RoamingScott wrote:
My initial takeaways from test shots like those shown is that the Sirui is a STUPID good value...a better/more fair test would be against a lens like the Viltrox PRO or the Z 1.8, but where the fun in that? I'm also confident that the Sirui will have the more pleasing rendering compared to any eventual Z 1.4 that follows in the 35/50 1.4 footsteps.
The main reason to get a more expensive 85 would be to gain access to more reliable AF-C performance and more light gathering, primarily for indoor gym sports. For AF-S/portrait/walkabout, I don't see anything concerning about the Sirui yet.
I had the Viltrox 85 1.4 and the Sirui side by side earlier this winter. Head to head in lower light the Viltrox won me over for better performance (resolution and speed) at 1.4 in AF-C, exactly for the reason you described (indoor sports). I had tried the Sirui when it first came out over a year ago and it locked up my camera. The AF was not quite developed at that time but at 1.4 it looked a lot like the 85 1.4G which I was comparing it with. The Nikon had bullet proof AF in low light however (at 1.4).
However, since then a lot of things have changed for me. This would make the best "non-clinical" lens in the un-adapted ranks for either Sony or Nikon AF mirrorless maybe? This thread sure highlights that. The Sirui splits the middle between a Viltrox and a Nikon 85 1.4G, still quite the portrait lens allbeit adapted.
RoamingScott wrote:
My initial takeaways from test shots like those shown is that the Sirui is a STUPID good value...a better/more fair test would be against a lens like the Viltrox PRO or the Z 1.8, but where the fun in that? I'm also confident that the Sirui will have the more pleasing rendering compared to any eventual Z 1.4 that follows in the 35/50 1.4 footsteps.
The main reason to get a more expensive 85 would be to gain access to more reliable AF-C performance and more light gathering, primarily for indoor gym sports. For AF-S/portrait/walkabout, I don't see anything concerning about the Sirui yet.
I had the Viltrox 85 1.4 and the Sirui side by side earlier this winter. Head to head in lower light the Viltrox won me over for better performance at 1.4 in AF-C, exactly for the reason you described (indoor sports). I had tried the Sirui when it first came out over a year ago and it locked up my camera. The AF was not quite developed at that time but at 1.4 it looked a lot like the 85 1.4G which I was comparing it with. The Nikon had bullet proof AF in low light however (at 1.4).
However, since then a lot of things have changed for me. This would make the "non-clinical" lens in the un-adapted ranks for either Sony or Nikon mirrorless maybe? This thread sure highlights that. The Sirui splits the middle between a Viltrox and a Nikon 85 1.4G, still quite the portrait lens allbeit adapted.
I'm also confident that the Sirui will have the more pleasing rendering compared to any eventual Z 1.4 that follows in the 35/50 1.4 footsteps.