Marcus, once again ... your photos made me get this lens.
I really havent gotten to play with it much. I need to take out my Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB | Voigtlander 40/1.2 Nokton and Viltrox 85/2.0 EVO that i recently acquired and play with them a little more. We've had some cold weather tho.
Here are a few 35/1.2 shots from around the house.
I have actually put mine into my event kit rotation and it's doing good for what it is. I don't trust it with eye AF that much though. AlexCruise wrote:
Marcus, once again ... your photos made me get this lens.
I really havent gotten to play with it much. I need to take out my Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB | Voigtlander 40/1.2 Nokton and Viltrox 85/2.0 EVO that i recently acquired and play with them a little more. We've had some cold weather tho.
Here are a few 35/1.2 shots from around the house.
JadedWriter wrote:
I have actually put mine into my event kit rotation and it's doing good for what it is. I don't trust it with eye AF that much though.
Interesting .... ill def need to play with mine more..... I have mine in my Pro Kit along with the Nikon 1.2 S lenses and Plena
I used the 85 2.0 EVO and did Eye Af while using it at a indoor rock climbing park with the ZF and nailed focus every time.
Certainly following along here you guys Will be interested in your thoughts!
@JadedWriter - Marcus, I was reading from Sony alpha 1 users that the Viltrox isn't fantastic with eye-AF, so your message above is a little disappointing if it validates that experience with Nikon Z. Would it be fair to say that it would not perform well for inside sports?
AlexCruise wrote:
Marcus, once again ... your photos made me get this lens.
I really havent gotten to play with it much. I need to take out my Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB | Voigtlander 40/1.2 Nokton and Viltrox 85/2.0 EVO that i recently acquired and play with them a little more. We've had some cold weather tho.
Here are a few 35/1.2 shots from around the house.
No idea. I usually use the 50 1.2 for that kind of stuff so far. I heard the 135 Lab also has eye AF issues, which is why I got the Plena over it. So far I've been using it as a DSLR AF system and it's been fine with that so far. The reviews said the AF itself is faster than the S version, but I guess the algorithms just don't communicate with 100% accuracy. urbanwild wrote:
Certainly following along here you guys Will be interested in your thoughts!
@JadedWriter@ - Marcus, I was reading from Sony alpha 1 users that the Viltrox isn't fantastic with eye-AF, so your message above is a little disappointing if it validates that experience with Nikon Z. Would it be fair to say that it would not perform well for inside sports?
JadedWriter wrote:
No idea. I usually use the 50 1.2 for that kind of stuff so far. I heard the 135 Lab also has eye AF issues, which is why I got the Plena over it. So far I've been using it as a DSLR AF system and it's been fine with that so far. The reviews said the AF itself is faster than the S version, but I guess the algorithms just don't communicate with 100% accuracy.
Ken_Cravillion wrote:
I got this lens when it came out and finally had a chance to give it a test with my daughter. It'll be 100% added to my wedding kit as a wide option.
Thank you for sharing! These are awesome! I def need to get mine out for a portrait shoot!
I like the value proposition of the Viltrox, and for hobby use, it's awesome. But for paid work, I'll never trust it. Look at the reviews on B&H, lots of issues with focusing on their LAB lenses including the 135mm. Every Viltrox I used, I noticed hunting and sporadic focusing during video. So while its cheap and great value, when it comes to relying on it, no thanks.
Speaking very generally, this is my thought on paid work as well. A true professional should be using native glass. Shit happens and sometimes you don’t get a redo. It’s all about risk minimization and protecting the client.
PixiPhotography wrote:
I like the value proposition of the Viltrox, and for hobby use, it's awesome. But for paid work, I'll never trust it. Look at the reviews on B&H, lots of issues with focusing on their LAB lenses including the 135mm. Every Viltrox I used, I noticed hunting and sporadic focusing during video. So while its cheap and great value, when it comes to relying on it, no thanks.
Interesting. I had no idea Canon did this to Viltrox. It looks like Nikon is following suit, so Viltrox may be out of the game for Nikon. I understand from Nikon's standpoint... the LAB 135mm, 35mm are amazing value. Getting a 1.2 on the Z mount at sub $1000 is insane.
PixiPhotography wrote:
Interesting. I had no idea Canon did this to Viltrox. It looks like Nikon is following suit, so Viltrox may be out of the game for Nikon. I understand from Nikon's standpoint... the LAB 135mm, 35mm are amazing value. Getting a 1.2 on the Z mount at sub $1000 is insane.
Very interesting indeed. I would think that Nikon simply wants to get paid their due and Viltrox wants to keep making Z glass. Wouldn't go rushing out to buy Viltrox lenses on this news.
RoamingScott wrote:
Very interesting indeed. I would think that Nikon simply wants to get paid their due and Viltrox wants to keep making Z glass. Wouldn't go rushing out to buy Viltrox lenses on this news.
I was going to say this, but then Viltrox has been making competing glass where as Tamron has made some odd focal lengths that didn't overlap Nikon's glass. So, I think its the axe for Viltrox
RoamingScott wrote:
Very interesting indeed. I would think that Nikon simply wants to get paid their due and Viltrox wants to keep making Z glass. Wouldn't go rushing out to buy Viltrox lenses on this news.
It could be that the Viltrox lenses in question may be more expensive later though. I agree that the 35mm f1.2 option appears to be a lens that would take away some of the 1.2S market, so Nikon would want their cut.
Will be interested in your thoughts!
