I just pulled the trigger and ordered this lens direct from the Sirui website for $868.98 (Australian dollars) including delivery. Hopefully I'll get a well centred copy 🤞
I received my Sirui Aurora 35mm f1.4 E mount lens, then ran it through a few quick alignment and focus tests. The lens arrived here six days after order (China to Perth Western Australia) via DHL.
The lens is sharp wide open edge to edge, but my copy shows very slight tilting (softer lower left & top right), but well within my range of acceptability because of my non scientific quick test.
Surprisingly, LoCa is extremely low and barely noticeable (you really have to look hard to notice it). Close focus is better than expected, and Bokeh is good, no noticiable onion rings, or nervous ugly distractions seen so far, but it's early days.
Auto focus is silent, surprisingly accurate and quicker than expected (I also have the Sirui Aurora 85mm f1.4 E mount to compare it with). The 35mm is slimmer than the 85mm, but looks about 5mm taller side by side. I actually like the noticeable size difference because it's easier to tell which lens you quickly grab out of your bag if you're not wearing your glasses
When I opened the box, I was pleasantly surprised Sirui also threw in a free UV filter (Sirui branded). I am extremely impressed with Sirui's packaging quality, right up there with other major manufacturers.
So far so good with this lens guys, I was expecting problems and issues (like we do with all brand lenses) but not this time. Well done Sirui
They are one of the better lens producers at present, their VP-1 as well. In a recent interview, the rep said they want to take their time to get the Aurora series right. Sirui and Viltrox are in a fascinating position in the market. They are attempting to walk the fine line between conventional config and imagery (you know, OEM Canon-Nikon-Sony) and the emerging aesthetic styles of Chinese lenses. Packaging is always first rate, and enough to shame the major players.
As a side note, this is what might happen with CA: have you noticed there are no issues with this pernicious aberration in virtually all Chinese lenses, no matter the cost or focal length? Fans of APO will need other reasons to buy in to them, because that last 0.1% is simply insignificant, and not image-relevant. That's because most of these makers have a cine background, and CA is verboten in their footage, being very hard to fix in post.
CA will be like the elderly woman who called the police on a naked man she saw from her window; when they arrived and asked where he is, she handed them a pair of high powered binoculars and pointed at a far distant bathroom window. That bathroom is the last 25 pixels in the corners of a 61mp image.
As i saw, 35mm have better built than 85mm + iris lock, better AF, too bad their 85mm is not refined as 35mm...I don't say that 85mm is bad, but this 35mm is what 85mm should have looked like.
ambushy wrote:
All online and youtube reviews seem to be from favorable influencers so far. A formal review from an independent reviewer for this lens will be great!
Absolutely—I felt the same; they all came across as little more than paid promotions. Chris Frost actually released his review today, and while his style can be a bit dry, I generally find his take impartial. I was hoping to catch a review from Dustin Abbott as well, but after watching Frost’s video, I went ahead and made the purchase—figured it’d be best to have it in hand for my upcoming trip.
Note: he incorrectly states the lens has a 67mm filter thread, it's 62mm
My experience with the lens is similar to his, except I haven't detected any LoCa, just occasional LaCa (easily correctable in post). Wide open, edge to edge sharpness is great, only the extreme corners are slightly softer (as expected at f1.4). Auto focus is very accurate and fast enough for me, but I don't hear any focus motor noise at all (maybe his hearing is better than mine). After a few days use the bokeh looks great to me as well. I'm also delighted with the sunstars and lack of coma (not expected).
mudnut wrote:
Absolutely—I felt the same; they all came across as little more than paid promotions. Chris Frost actually released his review today, and while his style can be a bit dry, I generally find his take impartial. I was hoping to catch a review from Dustin Abbott as well, but after watching Frost’s video, I went ahead and made the purchase—figured it’d be best to have it in hand for my upcoming trip.
Curious if you received this yet and what your thoughts are on it?
The YouTubers never want to offend the people who just sent them a lens no one else has seen, sometimes to keep. So you get the obligatory intro explainer, and a general downplaying of serious issues, and a boost for the features that work for them. This is currently happening with the Nikon ZR - boy they most definitely do not want to lose that relationship!
As their online business depends on the number of views and new subscribers, and increasingly, commenter activity, it's understandable as human nature. Having said that, most lenses today are really good for some things, and this is one of the missing pieces of the review puzzle - 'exactly who and what is this lens really well-suited for?' What style of photography does it improve?
Humor the viewers with the specifics, too. More honesty would always help. A little info on their biases would help too. Less charts of corner res being less wonderful at f1.4 (who knew?) and 'lens fondling' (it's 68.4mm long), and more from a couple of hours in the open spaces. Portraits from portrait lenses, landscapes for landscape lenses, etc. Leave images on screen for more than a millisecond. Many things can be improved.
And that is why we are here, for some of us. To fill in the gaps, explain what we see, show our fellow advanced amateurs what the new lenses can do, what they are like in actual usage, and critically, how they compare with other contenders for our money. These are things forums do best.
I got my copy recently and have found it to be sharp wide open centrally and even the corners are quite good, stopped down it is very sharp corner to corner, I like the rendering as well, it has a bit of swirly character but overall great, I am a fan a the old Contax 35/1.4 and it's great to get an AF lens that is much cheaper, lighter and gives off a similar vibe.
Sirui QC is garbage as advertised. I bought two copies of the 35 because I've seen way too many horror stories and one of them was totally borked. The "good" copy still seems a bit decentered in that the top of the frame is sharper than the bottom, but at least the sides are equally blurry?
Day 1 SooC shots with the 35. The rendering is exactly what it appeared to be from looking at "good" samples online. As has become obvious, Sirui suffers mightily from quality control issues, so getting a decently centered lens can be some work. I think this once could still be even more centered but it does clean up really well by f/2.8
It seemed like a big knock on the lens was its MFD and that it wasn't particularly usable up close, but I didn't find that the case at all in early testing. MFD could always be closer, but focus was reliable and bokeh looks nice.
RoamingScott wrote:
Sirui QC is garbage as advertised. I bought two copies of the 35 because I've seen way too many horror stories and one of them was totally borked. The "good" copy still seems a bit decentered in that the top of the frame is sharper than the bottom, but at least the sides are equally blurry?
I had that same problem with my Sirui 85mm f1.4
Sending it back through a third party vendor was a real pain, I had to threaten a credit card charge back to get them to accept the return. Thankfully their replacement was a keeper.
I later purchased my Sirui 35mm f1.4 direct from Sirui instead.
