I reviewed it exclusively on the Zf, though I found it worked better on the Z9 (details in the review with my hypothesis on why)...overall, the IQ is nothing to write home about, though it does make for a unique shooting experience having a fixed aperture...one less thing to keep track of while in the field.
I found it roughly akin to shooting those little "disposable" type lenses, though the image quality here is still better. Best for walkarounds where the output is purely for socials and sharing with friends.
Crossposting to the Sony side too since it's also available for E and all of the build quality/usability observations will be equally applicable.
I got mine on sale for 74.00 at christmas..... havent shot much with it but am very surprised at how sharp it actually is. Great for street photography
Nice review.
your sample seems to be better than the one I had. I returned mine. I guess it was decentered. The corners where always soft.
OTOH latest generation Viltrox lenses I bought on black friday, the Viltrox 85 2.0 EVO and 14 4.0 AIR are excellent.
pete478888 wrote:
Nice review.
your sample seems to be better than the one I had. I returned mine. I guess it was decentered. The corners where always soft.
OTOH latest generation Viltrox lenses I bought on black friday, the Viltrox 85 2.0 EVO and 14 4.0 AIR are excellent.
Hah, I got the 85 EVO and sent it right back, not my cup of tea.
I'm not shocked your Chip was decentered, as clanky as the floating elements are in this lens.
Excellent review. I bought the Sony one last year, and then returned it. The lens is cheap, nice looking and reasonably sharp, but the fixed aperture makes it of very limited use IMO. I have the same issue with the DJI mini drone. I would not mind a choice of only 3 apertures, let's say f/4.5, f/8 and f/16. But only f/4.5 is too limited for me, even at 28mm, where DoF is relatively long.
I hope Viltrox will continue this concept though. Pancake lenses are really fun to use (I come from Pentax, and their pancakes are really tasty). I wish they could replicate the Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 limited.
Manu-K1 wrote:
Excellent review. I bought the Sony one last year, and then returned it. The lens is cheap, nice looking and reasonably sharp, but the fixed aperture makes it of very limited use IMO. I have the same issue with the DJI mini drone. I would not mind a choice of only 3 apertures, let's say f/4.5, f/8 and f/16. But only f/4.5 is too limited for me, even at 28mm, where DoF is relatively long.
I hope Viltrox will continue this concept though. Pancake lenses are really fun to use (I come from Pentax, and their pancakes are really tasty). I wish they could replicate the Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 limited....Show more →
I know they went 4.5 to balance sharpness and still having SOME bokeh for closer subjects, but I found I almost wished it were just f8 instead...if I'm going to have to basically use it during daytime anyways, give me a better reportage/street aperture.
The pincushion distortion is strong with this one, or are my eyes deceiving me?
And of course, I knew this already, but give me just a moment to rage against the heavens: why the fixed aperture? Why
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
The pincushion distortion is strong with this one, or are my eyes deceiving me?
And of course, I knew this already, but give me just a moment to rage against the heavens: why the fixed aperture? Why
Yeah, it's there, I didn't correct distortion on any of the test shots. You can see it most markedly with buildings and rooflines in my examples.
I love the 28mm field of view and have been intrigued by the Chip lens… but most reviews are similar: the Chip is pretty decent when conditions are just right, otherwise image quality falls apart (or is just plain awful). I also hate the “sun star” flare. Have you considered taking the mask out of the front of the lens? It seems to be easy to do but I can’t find any photos from a modified lens to determine if the mod helps or hurts…
ahinesdesign wrote:
I love the 28mm field of view and have been intrigued by the Chip lens… but most reviews are similar: the Chip is pretty decent when conditions are just right, otherwise image quality falls apart (or is just plain awful). I also hate the “sun star” flare. Have you considered taking the mask out of the front of the lens? It seems to be easy to do but I can’t find any photos from a modified lens to determine if the mod helps or hurts…
I figured I'd finish my review before I rip it apart there are some interesting youtubes out there...people trying to make it anamorphic, adding hoods, and more.
RoamingScott wrote:
Hah, I got the 85 EVO and sent it right back, not my cup of tea.
I'm not shocked your Chip was decentered, as clanky as the floating elements are in this lens.
What was, that you did not like about the 85 EVO ?
I do like small, high resolving lenses. It has a Zeiss like micro contrast.
There was a discussion on reddit where somebody from Viltrox mentioned, we could expect 28mm and 35mm EVO's. But this was before Nikon's law suit. I would not mind a small, high resolving 28mm or 35mm EVO hopefully with a clicked-declicked aperture ring.
A small lens with nice rendering is the Contax G28. A Zeiss 28 2.8 Biogon rangefinder lens. Unfortunately the corners are not so great adapted to a Z7.
pete478888 wrote:
What was, that you did not like about the 85 EVO ?
I do like small, high resolving lenses. It has a Zeiss like micro contrast.
I tried it on the Zf and found the EVO too front heavy for comfort. I have been spoiled by my TTA 75/2 in that regard. I also prefer the TTA rendering (much less specular highlights which really bother me).
RoamingScott wrote:
I tried it on the Zf and found the EVO too front heavy for comfort. I have been spoiled by my TTA 75/2 in that regard. I also prefer the TTA rendering (much less specular highlights which really bother me).
Hi Scott, I'm probably going to show my ignorance here, but sometimes using common frames of reference can still throw us if they don't mean the same things to different people.
So, when you say specular highlights bug you in general, and especially from the EVO compared to the TTA, could you elaborate?
My take on specular highlights is usually in the pleasant form of bokeh balls, but also at other times (to me) it could mean the shiny reflection on a insect's shell that blows out to reflections to show blocked up solid white patches, or when you over-sharpen with Topaz and it creates new specular highlights (random blown out white noise) out of thin air to ruin an image. Those can be quite unpleasant.
Some don't like the bubble bokeh from older designs like the old Helios, and the TTA 75mm f1.5 manual focus swirly bokeh lenses, some love it. And some just don't like "nervous bokeh" where things aren't just quite buttery enough in busy backgrounds.
With that in mind, I am curious, in what form do specular highlights bother you from the EVO?
I discussed this lens and my findings at length in the Sony EVO thread.
Erictator wrote:
Hi Scott, I'm probably going to show my ignorance here, but sometimes using common frames of reference can still throw us if they don't mean the same things to different people.
So, when you say specular highlights bug you in general, and especially from the EVO compared to the TTA, could you elaborate?
My take on specular highlights is usually in the pleasant form of bokeh balls, but also at other times (to me) it could mean the shiny reflection on a insect's shell that blows out to reflections to show blocked up solid white patches, or when you over-sharpen with Topaz and it creates new specular highlights (random blown out white noise) out of thin air to ruin an image. Those can be quite unpleasant.
Some don't like the bubble bokeh from older designs like the old Helios, and the TTA 75mm f1.5 manual focus swirly bokeh lenses, some love it. And some just don't like "nervous bokeh" where things aren't just quite buttery enough in busy backgrounds.
With that in mind, I am curious, in what form do specular highlights bother you from the EVO?
RoamingScott wrote:
I discussed this lens and my findings at length in the Sony EVO thread.
No problem, thanks. I found it (it has rolled back to page 3 by now) and I remember that thread in its early phase and hadn't stayed with it.
What probably threw me was in this thread the way you described "much less specular highlights"... I didn't transpose that in my mind from the old thread and thought maybe there was a new or additional aspect you didn't like about the rendering, but I guess we are still talking about the same thing.
The nervous mid to distant bokeh on busy background thing bugs me also, but it's not a deal breaker (for me), depending on the intended use of the lens.
You will notice even Dustin Abbott and other reviewers bring that up in some of his reviews of fast glass, so you are far from alone in not liking that aspect of certain lenses.
I notice a trend that lenses that tend to be sharper than average into the corners from widest open fstop tend (not 100% of the time, just on average) to also have that nervous mid to distant background bokeh when it is busy back there like foliage, etc.
I would say the new 85MM GMII suffers just a tiny bit from that syndrome in comparison to the GMI... That "fixing" the wide open sharpness took away a bit of the bokeh creaminess had by the GMI original lens. I'm guessing more than just a few people out there would have preferred if they had just enhanced the autofocus speed and accuracy with the new quad xd stuff, used the newer coatings, maybe lightened it a couple of ounces, and otherwise left the optics alone. I'm no lens designer, I'm just an IT geek, but I get the feeling that designers have to make compromises like that, trading one thing for another, it's not always "just throw more money at it" but they are limited by some kind of reality of how optics work, though there may be work arounds that increase size and weight and cost to have the perfect lens, but then nobody can afford it or wants to carry it around.
I took mine with me to Europe last year (just to throw in the bag) with my A7c2 and used it way more than I ever thought I would. As long as there's some ambient light, f/4.5 provides plenty of depth of field for reportage. As long as you aren't peeping at every last pixel, it's a wonderfully small lens to just have when size is a factor.
corposant wrote:
I took mine with me to Europe last year (just to throw in the bag) with my A7c2 and used it way more than I ever thought I would. As long as there's some ambient light, f/4.5 provides plenty of depth of field for reportage. As long as you aren't peeping at every last pixel, it's a wonderfully small lens to just have when size is a factor.
Have any pics from that trip? I'd love to see them!
RoamingScott wrote:
Have any pics from that trip? I'd love to see them!
Here's one that I think exemplifies the use for this lens - subject is reasonably close and the background isn't all that important. I cropped this down to more closely resemble a 35mm FOV.
there are some interesting youtubes out there...people trying to make it anamorphic, adding hoods, and more.