p.3 #1 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
dalegaspi wrote:
that said, i'm going to have to see this for myself. I ordered one and I should have the 50 Air by tomorrow.
Good man, nothing like a personal test to answer your questions. Even when backed by quantifiable attributes, "best" requires reduction to a 1-D metric—a personal decision for weighting and scaling. I'm an asshole when it comes to CA, and linear distortion also leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The 50 Air keeps both of those defects strictly under control. Throw in corner-to-corner sharpness, small size, ridiculously low cost, very decent build, reliable AF, and the scale tips firmly to "best". If counting the potential number of happy customers then we can safely ignore lenses that cost $200K (ludicrous) and companies that have been dead for decades (Alpa).
Is there a technical reason why the 50 Air should outperform other brands optically? Well, it's a relatively modest f/2, has 13 elements, and is stuffed to the gills with special glass (8 elements). It's an up-to-the-minute design, not a golden oldie (I own a bunch). Finally, Viltrox is on top of their game given numerous products in the last year alone.
The review from Phillip Reeve is excellent, and sold me. He has the lens diagram, too.
p.3 #2 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
I'm very fond of the SL3 and APO 50. That's the exact kit I traded to a coworker for his Hassy 907x 100c and 55V, and those I love.
If my kit reflected my worth as a photographer, I'd probably be down to the a6700 and three zooms. Fortunately, I only have to make myself happy, so the value and objective performance of any piece of gear becomes incidental. I like the high performing lenses. Sometimes I like them as much as I like my decades old little guys, but not often.
As for the APO Crons in general, there's no doubt they're high performers. There's scads of evidence around the net of that from the published MTFs to the images posted by users. And while it's easy to name comparable performers in other lines, you're not going to find a more consistently performing line among any other manufacturer at this point. If the look of those lenses please you, then it's just a question of picking your focal lengths.
p.3 #3 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
rico wrote:
Good man, nothing like a personal test to answer your questions. Even when backed by quantifiable attributes, "best" requires reduction to a 1-D metric—a personal decision for weighting and scaling. I'm an asshole when it comes to CA, and linear distortion also leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The 50 Air keeps both of those defects strictly under control. Throw in corner-to-corner sharpness, small size, ridiculously low cost, very decent build, reliable AF, and the scale tips firmly to "best". If counting the potential number of happy customers then we can safely ignore lenses that cost $200K (ludicrous) and companies that have been dead for decades (Alpa).
Is there a technical reason why the 50 Air should outperform other brands optically? Well, it's a relatively modest f/2, has 13 elements, and is stuffed to the gills with special glass (8 elements). It's an up-to-the-minute design, not a golden oldie (I own a bunch). Finally, Viltrox is on top of their game given numerous products in the last year alone.
The review from Phillip Reeve is excellent, and sold me. He has the lens diagram, too.
everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but your post simply declares the 50 Air as the "best" without a direct comparison with the Leica 50 APO (which is the subject of this thread) adds nothing to the discussion at hand.
Your links shows reviews/opinions of the lens by its own merits; it appears that you don't have any experience withe Leica 50 APO at all. Maybe the "best" when it comes to price-to-performance ratio, but in the context of this thread that information adds no value; it just clouds the discussion.
I will have the lens soon enough and will post a direct comparison with the Leica 50 APO SL on the same subject/lighting scenario and let everyone draw their own conclusions.
p.3 #4 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
dalegaspi wrote:
everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but your post simply declares the 50 Air as the "best" without a direct comparison with the Leica 50 APO (which is the subject of this thread) adds nothing to the discussion at hand.
Your links shows reviews/opinions of the lens by its own merits; it appears that you don't have any experience withe Leica 50 APO at all. Maybe the "best" when it comes to price-to-performance ratio, but in the context of this thread that information adds no value; it just clouds the discussion.
I will have the lens soon enough and will post a direct comparison with the Leica 50 APO SL on the same subject/lighting scenario and let everyone draw their own conclusions....Show more →
Reasonable approach. But as far as optical performance is concerned even a quick comparison of MTF charts makes the assertions of equivalency false, and superiority absurd.
Note that in the graphs below the bottom line pairs are measured at 40. The Air's are measured at only 30 and still don't match up. But in order to fully see the dramatic superiority of the APO-SL you have to compare the third 30 line pair graphs. In short, not even in the same game especially from mid frame and out, and even more so at F/2.0. Use the infinity graphs to compare as this is what both represent. But the Leica still bests the air infinity performance at close focus distance.
Build quality and materials used are not even in the same World obviously.
The APO-SL has actual rated weather sealing that is the highest in the industry. The air has zero weather sealing.
The Air achieves zero CA exactly no where on the chart. The APO-SL achieves zero at multiple points and is very close to zero at all points.
I just can't imagine how the poster arrives at "Best" in light of all the data.
p.3 #5 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
I have the 50mm f2 Air. Paraphrasing from another thread where I was challenged over my options - I MTF tested the Viltrox lens using a SE1 Target at 80cm distance in comparison with another cheap lens, a Tamron 35mm f2.8 macro with identical framing (obviously the 35mm lens was much closer). In the corners the Viltrox at f11 can't match the Tamron at f8 and the Tamron doesn't have all that great corners close up. The actual T-Stop of the lens is also at least a stop darker than any other lens I tried on the copy stand while running the tests. This is with high end repro copy lighting, at f8 and 11 and across the frame, it's not just vignetting or lighting inconsistency.
In addition the focus motor is too slow for accurate AFC focus on my a7r4 bodies. I gave up and switched to AFS just to get accurate focus. I also found that it crushed the blacks significantly in comparison to other lenses. No doubt in an attempt to look more contrasty.
Next time I'm bored I'll run it against our Schneider 45mm Apo Componon HM on the copy stand for giggles. I already know that the Apo will cream it throughout.
Perhaps on more modern focusing bodies and at longer distances it somewhow magically beats high end Apo lenses. Dunno. Doubt it somewhat. It's a nice cheap Tri-X look lens but it's hardly a high end lens in output or operation.
p.3 #6 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
bemei wrote:
I have the 50mm f2 Air. Paraphrasing from another thread where I was challenged over my options - I MTF tested the Viltrox lens using a SE1 Target at 80cm distance in comparison with another cheap lens, a Tamron 35mm f2.8 macro with identical framing (obviously the 35mm lens was much closer). In the corners the Viltrox at f11 can't match the Tamron at f8 and the Tamron doesn't have all that great corners close up. The actual T-Stop of the lens is also at least a stop darker than any other lens I tried on the copy stand while running the tests. This is with high end repro copy lighting, at f8 and 11 and across the frame, it's not just vignetting or lighting inconsistency.
In addition the focus motor is too slow for accurate AFC focus on my a7r4 bodies. I gave up and switched to AFS just to get accurate focus. I also found that it crushed the blacks significantly in comparison to other lenses. No doubt in an attempt to look more contrasty.
Next time I'm bored I'll run it against our Schneider 45mm Apo Componon HM on the copy stand for giggles. I already know that the Apo will cream it throughout.
Perhaps on more modern focusing bodies and at longer distances it somewhow magically beats high end Apo lenses. Dunno. Doubt it somewhat. It's a nice cheap Tri-X look lens but it's hardly a high end lens in output or operation....Show more →
What utter nonsense. Conducting lens tests using test charts placed just 80 cm away was enough to make me chuckle, but the utterly absurd comparison to the "Tri-X look"—which, incidentally, exists just as little as a "Leica look"—left me shaking with laughter. All of this is just as nonsensical as attempting to compare a photographic lens with an enlarger lens.
p.3 #7 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
Nifty Fifty wrote:
What utter nonsense. Conducting lens tests using test charts placed just 80 cm away was enough to make me chuckle, but the utterly absurd comparison to the "Tri-X look"—which, incidentally, exists just as little as a "Leica look"—left me shaking with laughter. All of this is just as nonsensical as attempting to compare a photographic lens with an enlarger lens.
Well I guess the best we got for comparisons are the MTF charts. In this case along with the build differences it should be enough.
p.3 #8 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
Nifty Fifty wrote:
What utter nonsense. Conducting lens tests using test charts placed just 80 cm away was enough to make me chuckle, but the utterly absurd comparison to the "Tri-X look"—which, incidentally, exists just as little as a "Leica look"—left me shaking with laughter. All of this is just as nonsensical as attempting to compare a photographic lens with an enlarger lens.
Yeah. Who tests lenses at or close to MFD, anyway? Except for Leica and Hasselblad, who like to prove how consistent their designs are throughout their focus range. I mean, it's not like anyone uses anything but infinity or mid-chart distances anyway. Such nonsense.
p.3 #9 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
These completely exaggerated claims by self-proclaimed testers, which serve only to promote themselves, really get on my nerves. Here's a direct comparison between the Air 2/50 and the GM 1.2/50, both at f/2.8 and 1/4s. Everyone can see for themselves the "significantly crushed blacks" and the "Tri-X look" of the Air compared to the GM.
Please view the images on Flickr. They appear blurry in the forum.
p.3 #10 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
There is a really interesting bias towards cheap lenses (the Air in this case) simply because they are cheap that I am seeing all over the internet lately. Often these lenses get some "free passes" because of their low cost, and it seems hard for people to discuss them objectively apart from their price.
Part of this is surely confirmation bias from people who can't afford better options, and in this particular case, a far more expensive offering like the APO.
I'd be very curious to see a head to head with real A/B testing shots at full resolution.
p.3 #11 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
It is so simple. Whoever has the Leica APO 50/2 L mount lens buy the Viltrox 50/2 Air lens and compare. If you don't want it sent it back to B&H within 30 days. Done.
p.3 #12 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
Another 1:1 comparison. This time at f/2.0. Here too, the "significantly crushed blacks" and the "Tri-X look" of the Air compared to the GM immediately catch the eye.
Please view the images on Flickr. They appear blurry in the forum.
p.3 #13 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
i have the initial comparison here. full resolution should be available. It's between the Voigtlander 50/2 APO Lanthar Z, APO SL 50, and Air 50.
i came in more impressed with the Air 50. for 200 USD it has no business for having a build quality this solid (i'm looking at you Nikon 40/2 Z) and producing image quality this good.
price-to-performance ratio the Air wins by a long shot.
but is it objectively the best? well, the first 3 images test is on Air's MFD (which is not great at .5 m) and just as i suspected, since it's lacking of floating element...it's not as good as resolving details as the Leica or even the Voigtlander ..the Air also has veiling when near or at MFD not to mention the annoyingly different magnification up close. You need to look close to find the difference...yeah the Air is that good...but it's not the best.
I can also confirm its T stop is also sus...as the same exposure it produces darker image (had to adjust exposure in post)...also worth nothing that it has less cat's eye ..but has some slight hard edges on the bokeh.
p.3 #14 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
dalegaspi wrote:
i have the initial comparison here. full resolution should be available. It's between the Voigtlander 50/2 APO Lanthar Z, APO SL 50, and Air 50.
i came in more impressed with the Air 50. for 200 USD it has no business for having a build quality this solid (i'm looking at you Nikon 40/2 Z) and producing image quality this good.
price-to-performance ratio the Air wins by a long shot.
but is it objectively the best? well, the first 3 images test is on Air's MFD (which is not great at .5 m) and just as i suspected, since it's lacking of floating element...it's not as good as resolving details as the Leica or even the Voigtlander ..the Air also has veiling when near or at MFD not to mention the annoyingly different magnification up close. You need to look close to find the difference...yeah the Air is that good...but it's not the best.
I can also confirm its T stop is also sus...as the same exposure it produces darker image (had to adjust exposure in post)...also worth nothing that it has less cat's eye ..but has some slight hard edges on the bokeh....Show more →
The effective T stop (and the way an image exposes) has a LOT to do with vignette. Assuming that these are all uncorrected, the APO is the clear vignette winner. Apart from that, it's the clear sharpness and detail winner too.
I've been more and more bearish on my Voigt 50 APO-L after comparing it to the 55 EVO...its vignette is a tough sell when other lenses are just as corrected against CA.
p.3 #15 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
RoamingScott wrote:
There is a really interesting bias towards cheap lenses (the Air in this case) simply because they are cheap that I am seeing all over the internet lately. Often these lenses get some "free passes" because of their low cost, and it seems hard for people to discuss them objectively apart from their price.
Part of this is surely confirmation bias from people who can't afford better options, and in this particular case, a far more expensive offering like the APO.
I'd be very curious to see a head to head with real A/B testing shots at full resolution.
And I get the impression that, for the most part, this discussion hasn't been about practically relevant differences for a long time, but rather just academic testing orgies, pedantry, brand fetishism, and, of course, personal sensitivities. Personally, I don't care about the Air; it's too slow for my liking. However, all the 1:1 comparisons I've seen so far show that the little thing really packs a punch optically, completely independent of the price. A forum member even posted comparison images of the Air and the Apo Lanthar here once. My untrained eye could not distinguish between the shots. This doesn't necessarily mean that both lenses are equally "good," but it does mean that any differences in the photos shown are definitely irrelevant, and that's all that matters to me. Build quality and the like are a completely different story.
Here are some more excerpts from the previously shown images.
Please view the images on Flickr. They appear blurry in the forum.
p.3 #16 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
i would like to note that when I was conducting my tests i was doing manual focus, and it reminded me how so annoying SL3 is to use with manual focusing...it is so blurry and laggy when punched in compared to the Z8...and the latter is supposed to be a lot lower resolution.
but coming back to the topic at hand: The 50 APO SL is probably one of the very few lenses where I don't think or worry about any optical compromises (other than the max aperture)...which include vignetting and veiligng/LoCA at any subject distance...also note that the 50 SL APO has an amazing 0.35m MFD with magnification of .2x...and maintains sharpness at that distance! there's also the rendering and transition to OOF characteristics but i figure that's subject to debate so I'm not even going there... it's the same across the other APO SL lenses that I have...I've mentioned that these APO lenses are the reason i put up with the SL3 annoyances.
p.3 #17 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
Nifty, I did the testing in a high end repro lab using a similar setup to industry wide MTF testing, you're providing post processed images off flikr and forum angst for anyone who has a different opinion to yourself about something you like. It gets very boring.
p.3 #18 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
RoamingScott wrote:
There is a really interesting bias towards cheap lenses (the Air in this case) simply because they are cheap that I am seeing all over the internet lately. Often these lenses get some "free passes" because of their low cost, and it seems hard for people to discuss them objectively apart from their price.
Part of this is surely confirmation bias from people who can't afford better options, and in this particular case, a far more expensive offering like the APO.
My impression is that these lenses are held as examples to educate us about why we are being ripped off and overcharged by the mainstream brands, and especially Leica. If brand X out of country Y can sell an optically complex and advanced lens design for $200 that is 95% as good as one that sells for $1500, or $5000, clearly we are being ripped off. Or?
p.3 #19 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
However in the spirit of cooperation I will reword my original post without the hyperbole.
My testing of the 50mm Air showed that it did not match the Tamron 35mm lens in the corners at MTF testing distances. This is probably attributed to field curvature. The T stop of the lens is also demonstratably significantly darker than any other lens I tested. I have noticed a lack of tonal separation in the shadows which I have never seen before in lenses to this extent though it can be fixed to a degree with a custom ICC profile which is what I did. I found a significant lack of accuracy using AFC focusing on two copies of the A7r4. It is a fun, cheap lens that punches above its weight however I personally do not find that it can compete as a package to the extent that some reviews might be suggesting. YMMV.
p.3 #20 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
rscheffler wrote:
My impression is that these lenses are held as examples to educate us about why we are being ripped off and overcharged by the mainstream brands, and especially Leica. If brand X out of country Y can sell an optically complex and advanced lens design for $200 that is 95% as good as one that sells for $1500, or $5000, clearly we are being ripped off. Or?
How did they do that?
Ai? IP theft? It’s easier now?
So maybe we aren’t being ripped off but someone else was?
