I ended up with the Milvus 50mm macro, because I needed the shorter minimu focusing distance.

Plan is to upgrade to a Nikon D5 next - and an Otus 55mm 1.4 somewhere down the road.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Page 1 of 1