Ok, the last batch of the the bokeh shots. I hope others will take over the thread, as I can only recommend this lens.
Contrast and sharpness (+breathing) across the frame make it similar to the GM in my eyes, but bokeh is indeed (I stand corrected ) probably closer to the Sigma.
Very useful comparison! Gives me hope for the Viltrox when they issue z-mount. Once that’s available I’m wanting to see comparison of Viltrox to the Tamron 35mm/1.4. What Sigma’s 35/1.2 is to Sony that Tamron has been for Nikon users.
^^ this
I have Tamron 35mm f1.4 on Z6II and it works great with FTZII, but this Viltrox will be the same weight as Tamron with adapter, and it will be native, so I'm planning to buy it when it comes out
woodstork wrote:
Very useful comparison! Gives me hope for the Viltrox when they issue z-mount. Once that’s available I’m wanting to see comparison of Viltrox to the Tamron 35mm/1.4. What Sigma’s 35/1.2 is to Sony that Tamron has been for Nikon users.
Bastian's comparison shows the Viltrox has less optical vignetting which might account for the more pleasing bokeh.
I bought the 35GM maybe 6 months ago and I really like it. To me it's small and nimble and has really good output. I don't think I'd make the move to replace it with this lens,,but 6 months ago I might have gone this direction. Anybody considering changing 35mm lenses or is it more of adding a new one to mix?
MARKFER wrote:
I bought the 35GM maybe 6 months ago and I really like it. To me it's small and nimble and has really good output. I don't think I'd make the move to replace it with this lens,,but 6 months ago I might have gone this direction. Anybody considering changing 35mm lenses or is it more of adding a new one to mix?
I think it depends on what you use 35mm for. I like it for portraits and separation and in those cases the Viltrox (and the Sigma) have a slight(?) edge over the GM imho. But I don't think it's fair to compare them size-wise...
I also found a spare head for my tripod, so I might attempt a direct (diligent this time) comparison between the two on my day off tomorrow .
j4nu wrote:
I think it depends on what you use 35mm for. I like it for portraits and separation and in those cases the Viltrox (and the Sigma) have a slight(?) edge over the GM imho. But I don't think it's fair to compare them size-wise...
I also found a spare head for my tripod, so I might attempt a direct (diligent this time) comparison between the two on my day off tomorrow .
I'll use the Viltrox lens the same way I used the Sigma 35mm f1.2 lens.
For travel and about 60% of my shooting, I will continue to use the outstanding, light/compact GM 35mm f1.4. For portrait work and more creative photography, I'll use the Viltrox lens. I guess I am spoiled as I cannot imagine having just one or the other.
I’m shopping for a fast (f1.4 or wider) 35mm for night sky and will probably pick the one with least coma. Bastian showed the Sigma being a bit better than the Viltrox wide open on coma, and I’m curious where the Tamron sits at common aperture at 1.4. The Viltrox looked pretty good though. And I also like avoiding an adapter if IQ is similar. Vignette is another factor. F/1.2 vs 1.4 may also matter a little?
pemanja93 wrote:
^^ this
I have Tamron 35mm f1.4 on Z6II and it works great with FTZII, but this Viltrox will be the same weight as Tamron with adapter, and it will be native, so I'm planning to buy it when it comes out
j4nu wrote:
Ok, the last batch of the the bokeh shots. I hope others will take over the thread, as I can only recommend this lens.
Contrast and sharpness (+breathing) across the frame make it similar to the GM in my eyes, but bokeh is indeed (I stand corrected ) probably closer to the Sigma.
So you are selling the sigma? For me, the Viltrox new is more expensive than what I get from selling my sigma so it must be an upgrade for me to make the switch. But the delta isn’t that big or significant.
wind30 wrote:
So you are selling the sigma? For me, the Viltrox new is more expensive than what I get from selling my sigma so it must be an upgrade for me to make the switch. But the delta isn’t that big or significant.
Well, I'm more of a 35mm lens collector than photographer by now .
The main advantage of the Viltrox for me is the size, as it just feels more managable than the Sigma. IQ-wise, the Viltrox impresses me the most with its CA correction - it's better even without any CA profile (yes, that's for Lateral but still).
When it comes to bokeh smoothness, I'd still give the edge to my Sigma, but it's difficult do a proper comparison, where you account for all the variables like difference in focal length (coupled with breathing), exact focusing or copy variation...
At least for me, it’s definitely not worth selling the Sigma at this point, based on what the used rate is. I’ll probably dump the Canon RF 35L before the FE Sigma.
I’d be more inclined to pick the Viltrox up just to play with for a little while if it were at a discount already. At its retail tag, I’m more inclined to wait and see what the second version of the Sigma will look like, since they’ve stated it will be smaller and lighter. Just need to see what the IQ will be like.
AF-C is faster than than Sigma or 35GM I'd say, more like 50GM/1.2 in regard of speed (AF-S racks a bit though). Accuracy for static targets is also great.
When it comes to tracking, I only shot a couple pictures of my kids roller-skating (towards me, but not too fast and not really close) and I was actually surprised how good it fared. But of course, it was not a detailed test...
I have to say I can't completely figure the Viltrox out...
When I take comparison shots, upon closer inspection it looks closer in rendering to the GM, rather than the Sigma.
...but when I just shoot with it, its images seem to have more depth ("3D" ) than the GM (yeah, I know - 1.2 vs 1.4 but still).
Oh, well - I guess I'll have to do a blind test to see if it's the honeymoon period at play here...
j4nu wrote:
I have to say I can't completely figure the Viltrox out...
When I take comparison shots, upon closer inspection it looks closer in rendering to the GM, rather than the Sigma.
...but when I just shoot with it, its images seem to have more depth ("3D" ) than the GM (yeah, I know - 1.2 vs 1.4 but still).
Oh, well - I guess I'll have to do a blind test to see if it's the honeymoon period at play here...
In general, are you happier with the output from the Viltrox vs the Sigma? That is, accounting for the honeymoon factor.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
In general, are you happier with the output from the Viltrox vs the Sigma? That is, accounting for the honeymoon factor.
I don't know if I'm happier, but I'm definitely happy enough with the output from the Viltrox .
I'm definitely happier with handling, though on the other hand AF-S is a bit flaky.
j4nu wrote:
I don't know if I'm happier, but I'm definitely happy enough with the output from the Viltrox .
I'm definitely happier with handling, though on the other hand AF-S is a bit flaky.
My main curiosity is the general look of the images during real world shooting. I’ve been happy enough with the AF of the Sigma that the main improvement I would want to see is in the image output/look.
I still have my RF 35L for the Canon system for when I need smaller/lighter and blazing fast AF, so I’m really just left with wanting to make sure I have the lens that produces the look I like the most.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
My main curiosity is the general look of the images during real world shooting. I’ve been happy enough with the AF of the Sigma that the main improvement I would want to see is in the image output/look.
I still have my RF 35L for the Canon system for when I need smaller/lighter and blazing fast AF, so I’m really just left with wanting to make sure I have the lens that produces the look I like the most.
I think the Viltrox has some advantages rendering-wise, like lesser cats-eyes effect (or a bit more punch due to the sharpness/contrast IMHO), but I also think you'd really need to take some shots yourself to know for sure if you like it (or the differences might turn out to be negligible to you)...
) probably closer to the Sigma.
:
