Those look pretty damn good to me too! Most definitely technique difference but I think also the scanner is super impressive.
I should have the next roll in a couple of days at the higher quality and that diy scanning equipment by next month, hopefully will make a difference and maybe I can keep the mp thoughts at bay for a few more years. But you do kind of need multiple film cameras with different iso unless you blaze through those shots and finish the film each time.
Just for fun, a similar scene to the post earlier today comparing the apo vs viltrox bokeh. Not quite as close-up, though it can do it. Pretty sure this is the CV 40 f2 ultron --- I dont like this lens on digital (adapted to Sony, despite being sharp in the plane of focus - it's the out of focus that's unsettling for me, even when it's just slightly off the plane). But hoping it works for film where it seems quite popular (usually for build, size, sharpness):
And a random one with the 50 f1.4. Tthinking about upgrading to the ais over my old afd that I had from the d200 15-20 years ago for the manual focus feel as the manual focus feel is rather awful:
^ chose something easier to focus on with the split-screen. I've picked up a lens diopters correction to make things a bit easier -- this was on the way to do that actually.
Massive difference in iq (among other things) between mine and yours. Yours are actually ridiculously good. I hope I can get close with the dslr scan. Love your photos there actually. It's just so much easier on the eyes, much less in your face than digital and more naturally moody.
Kind of don't want the scans to be toooo good either, the 40mmf2 weakness might be more apparent and I think it's basically the best option around 35mm for size and weight on nikon.
jaygould wrote: Yogifi wrote:
F2 1/1000s with an a7cii
Nice test! The only difference I can spot is focal length (as you pointed out) and the Viltrox picture being a tiny bit warmer.
It's the first two things that I notice too and they're not that big either. The other differences I'm zooming in to ridiculous levels and really looking around the frame ... and they're still very minor, and could be attributed to slight angle (lightweight tripod) / focus point / sunlight differences. At least in that shot - but they are close lenses from what I've seen so far, but again, no extensive comparison.
I took a couple more but the lighting difference was massive and the edge sharpness test wasn't good, slight angle change when not at infinity with the lightweight tripod. I retook it with the viltrox to confirm they both do edge-to-edge at f2 impressively, but it's no longer a side-by-side comparison.
Those look pretty damn good to me too! Most definitely technique difference but I think also the scanner is super impressive.
I should have the next roll in a couple of days at the higher quality and that diy scanning equipment by next month, hopefully will make a difference and maybe I can keep the mp thoughts at bay for a few more years. But you do kind of need multiple film cameras with different iso unless you blaze through those shots and finish the film each time.
Just for fun, a similar scene to the post earlier today comparing the apo vs viltrox bokeh. Not quite as close-up, though it can do it. Pretty sure this is the CV 40 f2 ultron --- I dont like this lens on digital (adapted to Sony, despite being sharp in the plane of focus - it's the out of focus that's unsettling for me, even when it's just slightly off the plane). But hoping it works for film where it seems quite popular (usually for build, size, sharpness):
And a random one with the 50 f1.4. Tthinking about upgrading to the ais over my old afd that I had from the d200 15-20 years ago for the manual focus feel as the manual focus feel is rather awful:
^ chose something easier to focus on with the split-screen. I've picked up a lens diopters correction to make things a bit easier -- this was on the way to do that actually.
Massive difference in iq (among other things) between mine and yours. Yours are actually ridiculously good. I hope I can get close with the dslr scan. Love your photos there actually. It's just so much easier on the eyes, much less in your face than digital and more naturally moody.
jaygould wrote: Yogifi wrote:
F2 1/1000s with an a7cii
Nice test! The only difference I can spot is focal length (as you pointed out) and the Viltrox picture being a tiny bit warmer.
It's the first two things that I notice too and they're not that big either. The other differences I'm zooming in to ridiculous levels and really looking around the frame ... and they're still very minor, and could be attributed to slight angle (lightweight tripod) / focus point / sunlight differences. At least in that shot - but they are close lenses from what I've seen so far, but again, no extensive comparison.
I took a couple more but the lighting difference was massive and the edge sharpness test wasn't good, slight angle change when not at infinity with the lightweight tripod. I retook it with the viltrox to confirm they both do edge-to-edge at f2 impressively, but it's no longer a side-by-side comparison.
