Thanks for sharing this. Bastian's tests of flare resistance look good, relatively speaking. It's not until Pos 5 and Pos 6 that veiling flare can be seen.
This is great, thanks for sharing the link! Bastian is one of my fave lens reviewers. I bought the old Sigma 35/1.4 DG HSM ART e-mount because of him. And I still have that lens.
From his examples I don't see any difference in bokeh amongst the three he tested. What I would have been curious is the difference between shooting full-body shots at f/1.2 vs. f/1.4. I could do this in an actual shoot but I don't use a tripod plus as I mentioned earlier I am almost always shooting wide open. Also I couldn't be bothered testing apertures.
Flare and CA controls for the Viltrox 35 IMHO are excellent.
Great comparison as always!
Now, I'm even more tempted to try out the new Sigma, as even in my flawed testing I could see some harshness in Viltrox bokeh...
I still have the old Sigma though, but it's kinda too big for me to use it often... but the bokeh is I think even a bit smother than the 2nd version .
That's a great comparison! Not sure it makes the decision any easier, though they're all great lenses. Off the review alone, I would probably rank them Nikon > Sigma > Viltrox. But the Size and weight makes me wonder if I would end up using the Sigma more.
Honestly after looking at that review at all of the f1.2 parameters, I would 100% buy the Viltrox. Don’t get me wrong, they’re all pretty great. But I like the corner sharpness and bokeh slightly better in the Viltrox.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Honestly after looking at that review at all of the f1.2 parameters, I would 100% buy the Viltrox. Don’t get me wrong, they’re all pretty great. But I like the corner sharpness and bokeh slightly better in the Viltrox.
I've seen a few reviews prior to Bastian's. The clincher for me (even though I already have two 35/1.4s) was when the Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB N went on sale!
jojib wrote:
I've seen a few reviews prior to Bastian's. The clincher for me (even though I already have two 35/1.4s) was when the Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB N went on sale!
BTW, since we are talking about f/1.2 lenses it comes hand in hand with ND filter. No problem using ES with the A7V as it can go up to 1/16000 sec. shutter speed. However, I had to use my ND filter when I used the mechanical shutter. It was pretty bright that morning.
jojib wrote:
BTW, since we are talking about f/1.2 lenses it comes hand in hand with ND filter. No problem using ES with the A7V as it can go up to 1/16000 sec. shutter speed. However, I had to use my ND filter when I used the mechanical shutter. It was pretty bright that morning.
Make sure to turn off EFCS when using mechanical shutter at speeds above 1/1000s. You get those truncated bokeh balls which become more obvious as shutter speed is higher (pretty obvious in the 1/6400s photo posted), and also the bokeh in general can become more busy. This is not a problem with ES, which is thankfully a lot more usable on the A7V compared to prior A7 models.
grahamgibson wrote:
Make sure to turn off EFCS when using mechanical shutter at speeds above 1/1000s. You get those truncated bokeh balls which become more obvious as shutter speed is higher (pretty obvious in the 1/6400s photo posted), and also the bokeh in general can become more busy. This is not a problem with ES, which is thankfully a lot more usable on the A7V compared to prior A7 models.
Those half-balls look pretty rad on that portrait shot though ...
Portraitists understand the crucial role of bokeh - its synergistic and complementary role to the subject - and that it can easily make or break an image. It occupies around 75% of image real estate in the average portrait, so the potential to put off viewers is very high, even if they like the 'actual thing', what Zeiss calls 'the thing that matters'.
I advise you to test in your own shooting environment, and concentrate on your typical focus distances. Beware the 'should' when it is associated with the word 'bokeh'. And look at it 1/3, 2/3 and one full stop down. cheers.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Honestly after looking at that review at all of the f1.2 parameters, I would 100% buy the Viltrox. Don’t get me wrong, they’re all pretty great. But I like the corner sharpness and bokeh slightly better in the Viltrox.
I still have no idea why anyone would buy the Z 35/1.2 just to get a lens that has more CA than its Chinese competition.
RoamingScott wrote:
I still have no idea why anyone would buy the Z 35/1.2 just to get a lens that has more CA than its Chinese competition.
The Nikon does have the least vignetting, and in my opinion, the nicest bokeh, rendering, and flare resistance. Personally, my biggest hesitations about the Nikon are the size and weight. Am I really going to want to carry a 2.3lb lens around with me for when the light gets low?
It's definitely impressive, though, that the Viltrox is the sharpest, has the least CA, and is the cheapest. Doesn't help much on weight, though, coming in at 2.1lbs.
I'm waiting for the 35/1.4 Pro Viltrox to see how it stacks up. I have a feeling it will be nearly devoid of CA judging by their latest few lenses. I personally really dislike Sigma styling, especially that glossy flange near the mount.
RoamingScott wrote:
I'm waiting for the 35/1.4 Pro Viltrox to see how it stacks up. I have a feeling it will be nearly devoid of CA judging by their latest few lenses. I personally really dislike Sigma styling, especially that glossy flange near the mount.
I suspect that will be the sweet-spot fast 35 for me. I definitely like what I see from the 1.2, but it’s just too big for me as a run and gun prime.
RoamingScott wrote:
I'm waiting for the 35/1.4 Pro Viltrox to see how it stacks up. I have a feeling it will be nearly devoid of CA judging by their latest few lenses. I personally really dislike Sigma styling, especially that glossy flange near the mount.
I agree the glossy flange on some of Sigma's lenses looks and feels a bit cheap, but the rest of the lens has a very nice build quality. It really hit me when I picked up the Sigma 14mm f1.4. The end of the 14mm lens feels metal, and even though the rest of the lens materials are the same, it feels and looks much more premium to me. I have a hard time, though, saying Sigma should switch to metal on all their lenses because it's going to weigh more, which contradicts the weight savings that I find appealing about some of their lenses.
For pure build quality, my Zeiss ZF2 lenses are still my favorite. If you have never never tired the Zeiss 35mm f2 ZF2 I think you would enjoy it.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Honestly after looking at that review at all of the f1.2 parameters, I would 100% buy the Viltrox. Don’t get me wrong, they’re all pretty great. But I like the corner sharpness and bokeh slightly better in the Viltrox.
It's definitely impressive, though, that the Viltrox is the sharpest, has the least CA, and is the cheapest. Doesn't help much on weight, though, coming in at 2.1lbs.
The weight is quite hefty, but I'm so tempted by a local seller who has a very clean copy for a pretty good price even considering the recent sale price.
Benzene wrote:
The weight is quite hefty, but I'm so tempted by a local seller who has a very clean copy for a pretty good price even considering the recent sale price.
It's hefty and heavy for sure but I got used to it. If I shoot with a Nikon I will be owning a Z9---love the integrated vertical grip! Thus it balances well with my Sony A7V + vertical grip. A lot of times I've got either an 85mm or 135mm in my camera bag as well. It's worth it for me as the Viltrox has the least CA, excellent flare control, beautiful rendering and smooth bokeh.
.
...