VILTROX AF 16mm F1.8 FE - Astrophotography Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- It seemed like this lens was being talked about a lot for astrophotography, but no one was doing an in-depth and thorough testing of it. So, if you want thing's done right...
You get the picture.
If this review made you upset and you're juiced up real hard on choice supportive bias, just remember: Stop. Take a breath. I'm just the messenger. And this lens is just an inanimate tool. Everything is going to be ok.
--
Vetting a lens for astrophotography can be a bit of a pain, as most reviews don't dive deep into lens performance when used on the night sky. As such, I have been compelled to create lens reviews specifically for astrophotographers, which dig into lens performance in somewhat exhaustive detail - all to uncover how the lens performs on the stars.
--
To download samples and read up on some of the information discussed in this video, just follow this link:
ferventastrono...
--
Into astrophotography and looking for some gear? Check us out:
ferventastrono...
--
Clear skies!
Interesting. Both Christoffer Frost and Dustin Abbott gave high praise to this lens and showed very good lab results... but I guess Astrophotography is also the most demanding type of photography when it comes to optical performance
Astro is definitely it's own separate thing, which is why I've started doing these dedicated reviews. Standard lens reviews either don't touch on astro performance at all or do so... sub-optimally? Which is fine, not everyone is set up to test things in every type of condition, and I'm happy to fill the niche.
@@FerventAstronomy Yeah, I'd presume so. However, you and Astro Road have very different opinions on the lens. Would be amazing if you guys could discuss with one another about the lens and your very different test results.
Imho, you might have gotten a bad copy. QC on "cheap" chinese lenses usually are not the best. 🤷
Anyway, thanks for the reply and the amazing work you do in testing all lenses.
@@Wistbacka I say this all without meaning to send any shade your way, just in case my tone doesn't come off well in text form:
All I did was test the lens, the results are the results. People can download and assess the samples for themselves. Opinions and discussion don't have much of an effect on saggital and tangential astigmatism: what's there is there. My general view on "bad copy" stuff is that it's special pleading. I don't have any emotional (or financial) investment in the lens performing a certain way or not, thus I am free of the pressure to want to believe that it is capable of performing a certain way. If the lens performed "bad" why should one expect that to automatically be an outlier?
Viltrox did not supply me a cherry picked review copy as they almost certainly did with other (bigger) reviewers (if they have any business sense). But even if they did I cannot see the results being much different given the physics behind the aberrations. Rather, I bought off-the-shelf just like anyone else. If a company is willing to let extreme "bad copies" into the wild then that's what the end user can expect to get, that type of QC is a low bar. It's unreasonable to have to exchange a lens once, never mind multiple times, hoping to win the lottery and get a "good" copy. I don't know how that became normalized in this industry. At that point there's likely more "bad" copies than "good" ones, and any consumer considering the lens can safely consider it to perform only to the standard of the "bad" copy.
The lens is physically well appointed, but inexpensive, and creating optics with well-controlled aberrations for astrophotographic applications is both difficult and expensive. The results match well with the reasonable expectations of the lens' performance set by the realities of capitalism.
Thanks for taking the time to do this.
My pleasure!
Thanks for the test. I had wondered how well this lens performs. Now I know. And I agree on the “bad sample” intolerance. I bought an IRIX 15mm because people raved about it. It wouldn’t produce focused stars. I sent it back and will never buy IRIX again.
Thanks much, Alan!
Great channel and thank you a lot for this honest test. Most of the reviews I've seen of this lens for astro-photo didn't say much about the scale of the problems that you showed. I was close to buying this Viltrox, looking for a brighter wide-angle replacement to the Samyang 18mm f/2.8 AF, which I love for its sharpness and lightness, but considering the defects shown here in astrophotography, I will probably refrain.
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks for making this review! Discovered this lens, and while the price is super attractive, the astigmatism is not, and I'm glad someone out there took the time to make a review about it!
Happy to help. If you’re doing untracked work with a 12 or 24 megapixel full frame camera I think it’s ok value for money, but the performance is not the best available for astrophotography. It’s worth noting that they best available comparable lenses for astrophotography also have their fair share of optical aberrations such as astigmatism, just less of them or more manageable forms for higher resolution or tracked imaging. The Viltrox, in my mind, is a fine lens if you’re displaying images primarily on social media, for example.
@@FerventAstronomy yeah, that's not me. I'm in the large format printing world. I'm doing tracked imaging on an A7-IV
In your case I would recommend the Sigma 14mm f/1.4, as long as you are ok with doing touch ups on the lower magnitude stars, as stars above a certain brightness threshold will suffer from strong astigmatism
@@FerventAstronomy why not the 14mm GM?
It’s personal preference I suppose, but to elaborate: the Sigma is huge, but for good reason as it controls vignetting, which is more significant with the Sony lens. Which is to say the size of Sigma’s lens isn’t just because of the brighter aperture, but on that front my purposes f/1.4 is preferable to f/1.8. It’s worth noting that I own both and plan to continue to use both.
I have a failed Viltrox 16/1.8 and 3 weeks into my warranty claim they are still asking me questions like "are you running the latest version of the lens app" while the lens sits here bricked. As you say its cheap and good value but you get what you pay for.
Gah, that sucks! Hopefully things get rectified soon.
Seems like there is a lot of copy to copy variation. Lots of people rave about it, but they are sent copies by viltrox, so they probably are pre tested for centering. I think I will just get the sony 14mm 1.8 or the 20mm 1.8 instead, depends on how things turn out money wise.
Any of the three are good value at their respective price points, and specifically for non-astro use I wouldn’t hesitate to use any of them. Astrophotography is hard-mode for lens performance however. Nothing that I saw when I tested the lens seemed out of the ordinary for it’s price point and optical formula. I don’t think a lot of people really have a grasp on the finer notes of optical engineering that lens aberrations spring from, and the inherent compromises that are necessary in “this” area to achieve something in “that” area. “Decentering” is commonly cited by people when lenses don’t perform up to snuff, but many or most don’t actually know what it is. Which is one of a multitude of potential issues that create various effects. Roger Cicala (the guy who founded LensRentals dot com) wrote a great article a few years back about this very topic if you’re interested. In this case, the astigmatism isn’t something being caused by faults due to copy variation, it’s a result of the lens’ optical formula. The same is true of vignetting. There’s no expectation of mild vignetting given the restrained dimensions of the lens’ front element. That’s one reason why both the Sony and Sigma 14mm lenses have bulbous front elements, and why the Sigma lens is especially huge.
And all of that’s fine. Different products for different market segments. There’s always a contingent of people out there who can’t or don’t want to afford the more expensive (top quality) options, and some of these people want to believe the cheap lens is better than the expensive one. When it comes to competing with modern high technology produced by billion-dollar global multinationals however, that’s a tall order. If it could be done as good for so much less they’d be doing it already, it’s a competitive landscape.
So I guess as I step off the soap box my testing simply confirms that “you get what you pay for” but even then nothing is perfect!
@@FerventAstronomy Thanks for the great response, it cleared stuff up for sure. I'm going to read the article.
I’m guessing “rainbow space fish” 😂 is a wee bit removed from ideal rendering of stars for astrophotography… very interested to hear your thoughts on best prime and zoom for Sony E mount for this application
Zooms aren’t ideal for astrophotography. Otherwise, any modern higher-end prime will do as good a job as is possible, typically. A wide angle lens with perfectly clean rendering does not exist.
@@FerventAstronomySo I bought a copy of this lens… My copy arrived with faulty AF out of the box and I am returning it for a refund. Not a good first impression of Viltrox.
@@bradl2636 I'm sorry to hear that. I didn't actually test the AF given the application I was concerned with, but it didn't perform well enough optically to justify keeping it personally.
Hi Frevernt. Thank you for the review! And what lens do you have for me. For astrophotography and real estate photos and vídeos?
If your budget allows it, the Sigma 14mm f/1.4 or the Sony 14mm f/1.8 are as good optically as is currently available. The Sony is more compact and the Sigma has more quality of life features built in. If your budget doesn't allow it then this Viltrox lens can be an acceptable compromise if you are happy with how it performs. Ultimately that's a personal choice dictated by your desires and circumstances. I'm just here to show you how gear performs for astrophotography, whether you're happy with the performance to cost ratio is completely up to you.
Hy, thank you for your great review. If you can choose from sigma 14mm 1.8 dg art hsm and this, which will you pick if the price is the same? The positive for this the the weight and the filter ability
If the price is the same? The Sigma, hands down. Then, once you have it, see if it works for you. It’s wider and performs better optically. But if you then decide that it’s not for you and that you would rather have the Viltrox, sell the Sigma for a profit because it was way under priced and buy the Viltrox. At the same price as the Viltrox I wouldn’t hesitate to get the Sigma regardless of your intention.
@@FerventAstronomy thank you, hopefully i can get the sigma for that price 😊🙏 as i see my tracker (omegon lx3) limit is 3kg so with Sony milc it will be good 🤓thanks again🙏
according to Chinese profesional photographer one-year testing, He concluded this lens has better resolution and coma&astigmatism performance than 16/35GM(old version) at 16mm, a mustache worse coma&astigmatism than 14GM. That folk sold his 16/35GM...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ results are results. All I do is test lenses, they perform like they perform. My reviews aren’t about my personal opinion, they’re to give people concrete results so they can make informed buying decisions.
I don’t personally see the sense in comparing a fast prime lens to an old, slower zoom lens. Zoom lenses aren’t typically appropriate for astrophotography as they make many optical compromises in order to provide the user with multiple focal lengths in one lens. As for the 14mm GM, I’ve tested that lens as well, you can download the RAW files and compare them yourself to decide which is the right lens for you personally.
The " Star eater" issue is just horrible on Sony, i kind of regret sending my Sony A7R III in for Astro modify, should have pick up a Z8 and do that on that camera. Anyways, the experience I have with this lens is quite different from yours here, the astigmatism is nowhere near as bad as the one you have here, my is quite a bit better than my old Sigma 14 1.8 Art, almost as good as my Sigma 14 DG DN F1.4.
I don't personally think spatial filtering is worth worrying about, especially at normal viewing distances. We aren't taking scientific measurements, we're making art. That said, I'm not sure if the Z8 is free from spatial filtering, as Nikon has a long history of using it in their DSLRs. As for the lens, the tests are conducted in a manner to show off the extent of aberrations. Low magnitude stars, imaged with the highest resolution sensor available, using a tracker to ensure good exposure and zero trailing. If you replicate those conditions and you get better results then I would hang onto the lens and take good care of it.
I am new to this, but is it valid to do the test with 60 sec exposures?
Hi. I'm not quite sure I understand your question, so I will describe the methodology and that should answer any questions. I create two types of testing samples:
One set is not tracked, which is to say that these samples are taken with a camera on a stationary tripod. Exposures must be short to prevent star trails. This type of situation is how many will use an ultra-wide lens, but it naturally limits image quality and many of a lens' flaws are hidden or reduced with this type of photo.
The second set of samples is done using a star-tracker to track the sky. This allows for much longer exposures as from the camera's perspective the sky does not move. Because of this, image quality of the sky is much higher. There is no motion blur/star trails, there is sufficient exposure, lower ISO may be used if necessary, etc. Since tracked astrophotography solves the problem of motion blur due to the sky's movement it also shows a lens' true optical performance clearly and unambiguously.
I hope that helps!
Thanks for this review.
I reckon the reason why anyone else favourably reviewed this lens, compared to what your opinion is, is that you specifically reviewed it for astrophotography, with no regard to its performance in normal use, whereas everyone else did 90% normal use and 10% astro.
As anyone who’s tried some astrophoto knows, taking pictures of tiny specks of light on a dark background with a tool not specifically designed for the purpose is going to show all the defects of said tool in (in)glorious detail. There are a few reasons why a good 4” APO refractor costs several k $/€/£/¥. And they never are f/1.8, rather f/6 or more!
Expecting a 500 (insert your currency here) lens to do the same is naive. Blaming the performance of a specific lens on bad QC is wishful thinking.
Photography is difficult and expensive, astronomy is difficult and expensive, astrophotography is difficult squared and expensive squared
Unlike other activities, there is no upper limit to cost. The sky is literally the limit (think Hubble or Webb as amateur telescopes for deep sky and Juno as your personal planetary camera on Jupiter…)
Back to the topic at hand, I was on the fence and just about to pull the trigger on this lens, now I’m reconsidering, although I see that at first f/2.8 and above it seems to be decent. No f/2.8 lens at this price point, or even double, is going to be as good at f/2.8. You have to stop down general photo lenses when you use them for astro.
Unless you know of any gem you can point me towards. I shoot Nikon F and Z…
Thanks
With F-mount you’re kind of limited to mostly older options, and I’m sure you’re already aware of those. For Z-mount I’d recommend getting a Megadap ETZ21Pro and trying your luck with some of the newer Sigma or Sony lenses. I use one with my Zf and everything I’ve tried works a treat. Your options really open up at that point.
All that being said, as you noted no perfect lens exists, but you can get some respectable performance from many newer options.