Len's "soul" vs. pure clinical test .... Zeiss Milvus 85mm vs. Sigma 85mm Art

If you missed the plethora of my posts lately about ultra wide angle, I was on track to buy one this week. Soon I realized less-wide may be better, and I've always wanted a Zeiss. Noticing my stronger interest in portraiture, I decided to buy instead, an 85mm Zeiss Milvus to add alongside my Canon 85mm 2.0 and Tamron 85mm 1.8 w/ VC

Just prior to hitting "complete order" I almost got derailed by a DXOMark page, lauding the Sigma 85mm Art, plus a couple reviews like Jared Polin on Youtube. I almost emptied the "cart" to replace with the Sigma.

THEN ! .... I returned to the Zeiss review by Dustin Abbott and reviewed a other images here and yonder. Abbott's review proved a day and night difference between real-world use vs. a clinical test like DXOMark. Zeiss is on an entirely different playing field than the Sigma Art, although, the Sigma is worth it's price. Likewise, I found that the Tamron 85mm 1.8 has a "soul" and character unlike the Sigma.

All the lenses are technically advanced. But the Sigma 85mm Art reminds me of a team designing the best piece of transparent, heat reflective, window pane glass. Super transparent, run through the tests, hurdles new technical benchmarks, then get it in production

So I ordered the Zeiss 85mm Milvus this morning ... price new, $1529.00

This situation reminds me of a Canon 55mm FL 1.2 I used to own, adapted to my Canon 5D Mk ii. Although it wasn't very sharp, it captured flowers so dreamy, that I wish I kept it.

Depends on the purpose and use.

My favorite lenses tend to have quarks to them, or are not clinically perfect. For example, I adore the horrible bokeh of the old manual Helios lenses, that swirly bokeh stuff. I like it. I also like some of the weird CA on some older lenses. Granted, I keep that for myself. If I'm shooting for someone else, I just use the good glass and leave the weird stuff at home. The subjects don't see the differences in the output when I'm using the 85 F1.4, 85 F1.8 or 90 F2.8 from three different manufactures, only someone peeping and analyzing things would even notice, if then, and I rarely see a difference that isn't just an obvious DOF difference or something like that. I probably couldn't tell the Milvus or the Sigma apart in 100 images back to back with a 100% success. But I can pick out a Helios 85mm without question compared to those two.

This also applies to sensors of cameras too. The 5D classic for example still has better looking color and noise pattern than many cameras 10 years younger, to my eyes.

Very best,

I know exactly how you feel! Around a year and a half ago I bought the Sigma Art 30mm f1.4 for my 7D to get a 50mm equivalent. Man, I hated that lens. Color rendition wasn't great, not a ton of contrast, and the images completely lacked depth. Everything looked really flat and lifeless. I ending up selling it and getting the original Canon 35mm f2 (non IS) and it was better in everyday EXCEPT sharpness. But the character of the lens completely made up for it in every way. I shot an entire vacation using almost exclusively that lens, and I'm beyond grateful I didn't use the Sigma lens for it.

Sigma Art lenses are stupid sharp, but aside from that, I don't care for them. This goes for all of them. The photos I've seen taken with them all seem to lack that depth (solely because of the lens, not at all the photographer). But at least they're sharp

Scottboarding wrote in post #18503500
I know exactly how you feel! Around a year and a half ago I bought the Sigma Art 30mm f1.4 for my 7D to get a 50mm equivalent. Man, I hated that lens. Color rendition wasn't great, not a ton of contrast, and the images completely lacked depth. Everything looked really flat and lifeless. I ending up selling it and getting the original Canon 35mm f2 (non IS) and it was better in everyday EXCEPT sharpness. But the character of the lens completely made up for it in every way. I shot an entire vacation using almost exclusively that lens, and I'm beyond grateful I didn't use the Sigma lens for it.

Sigma Art lenses are stupid sharp, but aside from that, I don't care for them. This goes for all of them. The photos I've seen taken with them all seem to lack that depth (solely because of the lens, not at all the photographer). But at least they're sharp

I was almost cringing whether Canon's new 85mm 1.4 IS L would fall into the same sterile brew. But I saw some samples recently, and apparently it renders some nice character.

The latter part of your post relates to something I've been thinking about this week, is some lenses may be too sharp. I love great detail, but sometimes it may be too much, especially for women's skin. For this reason, I was considering also acquiring Zeiss's older "classic" 85mm 1.4 because it's less sharp, but with nice rendering. It could make an extra option for women, or whatever. But first I need to make sure I can get the hang of the Milvus 85mm. On the other hand, as you noted, there remain some great older lenses out there.

mdvaden wrote in post #18503599
On the other hand, as you noted, there remain some great older lenses out there.

Yup! I love old lenses. My Nikon AIS 28mm f2.8 from the late 1970's is by far my favorite lens. It, by chance, is also the sharpest lens I own, but it also has the best color rendition and contrast of anything I've used. I feel like that's extremely rare to have both though.

Scottboarding wrote in post #18503615
Yup! I love old lenses. My Nikon AIS 28mm f2.8 from the late 1970's is by far my favorite lens. It, by chance, is also the sharpest lens I own, but it also has the best color rendition and contrast of anything I've used. I feel like that's extremely rare to have both though.

I found this video last night, browsing Zeiss "Otus" since the 85mm Milvus is similar. The way this photographer exudes appreciation for quality and rendering was so well-expressed, I returned to watch again this evening. It's virtually a reversal of emphasis on speed or AF for weddings, dwelling more so on quality ... enlarging his examples full screen are very lovely ..

Really glad you got something you will be happy with.

But sorry I just dont agree. I put the Sigma 85 art and the Ziess otus on my 1Dx2 side by side and shot about 50 images at the camera store that had both in stock. I did not get it out on the streets for obvious reasons. But I was able to get a good feel for what both can produce when shooting wide open.

Just not enough there to justify the otus

I would rather spend that kind of $$$ on the 200L F/2.0 which blows everything in the 85 class out of the water

I went with the Sigma 85 Art and the new canon 85 looks really nice as well

But again very happy you have an 85 you are happy with

I had the milvus and it was an incredible lens. If you can make it work for you then it’s definitely worth it. I sold mine because I couldn’t focus it fast enough with my kids. I also found the torque you had to apply to focus a bit too much for my taste. Other than that it was very sharp with nice character and almost perfect optically. A lens to enjoy for decades.

Dimitris wrote in post #18503821
I had the milvus and it was an incredible lens. If you can make it work for you then it’s definitely worth it. I sold mine because I couldn’t focus it fast enough with my kids. I also found the torque you had to apply to focus a bit too much for my taste. Other than that it was very sharp with nice character and almost perfect optically. A lens to enjoy for decades.

Likely it should work out, because it won't be a primary lens. I still have two other 85mm with AF that I'm keeping. The vision for this Milvus is selective portraits where people are standing more still ... a percentage of the photos. I thought maybe aim for 5% to 10% of the 85mm stuff initially.

umphotography wrote in post #18503779
... SNIP ... I would rather spend that kind of $$$ on the 200L F/2.0 which blows everything in the 85 class out of the water

I went with the Sigma 85 Art and the new canon 85 looks really nice as well

But again very happy you have an 85 you are happy with

I almost ordered the 200L 2.0 last month, but decided not to buy any lens bigger than either of my 70-200mm. Otherwise, I find the 200mm 2.0 spectacular. In the video I just posted, I felt several of the photographer's examples viewed full screen, match virtually any 200L 2.0 image I see posted in the forum's recent lens sample archive the past year. It may boil down to preference. If I could own both (I'm getting the Milvus 85mm actually) I would probably get the 200mm and 85mm. But realizing why I often can't use my 135mm, an 85mm would get plenty of use.

Here in southern Oregon, there's not lens rental shop like Portland had. So for 200mm prime, it's basically own one or don't own one.

The Sigma 85mm ART isn't entirely out of the picture for me though. There's a chance I may get one to add to the collection next year. But I want to give that lens time for more used models to flood the market.

I hear you on the 85mm. I would rather shoot the milvus over any 200 just for the distance from people.

mdvaden wrote in post #18503951
Likely it should work out, because it won't be a primary lens. I still have two other 85mm with AF that I'm keeping. The vision for this Milvus is selective portraits where people are standing more still ... a percentage of the photos. I thought maybe aim for 5% to 10% of the 85mm stuff initially.

I almost ordered the 200L 2.0 last month, but decided not to buy any lens bigger than either of my 70-200mm. Otherwise, I find the 200mm 2.0 spectacular. In the video I just posted, I felt several of the photographer's examples viewed full screen, match virtually any 200L 2.0 image I see posted in the forum's recent lens sample archive the past year. It may boil down to preference. If I could own both (I'm getting the Milvus 85mm actually) I would probably get the 200mm and 85mm. But realizing why I often can't use my 135mm, an 85mm would get plenty of use.

Here in southern Oregon, there's not lens rental shop like Portland had. So for 200mm prime, it's basically own one or don't own one.

The Sigma 85mm ART isn't entirely out of the picture for me though. There's a chance I may get one to add to the collection next year. But I want to give that lens time for more used models to flood the market.

Never really considered the Art when I was looking for a fast fifty. Thought about the Canon 50L, but the focus shift and poor wide-open specs steered me away from it.

Hokie Jim wrote in post #18505806
Never really considered the Art when I was looking for a fast fifty. Thought about the Canon 50L, but the focus shift and poor wide-open specs steered me away from it.

I bought one a few months ago and it's performing nicely.

Its pretty hard for anything to come close to the sigmas optical quality. They have it dialed in better than anyone right now.

calypsob wrote in post #18517848
Its pretty hard for anything to come close to the sigmas optical quality. They have it dialed in better than anyone right now.

well for the 85 class I would agree. The art is fantastic

you can't rent from the internet?