That is a very polite put down. I was assuming the closer the lens focal distance to the actual distance between the lens and the sensor the easier to design one and mirrorless was lending itself towards good wide angle lenses.
Hi Chris, thank you for testing this lens. It seems what you pay is what you get. I have on old Canon nFD 2.8 / 35 mm which delivers really crisp images on my digital camera! I got it in used top mint condition for a good price. Nice little lens. Best wishes, Ralf
We live in an era where affordable lenses like this are being made today during these hard times. We have to choice to put any kind of lens we want on our cameras regardless if its $10 or $10,000 thanks to mirrorless. I even use vintage lenses destined for the landfill and they work out great and some of these lenses are now fetching big money too due to low supply and growing demand. Lenses like these have character, imperfections, or a certain look that can't be replicated in post.
Sorry Chris, but I really can't agree with here about the image quality this lens produces because I actually thought your sample images looked great! Better than some of the more expensive lens you have tested. For a start, I couldn't see any CA at all, which is normally an inherent flaw with cheap lenses, so that makes it worth it's salt there. And when you said it had low contrast in the centre of frame wide open, I thought it had plenty compared to some fast lenses I have used. To my eyes it looked plenty sharp enough in the centre and I would say the bokeh is actually the main strong point on this lens...It looks fantastic! Add a lens hood to control that awful flaring and this could make a great wide angle portrait lens. With the small size and light weight making it particularly suitable for street photography. Your review has actually got me interested in buying one now!
We live in an era where everyone wants a full frame or high end camera, and then proceeds to cheap out on the lenses. The very fact that lenses like this flooding the market in big numbers from various different brands meant that there is a demand for it. These lenses really aren't doing an excellent camera sensor any justice.
Part true, but thing is that full frame sensor are becoming cheaper and cheaper, either in the new stuff (look at an Eos RP for example), or due to massive second hand supplies (look the price of a second hand A7 mk1 or 2). So it is absolutely possible to build a cheap full frame system nowadays
Its not about price but about size, we all were promised that mirrorless revolution will bring smaller lens but in reality mirrorless prime lenses are almost twice as big as their dslr counterpart with slightly better sharpness. I can carry a nikon d850 or d500 all day with small lens like 58 f1.4 than Z7 with huge huge 50 f1.2.
@@avinashrai11141 "promised smaller size", you tell that to Sony. Canon and Nikon certainly didn't make promises like that, or perhaps, it's you people have extremely unrealistic expectations on what is considered small. Every 24-70mm 2.8 professional zooms in the market for mirrorless currently, are definitely smaller than their dslr counterparts. It's virtually impossible to make high performance lenses at small sizes. You can't beat physics. Having a maximum size of weight limit being set, means compromising on certain things.
@@avinashrai11141 you haven't proven anything. Give me examples of high quality lenses that are small and ill give you a list of that particular lens' weaknesses. Especially with Sony at least, their small lens design philosophy comes with a terrible amount of focus breathing. There is always a tradeoff with keeping lenses small.
For the price, and if you're willing to use it at F2.8 or higher, I'd say this is a fantastic budget lens. Considering this review, I would not try using F1.4 if I was serious about image quality.
I can't really speak for 40mp+ sensors, but on my 25mp APSC most images of many older vintage lenses can produce better results i think. Some older Nikons for instance will do a lot better at F2.8 already and cost around the same amount, aswell as retaining their value a lot better.
Just imagine a lens sized like this made by big glass manufacturer like Leica or Nikon with all their technology to push better image quality in that size.
Ok but what on earth would be the subject you would manual focus on with a 35mm at f1.4? It might as well be f8 because thats all you'd ever use it at.
Yup, I'm usually the one who still finds the lenses usable even if Chris says they're too bad but I gotta agree here. I have no idea why they put this out. Edit: But in a way, I'm still glad it's out. The first apsc only manual chinese lenses were terrible too and look where we are now. If the chinese manufacturers want to start breaking into new territorry, this is a starting point. Maybe in 5 years we will have lenses of this size except they will have decent image quality.
@@bijosn A new Zeiss Planar 35mm f/1.4 is more than x10 the price of this lens. The zeiss is a very good lens but just not worth the money because its ghostly at 1.4 which is unacceptable for that price point. I frankly wouldn't pay more than $1000 for it.
@@XL1813 I won’t pay $1000 for it either, I got a used one in very good condition for $315. It’s my 3rd zeiss 50 planar in addition to the contact and Sony a-mount ssm versions. It’s pretty soft close up from 1.4 to about 2.8 but it’s totally by design. It’s bokeh is my favourite of all the lenses I own and it’s weird painterly bokeh aLLows for some artistic shots. Stoped down to 5.6 it becomes bitingly sharp (as sharp as any lens I own). Colors are saturated and it has great micro contrast. It’s a lens with 2 characteristics. Compared to it the contax version is sharper at wider apertures but not as sharp stopped down past 5.6, the contax version is also not as saturated. The Sony a-mount ssm trumps both of these, it’s sharp wide open and stopped down but a little less saturated than the ze/zf version.
I think the review is overly harsh. Can anyone suggest a similar size and weight manual focus 35mm for the Sony A7? ...and if you say a vintage Nikon, Pentax, Carl Zeiss or whatever, by the time you add the adaptor, it will be twice as long and twice as heavy........and with prices for vintage lenses on ebay these days, probably twice as expensive. Or, if you suggest something like the Samyang 35mm f2.8, (yes, it's light and cheap), but using it as a manual focus lens is a nightmare, with focus by wire, no apertures to set and no distance markings! For someone who gets an A7r2 say, for $1000, this could be a good choice of street lens at f8. Something else similar might be the Kipon Iberit 35mm F2.4, for Sony, but I haven't seen many reviews and it doesn't seem to be very available.
If the photo/video world was a video game, this would be a drop item by the first LV1 enemies you face xDDD just good enough to get you going into the big world of photography and video lol
At $130 USD, it's still way overpriced. You can get the Pentax 35mm f/2.4 for $97 brand new with autofocus, or adapt it to the E-mount and shoot in manual.
i expected the lens to be bad to be honest. There are plenty of 35mm lenses on the market but somehow there is nothing affordable with good imagequality... somthing like the 50 1.8 for 200€ bucks.
"It's about time I tested some more Fuji lenses..." = Proceeds to review a cheap Chinese lens for full frame a few days later. *Insert Michael Scott screaming NOOOOOO*
I’d say spend the money instead on a classic vintage Carl Zeiss Flektogon 35mm f2.4, or a vintage Nikkor 35mm f2.8, especially since this lens appears to be pretty awful until stopped down to similar apertures
Just sold off 24 lenses, partly to recoup some cash but also to get the stoopid things out the way, the cack ends up owning you. Even sold off the three Pentax FA Limiteds, the 31, 43 and 77mm and D-FA* glass. Kept three Carl Zeiss and a Tomioka 1.2/55. Less really is more and the last thing you need in life is garbage glass.
@@Martinroadsguy Yes but this doesn’t „justify“ to develop and manufacture these lenses. Some products like lenses or clothing shouldn’t go below a certain price or value in my opinion.
Think you were a little harsh with this one. Its not a good performer by any means, but it looks & performs like just your typical cheap chinese fast manual lens. The biggest flaw I think is that $130 price tag. If it was halved itd look more promising. I have seen worse performers in your channel. Like the classic canon 75-300.
bought the lens, and it sucks...! yeah sure, sharpness is overrated and the lenses that have all specs maxed out have no character, but at least when stopped down and beyond f/4 the lens should be sharp enough, so at least the outlines of the objects can be clearly visible and not kinda blurry
Garbage lens. Just an absolute dumpster fire. Maybe useful as a paperweight. At some point "well it's cheap" just isn't a compelling enough reason to buy a lens. For $130 or considerably less, you can just go on ebay and buy a vintage SLR lens and a cheap adapter on Amazon and get better IQ
I love the special effects possible with this lens! The coma smearing is amazing. Who needs sharpness all the time anyway! 💁🏻♂️
the images actually look good....artistic.
I did really like the lens's bokeh...
That is a very polite put down.
I was assuming the closer the lens focal distance to the actual distance between the lens and the sensor the easier to design one and mirrorless was lending itself towards good wide angle lenses.
Hi Chris, thank you for testing this lens. It seems what you pay is what you get. I have on old Canon nFD 2.8 / 35 mm which delivers really crisp images on my digital camera! I got it in used top mint condition for a good price. Nice little lens. Best wishes, Ralf
I would love to see a review of the AstrHori 18mm f8 shift lens.
I like it! Thanks for the review! ✌🏻
Are you going to make video about brand new Pergear 14mm F2.8?
Great video as always!
We live in an era where affordable lenses like this are being made today during these hard times. We have to choice to put any kind of lens we want on our cameras regardless if its $10 or $10,000 thanks to mirrorless. I even use vintage lenses destined for the landfill and they work out great and some of these lenses are now fetching big money too due to low supply and growing demand. Lenses like these have character, imperfections, or a certain look that can't be replicated in post.
Hey Chris!
Can you please update your favourite lens videos of all time?
Also what are your favourite lenses for Canon?
i would just buy an adapter & a vintage lens you’d be getting more bang for you’re buck
At last, the bandstand in Aberystwyth at night.
Can't wait for the 800mm 5.6.
everyting is going back nowadays but take it as a good word. if u r a nude model photographer this lens is a MUST HAVE one.
Sorry Chris, but I really can't agree with here about the image quality this lens produces because I actually thought your sample images looked great! Better than some of the more expensive lens you have tested. For a start, I couldn't see any CA at all, which is normally an inherent flaw with cheap lenses, so that makes it worth it's salt there. And when you said it had low contrast in the centre of frame wide open, I thought it had plenty compared to some fast lenses I have used. To my eyes it looked plenty sharp enough in the centre and I would say the bokeh is actually the main strong point on this lens...It looks fantastic! Add a lens hood to control that awful flaring and this could make a great wide angle portrait lens. With the small size and light weight making it particularly suitable for street photography. Your review has actually got me interested in buying one now!
That's why I said, despite the low technical image quality, quote: "it’s still possible to get some nice pictures with it"
If you love comatic flare you'd like this lens. The very first sample image of this review demonstrates that.
Also recently released is the Nonikkor 35mm F1.4...hope you get a chance to test it out. Seems to be similar to this Pergear but has nicer build.
Yeah I really wanna see that. I've been eyeing it since it was on pre-order (and so much cheaper 😭)
We live in an era where everyone wants a full frame or high end camera, and then proceeds to cheap out on the lenses. The very fact that lenses like this flooding the market in big numbers from various different brands meant that there is a demand for it. These lenses really aren't doing an excellent camera sensor any justice.
Part true, but thing is that full frame sensor are becoming cheaper and cheaper, either in the new stuff (look at an Eos RP for example), or due to massive second hand supplies (look the price of a second hand A7 mk1 or 2).
So it is absolutely possible to build a cheap full frame system nowadays
Its not about price but about size, we all were promised that mirrorless revolution will bring smaller lens but in reality mirrorless prime lenses are almost twice as big as their dslr counterpart with slightly better sharpness. I can carry a nikon d850 or d500 all day with small lens like 58 f1.4 than Z7 with huge huge 50 f1.2.
@@avinashrai11141 "promised smaller size", you tell that to Sony. Canon and Nikon certainly didn't make promises like that, or perhaps, it's you people have extremely unrealistic expectations on what is considered small. Every 24-70mm 2.8 professional zooms in the market for mirrorless currently, are definitely smaller than their dslr counterparts.
It's virtually impossible to make high performance lenses at small sizes. You can't beat physics. Having a maximum size of weight limit being set, means compromising on certain things.
@@EXkuroganeYou cant find a single prime on market already proved my point.
@@avinashrai11141 you haven't proven anything. Give me examples of high quality lenses that are small and ill give you a list of that particular lens' weaknesses.
Especially with Sony at least, their small lens design philosophy comes with a terrible amount of focus breathing. There is always a tradeoff with keeping lenses small.
I like the bokeh in the in-focus areas. 🙂
Haha
Coma levels 4:50 at f1.4 reaches beauty level :D
Well, its affordable at least :) I adapt my M-Mount Voigtlander onto my A7RIII and it works great!
If I have a $100 full frame camera, that is the lens I would buy for it.
J.J. Abrams would love this lens @F1.4... 🙂
haha, look at the 2:20 mark. The lens is "Muti Coated". I'll guess it should be "Multi coated". Even a spell error on this lens !
Ah man, thats rough lol
For the price, and if you're willing to use it at F2.8 or higher, I'd say this is a fantastic budget lens.
Considering this review, I would not try using F1.4 if I was serious about image quality.
Fantastic you said? What??
I can't really speak for 40mp+ sensors, but on my 25mp APSC most images of many older vintage lenses can produce better results i think. Some older Nikons for instance will do a lot better at F2.8 already and cost around the same amount, aswell as retaining their value a lot better.
Just imagine a lens sized like this made by big glass manufacturer like Leica or Nikon with all their technology to push better image quality in that size.
No fuji x mount?
can you do the new Tamron 50-400? (:
I'm waiting for Tamron to send a review copy. In the meantime a review of the 20-40mm lens is coming :-)
Ok but what on earth would be the subject you would manual focus on with a 35mm at f1.4? It might as well be f8 because thats all you'd ever use it at.
wdym I have a 35mm f/1.8 and I enjoy the shallow dof quite a lot
@@fandyus4125 ok, so what do you photography with it? Please don't say "everything"..
@@benjamindover4337 People. Environmental portraits, that sort of thing.
Portraits, product, astro etc. etc.
@@bijosn nobody is manually focusing environmental portraits at f1.4 though, and thats the point
Looks like an upgraded Lensbaby had a baby with a Classic manual focus lense
What a funny review, I laughed at close-up image and coma smearing results 😄MUTI coated wonder!
Yup, I'm usually the one who still finds the lenses usable even if Chris says they're too bad but I gotta agree here. I have no idea why they put this out.
Edit: But in a way, I'm still glad it's out. The first apsc only manual chinese lenses were terrible too and look where we are now. If the chinese manufacturers want to start breaking into new territorry, this is a starting point. Maybe in 5 years we will have lenses of this size except they will have decent image quality.
he also said the zeiss planar 1.4 ZE\ZF is a bad lens, but people love it
@@bijosn But some people will always say positives about Zeiss glass.
@@bijosn A new Zeiss Planar 35mm f/1.4 is more than x10 the price of this lens. The zeiss is a very good lens but just not worth the money because its ghostly at 1.4 which is unacceptable for that price point. I frankly wouldn't pay more than $1000 for it.
@@XL1813 I won’t pay $1000 for it either, I got a used one in very good condition for $315. It’s my 3rd zeiss 50 planar in addition to the contact and Sony a-mount ssm versions. It’s pretty soft close up from 1.4 to about 2.8 but it’s totally by design. It’s bokeh is my favourite of all the lenses I own and it’s weird painterly bokeh aLLows for some artistic shots. Stoped down to 5.6 it becomes bitingly sharp (as sharp as any lens I own). Colors are saturated and it has great micro contrast. It’s a lens with 2 characteristics. Compared to it the contax version is sharper at wider apertures but not as sharp stopped down past 5.6, the contax version is also not as saturated. The Sony a-mount ssm trumps both of these, it’s sharp wide open and stopped down but a little less saturated than the ze/zf version.
@@robertcudlipp3426 zeiss is overpriced yes but if you ever owned a high end zeiss optic you would know why people rave about it.
Stopped down f5.6 - f8 and just use zone focus , great for street :-)
Nice typo on the lens. MUTI coated is definitely not what it should say. lol
Muti coated, mmm not something you see very often these days 😂
It performs similar to my nikkor 50mm f1.4 ai
can u make budget full frame lens for sony e mount?
Unfortunately, Christopher Frost does not manufacture lenses.
The Sony FE 50 is such a lens.
I don't actually make these lenses hehe
@@christopherfrost sry my english bad, i mean can u make list of best budget full frame lens for every category for sony e mount full frame
@@nandysullivan3005 this is a good end-of-the-year video idea Mr.Frost :)
Aber-wristwatch my home town. ;-)
They didn't even spellcheck the engraving! "Muti coated"...
I think the review is overly harsh. Can anyone suggest a similar size and weight manual focus 35mm for the Sony A7? ...and if you say a vintage Nikon, Pentax, Carl Zeiss or whatever, by the time you add the adaptor, it will be twice as long and twice as heavy........and with prices for vintage lenses on ebay these days, probably twice as expensive. Or, if you suggest something like the Samyang 35mm f2.8, (yes, it's light and cheap), but using it as a manual focus lens is a nightmare, with focus by wire, no apertures to set and no distance markings!
For someone who gets an A7r2 say, for $1000, this could be a good choice of street lens at f8.
Something else similar might be the Kipon Iberit 35mm F2.4, for Sony, but I haven't seen many reviews and it doesn't seem to be very available.
the only thing I can say is: Bing chilling
If the photo/video world was a video game, this would be a drop item by the first LV1 enemies you face xDDD just good enough to get you going into the big world of photography and video lol
Oof. I'd take an adapted Helios 44-M-4 any day of the week.
Sharpness wide open test doesn't line up with what others have shown. Looks like you reviewed a bad copy. It's not your fault, though.
At $130 USD, it's still way overpriced. You can get the Pentax 35mm f/2.4 for $97 brand new with autofocus, or adapt it to the E-mount and shoot in manual.
i expected the lens to be bad to be honest. There are plenty of 35mm lenses on the market but somehow there is nothing affordable with good imagequality... somthing like the 50 1.8 for 200€ bucks.
"It's about time I tested some more Fuji lenses..." = Proceeds to review a cheap Chinese lens for full frame a few days later. *Insert Michael Scott screaming NOOOOOO*
I’d say spend the money instead on a classic vintage Carl Zeiss Flektogon 35mm f2.4, or a vintage Nikkor 35mm f2.8, especially since this lens appears to be pretty awful until stopped down to similar apertures
cool video
finally a lens for Instagram users 🤣🤣
Gotta love MUTI COATED....multi... Multi 😃
what’s sad is on the website they have nice high quality photos (supposedly) taken with this lens hope nobody falls for it 😂
A character lens as in characteristic flaws.
i think some vintage 35mm lenses perform better than this one
2:37 No, not surprising
I'll never understand the point of making lenses so small when the edges are a mess
The point is that most people who look at photos don't zoom into shallow depth photo corners.
as Leica state fast lenses are not sharp, a compromise ; love my Pentax 8 element on a canon
you couldn’t even pay me to take this lens.
Yeah, some lenses are shitty but have an interesting look. This one is just a poor performer though.
Just sold off 24 lenses, partly to recoup some cash but also to get the stoopid things out the way, the cack ends up owning you.
Even sold off the three Pentax FA Limiteds, the 31, 43 and 77mm and D-FA* glass.
Kept three Carl Zeiss and a Tomioka 1.2/55.
Less really is more and the last thing you need in life is garbage glass.
Agree some lenses should stay at factory. I understqnd if it would be diy lenses which would be impressuve but not from huge factory
@@Martinroadsguy Yes but this doesn’t „justify“ to develop and manufacture these lenses. Some products like lenses or clothing shouldn’t go below a certain price or value in my opinion.
@@theowlfromduolingo7982 what are you talking about?
Flare, sharpness, distortion, vignetting and chromatic abberation are way overrated.
It's like the bottom of a milk bottle.
Think you were a little harsh with this one. Its not a good performer by any means, but it looks & performs like just your typical cheap chinese fast manual lens. The biggest flaw I think is that $130 price tag. If it was halved itd look more promising. I have seen worse performers in your channel. Like the classic canon 75-300.
bought the lens, and it sucks...! yeah sure, sharpness is overrated and the lenses that have all specs maxed out have no character, but at least when stopped down and beyond f/4 the lens should be sharp enough, so at least the outlines of the objects can be clearly visible and not kinda blurry
2st
Yet another manual third party lens I shall give a miss.
Coke bottle.
Garbage lens. Just an absolute dumpster fire. Maybe useful as a paperweight. At some point "well it's cheap" just isn't a compelling enough reason to buy a lens. For $130 or considerably less, you can just go on ebay and buy a vintage SLR lens and a cheap adapter on Amazon and get better IQ
You shouldn't buy a modern full-frame camera if you consider getting this lens.
Harsh, but true.