Sirui has announced a slate of new lenses. Of note for FE/Z are:
15/1.6 Aurora
24/1.4 Aurora
New "Swift" line for E/L/X/Z including a 20/2.4 and 40/2.2 everyday lenses with aperture rings weighing 200g, pictured below (guessing these are FE based on mount dot).
I remember getting the Cosina-Voigtländer 40/2 in F mount and feeling cool for having a "hipster" focal length. Fast forward a decade and 40mm is the new 50mm...
A bit interested in the Aurora 24mm as I like the 35mm quite a bit.
Not so sure about the Swift line though. 40mm f2.2 is a boring spec imo.
And while they are light, they are still fat and effectively not that compact. Not a Sirui-specific problem though and partially comes with Z-mount, but compared to Leica M, Fuji X or even old SLR lenses (up to AF-D for Nikon) none of the supposedly compact lenses are really compact in use - they are just all too frickin wide, which makes handling them way less enjoyable. Sorry for the rant
I don't mind 40/2.2 as a concept IF it's decently sharp wide open and has pleasing bokeh. I love taking a 40/2 around and would rather do it with an aperture ring. I also think the 20mm might be interesting on a DX body.
You're right that the Z mount in particular lends itself to absolute muffins for lenses. This lens looks to be the same width as the Z 40/2 but 15mm longer...not compact in any regard. More akin to the Voigt 40/1.2 with hood on. Like you say, it's least it's light?!
As a newcomer to Nikon Z I feel you. I think Nikon made fat lenses because they finally had the volume to create better optical designs (for a very long time most Nikkors shared a 52mm filter size, for example, which surely put a crimp in the design space). That then set the tone for other designs who aped the fat barrel look.
Unfortunately lens designs adapted from old rangefinder models have an ugly flared "collar" near the mount. You simply can't win.
RoamingScott wrote:
Sirui has announced a slate of new lenses. Of note for FE/Z are:
15/1.6 Aurora
24/1.4 Aurora
New "Swift" line for E/L/X/Z including a 20/2.4 and 40/2.2 everyday lenses with aperture rings weighing 200g, pictured below (guessing these are FE based on mount dot).
True. no doubt about that. But Chinese manufacturers reverse engineering optics formulas isn't new and if you do it long enough, you learn to make adjustments to it.
RoamingScott wrote:
There are literally zero similarities to the Nikon and Sirui 1.4 lenses in terms of rendering. You can stop the low effort troll posts.
This is not a troll post. Everyone in the photography world knows the Chinese reverse engineer the lenses from the big brands. I wasn't talking about similarities either. Companies like Light lens lab, Mandler, Viltrox, Sirui, Meike all do the same thing. Renderings are obviously not 1:1 but basic optical formulas are obviously borrowed.
I am not getting paid by brands. Seems like I struck a nerve there.
And I have owned quite a few Viltrox lenses before moving them along.
Sorrymanagement wrote: RoamingScott wroteThere are literally zero similarities to the Nikon and Sirui 1.4 lenses in terms of rendering. You can stop the low effort troll posts.This is not a troll post. Everyone in the photography world knows the Chinese reverse engineer the lenses from the big brands. I wasn't talking about similarities either. Companies like Light lens lab, Mandler, Viltrox, Sirui, Meike all do the same thing. Renderings are obviously not 1:1 but basic optical formulas are obviously borrowed.
I am not getting paid by brands. Seems like I struck a nerve there.
And I have owned quite a few Viltrox lenses before moving them along.
Rendering is obviously not 1:1, and the sharpness levels are very different, too, with Viltrox for example beating Nikon. And the sizes are very different as well. But all Chinese lenses have various types of glass inside, and tend to be cylindrical. So obviously, they are just reverse-engineered. Because the Chinese clearly cannot design their own lenses.
Also, you do not seem to understand the difference between companies like LLL or Mandler, and Viltrox.
So, yes, low effort borderline racist (?) troll post.
I never said they couldn't design their own glass. If you're in the business long enough, you will start to learn improvise and manufacture your own stuff.
It's rampant in the watch world and most industries. A microbrand endeavor i was part of had to be shut down because the company we were using to manufacture our product stole the design and started manufacturing it under a different enterprise. We lost all the money we saved up in litigation. So give me a break.
Nikon failing to win against Viltrox in the shanghai courts is an example of protectionist policies helping the native companies even though there might be copy pasta going on.
Whether you want to accept it or not doesn't change the fact that what i said is true. But go ahead. Sit on your high horse
If calling things out is considered racist, so be it.
I am going to exit this thread as this has reached it's end.
I do t care about this topic either way so I won’t argue the point. I also do t know enough. But racist? Come on. Race card bs. Nothing he said was remotely close to racism.
I don’t even know him I’m just going off of his quotes
mranger211 wrote: Sorrymanagement wroteRoamingScott wroteThere are literally zero similarities to the Nikon and Sirui 1.4 lenses in terms of rendering. You can stop the low effort troll posts.This is not a troll post. Everyone in the photography world knows the Chinese reverse engineer the lenses from the big brands. I wasn't talking about similarities either. Companies like Light lens lab, Mandler, Viltrox, Sirui, Meike all do the same thing. Renderings are obviously not 1:1 but basic optical formulas are obviously borrowed.
I am not getting paid by brands. Seems like I struck a nerve there.
And I have owned quite a few Viltrox lenses before moving them along.Rendering is obviously not 1:1, and the sharpness levels are very different, too, with Viltrox for example beating Nikon. And the sizes are very different as well. But all Chinese lenses have various types of glass inside, and tend to be cylindrical. So obviously, they are just reverse-engineered. Because the Chinese clearly cannot design their own lenses.
Also, you do not seem to understand the difference between companies like LLL or Mandler, and Viltrox.
So, yes, low effort borderline racist (?) troll post.
Those lenses except the 40/2.2 appear to offer options for Z shooters that don’t currently exist, which is cool.
The 24/1.4 is interesting to me as a wide angle portrait lens to play with. With my current budget I’m pretty unlikely ever to buy a 1st party one even if Nikon released one (unless it’s cheaper than their 1.8 S in that way of theirs, but even then who knows).
I do wonder how anyone makes profit from a lens like a 40/2.2, when so many good alternatives exist including a cheap native option.