Looking at those two full size I am definitely seeing more structure in the out of focus areas of the second photo. Overall a less busy background. On the subject it looks pretty close to me. The saturation boost on the first one might be just a result of the slightly darker exposure.
Viewing on my Mac, #1 is overall a bit darker and I prefer that compared to #2. More importantly, I see notably smoother and more natural looking foliage bokeh on #1, so it’s the first lens for me. You have me curious about the lens.
RoamingScott wrote:
[...] Which do you like better?
[2 images]
As presented here the top image is, to my eyes, better than the bottom one. It'd imply put easier to look at.
There are some ugly halos above the rear petals though. Maybe the bottom image would show that to if it had been focused the same. The bottom is a tad sharper i think but that doesnät matter as they both are sharp enough with some margin. The light is overall better in the top image. It's hard to say for sure anything here.
From an earlier review: "Uncorrected vignette can be heavy enough at F1.8 that there appears to be a bright “hot spot” in the center of the image"
Lens 2 tends to meter quite hot where it shouldn't because of this, and this is a great example of how, and what that does to an image.
The "light is better" simply because the vignette is more even at 1.8 in image 1. The actual light falling on the subject is identical in both images. It should be quite obvious what a more even vignette brings to a lens (overall better exposure and better contrast in the same conditions).
All of that aside, lens 1 does struggle towards the corners. I noticed this last night when testing astro and seeing gumdrop and even comet shaped bokeh due to coma.
The amount of specular highlights in lens 1 far exceeds that of lens 2 particular in the corners. Almost as if one of these was designed to suppress them (and does that very well).
RoamingScott wrote:
From an earlier review: "Uncorrected vignette can be heavy enough at F1.8 that there appears to be a bright “hot spot” in the center of the image"
Lens 2 tends to meter quite hot where it shouldn't because of this, and this is a great example of how, and what that does to an image.
The "light is better" simply because the vignette is more even at 1.8 in image 1. The actual light falling on the subject is identical in both images. It should be quite obvious what a more even vignette brings to a lens (overall better exposure and better contrast in the same conditions).
All of that aside, lens 1 does struggle towards the corners. I noticed this last night when testing astro and seeing gumdrop and even comet shaped bokeh due to coma.
The amount of specular highlights in lens 1 far exceeds that of lens 2 particular in the corners. Almost as if one of these was designed to suppress them (and does that very well).
OK. With that added information and some adjustments to the images I suddenly prefer lens 2, the bottom image. It may produce a hotter center (making troubles for people using the wrong metering method) and vignetting.
The petal halos in 1 are not to my liking though. This is a problem I have noticed not many care about.
In the bottom image there are hints, "strong hints", about double line bokeh at some places but in this particular setup it's not too bad.
Are these 35mm lenses?
Easiest surface I know to fish out LoCA is my headlights in direct sun. Despite Lens 1 not explicitly marketed as APO, it still does a very nice job handling CA wide open. Nothing to complain about in either.
One thing I've always noticed and never really liked about Lens 2 is the "soap bubble" bokeh just behind the plane of focus (look above the M).
Interestingly Lens 1 has these bubbles in FRONT of the plane of focus (look under the E). The way they render these bokeh balls is nearly identical, though on opposite sides of the plane.
As Jonas noted, there is distinctly more haloing of sharp lines (top of tent nearer to camera) in bokeh. This has been the most interesting find IMO.
RoamingScott wrote:
Ignore all the bug guts, I've been on the road
One thing I've always noticed and never really liked about Lens 2 is the "soap bubble" bokeh just behind the plane of focus (look above the M).
Interestingly Lens 1 has these bubbles in FRONT of the plane of focus (look under the E). The way they render these bokeh balls is nearly identical, though on opposite sides of the plane.
As Jonas noted, there is distinctly more haloing of sharp lines (top of tent nearer to camera) in bokeh. This has been the most interesting find IMO.
There seems very little between them at f1.8 other than what appears around 1/6th stop exposure and a bit blurrier background bokeh. I would like to see similar comparisons of each shot wide open — hint, hint!
Jack Flesher wrote:
There seems very little between them at f1.8 other than what appears around 1/6th stop exposure and a bit blurrier background bokeh. I would like to see similar comparisons of each shot wide open — hint, hint!
I'll get to that
Per my original review of Lens 2, I remarked: "I’m confident in saying that in terms of bokeh and light gathering, this lens is closer to F2.0 wide open." Seemed obvious then, seems even more obvious now.
RoamingScott wrote:
Two Viltrox lenses that share a focal length, both shot at f/1.8, and both left to meter at +0.0 with auto WB.
The differences are stark, yet exactly in line with expectations and my previous findings on each. Which do you like better?
...
I like the rendering on the first lens more and I'd be interested to know what it looks like at f/1.4...
The second one seems a little bit sharper. Evo like...
