[JJ_SO]

All of them are still easier that Schneider Crouch-snatch! 

Could you get any positive association with "Milvus"? I could not. "MILF" and the German word for "mite" (= Milbe), those words popped up. An ornithologist would get the right ideas: owl for Otus, red kite for Milvus, crossbill for Loxia, and the Batis is another bird. Which Zeiss lens is famous for bird photographers? Oh, right, none. And who knows, how good the perceptive skills of a crossbill are? Not much? Alright, I admit, until this morning I didn't know the word crossbill... I wikied it up.

 

Old German marketing skills: "if in doubt of or desperate for a name, go Greek or Latin, that's ancient and therefore must be good"  :unsure:

[JJ_SO]

I find the new aesthetic design of the Otus/Batis/etc lenses really not appealing. The funnel shape of the lenses makes them look quite ugly without the lens hood - especially the Batis lenses for Sony. The rubber focus ring will just wear and make the lens look cheap. The classic look of the previous generation and ZM is better and more timeless. Is it just me?

The one and only Otus 55 I borrowed once to test, looked a bit more shabby than other lenses because of the focus ring. It was used by many hands and not all of them were washed and towelled 

 

I don't know. Zeiss had to try a different approach when they decide to go for the top prices and quality. You can recognize the new lenses easily amongst others, which is good for Zeiss. But one thing I don't like at the super-expensive Otii is the open distance scale, which brings water to places I would not want to see it.

[Brightcolours]

The "new" old lenses have gained quite a lot of weight compared to their optically same "Classic" siblings. That, for sure, is a big negative.

[Rover]

No, the 50mm f1.4 and 85mm. f1.4 are totally new designs, and sharp. And with special elements. So, it is a bit of a mystery to me....

Ah, I thought you were speaking of the old ones. But I thought the Makro-Planars were already a lot more expensive as is.

[Brightcolours]

Ah, I thought you were speaking of the old ones. But I thought the Makro-Planars were already a lot more expensive as is.

But why? It is not in the glass. Hmmm. Maybe in the past range they would make those elements to higher precision, but the new 50mm and 85mm? No way those are less expensive to make. 

[davidmanze]

Personally I don't like the look of the lens, they've overcooked the style.

 

 Calling it the Black Tulip series would have been more appropriate. 

 

I wouldn't want the thing sprouting out of my camera!

[JJ_SO]

I just found a nice detail: The aperture ring for the Nikon version can be "de-clicked" for video. Cute.

[JJ_SO]

This 100/2 macro planar is really a temptation to me. Probably I'll send a note to Santa claus... app. the same weight as the optically not very outstanding 105/2.8 Micro Nikkor, but with a great performance on distant subjects.

[Brightcolours]

Above you said you would want/need a better focus screen for MF? Indeed a nice lens, but I'd prefer 135mm myself. Not for macro though, I disliked 90mm macro on APS-C, not a FOV for me in macro/close up.

[JJ_SO]

Yes, indeed, I'd need a better foucssing screen or a wider focussystem. If I want to use it with Nikon. That's a problem I keep forgetting, too. However, I could borrow the Otus 55 from a dealer connected to the Zeiss tryout program, maybe they have one for the Milvus series, too. They just sent their averts to preorder the lens. Prices are stiff, but they will come down a bit.

 

The lens itself is tempting anyway. Maybe Zeiss puts a Batis version into their portfolio. Then a Sony A7whatever index they come up with until Christmas could help, as mirrorless systems have some advantage in focus accuracy - nowhere better than on the sensor itself.