Outstanding wrote:
50 1.4 PRO is a disappointing release, only gets sharp in centre around F2.8, super slow Auto Focus compared to Sony GM F1.4 and Sigma F1.4 DG DN, almost double the weight of Nikon S 50mm F1.8 (800g vs 416g). It even weighs 60g more than Sigma 50 F1.2 lens. Sony F1.4 is superb at just 100g more than Nikon S F1.8.
I picked up an 85/2 EVO when Viltrox were running their 20% discount recently.
Here are some city/street images from my first outing with the lens
Wide-open...
?s=eyJpIjo1NDk4MzU3MTkwNiwiZSI6MTc2NTczMzA3NywicyI6IjY3Y2FlYmE1ZTg0ZDNlZmRhYjI3OWY3Y2ExNTFjZjUyMGNiZjdjYTEiLCJ2IjoxfQ">NZ8_3824 by Colin McIntosh, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDk4Mzg2Mzc5MCwiZSI6MTc2NTczMzEzNywicyI6ImZkMjQ4Y2MxODM4OTNlNmQ3ZWZhNzdmMzExZGMzYTVlZjE1NTk1ZjEiLCJ2IjoxfQ">NZ8_3879 by Colin McIntosh, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDk4MzU3MDUyMSwiZSI6MTc2NTczMzE1MiwicyI6IjJjYWM1ODc5NDI2MTA0ODAwODI2ZGIzN2Q4MTZjNjk2N2U0ODY2YmMiLCJ2IjoxfQ">NZ8_3880 by Colin McIntosh, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDk4MzgxNzA5OSwiZSI6MTc2NTczMzE2OCwicyI6ImRkMDcyZTczYmFhNjFiOTQxZTIxZjcxM2ExMGY1NWY1Y2ExZWU1MDYiLCJ2IjoxfQ">NZ8_3898 by Colin McIntosh, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDk4Mzg2NzMzMCwiZSI6MTc2NTczMjU2MCwicyI6IjJlMjkxYmZmZWFiMTJmY2VjY2FjYjQzYTAzOTVlZDJkNjQxNTcyOTEiLCJ2IjoxfQ">NZ8_3899: Wide open by Colin McIntosh, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDk4Mzc1OTYyOCwiZSI6MTc2NTczMjU2MCwicyI6IjA4ZjYwNzdjMGRjYTE3MGVhYzA5MDFiMjU4MWMzMTVmZTZiYjZjZmYiLCJ2IjoxfQ">NZ8_3902 by Colin McIntosh, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDk4Mzc1OTYwOCwiZSI6MTc2NTczMjU2MCwicyI6ImMxYzg5MjdhZTVlOWQ4NzUyMTc5NWY2YTc4N2JkZDM0NTQ2NmM3MzIiLCJ2IjoxfQ">NZ8_3908 by Colin McIntosh, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDk4MzU3MTcxMSwiZSI6MTc2NTczMzIyMywicyI6IjQyMjMxMTU3ZGJiYzRmMTUyMDNmZWYyNjkzMmQ4ZjBiMzYzNTM3MGIiLCJ2IjoxfQ">NZ8_3913 by Colin McIntosh, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDk4MzU3MzA4NiwiZSI6MTc2NTczMzIzNiwicyI6Ijk1NzcwZTFhMzk0ZjJjNWQ1MmU1YzhjMDYzZGE5ZWQzNjcxNWIxZDAiLCJ2IjoxfQ">NZ8_3918 by Colin McIntosh, on Flickr
DeltaSigma wrote:
I picked up an 85/2 EVO when Viltrox were running their 20% discount recently.
Here are some city/street images from my first outing with the lens
At first I really liked the rendering, but then I noticed the linear features in the specular highlights. Is that consistently present in the 85 EVO's images? I've never seen that sort of texture in specular highlights. Otherwise the in-focus to out-of-focus transitions look pretty nice to me, but that type of textured specular highlight would really annoy me.
At first I really liked the rendering, but then I noticed the linear features in the specular highlights. Is that consistently present in the 85 EVO's images? I've never seen that sort of texture in specular highlights. Otherwise the in-focus to out-of-focus transitions look pretty nice to me, but that type of textured specular highlight would really annoy me.
Yes, well spotted. I noticed them too.
These were shot on a Z8 that has an electronic/rolling shutter.
I suspect the LED light sources themselves are the root cause given my Z8 currently has photo-flicker and high-freq flicker options set to OFF.
I have not seen any linear features when used on my Z6.
Our Xmas tree is now up so I could do a controlled (Z8,Z6)*(Viltrox 85, Nikon 85) comparison using the tree's lights.
Colin
EDIT
Flicker reduction in the Z8 didn't make any difference.
Turns out it is the slimline Hama UV filter used on the front of the lens that is the source of that banding artifact.
Also saw the banding on the Z6 and it also went away after removing the filter.
Z8 and Z6 bokeh balls much cleaner when filter not present.
DeltaSigma wrote:
Yes, well spotted. I noticed them too.
These were shot on a Z8 that has an electronic/rolling shutter.
I suspect the LED light sources themselves are the root cause given my Z8 currently has photo-flicker and high-freq flicker options set to OFF.
I have not seen any linear features when used on my Z6.
Our Xmas tree is now up so I could do a controlled (Z8,Z6)*(Viltrox 85, Nikon 85) comparison using the tree's lights.
DeltaSigma wrote:
It was the UV filter. See edit above.
I almost asked if you were using a UV filter, but I didn't want to assume and figured that I'd ask as a follow-up after you had a chance to test under more controlled conditions. Glad to hear that it's not an optical issue with the lens.
Wezre wrote:
I almost asked if you were using a UV filter, but I didn't want to assume and figured that I'd ask as a follow-up after you had a chance to test under more controlled conditions. Glad to hear that it's not an optical issue with the lens.
Here is a comparison.
Hama ultra-thin UV filter is on the right. No filter on the left.
Neither a thicker framed Marumi UV filter nor a Hoya skylight filter exhibited the artifacts seen from the Hama setup.
?s=eyJpIjo1NDk4ODAxOTY1NSwiZSI6MTc2NTg5MTQ4MywicyI6ImE2MTFhMzJmNzcwOGExMzAxMGRmZGI5ZTJmNDYzYjQ1MTU4NjRkMzIiLCJ2IjoxfQ">Capture by Colin McIntosh, on Flickr
Viltrox 85mm 2.0 EVO. Great lens. I was lucky, and mine is perfectly centered.
#3 I included a light chain from hanging above into the foreground of the 3rd image, with these little Christmas houses. Its not a reflection on the lens or lens flare, just very close foreground lights.
Centering can be tested just by taking a flat field photo from a reasonable distance that has detail throughout. Brick walls are often used because they're easy and detailed with the texture. Carefully line up the shot so it is square to the target (both horizontally and vertically). Use of a tripod with self timer is generally suggested because it will eliminate possible hand shake or IBIS related softness. You're just looking at whether all four corners or edges have similar levels of sharpness.
Note that most lenses will have a very small amount of decentering. Usually this is very minor and would never be seen in real-world shooting. So if you notice one side or corner is very slightly sharper than another it isn't really a big deal, and is generally fine. It's when you see a major change in sharpness depending on which side of the frame you're on, or if one corner is significantly worse than the other three, etc.
Note: I suggest only really doing this if you see suspicious things in your daily shooting. I.e: things look out of focus when they should be in the same plane of focus as something else in the shot; consistent softness in one area, etc.
Every singly manufacturer will have a handful of duds out there with regards to lens centering. Chances are you'll get a good lens, but I have literally had some level of decentering or tilting from every single manufacturer in the camera industry (that I've tried multiple lenses of), with the exception of Voigtlander. Canon: had a terribly decentered 50mm f/1.2L (EF), as well as an RF 15-35mm f/2.8. Nikon: My first 14-30mm f/4S had quite noticeable decentering. Sony: I had a bad 28mm f/2 and one bad Sony/Zeiss 16-35mm f/4. Fujifilm: Had a serious plane of focus issue with my X100VI which had to be repaired. Had an 18-55mm f/2.8-4 that had a tilted element. Sigma: had a bum 30mm f/1.4 Contemporary, and, though it's been a while, I think I had to go through two 150mm f/2.8 Macro APO lenses. Tamron: my first 16-30mm f/2.8 had a tilted plane of focus. Viltrox: My 20mm f/2.8 Air had a decentered element.
Note, however, that I've owned probably 150 lenses, and tested another 60 that I didn't own. Of the Viltrox lenses I've owned, which now is quite a lot (9mm f/2.8 Air, 14mm f/4 Air, 20mm f/2.8 Air, 25mm f/1.7 Air, 56mm f/1.7 Air, 16mm f/1.8, 85mm f/2 EVO), only that 20mm has had any issue. The others have been spot on, so Viltrox showing no more tendancy than any other lens maker in my experience.
But, just shoot your lens. If you haven't noticed anything amiss - just continue to shoot with it. If there is any minor optical imperfecvtion, it obviously isn't bad enough for you to notice in use.
