Thanks for all the images, j4nu. On occasion, just a few reviewers may begin to show comparisons of fast lenses using human subjects, as Dustin Abbott has (of himself) in the video linked from p1.
In the present day, these kinds of lenses are mostly used in the West for general photography (looking at the GM 35mm and Nikon 35/1.2 S image thread) but this one from Viltrox is a superb portrait lens, where we (those of us that do a lot of it) look at how lens qualities (macro/micro contrast, color, fade) and character (the whole amalgam) are expressed in facial shaping, skin treatment, authenticity and appeal/impact.
It's a very difficult balance for designers to optimize and it's a shame more people don't get to see the rather clear differences in optics in this fast 35mm class. My view is that this one is now the reference lens for commercial lenses in this segment for this fading niche, even if few ever see it in what used to be a familiar focal length for wide-normal people lenses.
Your human subjects will thank you for using this one, for those that go that way. The GM looks flat and insipid in comparison, with harsher tighter bokeh (faster fade from smaller OOF highlights). Viltrox might work on the excessive weight for later versions, a regular aperture ring too.
philip_pj wrote:
Thanks for all the images, j4nu. On occasion, just a few reviewers may begin to show comparisons of fast lenses using human subjects, as Dustin Abbott has (of himself) in the video linked from p1.
In the present day, these kinds of lenses are mostly used in the West for general photography (looking at the GM 35mm and Nikon 35/1.2 S image thread) but this one from Viltrox is a superb portrait lens, where we (those of us that do a lot of it) look at how lens qualities (macro/micro contrast, color, fade) and character (the whole amalgam) are expressed in facial shaping, skin treatment, authenticity and appeal/impact.
It's a very difficult balance for designers to optimize and it's a shame more people don't get to see the rather clear differences in optics in this fast 35mm class. My view is that this one is now the reference lens for commercial lenses in this segment for this fading niche, even if few ever see it in what used to be a familiar focal length for wide-normal people lenses.
Your human subjects will thank you for using this one, for those that go that way. The GM looks flat and insipid in comparison, with harsher tighter bokeh (faster fade from smaller OOF highlights). Viltrox might work on the excessive weight for later versions, a regular aperture ring too....Show more →
Thanks and yes, I love 35mm for people shots. That's how I started with 24/1.8 ZA on Nex-7r... but nowadays I need something more like 135mm, as my kids run away when they see me with a camera .
One thing that is coming out of the convergence of cine/video and stills photography is lens ranges with wider focal lengths that are developed for people photography. Now is the time because modern audiences are well used to both anamorphics and wider spherical lenses used in movies. That and modern design excellence.
And the larger the screen, the more impact the image has on the unconscious mind - it's why TVs are huge wall units these days, theatre rooms etc. Bigger is not better, but that is the push and the impact too (IMAX etc).
Cine oriented makers think *lens range* not just individual lens focal length or lens type. And many movies are shot with very few lenses. ADs and cinematographers don't like discontinuity so there is a bias to using wide lenses that still work well with people.
Fast 35s were very well regarded back when they appeared, for the special look they offer. When you open up the field of view, you get more 'immersiveness' (tomorrow's word, just watch).
The effect is even more pronounced when you go wider than 35mm. I use a 28mm for a lot of street people (see example below) and I'm looking forward to the coming Simera 21/1.4 because it will be more versatile than the few fast 20/21s we have now in stills, which are more general/landscape/astro/effects oriented. It's just a matter of time before the Chinese meet with wider photographic market approval. You are ahead of the curve..
philip_pj wrote:
One thing that is coming out of the convergence of cine/video and stills photography is lens ranges with wider focal lengths that are developed for people photography. Now is the time because modern audiences are well used to both anamorphics and wider spherical lenses used in movies. That and modern design excellence.
And the larger the screen, the more impact the image has on the unconscious mind - it's why TVs are huge wall units these days, theatre rooms etc. Bigger is not better, but that is the push and the impact too (IMAX etc).
Cine oriented makers think *lens range* not just individual lens focal length or lens type. And many movies are shot with very few lenses. ADs and cinematographers don't like discontinuity so there is a bias to using wide lenses that still work well with people.
Fast 35s were very well regarded back when they appeared, for the special look they offer. When you open up the field of view, you get more 'immersiveness' (tomorrow's word, just watch).
The effect is even more pronounced when you go wider than 35mm. I use a 28mm for a lot of street people (see example below) and I'm looking forward to the coming Simera 21/1.4 because it will be more versatile than the few fast 20/21s we have now in stills, which are more general/landscape/astro/effects oriented. It's just a matter of time before the Chinese meet with wider photographic market approval. You are ahead of the curve..
philip_pj wrote:
One thing that is coming out of the convergence of cine/video and stills photography is lens ranges with wider focal lengths that are developed for people photography. Now is the time because modern audiences are well used to both anamorphics and wider spherical lenses used in movies. That and modern design excellence.
And the larger the screen, the more impact the image has on the unconscious mind - it's why TVs are huge wall units these days, theatre rooms etc. Bigger is not better, but that is the push and the impact too (IMAX etc).
Cine oriented makers think *lens range* not just individual lens focal length or lens type. And many movies are shot with very few lenses. ADs and cinematographers don't like discontinuity so there is a bias to using wide lenses that still work well with people.
Fast 35s were very well regarded back when they appeared, for the special look they offer. When you open up the field of view, you get more 'immersiveness' (tomorrow's word, just watch).
The effect is even more pronounced when you go wider than 35mm. I use a 28mm for a lot of street people (see example below) and I'm looking forward to the coming Simera 21/1.4 because it will be more versatile than the few fast 20/21s we have now in stills, which are more general/landscape/astro/effects oriented. It's just a matter of time before the Chinese meet with wider photographic market approval. You are ahead of the curve..
Does anyone who has this lens notice a loud clunking of the lens elements when the lens is moved around off the camera? It seems to be fine when the lens is mounted, but when it's not, it's quite loud and you can really feel it. Is something wrong with my copy?
ZacharyHH wrote:
Does anyone who has this lens notice a loud clunking of the lens elements when the lens is moved around off the camera? It seems to be fine when the lens is mounted, but when it's not, it's quite loud and you can really feel it. Is something wrong with my copy?
Thank you for a lot of example pictures.
I'm trying to decide between using Viltrox, Sigma, or GM, and Viltrox seems to be extremely neutral. Just a soft, out of focus area, and it's better corrected in terms of CA.
I saw some comparisons where Viltrox has significantly more contrast and sharpness, I'm talking about the "closing the lens 2 stops" difference.
I wonder about Sigma's sample variation, because in other reviews Sigma is 80% as sharp as the 35 GM.
Bokeh comparison seems to be very confusing.
When I look at most of the shots, I can definitely say that Viltrox lacks character in comparison with Sigma and doesn't have that prominent barrel distortion and a swirl in the center.
But to my surprise, in some of the examples it's extremely close, with just a tiny bit more nerviousness in Viltrox.
I'm still not sure what to pick.
I'm thinking Sigma + 50 f1.2 GM should match very closely in terms of bokeh character and overall effect in terms of portraits.
.
.