My 35 EVO arrived, and so far so good. I agree that the aperture ring is a little nicer than the one on the 85mm. Optically it looks to be excellent, as reported: very sharp across the frame. Very good control of fringing, and the bokeh looks ok to me so far in the little testing I've done.
The only thing that I don't like about the EVO line is for some reason rear lens caps fit oddly on them. Like, they are perfectly tight on the camera - but the rear lens caps that AREN'T from Viltrox don't seem to tighten up , and so sit rather loosely on them. Not sure what's going on there, but it's the case with both my 35 and the 85 EVO.
I like the 35 EVO so much, I decided to pick up the 55 EVO as well. These lenses seem to strike the perfect balance of features, image quality, size/weight at a great price, which is greatly needed on the Z mount platform.
Jman13 wrote:
The only thing that I don't like about the EVO line is for some reason rear lens caps fit oddly on them. Like, they are perfectly tight on the camera - but the rear lens caps that AREN'T from Viltrox don't seem to tighten up , and so sit rather loosely on them. Not sure what's going on there, but it's the case with both my 35 and the 85 EVO.
Excited to get out and shoot some with it.
Most annoyingly, you simply cannot use a normal Nikon Z back cap, they won't tighten at ALL. I've tried to standardize on those since Chinese brands have the oddest caps. Another feather in Sirui's cap, pun intended.
RoamingScott wrote:
Most annoyingly, you simply cannot use a normal Nikon Z back cap, they won't tighten at ALL. I've tried to standardize on those since Chinese brands have the oddest caps. Another feather in Sirui's cap, pun intended.
Yeah, it's an odd thing. The after-market generic Z rear caps honestly seem like the best compromise, as they generally tighten up on the EVO lenses, and also fully fit my Nikon lenses, while the rear caps that come with the EVO lenses only go on a little bit on Nikon glass (though enough to stay). After a few more test shots, I have to say I'm digging the lens overall so far.
I did a few head to head shots against my 35mm f/1.4 GM, and all things considered I think the GM is still the better lens here, but it's not quite as big a difference as I was expecting, and whether it's $700 better is very hard to say. The EVO is a little bit sharper at f/1.8 (though very close). The EVO has slightly better CA control (though the GM is also very good here...only really noticeable in one shot). Close up, rendering is pretty close. The GM is a little bit smoother, but it's not a big difference, and bright specular highlights actually look a little better on the EVO. At medium and further distances, though, the GM is definitely a smoother rendering lens in the bokeh. The EVO does better than a lot of lenses here, but definitely gets more nervous the further away the focus point is.
It's amazing, though, that a sub-$400 fast 35mm lens can be this sharp, while having no visible fringing on a bright chrome highlight and little to no longitudinal CA. (at very closest focus I can see a little, but in real world shooting, I'm seeing effectively none). I feel it is rather significantly better than the Nikon 35mm f/1.8S, and I wouldn't see any reason why anyone would choose that lens over the EVO.
Took my 35 EVO out for a little spin this afternoon. The lens is very sharp wide open. Stopped down it is ridiculously sharp. Honestly reminds me of the CV APO Lanthars with regards to stopped down resolution...just absolutely razor sharp corner to corner.
Bokeh, as Scott noted is quite dependent on subject and background distance. I think it produces a pleasing image more often than it produces an unpleasant one, but it definitely can get too frenetic with certain backgrounds and certain subject / background distance ratios. Overall I quite like the lens, and it punches way above its price point.
The reviewer notes 55 EVO is sharper at every aperture down to corners, EVO has personality in bokeh and S is creamier and smooth. S wins almost all categories other than sharpness but difference is negligible and cherry picking.
Nope, I understand it fine. I would want to see some detail around the in focus plane and I don't see much. Maybe it's just the lighting but as a sample of what a lens can do...sorry I'm not seeing it.
Superscroll wrote:
Nope, I understand it fine. I would want to see some detail around the in focus plane and I don't see much. Maybe it's just the lighting but as a sample of what a lens can do...sorry I'm not seeing it.
Thanks for commenting. Sorry you don't like the images, but I rather like the shallow DOF to show the out of focus rendering near MFD and if there is any fringing in the high contrast areas like the whiskers. Of course, these could have been stopped down to capture more detail and increase the DOF, but they were shot at high ISO in dim lighting.
Don’t apologize if you like them how they are. They’re your pictures.
jrscls wrote:
Thanks for commenting. Sorry you don't like the images, but I rather like the shallow DOF to show the out of focus rendering near MFD and if there is any fringing in the high contrast areas like the whiskers. Of course, these could have been stopped down to capture more detail and increase the DOF, but they were shot at high ISO in dim lighting.
