Jonas B wrote:
One of the big differences is the increasing DOF (and thus way less blurred things) towards the sides and corners we see in the Viltrox images.
In my research wanderings, one of the best examples of 3D dimensionality I found was an obscure lens range developed by a small design company attached to Leitz - CW Sonderoptics. Their Thalia (thar-li-ya) lenses are made for the super ARRI 65 camera. They explicitly aim for 'structure retention' in their bokeh, to assist the viewing experience.
There are some very fine short videos at this page below where you can see scene setups showing how to image people and scenery with 3D; some of it is very difficult for lenses to do, yet we see these fine results:
It's ironic that it came from a small outfit at the edge of the Leitz cine world - it took some outsiders to do it.
It's a multi-factorial issue, this dimensionality. In the Thalias, (i) CWO used a 15 blade aperture; (ii) they designed structure retention in their bokeh for better identification and context; (iii) they shaped the image using curvature and ensuing focus fall-off in outer frames; contrast and illumination fall-off in the outer frames.
What do you see in many new entrant Chinese lenses? Most people don't even know these issues exist, let alone have an opinion about it. But the Chinese design community are passionate about it all and they do pay attention. There is much more, but that's enough for now.
PS one recent time, you made some remarks about my view that different lenses actually shape faces differently. It's common knowledge in the cine world that lenses show faces differently - shadow and highlight detail, color, micro-contrast on skin, and tonality, much more too. It stands to reason that better tonal gradation (luminance and color) can provide more visual information about a person's face, and our eyes can see that. It's why so many portraitists like side lighting.
It's all light falling on the face, and that light is what we photograph - not the face itself, outside of the extent to which it is illuminated. I'll stick with my position on this, having seen many portraits with such even light that facial features are hard to identify. And our lenses do it very differently. Few are interested in this one, but here is a good place to start, with around a hundred thousand dollars worth in four lenses:
Should be easy enough to test the increased depth of field in the corners with like a large tiled floor right.
It could be the case, it doesn't stick out for me, but I am seeing really good sharpness across the frame even at f2 at medium distances. I think it's a tad better at f2.8 but really happy to have a lens available like this.
I think a little too sharp of an image for general portrait use, maybe a bit longer distances than usual, I have an image I really like with family that I wouldn't have been able to get quite the same way with my other ones.
Yogifi wrote:
I have a Sigma 50mm f2 DG DN on the way that I wanted for casual family snaps. Let's see, I'm certainly not expecting it to be as sharp.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume that – the Sigma 50mm ƒ/2 DG DN was one of the earlier lenses in the new wave of mirrorless 50mm lens design that uses a concave front element in a 'reverse telephoto' configuration. New improvements in optical design for mirrorless and more cost-effective low dispersion glass types have made this type of lens far more achievable than it was in the past.
Using a reverse telephoto design for a 50mm lens like this gives you a very, very sharp lens, presuming you can correct for chromatic aberration. The Sigma 50mm ƒ/2 is less corrected for this than the Viltrox, coming out before some of the low dispersion glass advancements, if I'm honest I think it's due for a Mark II. However, from a sharpness perspective, it's one of the sharpest 50mm lenses I've seen. The Viltrox is in a sense copying the design choices made by the Sigma and subbing in newer, cheaper Chinese low dispersion glass to control the LoCa, hence why it shows less LoCa than the Sigma.
However, I have owned both and I do prefer the Sigma despite its weaker aberration performance. The sharpness is actually on par to my eye (and with my copies — you can't necessarily take this for granted), but I prefer the bokeh on the Sigma quite a bit more.
In sum, I would say expect similar sharpness because they use similar optical designs, and if you don't believe me about the trend to make reverse telephoto 50s, check out how many 50mm lenses since about 2018 or so have been reverse telephoto — it's actually almost all of them. Truly, the double gauss 50mm lens is essentially dead at this point and this is the new standard.
Stargenx wrote:
I wouldn't be so quick to assume that – the Sigma 50mm ƒ/2 DG DN was one of the earlier lenses in the new wave of mirrorless 50mm lens design that uses a concave front element in a 'reverse telephoto' configuration. New improvements in optical design for mirrorless and more cost-effective low dispersion glass types have made this type of lens far more achievable than it was in the past.
Using a reverse telephoto design for a 50mm lens like this gives you a very, very sharp lens, presuming you can correct for chromatic aberration. The Sigma 50mm ƒ/2 is less corrected for this than the Viltrox, coming out before some of the low dispersion glass advancements, if I'm honest I think it's due for a Mark II. However, from a sharpness perspective, it's one of the sharpest 50mm lenses I've seen. The Viltrox is in a sense copying the design choices made by the Sigma and subbing in newer, cheaper Chinese low dispersion glass to control the LoCa, hence why it shows less LoCa than the Sigma.
However, I have owned both and I do prefer the Sigma despite its weaker aberration performance. The sharpness is actually on par to my eye (and with my copies — you can't necessarily take this for granted), but I prefer the bokeh on the Sigma quite a bit more.
In sum, I would say expect similar sharpness because they use similar optical designs, and if you don't believe me about the trend to make reverse telephoto 50s, check out how many 50mm lenses since about 2018 or so have been reverse telephoto — it's actually almost all of them. Truly, the double gauss 50mm lens is essentially dead at this point and this is the new standard....Show more →
Admittedly the lens component and design goes above my head at this stage but appreciate the information thank you.
There isnt much in the way of comparisons between the two, and the 50 sigma f2 doesnt have much chatter here on it either.
Dustin Abbott mentioned briefly in an article that the air was better without elaborating, I assumed he meant sharpness.
To be fully honest, a bit more SA would suit my intended purpose for the Sigma more (family snaps), though I also love what Im seeing with this in certain situations too. But perhaps Im not going to get what i expect. Tried to get an understanding from lenstips chart but seems like that might not actually line up.
It wasn't just that Abbott found 'it seems to best even the impressive Sigma 50mm F2 DG DN from their iSeries, a lens I thought was very impressive' but the Air handily waxed his Sony GM 50/1.4 too.
The Sigma 50mm f2 DG DN is following the well-worn path of low cost (speaking of low cost) aspherical elements; it has three of them and just one ED element in its 11/9 design. The AIR 50/2 has what is developing into Viltrox's standard trade-off of copious ED and especially HRI glass. It uses three ED and four HRI along with just one aspherical element in its 13/9 design.
Concave front elements, that's intriguing to me, so I went looking. As you'd expect, it's a mixed bag. Zeiss's ML 50/1.4, Cosina's APO-Lanthar 50/2 and Nikon's 50/1.8 Z have concave front elements. Cosina's six (!) other 50mm lenses are convex fronted, as is Sony's GM 50/1.4, Thypoch's Simera 50/1.4, Leica's revised 50/1.4 Summilux-CF (M), Leica's 50/1.4 Summilux-SL (a 2016 lens), and Leica's 35/2 APO-Summicron-M. hmm.
And once again, a thread is destroyed by sprawling, absurd lens design fantasies and the repetition of pseudo-facts gleaned from the internet (enriched with a few well-known physical facts to suggest objectivity) disguised as science. It's enough to make you cry.
Oops, I actually found a few older comparison test images between four 50mm f/1.8 lenses (1.8FE, 2.0Air, 1.2Nokton, 1.2GM) at f/2.0 at close range. Perhaps they'll be of interest to someone. However, I make no claim to scientific accuracy.
Jonas B wrote:
One of the big differences is the increasing DOF (and thus way less blurred things) towards the sides and corners we see in the Viltrox images.
chiron wrote:
a result of mechanical vignetting?
Hi,
I think the right word is optical vignetting (caused by the fact the lens has a length). If I have written mechanical vignetting somewhere I apologize for that, i Guess my brain has spinned from discussions like the recent one in this thread.
Mechanical vignetting is hard vignetting caused by filter rings, too long hoods, a faulty construction with a light barrier somewhere in the lens causing corners to die.
philip_pj wrote:
In my research wanderings, one of the best examples of 3D dimensionality I found was an obscure lens range developed by a small design company attached to Leitz - CW Sonderoptics. [...]
It's ironic that it came from a small outfit at the edge of the Leitz cine world - it took some outsiders to do it.
I believe CW Sonderoptic is a Leica spin-off from the start.
It says the company was founded in 2008 by Dr. Andreas Kaufmann, the chairman of the supervisory board of Leica Camera AG.
Jonas B wrote:
I believe CW Sonderoptic is a Leica spin-off from the start.
It says the company was founded in 2008 by Dr. Andreas Kaufmann, the chairman of the supervisory board of Leica Camera AG.
philip_pj wrote:
[...]
PS one recent time, you made some remarks about my view that different lenses actually shape faces differently. It's common knowledge in the cine world that lenses show faces differently - shadow and highlight detail, color, micro-contrast on skin, and tonality, much more too. It stands to reason that better tonal gradation (luminance and color) can provide more visual information about a person's face, and our eyes can see that. It's why so many portraitists like side lighting.
It's all light falling on the face, and that light is what we photograph - not the face itself, outside of the extent to which it is illuminated. I'll stick with my position on this, having seen many portraits with such even light that facial features are hard to identify. And our lenses do it very differently. Few are interested in this one, but here is a good place to start, with around a hundred thousand dollars worth in four lenses:
Yes, I commented on that. I had a quick look at the provideocoalition link you posted.
I know I don't have golden ears (Hi-Fi world word) and now it may turn out I also don't have golden eyes. But perhaps better than the author - or is it that my screen is calibrated and his was not?
I notice that the light is not exactly the same in the four images, I can see the models left ear in all images (the author couldn't), the guy who performed the test found the lens D to be best . It also turned out he works for the company making the lens.
Further he and I wouldn't be able to agree about how to exposure an image. He want us to pay attention to the "exposure" (key side) but he hasn't adjusted for slight differences (T4 may not always be T4.00) and then I wonder why I should take note.
So, the test appears to be extremely well made but when looking closer there are small differences. So, there are small, or very small, differences in the images as well. I can't see anyone is significantly better or worse.
It should be noted the lenses offer different degrees of micro contrast and that's probably the main difference. You may prefer one or another.
The comparison is half valid only. The good thing is that we for once get comparisons. As expected I would be happy with any of the lenses. In the end light and processing have a very much larger effect on the images.
Jonas B wrote:
Yes, I commented on that. I had a quick look at the provideocoalition link you posted.
I know I don't have golden ears (Hi-Fi world word) and now it may turn out I also don't have golden eyes. But perhaps better than the author - or is it that my screen is calibrated and his was not?
I notice that the light is not exactly the same in the four images, I can see the models left ear in all images (the author couldn't), the guy who performed the test found the lens D to be best . It also turned out he works for the company making the lens.
Further he and I wouldn't be able to agree about how to exposure an image. He want us to pay attention to the "exposure" (key side) but he hasn't adjusted for slight differences (T4 may not always be T4.00) and then I wonder why I should take note.
So, the test appears to be extremely well made but when looking closer there are small differences. So, there are small, or very small, differences in the images as well. I can't see anyone is significantly better or worse.
It should be noted the lenses offer different degrees of micro contrast and that's probably the main difference. You may prefer one or another.
The comparison is half valid only. The good thing is that we for once get comparisons. As expected I would be happy with any of the lenses. In the end light and processing have a very much larger effect on the images....Show more →
It's also important to note that the different rendering characteristics of different lenses, such as contrast and sharpness, can never mean that one is always better and the other always worse. This would only be possible if shots were always taken under controlled lighting conditions, which simply doesn't correspond to the reality of amateur photographers. A lens that, for example, "shapes" better under relatively harsher lighting because it renders slightly softer may not do so under relatively softer lighting. Then a lens that renders slightly harsher, which would have been less suitable in the first example, suddenly "shapes" better.
Jonas B wrote:
In the end light and processing have a very much larger effect on the images.
You make @gdanmitchell proud (just a joke based off the "3d pop" thread).
Jonas B wrote:
In the end light and processing have a very much larger effect on the images.
j4nu wrote:
You make @gdanmitchell@ proud (just a joke based off the "3d pop" thread).
Haha. That's not my intention but I see what you mean.
The situation is a bit unfortunate because I actually agree with philip_pj on a whole lot of things. But it's with cinelenses and everything surrounding them that has become a bit too much. You can't just accept all claims uncritically.
Jonas B wrote:
Haha. That's not my intention but I see what you mean.
The situation is a bit unfortunate because I actually agree with philip_pj on a whole lot of things. But it's with cinelenses and everything surrounding them that has become a bit too much. You can't just accept all claims uncritically.
I feel exactly the same way, although I would add that I would be much less offended if all these claims were presented as what they actually are, namely as personal and subjective feelings and opinions. I'm simply irritated by this "we know" and "we see" and "fans of superfast lenses prefer this and that" and so on. Admittedly, it's also annoying that this is repeated over and over again on an almost epic scale (as if the all-knowing professor were giving the same lecture to his ignorant students over and over again because they're incapable of understanding it), instead of simply backed up with visual examples.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I feel exactly the same way, although I would add that I would be much less offended if all these claims were presented as what they actually are, namely as personal and subjective feelings and opinions. I'm simply irritated by this "we know" and "we see" and "fans of superfast lenses prefer this and that" and so on. Admittedly, it's also annoying that this is repeated over and over again on an almost epic scale (as if the all-knowing professor were giving the same lecture to his ignorant students over and over again because they're incapable of understanding it), instead of simply backed up with visual examples....Show more →
Yes, that.
A, to me, new name in the ever expanding cinelens universe is the Hektor series of Cine lenses from leitz. They come with a user switchable mount including E and Z. Now let's see what they can do, for example:
In this case it's Leitz but I have seen interesting promotion material from Arri, Coke and Zeiss as well. The Hektor series is available now i think. What we can wait for is the new series of cine lenses from Nikon. Exciting... ;-)
Here is something from PVC (providecoalition): The Nikkor Cinema lenses, Nikon executive Aihara Takashi told Digital Camera World, are being developed after extensive research with RED, “to understand the needs in the cinema industry.”
EDIT: We don't wait for the Hektor lenses. They are available now, I adjusted the text.
Yogifi wrote:
Dustin Abbott mentioned briefly in an article that the air was better without elaborating, I assumed he meant sharpness.
No Sigma 50/2C here but I do own the 45/2.8C: it renders b/g blur nicely but has numerous disadvantages. For myself, the impressive optical qualities of the Viltrox Air are crazy low CA, very low linear distortion, and sharpness across the frame. Some of my pixel-peeping images are on the Nikon side: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1897462/
Jonas B wrote:
Haha. That's not my intention but I see what you mean.
The situation is a bit unfortunate because I actually agree with philip_pj on a whole lot of things. But it's with cinelenses and everything surrounding them that has become a bit too much. You can't just accept all claims uncritically.
I have to say that I always find @philip_pj very much worth reading. He has a subtle eye and a broad and deep knowledge of lenses. Sometimes (often?), the problem is with the student rather than the teacher.
(just a joke based off the "3d pop" thread).