Not saying the naming scheme is perfectly understandable and coherent though, but Tamron with DG/Di I/II/III and Sigma with DG/DC DN are not doing any better...
PS: I already told my contact there they should add some continuity to the naming scheme and they need a list of the abbreviations.
As it is it seems to cause some confusion.
Ulysseita wrote:
Bastian, your comparison against the Sigma has made another champion on 35,40mm bokeh .
It depends a bit on the usage scenario - to my eyes. So I say Sigma and Laowa are tied for the lead.
But then this is highly subjective, some might prefer the lower amount of optical vignetting (cat's eyes), others are annoyed by that lemon shaped light spill that may occur and so on.
When the lens was announced I didn't expect it to play in the same league bokeh wise, so nice surprise for sure.
Ulysseita wrote:
Unique bad side, mf lens big as af lenses.
When the more-than-a-stop-faster manual lens (Laowa 35mm 0.95) is the same size as the smallest AF lens (35mm 1.4 GM) I am not complaining.
We need to put things into perspective here and also consider the physics:
If we want AF and the same level of correction of optical aberrations as Gm 35mm 1.4 and Sigma 35mm 1.2 the lens would need to be noticeably bigger and heavier than the Sigma.
I am not even sure the Nikon 58mm 0.95 reaches the same level of optical correction as the Sigma 35mm 1.2 yet it is already double the weight, has no AF and costs 8 grand.
And therefore how many people got the chance to buy and use that lens? Maybe 10? 20? Duh.
Then there are the compact Voigtlander f/1.2 lenses.
I like them, the 40mm the least, the 50mm the most and also bought the 35mm.
I don't think they are any better at f/1.2 than the Laowa is at f/0.95 at any given distance, not at all.
In some categories the one fares better than the other, but in total not a comparison where I would clearly be stirred towards the Voigtlander lenses
(unless electronic contacts would be most important to me, which they are not).
300g more for f/0.95 instead of /1.2 all else equal (not all else is equal, but plenty is, see above or compare my reviews ) sounds fair and reasonable to me.
I agree with that, about the size the comparison is with my 40 1.2 vm with techart (so af) or without af (voigt close focus) with the bad side on bokeh quality for the Sony stack (at least compared with same lens on Leica m).
On your review you should put one fundamental part you wrote on comments, percentage of great shots, liked shot of the whole travel; that add would change the mind of many people confident of the no sense having a lens like that on the bag.
The super fast 35 makes almost useless the swap to the 50 and even 75 in order to isolate some subjects improving the usability of the already multi role 35 1.4 standard lens.
BastianK wrote:
It depends a bit on the usage scenario - to my eyes. So I say Sigma and Laowa are tied for the lead.
But then this is highly subjective, some might prefer the lower amount of optical vignetting (cat's eyes), others are annoyed by that lemon shaped light spill that may occur and so on.
When the lens was announced I didn't expect it to play in the same league bokeh wise, so nice surprise for sure.
When the more-than-a-stop-faster manual lens (Laowa 35mm 0.95) is the same size as the smallest AF lens (35mm 1.4 GM) I am not complaining.
We need to put things into perspective here and also consider the physics:
If we want AF and the same level of correction of optical aberrations as Gm 35mm 1.4 and Sigma 35mm 1.2 the lens would need to be noticeably bigger and heavier than the Sigma.
I am not even sure the Nikon 58mm 0.95 reaches the same level of optical correction as the Sigma 35mm 1.2 yet it is already double the weight, has no AF and costs 8 grand.
And therefore how many people got the chance to buy and use that lens? Maybe 10? 20? Duh.
Then there are the compact Voigtlander f/1.2 lenses.
I like them, the 40mm the least, the 50mm the most and also bought the 35mm.
I don't think they are any better at f/1.2 than the Laowa is at f/0.95 at any given distance, not at all.
In some categories the one fares better than the other, but in total not a comparison where I would clearly be stirred towards the Voigtlander lenses
(unless electronic contacts would be most important to me, which they are not).
300g more for f/0.95 instead of /1.2 all else equal (not all else is equal, but plenty is, see above or compare my reviews ) sounds fair and reasonable to me....Show more →
So, after a year I've finally managed to get a hold of this lens (I was really tempted initially but managed to convince myself I don't "need" another MF lens, but I got a great offer on it last week ).
Now, I have to say it's quite different from what I expected. I didn't really do enough research I guess, but the rendering (or just the pictures that comes out of it) wide-open gives me very "classic" vibes (it starts to get modern around 1.4 and gets there by 2.0 with CA/fringing finally gone at 2.8, at least from my short observation). So, it basically reminds me of CV 35/1.4 Nokton Classic, not the Bigma for example.
Secondly, related to the above, the glow is real (wide-open). I mean even not close to MFD, basically any amount of reflected light on your subject causes a heavy glow. This makes focusing and judging sharpness quite a challenge. This also makes me wonder if the lens is suited for actual broad daylight shooting .
Thirdly (probaly should have been first ), the bokeh. So, as showcased by others the amount is certainly there, but I'm not completely convinced on the quality (vs the Bigma). In the center, the Argus has an advantage as expected, but in my short experience once you move to the area where vignetting becomes visible (which cuts in a bit deep inside the frame), the bokeh takes a hit (again, as show by others). Honestly, the difference between the center and the sides is bigger than I expected, but that's because I never used ultra fast lenses (I see the same thing in CV50/1 thread). I need to see if I manage to get myself to do an actual comparison against the Bigma, but my initial impression for now is that the latter is a bit safer choice if you're going for that uniform/smooth rendering across the frame.
This is not meant to pick on the Argus, just my observations versus expecations (bear in mind I generally like the "modern" clean, or sterile as some call it, rendering). My goal ultimately was to sell off the Bigma and have one "35mm bokeh king", but currently I'm not that sure the Argus would be it...
I know this is not worth much without pictures, I'll try to post some when I manage to get the focus mostly in place .
I understand the MS-optical are very small, but with some optical compromises.
But the rest I hope it is kind of fair comparison. Which one would be the "overall" choice in your opinion? The Laowa? Or it would depend on the preferences of the user?
BastianK wrote:
It depends a bit on the usage scenario - to my eyes. So I say Sigma and Laowa are tied for the lead.
But then this is highly subjective, some might prefer the lower amount of optical vignetting (cat's eyes), others are annoyed by that lemon shaped light spill that may occur and so on.
When the lens was announced I didn't expect it to play in the same league bokeh wise, so nice surprise for sure.
When the more-than-a-stop-faster manual lens (Laowa 35mm 0.95) is the same size as the smallest AF lens (35mm 1.4 GM) I am not complaining.
We need to put things into perspective here and also consider the physics:
If we want AF and the same level of correction of optical aberrations as Gm 35mm 1.4 and Sigma 35mm 1.2 the lens would need to be noticeably bigger and heavier than the Sigma.
I am not even sure the Nikon 58mm 0.95 reaches the same level of optical correction as the Sigma 35mm 1.2 yet it is already double the weight, has no AF and costs 8 grand.
And therefore how many people got the chance to buy and use that lens? Maybe 10? 20? Duh.
Then there are the compact Voigtlander f/1.2 lenses.
I like them, the 40mm the least, the 50mm the most and also bought the 35mm.
I don't think they are any better at f/1.2 than the Laowa is at f/0.95 at any given distance, not at all.
In some categories the one fares better than the other, but in total not a comparison where I would clearly be stirred towards the Voigtlander lenses
(unless electronic contacts would be most important to me, which they are not).
300g more for f/0.95 instead of /1.2 all else equal (not all else is equal, but plenty is, see above or compare my reviews ) sounds fair and reasonable to me....Show more →
Ok, so just a quick&dirty bokeh comparison shot wide-open, 100% crop resized to 2k wide side, I tried to focus on one of the branches near the middle of the frame, a few meters away from me :
I'll let you guess which is Argus and which is Bigma, though that shouldn't be too hard .
From my very limited shooting (no sun the past few days), I'd give (or rather let stay) the "smooth" award to the Bigma, but the Argus is certainly interesting and produces a different picture due to its quirks (glow/bloom, uncorrected CA, some busyness in the bokeh). The way it handles strong light makes me think I'm gonna enjoy using it more in low-light scenarios...
Edit: ... and here's an example of why I think it's got an "interesting" (compared to boring smooth ) bokeh, shot on a rather overcast day, which should actually help in smoothing out the background:
I think that until now the thing I like the most about this lens is the separation it provides at 35mm. I'm gonna keep it for the "dark" (or rather grey) months ahead and see how it fares...
A couple casual, mostly SooC, shots, since it's a pretty dead thread .
Been very curious about this lens and since it's now on sale I decided to get it. Wow. Sometimes challenging to use wide open but it makes beautiful images.
A question, do you use this lens in broad daylight at all?
I find it very susceptible (glow, CA, bokeh nervousness ...) to direct sunlight, so far it seems to fare better for me when the light is at least a bit muted...
Hello J4nu and thank you for your opinion. When using ultra fast lenses I always tend to catch the best possible natural light. In comparison to i,e Mitakon 50 0.95 IMHO Laowa is performing better closer to subject. When shooting at distances 3, 4 meters etc. then I define it as blurry and soft.
spotter84 wrote:
Hello J4nu and thank you for your opinion. When using ultra fast lenses I always tend to catch the best possible natural light. In comparison to i,e Mitakon 50 0.95 IMHO Laowa is performing better closer to subject. When shooting at distances 3, 4 meters etc. then I define it as blurry and soft.
Thanks!
I'm just trying to find the best way to shoot this lens as I find it more challenging than a typical modern lens, like Sigma 35/1.2 for example...
) sounds fair and reasonable to me.
).
