p.1 #1 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
Hi, I'm new here. I have a dilemma; I can't make up my mind which one I want. They both create beautiful images, the rendering/colors.
Though I'm a little sceptical about the Viltrox, because there seems to be a lot of bad copies out there.
But I can always return it if it's a bad one.
The problem is that you have to wait 3 weeks or more to get a new one.
The Sigma is tempting but that's $500 more. I have the Sigma 50mm 1.2 and never had any issues with it.
p.1 #2 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
Från en göteborgare till en annan:
Why not just buy the Viltrox. Is there a problem with the lens you can send it back and have it replaced. I think it would be a good thing if Sigma, Sony, Canon, Nikon and perhaps a few more lose some customers to Viltrox and TTartisan or other brands selling their lenses a bit cheaper.
I know Viltrox are made in China (and I don't like that) but so are some Sony lenses.
p.1 #5 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
The copy variation would be a non-starter for me. If it was me, that would drive me to the Sigma. I shot the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 II and it's a premium lens in fit, finish, and performance. One thing worth noting is that while the Sigma feels good in the hand, it's on the heavy side. If the Viltrox was heavier, I think that would tilt me toward the Sigma as well.
p.1 #6 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
I have the Viltrox and the original Sigma 35/1.2 (I). While the Viltrox is significantly smaller and I've successfully started to take it instead of 50/1.2GM (that was never the case with the original Sigma 35/1.2), I'm also tempted by the new Sigma 35/1.2 due to even more size & weight reduction.
IQ wise, I don't think I'd notice any difference. The Viltrox is already very sharp and rendering is probably pretty close as well. From what I've seen the new Sigma is actually a bit less smooth than the original, similar to the Viltrox IMHO.
As for the finishing, the Viltrox feels premium as well. You get that fancy LCD display, but also the less than ideal aperture ring (no markings, nor hard stop).
I think every complex lens has copy variation, regardless of brand (my Sigma 35/1.2 (I) is definitely more decentered than the Viltrox) ...
p.1 #7 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
Im keen to see how this plays out with more reviews also. I had and sold the original S35 twice. I loved the rendering but it didnt go out often due to the size.
From what Ive seen so far most seem to agree the Viltrox has the best bokeh, only Dustin Abbot goes against that. The Viltrox can be had very cheap here and Im sure will get lower at Black Friday whereas the Sigma will not move for a long time.
I just wonder if the Viltrox is too near the original Sigma's weight?
Im keen to hear experiences of others that have tried both too...
p.1 #8 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
About copy variation, Sigma is sometimes not great either. Just look at the 24-70mm DG DN bad sealing on some copies and the difference in sharpness between different reviews with their ART zoom lenses, I had two 28-45mm, my first one was not very sharp at 45mm wide open (like on the Lenstip review), night and day with my current copy. My current sample is so sharp it's almost insane.
Some weeks ago, I was planning to sell both my 35mm GM and 28-45mm because I bought the Sigma 35mm f1.2 DG II. Sadly, my sample of the Sigma DG II had a pretty noisy AF so I returned it and I kept my 28-45mm and my GM for now.
I found some reviews and users that mention this noise. But in the same time there are some reviews stating their copy are silent.
In the doubt, I tried a new copy of the Sigma in the store and the AF noise was the same than my mine (both copies were equally sharp though and it's a good point).
So, I gave up on this lens for now ...
I currently own the 35mm GM and 35mm Nikon Z f1.2, and I also tried the Viltrox.
I think what impressed me the most about the Sigma was the sharpness wide open in the center (when the focus is accurate), obviously sharper than the Nikon, maybe as good as the Viltrox at f1.2 and more or less the same than the GM at f1.4 which seems consistent with Dustin Abbott review when he compared both the GM and the Sigma (even if, on SonyAlphablog, the review states the GM is sharper).
Bokeh was relatively good too, at least in the mid frame.
In my opinion, colors and rendering are better on the GM and even better on the Nikon S, Sigma looks too warm for my taste depending on the scene and overall rendering look more flat, I thought my GM was a bit flat but the Sigma is worse. Both the GM and Nikon S contrast looks nicer (Sigma is harsh) and tonal variations on people skin are just smoother.
Of course it's just my opinion but even my wife saw the difference, especially when compared to the Nikon S.
Sadly, I didn't used the Viltrox enough to make a judgement about overall rendering.
I think the Sigma could be a great lens for video though (if you can find a silent or almost silent copy).
I plan to try another sample in some months to use it for video in the hope to get a silent copy, but if Viltrox releases their 35mm f1.2 for Leica, I think I will get the Viltrox instead.
p.1 #9 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
Keunish wrote:
About copy variation, Sigma is sometimes not great either. Just look at the 24-70mm DG DN bad sealing on some copies and the difference in sharpness between different reviews with their ART zoom lenses, I had two 28-45mm, my first one was not very sharp at 45mm wide open (like on the Lenstip review), night and day with my current copy. My current sample is so sharp it's almost insane.
Some weeks ago, I was planning to sell both my 35mm GM and 28-45mm because I bought the Sigma 35mm f1.2 DG II. Sadly, my sample of the Sigma DG II had a pretty noisy AF so I returned it and I kept my 28-45mm and my GM for now.
I found some reviews and users that mention this noise. But in the same time there are some reviews stating their copy are silent.
In the doubt, I tried a new copy of the Sigma in the store and the AF noise was the same than my mine (both copies were equally sharp though and it's a good point).
So, I gave up on this lens for now ...
I currently own the 35mm GM and 35mm Nikon Z f1.2, and I also tried the Viltrox.
I think what impressed me the most about the Sigma was the sharpness wide open in the center (when the focus is accurate), obviously sharper than the Nikon, maybe as good as the Viltrox at f1.2 and more or less the same than the GM at f1.4 which seems consistent with Dustin Abbott review when he compared both the GM and the Sigma (even if, on SonyAlphablog, the review states the GM is sharper).
Bokeh was relatively good too, at least in the mid frame.
In my opinion, colors and rendering are better on the GM and even better on the Nikon S, Sigma looks too warm for my taste depending on the scene and overall rendering look more flat, I thought my GM was a bit flat but the Sigma is worse. Both the GM and Nikon S contrast looks nicer (Sigma is harsh) and tonal variations on people skin are just smoother.
Of course it's just my opinion but even my wife saw the difference, especially when compared to the Nikon S.
Sadly, I didn't used the Viltrox enough to make a judgement about overall rendering.
I think the Sigma could be a great lens for video though (if you can find a silent or almost silent copy).
I plan to try another sample in some months to use it for video in the hope to get a silent copy, but if Viltrox releases their 35mm f1.2 for Leica, I think I will get the Viltrox instead.
That's interesting about the flat look, it's one of the most important features of a fast lens, for me at least. Though, I'm looking for the opposite most of the time - that "3d pop/depth" .
I really like the pictures coming out of the Viltrox, though every time I pixelpeep I get the impression it's closer to the GM rather than the big Sigma for some reason...
p.1 #10 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
photomadnz wrote:
Im keen to see how this plays out with more reviews also. I had and sold the original S35 twice. I loved the rendering but it didnt go out often due to the size.
From what Ive seen so far most seem to agree the Viltrox has the best bokeh, only Dustin Abbot goes against that. The Viltrox can be had very cheap here and Im sure will get lower at Black Friday whereas the Sigma will not move for a long time.
I just wonder if the Viltrox is too near the original Sigma's weight?
Im keen to hear experiences of others that have tried both too......Show more →
Hard to tell as it's mainly the length that makes the original Sigma so big IMHO.
For me, what's important is that using the Viltrox feels closer to 50/1.2GM rather than the original Sigma.
p.1 #11 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
Women are very often the best to run your images in front of.
No real 'color blindness' issue either, 0.5% for females against fully 8% for males. Women have better peripheral vision too. They may be better at detecting movement and contrast in their peripheral vision. And the big one: wider color perception - they are often able to discern more subtle differences in color. So they are great for image comparisons, for instance.
Men idolize sharpness, women appreciate aesthetics and style. If you ever wondered at these priorities, there is your answer. Men see shapes, women see texture and tone. A substantial number have trouble seeing color. We need more female photographers, obviously.
p.1 #12 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
I would like to see a direct bokeh comparison between the Sigma 35 I and II and the Viltrox. Does anyone have the new Sigma and the first version and/or the Vitrox and can make a comparison?
Is there already a review with comparisons? I didn't find one.
p.1 #13 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
MathiasLeon wrote:
I would like to see a direct bokeh comparison between the Sigma 35 I and II and the Viltrox. Does anyone have the new Sigma and the first version and/or the Vitrox and can make a comparison?
Is there already a review with comparisons? I didn't find one.
p.1 #15 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
Mr Abbott is back, including in his 35mm comparo Sony's GM 35/1.4. If image quality matters, the finest lens is the Viltrox. It holds highlights better than the Sigma and distributes light across faces much better than either of its competitors (effectively shaping them in a more natural manner). It's not the micro-contrast that makes the difference, though it is a contributing factor. It's a few things, a little like how plane crashes require a series of failures to happen.
The Viltrox has the unerring color as we see in many of the modern lenses from 'that country'. Sigma's bokeh model is wishy-wshy, vague and seems so soft it floats in the air. Not surprisingly, backgrounds melt off into obscurity, drowning in featureless fields devoid of distance indicators - as is the fashion zeitgeist, as we live through these days of poor taste. It's a tough challenge to get this right in the fast AF lens market, and it seems harder for 35mm lenses than other FLs.
Portraits from the big V are significantly better, richer with more tonality (colour and luminance) and that helps shape the subject's face more attractively. The rest of the attributes of interest might sway people one way or the other (weight/cost, features etc.), but I'm only interested in better image quality, and the reasons behind it. Interestingly, Mr Abbott asked the females in his house what they preferred. Guess what they thought?
..
..
p.1 #16 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
I purchased the Sigma 35mm f1.2 when it was released in 2019 and happily shot it for five years. Earlier this year, I replaced it with the new Viltrox 35mm f1.2.
I recently decided to replace the Viltrox lens with the VII Sigma to save a couple hundred grams, so I put the Viltrox up for sale.
Today, I viewed Dustin Abbot's newly released comparison of the three lenses. Curious, I just shot my MTF 50 test charts with my A1 II. I compared my Sony GM 35mm f1.4 to my Viltrox 35mm f1.2 (Sony at f1.4 and Viltrox shot at f1.2!).
I was amazed with the results. They were essentially the same as Dustin Abbott's. The Viltrox was a bit sharper (across the frame) than the Sony lens, even when it was at f1.2. The more amazing thing was that Contrast of the Viltrox lens was noticeably better than my Sony lens. The star patterns on the test chart were vivid black with the Viltrox lens, but not so much with the Sony lens. I could see the same relative effect when viewing Dustin's Sigma II images against the other lenses.
I just deleted my For Sale post for the Viltrox lens. This thing is a keeper (for now), and for me, now worth carrying the extra couple hundred grams. Darn it!
p.1 #17 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
philip_pj wrote:
"backgrounds melt off into obscurity, drowning in featureless fields devoid of distance indicators - as is the fashion zeitgeist, as we live through these days of poor taste."
What are you saying? This makes no sense.
If you are saying that the soft bokeh of the Sigma lacks depth in its blurry areas and therefore is in poor taste? If so, you can consider me trashy because I prefer the softness of the Sigma out of focus areas. I also strongly prefer the depth of the shot to register in focused areas. Unlike Dustin, I found the microcontrast of the Viltrox bokeh to be neutral (or a weakness) and not a strength to its rendering because it draws more attention to the soft areas rather than the area of focus. The Viltrox he tested clearly has more microcontrast than the other two lenses, which registers with Dustin's wife.
I kept wondering during this video whether he got a golden Viltrox lens. I'm curious whether folks who have or had the Viltrox have gotten perfect lenses in the corners at f/1.2. Seems a little fishy to me, but I'm open to hearing from folks who've shot it.
p.1 #18 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
I had the original Sigma 1.2 and I own the GM.
I love 35mm and Ive wanted to get a 1.2 again and have been waiting to see how the new Sigma v Viltrox comparisons played out. Honestly I think the Viltrox looks the best in every review. It has more micro contrast and pop to the images. The new Sigma just looks a little bit flatter and 2 dimensional IMO. And the Viltrox has slightly better bokeh.
I noticed a local shop here had a new one on special for the equiv of $800 USD including tax so I jumped on it. Hopefully its well centered!
p.1 #19 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
scrappydog wrote:
What are you saying? This makes no sense.
If you are saying that the soft bokeh of the Sigma lacks depth in its blurry areas and therefore is in poor taste? If so, you can consider me trashy because I prefer the softness of the Sigma out of focus areas. I also strongly prefer the depth of the shot to register in focused areas. Unlike Dustin, I found the microcontrast of the Viltrox bokeh to be neutral (or a weakness) and not a strength to its rendering because it draws more attention to the soft areas rather than the area of focus. The Viltrox he tested clearly has more microcontrast than the other two lenses, which registers with Dustin's wife.
I kept wondering during this video whether he got a golden Viltrox lens. I'm curious whether folks who have or had the Viltrox have gotten perfect lenses in the corners at f/1.2. Seems a little fishy to me, but I'm open to hearing from folks who've shot it. ...Show more →
A quick comparison of the opposite corners of my GM vs Viltrox wide open at infinity (200%, focused in the center, open in new tab for fullsize):
p.1 #20 · Viltrox 35mm 1.2 Lab vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art mark ii
InFocus2014 wrote:
I purchased the Sigma 35mm f1.2 when it was released in 2019 and happily shot it for five years. Earlier this year, I replaced it with the new Viltrox 35mm f1.2.
I recently decided to replace the Viltrox lens with the VII Sigma to save a couple hundred grams, so I put the Viltrox up for sale.
Today, I viewed Dustin Abbot's newly released comparison of the three lenses. Curious, I just shot my MTF 50 test charts with my A1 II. I compared my Sony GM 35mm f1.4 to my Viltrox 35mm f1.2 (Sony at f1.4 and Viltrox shot at f1.2!).
I was amazed with the results. They were essentially the same as Dustin Abbott's. The Viltrox was a bit sharper (across the frame) than the Sony lens, even when it was at f1.2. The more amazing thing was that Contrast of the Viltrox lens was noticeably better than my Sony lens. The star patterns on the test chart were vivid black with the Viltrox lens, but not so much with the Sony lens. I could see the same relative effect when viewing Dustin's Sigma II images against the other lenses.
I just deleted my For Sale post for the Viltrox lens. This thing is a keeper (for now), and for me, now worth carrying the extra couple hundred grams. Darn it! ...Show more →
I'm also mostly tempted by the size & weight reduction, because, IQ-wise, Viltrox is already top-notch .
I'm not sure I'd notice the difference in bokeh...
.
