Can anyone offer opinion on the differences between the VM f/1.1 version and the Nikon Z f/2 version of this lens? I intend to use the lens on Nikon Z bodies but already have a VM adapter and so could use either. Are the lenses optically identical (apart from maximum aperture)? Which would be preferable and why?
@BastianK,
Your review plus this video provide a clear idea of how this lens performs. I really like what I see in terms of IQ and rendering for a very attractive price. Like you wrote, rendering is pleasant, thanks to the lack of aspherical elements and likely low field curvature. The lens seems to be capable of very decent resolution at center even wide open as long as the subject is not too close in order to avoid SA.
There are negatives though, like strong veiling flare against the light and craftsmanship compared to Leica and Voigtlander lenses but I think the low price more than compensates for that. The ability to tweak calibration is a big plus and I wish Voigtlander would start featuring this in their lenses where I see a lot of mis-calibration.
Price aside, I would still prefer the Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton over this lens though. It's better built and rendering is just as attractive. I also think the Nokton is sharper at mid and especially extreme corners compared to the Syoptic. On your 50/1.2 Nokton review, I believe you tested it on the Sony sensor but it performs way better on the Leica off-axis. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1561782/32#15316872
Regardless of the price, the Syoptic seems to be a solid choice for those who want a super fast 50mm and enjoy the way it renders.
CheshireCat wrote:
I am puzzled about the bokeh at time 2:00 in the video.
The lens wide open at f/1.1 renders a slightly smaller disk than the Noctilux f/1.2 wide open.
f/Stops are defined with the lens set to infinity, not necessarily they stay the same on focusing closer.
With the help of Dayong Li this has been explained in great detail in my review of the MS-Optics 50mm 1.0 ISM: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-ms-optics-50mm-1-0-ism/#Can_a_50mm_f10_lens_really_be_this_small
What I see at 2:38 at a longer focus distance looks like the differences I would expect.
But it isn't my comparison, so I cannot tell you much more about it.
Fred Miranda wrote:
and I wish Voigtlander would start featuring this in their lenses where I see a lot of mis-calibration.
Can only second all of this...
Fred Miranda wrote:
Price aside, I would still prefer the Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton over this lens though. It's better built and rendering is just as attractive. I also think the Nokton is sharper at mid and especially extreme corners compared to the Syoptic. On your 50/1.2 Nokton review, I believe you tested it on the Sony sensor but it performs way better on the Leica off-axis. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1561782/32#15316872
I am generally a big fan of the Voigtländer 50mm 1.2. Reviewed VM and E version, both on Sony, didn't have an M10 back then.
Does the VM version perform better on Leica than the E version does on Sony?
Bokeh rendering is quite a bit different though.
Even though the 1.2/50 hardly shows onion rings you can still see it is using aspherical elements and this one isn't.
Also the stopped down bokeh is vastly different due to the usage of rounded aperture blades.
Still, if anyone has a VM 50mm 1.2 (non dinky SE) for 300 bucks to offer I gladly take it
wuxiekeji wrote:
I wonder how it compares to TTArtisan 50/0.95
Read the review.
In almost every section I write how it compares to that lens.
@BastianK I really like the look of the images in your Syoptic review! I have one question about the winter snow scenes in the forest and countryside: did you clean up any bokeh fringing and/or vignetting? They look very clean with seemingly low vignetting. Were they generally shot wide open, or slightly stopped down? I noticed some of those are cropped to a more cinematic proportion which I guess would crop out some of the vignetting.
It also appears the lens might have slight field curvature toward the camera at the edges, which would be beneficial for background blur...
rscheffler wrote:
@BastianK@ I really like the look of the images in your Syoptic review! I have one question about the winter snow scenes in the forest and countryside: did you clean up any bokeh fringing and/or vignetting? They look very clean with seemingly low vignetting. Were they generally shot wide open, or slightly stopped down? I noticed some of those are cropped to a more cinematic proportion which I guess would crop out some of the vignetting.
It also appears the lens might have slight field curvature toward the camera at the edges, which would be beneficial for background blur...
The only picture I removed loCA is the one with the cinema in the background I also used as example for that
The fence with tree in the back has been taken at f/1.1 as stated and cropped to 16:9 which did help get rid of most of the vignetting.
The woman in coat from the side I think vignetting is still easily visible.
If a picture is of particular interest to you I can upload the raw (or dng for that matter) file for you, just tell me which it is.
BastianK wrote:
Does the VM version perform better on Leica than the E version does on Sony?
They are pretty equal when used on their optimal sensors. However, I've seen some variation on the off-axis performance even with centered copies. (same of the 40/1.2 and even 35/2 APO)
Bokeh rendering is quite a bit different though.
Even though the 1.2/50 hardly shows onion rings you can still see it is using aspherical elements and this one isn't.
Also the stopped down bokeh is vastly different due to the usage of rounded aperture blades.
The all spherical design allows for clean inner structure highlights but also means compromises somewhere else. However, if rendering is a priority, that's definitely a plus. Round vs straight blades also have their own benefits but round does improve rendering when the lens is stopped down. In these aspects, I agree the SYOPTIC should provide better rendering than the Nokton.
It would be interesting to compare them side by side. The negatives I see for the Syoptic (aside from the name ) is perhaps weaker flare resistance, quirks with build qualilty and haptics and off-axis performance wide open. Although the latter is still average compared to other ultra fast 50mm lenses, it's still a negative when placing the subject away from center.
The price of this lens may increase after all this talk!
Note we can ship pre-assembled stocks as shown starting around mid February. Please understand any immediate stock shipped will not yet have any revisions, if you were to purchase one right now.
Given the feedback to the mfr for pending changes ... wondering if it would be prudent to wait and see what the mfr does with the feedback?
@BastianK@,
The ability to tweak calibration is a big plus and I wish Voigtlander would start featuring this in their lenses where I see a lot of mis-calibration.
I regard Voigtlander as Maestros of Miscalibration.
---------------------------------------------
RustyBug wrote:
Given the feedback to the mfr for pending changes ... wondering if it would be prudent to wait and see what the mfr does with the feedback?
That does seem prudent although Bastian’s very favourable review suggests that there may not be a lot that needs to be (or indeed can be) improved.
BastianK wrote:
When it comes to colors different people see different things.
If I don't like the colors I change them in post to my liking.
Out of the ~160 odd lenses I have used so far there where only a handful where there was a lack of, tonal separation, so to say, that made it very difficult for me to get the images to look the way I like in terms of colors. These where:
Flektogon 35mm 2.4
TTArtisan 50mm 0.95
ZY 50mm 0.95 EF version
Voigtländer 180mm 4.0
Some Jupiter lenses
So contrast and colors, to my eyes they are not different than those of e.g. the Voigtländer VM 50mm 1.2 in a to me field relevant way.
A slower, easier to design lens like the VM 50mm 1.5 II offers higher contrast though, I would expect the same of the Leica 50mm 1.4 Asph.
If this is the kind of contrast level you are looking for I am not sure you will be happy with any of the 50mm lenses faster than f/1.4.
And it has to be kept in mind the lens is a basic unit focus design, so we have the typical high spherical aberration in close focus scenarios, where I am sure the VM 1.0/50 will be sharper thanks to FLE, at least in the center of the frame that is.
I don't currently have any Zeiss or Leica 50mm lenses to directly compare it to.
This guy here compared it to the Leica Noctiluxes 50mm 1.0 and 50mm 1.2, at around 2:38 you see them side by side:
I don't see any notable differences in color rendition here, but I also don't know if he matched colors or contrast in post.
The MS-Optics 50mm 1.0 ISM is technically worse in every imaginable way, simple as that.
It was initially marketed as the "Mr. Ding 50mm lens", but in the eBay offerings such relations have been removed in the meantime.
In discussion with their sales guy it felt like almost Japanese corporate relationship issues to me....Show more →
Thanks for the meaningful response. We are on the same page--I am not expecting (or wanting) modern high micro-contrast like a CV 50/1.5ii or Lux 50/1.4 from this lens. I would be getting the lens for the softer character and bokeh like most I think. I am picky about color and such, and color is highly preferential, but I also disliked what I got from the CV 180/4 of the two copies I owned. It's helpful to me to know you found it functionally similar to the CV 50/1.2 and better than the TTArtisan 50mm 0.95 ZY 50mm 0.95 EF.
I never shot the MS-Optics 50mm 1.0 ISM, nor had much interest--I do not enjoy that draw. I am mainly curious about the Syoptic versus a 50/1 Noctilux.
BastianK wrote:
The only picture I removed loCA is the one with the cinema in the background I also used as example for that
The fence with tree in the back has been taken at f/1.1 as stated and cropped to 16:9 which did help get rid of most of the vignetting.
The woman in coat from the side I think vignetting is still easily visible.
If a picture is of particular interest to you I can upload the raw (or dng for that matter) file for you, just tell me which it is.
Thanks for the offer but it's not necessary for the time being. Do you recall what aperture was used for the snow-covered trees and also the other fence photo with the ice covered shrubs?
---------------------------------------------
Fred Miranda wrote:
It would be interesting to compare them side by side. The negatives I see for the Syoptic (aside from the name ) is perhaps weaker flare resistance, quirks with build qualilty and haptics and off-axis performance wide open. Although the latter is still average compared to other ultra fast 50mm lenses, it's still a negative when placing the subject away from center.
The price of this lens may increase after all this talk!
Yeah, I was thinking that too, about the price...
I also posted this in the Nokton 50/1 thread, and wondering if Bastian noticed it, but the Syoptic appears to have some field curvature towards the camera that might swing away at the extreme edges. But it's difficult to tell without seeing more images. For example the forest of snowy trees, if focus was on the one near the center, the one to the right, slightly closer to the camera, is also in focus. In any case, this direction of FC would result in generally better background blur, but appears to mean there's a sweet spot in which focus is good before appearing to fall off. It seems you can get good off-center focus, for example the one of the woman leaning against the window in front of the theater, shot on the a7III where this would be easier than with the M10 (assuming no use of the EVF).
genji wrote:
That does seem prudent although Bastian’s very favourable review suggests that there may not be a lot that needs to be (or indeed can be) improved.
The optics are fine, unless they can improve flare resistance, which I am not sure they easily can.
Filter thread and f/1.4 marking on the aperture ring are things I hope will be improved.
I would love if the aperture ring was turning in the other direction, but this might need a bigger redesign, so not sure we should hope for that.
rscheffler wrote:
Do you recall what aperture was used for the snow-covered trees and also the other fence photo with the ice covered shrubs?
Guess those have been f/2.0, I have f/1.1 versions as well, but the contrast of the scene was so low to begin with, I like the contrastier f/2 ones more.
rscheffler wrote:
I also posted this in the Nokton 50/1 thread, and wondering if Bastian noticed it, but the Syoptic appears to have some field curvature towards the camera that might swing away at the extreme edges. But it's difficult to tell without seeing more images. For example the forest of snowy trees, if focus was on the one near the center, the one to the right, slightly closer to the camera, is also in focus. In any case, this direction of FC would result in generally better background blur, but appears to mean there's a sweet spot in which focus is good before appearing to fall off. It seems you can get good off-center focus, for example the one of the woman leaning against the window in front of the theater, shot on the a7III where this would be easier than with the M10 (assuming no use of the EVF)....Show more →
Field is wavy, therefore the midzone dip when taking pictures of a flat scene.
Not very surprising, I see this in all lenses faster than f/1.4 that do not feature ~15 or more elements like Sigma 35mm 1.2 or Sony 50mm 1.2 GM.
Extreme corners are in the same (or at least similar ) plane as the center though.
Field curvature in the corners is more likable than that of the Laowa 45mm 0.95, MS-Optics 50mm 1.1 or (as first samples suggest) VM 50mm 1.0. If I get a review sample of the VM 50mm 1.0 I would include some comparisons in its review, but currently I think the earliest this may happen is in March,
as Robert White - lately my source for Voigtländer review samples - doesn't have any stock atm and I am not too interested in spending ~2 grand of my own money on one right now.
Flare problems seem to be a general common weakness for these relatively cheap lenses - we see that in as good as all reviews for all lenses, be it TTArtisan, 7Artisan or Syoptic, slow ( like the TT 28/5.6 ) and fast ( like the 50/1.1 ). Never the less, it's just one characteristic that you have to remember and consider when shooting.
I have still ordered one - I was on the fence for a TTA 50/1.4 but since I do have a Planar I was thinking the TT might be too close and the 1.1 seemed more of a different lense.
BastianK wrote:
The optics are fine, unless they can improve flare resistance, which I am not sure they easily can.
Filter thread and f/1.4 marking on the aperture ring are things I hope will be improved.
I would love if the aperture ring was turning in the other direction, but this might need a bigger redesign, so not sure we should hope for that.
Guess those have been f/2.0, I have f/1.1 versions as well, but the contrast of the scene was so low to begin with, I like the contrastier f/2 ones more.
Field is wavy, therefore the midzone dip when taking pictures of a flat scene.
Not very surprising, I see this in all lenses faster than f/1.4 that do not feature ~15 or more elements like Sigma 35mm 1.2 or Sony 50mm 1.2 GM.
Extreme corners are in the same (or at least similar ) plane as the center though.
Field curvature in the corners is more likable than that of the Laowa 45mm 0.95, MS-Optics 50mm 1.1 or (as first samples suggest) VM 50mm 1.0. If I get a review sample of the VM 50mm 1.0 I would include some comparisons in its review, but currently I think the earliest this may happen is in March,
as Robert White - lately my source for Voigtländer review samples - doesn't have any stock atm and I am not too interested in spending ~2 grand of my own money on one right now....Show more →
BastianK wrote:
f/Stops are defined with the lens set to infinity, not necessarily they stay the same on focusing closer.
It’s not necessary but certainly unusual. I don’t see myself ever using infinity focus wide open with this lens (unless I have no other choice), so I am considering it a very interesting f/1.2 portrait lens, and I would love to see portraits comparisons against the CV 50/1.2, its most obvious competitor.
I really like the bokeh from the SYoptic 50mm f1.1 from what I have seen in Bastians review. I also like the price. However, comparing it to my Nokton f/1.2, I'd say the Voigtländer hammers it in several, if not all other, areas. Sharpness off center @ f/1.1 is unacceptable in my book.
I think there may be a bit of sample variation going on regarding the difference in performance we see in the review by Bastian and the one at LensTip. My sample, and apparently Fred Mirandas, performs clearly better than the ones used in the mentioned reviews suggests.
