Alan Parker wrote:
Very glowing reviews from what I'm seeing. If only I wasn't broke
I often have to remind myself that I parted ways with my Bigma due to its size and weight, so no matter how great the reviews are, this lens won’t be a long-term addition to my kit. Even my 50/1.2 GM feels like a challenge to use at times, which is lighter than this lens.
Also gone are the days when good glass kept its value. These lenses depreciate so fast. Give it until black Friday and you might be able to find it at $300 discount directly from the vendor. I just posted this here for early adopters with no kids and/or a ton of disposable income.
Do you know what the weight is on this? Looks significantly smaller than the Sigma 35 1.2. I actually might consider it at some point….
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
I often have to remind myself that I parted ways with my Bigma due to its size and weight, so no matter how great the reviews are, this lens won’t be a long-term addition to my kit. Even my 50/1.2 GM feels like a challenge to use at times, which is lighter than this lens.
Also gone are the days when good glass kept its value. These lenses depreciate so fast. Give it until black Friday and you might be able to find it at $300 discount directly from the vendor. I just posted this here for early adopters with no kids and/or a ton of disposable income. ...Show more →
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
I often have to remind myself that I parted ways with my Bigma due to its size and weight, so no matter how great the reviews are, this lens won’t be a long-term addition to my kit. Even my 50/1.2 GM feels like a challenge to use at times, which is lighter than this lens.
My weight cut off for a lens on a Sony body is around 850 grams.
Very light lens feel weird on a full size body like A7R5, Whenever I use Samyang 24mm F1.8 weighing 230g with A7R5, weight balance feels off. Even with 420g Samyang 50mm F1.4 II, especially if you use a base plate.
Slightly heavier lenses like 70-200 GM II at 1kg start to get hefty, 150g extra doesn't feel much in backpack but it certainly does in hands. Still it feels amazing that this lens is so light for it's size and class.
Lenses like Sony 50 1.2, Samyang 135 F1.8, Sigma 24-70 feel just right with A7R5. Added weight helps in stabilization.
Tamron 50-400 and 35-150 are almost same size as GM II but approaching 1200g and feel way too dense.
OTOH on my Nikon Z8, heavier Tamron zooms feel balanced.
Looks like a sharp lens with good build quality, but it really gets down to business at around f2.
My Distagon 35/1.4 behaves much the same way, so I'll sit this one out.
Wow, thanks for that comparison. Confirms my experiences in a decisive format.
The Viltrox looks stellar. It combines all the best traits of those that came before. Laowa 0.95 for the extra special sauce. CV 35 1.2 iii for most compact.
The Sigma and Viltrox look close enough that the Sigma owners wouldn't have to swap unless they specifically want weight/size reduction.
One advantage of the Samyang 35 1.2 XP is that it adapts on the 33x44 sensors with pretty great coverage. In video mode it's no issue with a very IMAX type look.
Did u buy it in store or was the lens sent by viltrox? The results look stunning and I love my sigma f1.2 and this looks better. If I am viltrox, I would cherrry pick the best lens to sent out for review, if anything just to avoid sending out a lemon.
Information for the US folk:
One of my readers from the US contacted Viltrox and was told when ordering directly from Viltrox,
the lenses are being sent out from a US based warehouse, so no tariff issues for you guys.
The Viltrox looks like a great lens. Just so unfortunate that it’s in their Lab line and not the Pro line. I don’t like that little OLED screen on the lens nor the unmarked aperture ring (which, according to the Petapixel review, is again not properly indexed to one click per third stop..)..
I was surprised how much visual difference there is between f/1.2 and f/0.95. Might be worth picking up the Laowa just for that..
fjablo wrote:
The Viltrox looks like a great lens. Just so unfortunate that it’s in their Lab line and not the Pro line. I don’t like that little OLED screen on the lens nor the unmarked aperture ring (which, according to the Petapixel review, is again not properly indexed to one click per third stop..)..
I was surprised how much visual difference there is between f/1.2 and f/0.95. Might be worth picking up the Laowa just for that..
I also complained about that control ring and told them they should ditch that and rather use the aperture ring from their Pro series which is the same as Sony G/GM and Sigma.
But if that is the only thing to complain about (and that is the case here) I can live with that. Lens will be at f/1.2 most of the time anyway.
hasenbein wrote:
If you had really read the review you wouldn't pose this question.
My bad. I must have skipped the disclaimer straight to the results. I really like the reviews done in philipreeve website because they look at the things that matter to me and I also found the sigma f1.2 to be the best 35mm out there.
I looked at the new Nikon 35mm f1.2 recently and took a few test shots to compare it with my sigma. I think the Nikon is better for flare and bokeh.
The lens looks good, but at $1499 Australian it’s not much cheaper than a Sony 35mm f1.4 GM (recently available at $1599 Au).
My preference is still the GM.
