My apologies if this has already been addressed in another thread.
I don’t often shoot portraits except at family events - nieces’ or nephews’ weddings etc - and these are candids as I prefer to remain a guest and stay out of the way if a pro has been hired.
I have owned the excellent Nikon 85mm 1.8 S ro use with my Z7 but sold it for lack of use, and to have the money for something I wanted more. The 85 1.8 S is also a little heavy/bulky to throw in the bag “just in case” I want to take a portrait.
I am so enamored of the superior focus of the Z70ii vs my Z7 that the latter is probably going to be used mainly for landscapes or when I really need 47mp.
I recently bought a Viltrox 85mm EVO 2.0 on the B&S board and like it a lot on my Z7 but on the 50ii find the 127mm equivalent much longer than I want, so I have just purchased both the TTartisan 56mm 1.8 and the Viltrox 56mm 1.7 on sale from Amazon with the intention of keeping one of them. I haven’t really had a chance to compare them properly so would much appreciate the wisdom of the crowd to help me!
I may well hang on to the EVO for FX anyway.
Perhaps both 56mm options are redundant as I have the 50 1.8 S?
The Viltrox 56/1.7 is an excellent lens and it’s also nice and tiny on a DX body. If you want more speed, the Viltrox 56/1.2 Pro is where I’d head to first. The 50/1.8S works fine of course as well, but I prefer the 56/1.7 on a DX camera and if I went larger I’d go for more speed.
For DX I would use the 50 1.8s. You stated occasional portraits which means to me that you are not in a studio. At 75mm you’d be well covered and a bit of a foot zoom should allow for your framing.
If weight is a concern it may not be optimal but you already own it so likely already know it’s strengths/weaknesses.
RoamingScott wrote:
The Viltrox 75/1.2: "am I a joke to you?!"
Also an outstanding option (and one I’ve thought about getting myself, though OP did say they found 85mm “much too long” so while 75 would be shorter it may still be too long for them.
I'd say just stick with the 50 1.8 S. It's a superior lens to the third party ones optically that you've ordered, and at this point the used value of them isn't far off. 75mm effective field of view on DX will be nice, and a little more flexible indoors as well.
Jman13 wrote:
As someone who owns both I can say that the 50-1.8 S is not appreciably better in any observable way to the Viltrox 56/1.7 on a Z50 II.
I guess the question is what does the OP get from the Viltrox that improves what he already owns with the 50 1.8s? Not a facetious question as I don’t have experience with the Viltrox.
Spectro wrote:
I guess the question is what does the OP get from the Viltrox that improves what he already owns with the 50 1.8s? Not a facetious question as I don’t have experience with the Viltrox.
Size is definitely the big one - it also has a more traditional FOV like that of an 85mm lens, and the extra focal length coupled with the slightly faster aperture gives it about a half stop more background blur wide open (a 50mm at f/1.5 would be the same as the 56/1.7).
Thanks to all for your responses which are definitely helping me to clarify my thoughts.
I was very much leaning towards just sticking with my 50 1.8 S but now with Jordan and deadwolfbones both strongly advocating for owning the Viltrox 56 1.7 as well as the 501.8 S I am reconsidering.
I will aim to set up some good comparison shots to directly compare the two lenses. I really like the diminutive size and light weight of the Viltrox and, if there is little, if any, optical compromise that is quite compelling.
The larger and faster but heavier alternatives recommended above are intriguing but not what I am looking for at the moment.
Maybe in the future!
