I have this and other viltrox lens for the Nikon Z and Fujifilm x series cameras, they are very good for the price, being a lower teir than viltrox f1.2 series lens i think that the 1.8 is geared more towards photography, if the aperture ring was easier to turn you might change aperture with out realizing that you had, so since the ring is not clicked they made it stiffer to turn.
I'm glad you got your hands on this Viltrox lens: I enjoy its rendering, but I wish they had gone with a more ambitious F1.4 optical design - it would have given them a clearer edge on paper over the Sony product and beaten Sigma to the punch of developing a mirrorless 28mm F1.4 (I still lug the DSLR-based Sigma around because it is my favorite low light general purpose focal length). As it is, even though this produces more pleasing images than the Sony offering (at least to my eyes), it's a hard sell for a third party to make :I
That's some fair feedback. What I think you'll find is that Viltrox was following a pretty rigid design philosophy for this lens to allow for them to maximum their investment in the barrel design for this series. In other words, compromises were almost certainly made to make sure they could leverage their investment in this lens shape and keep costs down. So, the 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm lenses are basically identical from the outside, and the engineering inside had to accommodate the physical shell. So yes, an F1.4 lens would have been great, but that was probably never in the cards.
Honest, detailed and professional review as usual. Thanks for that, Dustin. Frankly speaking, I am a bit disappointed for the lack of comparison with the Sony 28mm f2. The review suggests the Viltrox should be a better choice, but it is not clear for what and how much. Maybe the two lens are very close in overall performance. Maybe not. I think lens comparison is very important, for making the proper choice. That's a pity the review is not making any comparison, at all. Other than that, as I said, great review!
It's not quite as simple as you might think to always have the comparison lenses on hand. It requires coordinating with two different brands, and when you consider that I am reviewing 4-5 lenses a month (at least), it's just not possible to always make that happen. I made my points of comparison off of the MTF charts and the findings of other reviewers for the Sony, but this isn't labelled a comparison review but rather a review specifically of the Viltrox lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Please don't get me wrong, Dustin, I have great respect for you and your hard and professional work. You have your reasons for making a review like that. Pretty understandable. I would just pointing out that maybe one of the most important aspects of a review is to put the viewers into the position to do a conscious purchase. And you greatly achieved this goal, for sure. Anyway, we should both agree that making the right purchase requires an understanding of the alternatives, in order to choose what is best for the personal use cases. Therefore, I sincerely think that with the addition of comparison, your reviews would be just the best of best in the world, hands down. Comparison is just the little missing point for making your reviews really perfect. It's your call, for sure, to decide to continue to prioritize quantity (4-5 or even more per month, as you said) or quality, for this last missing piece for perfection. I won't judge you in either case. This is your channel, I am nobody for stating what is right and what is wrong with that. I am just providing my honest and friendly feedback. I just wish to see the perfect reviews from you. You are just so close.
The MTF shown belong to the viltrox 24mm 1.8 which have much more softness in the edge of the frame ... I don't use wide lenses that much so I wasn't ready to spend a 1000 bucks on the Nikon 24m 1.8S ... The viltrox 24mm while cheaper was way less quality (in build and IQ)... I like 28mm lenses and this lens MTF is almost as good as the Nikon 24mm (a hair less) and is much better than the viltrox 24mm 1.8 MTF which was shown here... The reviews confirmed the better IQ so I ordered one and currently waiting
Just saw a really good review where he was shocked this lens was substantially sharper at all apertures than his leica Q3. Its made me consider this lens seriously over the voigtlander 40mm 1.2 I just about have enough saved up for.
Want a 28mm for full frame but disappointed that lenses aperture ring is not detented and declickable and declicked to support a stills shooter. Maybe the will come out with a better version in the APS-C family to go along with the 27/1.2 and 75/1.2. Thank you and take care.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Lack of detente remove all confidence that aperture ring stays in the last place you put it. Requires constant checking to see where it is.Just my opinion of course.
That's tough. The Sigma is definitely a more special optic (one of Sigma' best from the DSLR era, actually), but it is downright huge by comparison. If you are already comfortable with the size, then know you are getting the best optical performance, though perhaps not the best autofocus performance.
I assume you are using an APS-C body? If not, then the Viltrox should be the easy option if you're on full frame, as it is full frame compatible and the Sigma is not. If you're on APS-C, you probably should go for the Sigma, as the Viltrox is unnecessarily large as it is designed for the larger sensor.
@@iamthun4819 I give the edge to the Viltrox on those things, particularly on vignette and CA. You'll see less fringing and better edge performance because it is a full frame lens.
I know that some like 28 mm, still I don't understand it. I can understand that they find 35 to tight. Why 28 and not 24. I dislike all zooms starting at 28 (Sonys cheap kit zoom, Sigma 28-70 and Tamron 28-75).
Personally the difference between 24-28 is in people. At 24 faces in the center of frame still look okay but faces or body parts at the edge of frame are too distorted, especially if you are angled up or down at all. Going to 24 on a zoom is great for flexibility, of course, and I like 20 or 24 in cases where I want to exaggerate perspective.
I like pairing a 28- zoom with a wider and faster or special (sunstars) prime. 24mm seems neither wide nor normal to me. Some like 28mm yes but obviously not enough considering how many such primes have been made for E-mount so far. This Viltrox one looks to have pretty nice bokeh, just like the Sony FE 28/2
I find that with 24mm, you can easily fall into the trap of distorting your subjects when taking a portrait at ~half body distances. Especially with 1.8 and 1.4 lenses, there's the temptation to take that 1 step closer to get a bit more subject isolation and that is a step too much with 24mm - the working distance is too unflattering. You'll actually see this a lot if you look at 24mm portraits, even those in marketing materials. That step is not necessary with 28mm because it is just that 16% tighter and so you get the subject isolation but the facial features are still just about acceptable and not too stretched. If you take a group picture, subjects that aren't centered also still look fine in the periphery, which isn't always the case anymore with 24mm. It is also tremendously useful if you use both full frame and APS-C, as 42mm is an incredibly natural (arguably the most natural) focal length that lends itself very well to shots in which you want the viewer to have a POV feeling.
28mm is a beautiful focal length, one of those that just looks "right" for so many photos. The modern move towards 24mm is unfortunate. Everyone wants "wider" but a lot of people don't seem to understand that it comes at a cost (which others here have described well.)
Well, this one is fairly sharp. 28mm has not really been a big seller in the modern era, so Sony probably hasn't considered it worth their investment dollars yet.
@DustinAbbottTWI makes sense. I figured with the popularity of that Leicah Q line and the Ricoh that that 28mm was a hit focal length. I've just been rocking with the 24mm GM. This looks like a good option though.
Sony knows that 28mm isn't a popular focal length, so they aren't going to make a high quality lens that won't be seeing good sales. I have too zooms starting at 28mm and I never liked that FL, it looks boring. I have 24/1.4 and that's an interesting lens. I'm not surprised 24mm focal length is a lot more popular.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
This video is sponsored by Fantom Wallet. Visit store.fantomwallet.com and use code DUSTIN15 to get 15% off
I have this and other viltrox lens for the Nikon Z and Fujifilm x series cameras, they are very good for the price, being a lower teir than viltrox f1.2 series lens i think that the 1.8 is geared more towards photography, if the aperture ring was easier to turn you might change aperture with out realizing that you had, so since the ring is not clicked they made it stiffer to turn.
I'm glad you got your hands on this Viltrox lens:
I enjoy its rendering, but I wish they had gone with a more ambitious F1.4 optical design - it would have given them a clearer edge on paper over the Sony product and beaten Sigma to the punch of developing a mirrorless 28mm F1.4 (I still lug the DSLR-based Sigma around because it is my favorite low light general purpose focal length).
As it is, even though this produces more pleasing images than the Sony offering (at least to my eyes), it's a hard sell for a third party to make :I
That's some fair feedback. What I think you'll find is that Viltrox was following a pretty rigid design philosophy for this lens to allow for them to maximum their investment in the barrel design for this series. In other words, compromises were almost certainly made to make sure they could leverage their investment in this lens shape and keep costs down. So, the 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm lenses are basically identical from the outside, and the engineering inside had to accommodate the physical shell. So yes, an F1.4 lens would have been great, but that was probably never in the cards.
@@DustinAbbottTWI That makes perfect sense, appreciate the input
Honest, detailed and professional review as usual. Thanks for that, Dustin. Frankly speaking, I am a bit disappointed for the lack of comparison with the Sony 28mm f2. The review suggests the Viltrox should be a better choice, but it is not clear for what and how much. Maybe the two lens are very close in overall performance. Maybe not. I think lens comparison is very important, for making the proper choice. That's a pity the review is not making any comparison, at all. Other than that, as I said, great review!
It's not quite as simple as you might think to always have the comparison lenses on hand. It requires coordinating with two different brands, and when you consider that I am reviewing 4-5 lenses a month (at least), it's just not possible to always make that happen. I made my points of comparison off of the MTF charts and the findings of other reviewers for the Sony, but this isn't labelled a comparison review but rather a review specifically of the Viltrox lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Please don't get me wrong, Dustin, I have great respect for you and your hard and professional work. You have your reasons for making a review like that. Pretty understandable. I would just pointing out that maybe one of the most important aspects of a review is to put the viewers into the position to do a conscious purchase. And you greatly achieved this goal, for sure. Anyway, we should both agree that making the right purchase requires an understanding of the alternatives, in order to choose what is best for the personal use cases. Therefore, I sincerely think that with the addition of comparison, your reviews would be just the best of best in the world, hands down. Comparison is just the little missing point for making your reviews really perfect. It's your call, for sure, to decide to continue to prioritize quantity (4-5 or even more per month, as you said) or quality, for this last missing piece for perfection. I won't judge you in either case. This is your channel, I am nobody for stating what is right and what is wrong with that. I am just providing my honest and friendly feedback. I just wish to see the perfect reviews from you. You are just so close.
The MTF shown belong to the viltrox 24mm 1.8 which have much more softness in the edge of the frame ... I don't use wide lenses that much so I wasn't ready to spend a 1000 bucks on the Nikon 24m 1.8S ... The viltrox 24mm while cheaper was way less quality (in build and IQ)... I like 28mm lenses and this lens MTF is almost as good as the Nikon 24mm (a hair less) and is much better than the viltrox 24mm 1.8 MTF which was shown here... The reviews confirmed the better IQ so I ordered one and currently waiting
Just saw a really good review where he was shocked this lens was substantially sharper at all apertures than his leica Q3. Its made me consider this lens seriously over the voigtlander 40mm 1.2 I just about have enough saved up for.
That is surprising!
They sent you one! That's great. Watching now.
Enjoy!
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks! I may spring for this lens, but what I really want is a 28/1.8G from Sony. For now, will have to dream.
Want a 28mm for full frame but disappointed that lenses aperture ring is not detented and declickable and declicked to support a stills shooter. Maybe the will come out with a better version in the APS-C family to go along with the 27/1.2 and 75/1.2. Thank you and take care.
Hmmm, I didn't find that a big deal, but I realize that some things bother some people more than others.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Lack of detente remove all confidence that aperture ring stays in the last place you put it. Requires constant checking to see where it is.Just my opinion of course.
Would you pick this lens or the Sigma 28mm f1.4 ART (emount)? I have the Sigma and love it besides the size.
That's tough. The Sigma is definitely a more special optic (one of Sigma' best from the DSLR era, actually), but it is downright huge by comparison. If you are already comfortable with the size, then know you are getting the best optical performance, though perhaps not the best autofocus performance.
I used to have the Sony 28mm F2 , this might be a good replacement
I think so.
If you are looking for 28 and don’t mind manual focus, Kamlan 28 1.4 for apsc works with slight vignette on full frame. It’s tack sharp and small.
If i have to select either viltrox in this video or sigma 30 1.4. what I should select?
I assume you are using an APS-C body? If not, then the Viltrox should be the easy option if you're on full frame, as it is full frame compatible and the Sigma is not. If you're on APS-C, you probably should go for the Sigma, as the Viltrox is unnecessarily large as it is designed for the larger sensor.
@@DustinAbbottTWI What about image quality, CA, Vignette etc. when compared both two lens?
@@iamthun4819 I give the edge to the Viltrox on those things, particularly on vignette and CA. You'll see less fringing and better edge performance because it is a full frame lens.
Great review!!
Glad you enjoyed it
Another great review - thanks! No biggie, but the chapters are not aligned with the video content.
I checked, and you're right. The process was started but not completed. It's corrected now.
I am considering this lens I have to here what you say first
Hope the review helps.
@@DustinAbbottTWI it did I went with the Nikon 28mm 2.8 to go with my new ZF which I am impressed with 10bit and more you should get one
I know that some like 28 mm, still I don't understand it. I can understand that they find 35 to tight. Why 28 and not 24.
I dislike all zooms starting at 28 (Sonys cheap kit zoom, Sigma 28-70 and Tamron 28-75).
Personally the difference between 24-28 is in people. At 24 faces in the center of frame still look okay but faces or body parts at the edge of frame are too distorted, especially if you are angled up or down at all. Going to 24 on a zoom is great for flexibility, of course, and I like 20 or 24 in cases where I want to exaggerate perspective.
I like pairing a 28- zoom with a wider and faster or special (sunstars) prime. 24mm seems neither wide nor normal to me. Some like 28mm yes but obviously not enough considering how many such primes have been made for E-mount so far. This Viltrox one looks to have pretty nice bokeh, just like the Sony FE 28/2
I find that with 24mm, you can easily fall into the trap of distorting your subjects when taking a portrait at ~half body distances. Especially with 1.8 and 1.4 lenses, there's the temptation to take that 1 step closer to get a bit more subject isolation and that is a step too much with 24mm - the working distance is too unflattering. You'll actually see this a lot if you look at 24mm portraits, even those in marketing materials.
That step is not necessary with 28mm because it is just that 16% tighter and so you get the subject isolation but the facial features are still just about acceptable and not too stretched.
If you take a group picture, subjects that aren't centered also still look fine in the periphery, which isn't always the case anymore with 24mm.
It is also tremendously useful if you use both full frame and APS-C, as 42mm is an incredibly natural (arguably the most natural) focal length that lends itself very well to shots in which you want the viewer to have a POV feeling.
This is a really great defense of the 28mm focal length, @acouragefann
28mm is a beautiful focal length, one of those that just looks "right" for so many photos. The modern move towards 24mm is unfortunate. Everyone wants "wider" but a lot of people don't seem to understand that it comes at a cost (which others here have described well.)
Sony sure does need a sharp 28mm. I don't know why Sony doesn't make one.
Well, this one is fairly sharp. 28mm has not really been a big seller in the modern era, so Sony probably hasn't considered it worth their investment dollars yet.
@DustinAbbottTWI makes sense. I figured with the popularity of that Leicah Q line and the Ricoh that that 28mm was a hit focal length. I've just been rocking with the 24mm GM. This looks like a good option though.
Sony knows that 28mm isn't a popular focal length, so they aren't going to make a high quality lens that won't be seeing good sales. I have too zooms starting at 28mm and I never liked that FL, it looks boring. I have 24/1.4 and that's an interesting lens. I'm not surprised 24mm focal length is a lot more popular.
I think I will pass on this lens and keep looking for one in the range thanks
Fair enough.