Jman13 wrote:
There's a used 35/1.4 Aurora at my local camera store for $380 - so they are directly priced in this case. On one hand I definitely like creamy bokeh in a 35mm - on the other hand, I find a very sharp 35mm lens gives a better feel of separation from the background. I feel likely like you that in some cases I really like the look of the Viltrox. In others not as much. But the good thing is that the highlights are clean of fringing, so it looks like a rather large step up from something like the Nikon 35/1.8S.
With that said, there's really only one image from your set where I don't really like the bokeh. Even some of the ones where it's a bit rougher, the nature of that is honestly quite pleasing to me - more character than 'bad'....Show more →
You know about copy variation with Sirui, so obvious I'd shoot a wall with the used unit before buying, just to make sure it's not horribly decentered.
I have also noticed that the Aurora has very little fringing, just like the EVO...optically they are quite similar in many ways. The Aurora is closer to 33.5mm, though, and offers the wider FOV.
I have decided to give the Viltrox the shot here....ordered! Dustin Abbott has a code as well for an extra $18 off, so $356 shipped. Seems like a great value for such a good lens.
Also, I know you didn't have a chance to review the 55/1.8 EVO, Scott, but after looking at a handful of reviews on that this morning as well, it also looks like an outstanding lens. There, however, I think I'll just hold on to my Nikon 50mm f/1.8S, as they appear to trade blows (slightly nicer rendering on the Nikon, with the Viltrox slightly sharper). Buying new I might go for the Viltrox, but since I already own the 1.8S it would actually cost me a small amount of money to swap to the Viltrox, and that definitely doesn't seem worth it.
RoamingScott wrote:
That's a question I've been grappling with since getting both. The Viltrox is definitely the sharper lens, no question, but in general I prefer the bokeh of the Aurora. I put them through the same AF tests and they basically came out equal, but with the Aurora not having that slight pause I describe in the EVO review.
That said, the EVO is the more comfortable lens on the Zf, and thusly, I suspect, the more comfortable lens on all of the non-Z8/Z9 bodies.
Probably worth starting with the Viltrox since it's $150 less and see how you get on with it, assuming you are ok with the bokeh. I tried to get lots of different distances as examples. It's really only a mess directly behind the focal plane (similar to my thoughts about the 85 EVO, though in general I just liked that bokeh less)....Show more →
Thanks for your review Scott.
How would you compare it to the Nikon 24-120s @35mm?
pete478888 wrote:
Thanks for your review Scott.
How would you compare it to the Nikon 24-120s @35mm@?
The Nikon will have smoother bokeh at F4, both are bitingly sharp, neither is a bad choice. Not sure it's a relevant comparison unless you don't need anything faster than F4.
RoamingScott wrote:
The Nikon will have smoother bokeh at F4, both are bitingly sharp, neither is a bad choice. Not sure it's a relevant comparison unless you don't need anything faster than F4.
The US price is very reasonable, especially with coupons. B&H $314 (that's 267 Euros) The price in Europe is all over the place. Although the price does include Taxes in Europe.
Viltrox Europe/Germany 459 Euros, Viltrox Spain 349 Euros, Rollei in Germany 386 Euros after 10% rebate .
B&H has the Viltrox 35 EVO on sale for $314.50
I picked one up this morning. I was debating this or the CV 40 Z Septon. I know they are different lenses.
I want to autofocus for an upcoming trip to Italy. Used with a Z6iii or ZF
Thanks
mascejos wrote:
B&H has the Viltrox 35 EVO on sale for $314.50
I picked one up this morning. I was debating this or the CV 40 Z Septon. I know they are different lenses.
I want to autofocus for an upcoming trip to Italy. Used with a Z6iii or ZF
Thanks
Well poop - and mine's already gone to processing for shipping so I can't cancel my Viltrox.com order.
mascejos wrote:
B&H has the Viltrox 35 EVO on sale for $314.50
I picked one up this morning. I was debating this or the CV 40 Z Septon. I know they are different lenses.
I want to autofocus for an upcoming trip to Italy. Used with a Z6iii or ZF
Thanks
I would also get the Viltrox 14 4.0 Air for a Italy/Europe trip. Good optics, lightweight, small and cheap. Lots of churches, narrow spaces, and wide plazas.
RoamingScott wrote:
I have that B&H deal linked in my review, cmon man!
Yeah but you don't actually state that they have it that much cheaper. You say $395 with a 5% discount until April 26, then provide links to Viltrox, B&H and Amazon. The assumption to be made there is that it's the same for all 3 locations...and since there were discount codes available for the Viltrox store, that immediately seemed to be the best place to go.
In any case, the actual difference isn't all that big - about $15 total.
Jman13 wrote:
Yeah but you don't actually state that they have it that much cheaper. You say $395 with a 5% discount until April 26, then provide links to Viltrox, B&H and Amazon. The assumption to be made there is that it's the same for all 3 locations...and since there were discount codes available for the Viltrox store, that immediately seemed to be the best place to go.
In any case, the actual difference isn't all that big - about $15 total.
pete478888 wrote:
I would also get the Viltrox 14 4.0 Air for a Italy/Europe trip. Good optics, lightweight, small and cheap. Lots of churches, narrow spaces, and wide plazas.
Yes, I got the 14mm when it was on sale on B&H for about $160 about a month ago.
I like these lightweight Viltrox lenses. Perfect for travel. Thanks Guys
Just like camera bodies, lenses feel pretty much “solved” now.
What I’d really like to see next from Viltrox is something like a 20mm or 24mm in the f/1.4–1.8 range, a tiny 135mm around f/2.8–3.5 and maybe even a compact 200mm f/4.
Honestly, a lot of this momentum could have been Tamron’s if they hadn’t stepped away from primes for mirrorless (other than their 90 Macro). Instead, they’ve leaned heavily into “good enough” zooms with somewhat plasticky builds and that rigid commitment to uniform filter sizes, which seems to limit their design flexibility. On top of that, their partnership strategy like avoiding overlap with Nikon’s first-party lenses and indirectly reduced competition with Sigma on FF Z mount as well, hurting all Z users.
Outstanding wrote:
Just like camera bodies, lenses feel pretty much “solved” now.
What I’d really like to see next from Viltrox is something like a 20mm or 24mm in the f/1.4–1.8 range, a tiny 135mm around f/2.8–3.5 and maybe even a compact 200mm f/4.
Honestly, a lot of this momentum could have been Tamron’s if they hadn’t stepped away from primes for mirrorless (other than their 90 Macro). Instead, they’ve leaned heavily into “good enough” zooms with somewhat plasticky builds and that rigid commitment to uniform filter sizes, which seems to limit their design flexibility. On top of that, their partnership strategy like avoiding overlap with Nikon’s first-party lenses and indirectly reduced competition with Sigma on FF Z mount as well, hurting all Z users....Show more →
Generally agreed, but that 35-100/2.8 is something special.
No worries.