I enjoyed this new comparison format, it seems you'll never stop re-inventing the wheel, David :-) Seriously, I don't know of any other channel than yours with such an in-depth side-by-side when it comes to actual image rendering. Thumbs up! If there's one thing I could add it would be a visual break between the respective lenses' sample image sequences. In order to separating e.g. the 1.2-16(/22) scrolling samples a soft blackout cut in the video editing might support the eyes and give an additional hint that the next images have been taken with a different make. Very much looking forward to the big "green bow tie things" coming up in 2022. Wish you a happy holiday season and all the best to you and your loved ones!
Thank you, Olaf! I'll think about other ways to present that. My idea with this structure was that an immediate cut would provide a crisper impression of the difference with these. This week I'm sending in some paperwork to one of the online magazines and I'm going to writer periodic articles for them this coming year (and hopefully beyond.) I think that the comparison RGR videos will be prime candidates for in-depth articles because I can upload full-res versions (I think) of all the sample photos and people can peruse them in whatever combination they'd like to compare performance. The big green bowtie videos next year will, I hope, get a lot of participation. :D
@@DavidHancock Ah, I see, okay. Nevertheless I found my eyes wandering through image details, and sometimes I missed that the lens make caption had already changed. A floating cut with a vertical white line like in those before/after comparisons may be the way to go then, preferably from right to left, when you keep the captions to the left. That would help guiding at least my eyes. After all, perhaps it's just me and my hyper-focusing brain... :-D As on the other prospects: sounds great, I hope you'll be able to utilize it for further growing your channel.
What's interesting is that in the sharpness comparison shots I think the clones are actually the sharpest around the image frame and in the Minimum focus distance compared to the Pergear, but the neewer is just atrocious. But if you like the look I think it's all cool, I love my cctv 35mm f1.7 and it's only 20 bucks, never sharp in the edges like a petzval but has huge amount of swirl. These things are fun and joyful.
I completely agree. I think that for center-composed portraits they all have a lot of potential, in and that all of them can take good photos. It's just important to level-set expectations.
What camera did you use for the comparison? I read about Nikon Z like the better system to adapt vintage and vintage clones lenses, mostly because some reasons about the micro lenses on the sensor, being Sony and Canon the worst ones. I think it was in Alik Griffin web page
I have used Nikon Z, Sony E, Canon RF, Fuji GFX, Fuji X, and Olympus mirrorless cameras to adapt vintage lenses. Camera make has exactly zero bearing on image quality. Sensor format will affect the perceived lens performance, but it's solely a perception that can be replicated by cropping a larger image to the size of a smaller one. Here's a video I made on that subject: th-cam.com/video/u0qghlL-gTQ/w-d-xo.html Anyone stating that one is better than the other based simply on brand or whatever may not realize that camera makers, pretty much excepting Sony, do not actually make their own sensors. Many of the cameras on the market all use Sony sensors regardless of the camera brand. In fact, Nikon Z cameras use Sony sensors, so it begs credulity that Z system bodies would be superior to Sony E bodies for anything. That said, the different camera makers do provide Sony with their sensor specs and Sony makes the sensors as specifird by each camera maker. Where camera makers differ is in the software that backs up the sensors. Each maker does have different color space technology than the rest and in general most people will tell you that Fuji has the most-advanced color space technology. And having used multiple Fuji GFX and X camera with vintage lenses, I would agree that they are demanding on them and can pull a TON out of what the old lenses can deliver. For this video specifically, I think the sample images were all taken on a Sony A6300. In fact, I use a Sony (A7IV now) for most of the work on this channel in terms of digital imagery and video because it's an amazing camera. 99% of what makes an image is how the photographer uses the camera and how the photographer edits their images. I can obtain roughly equivalent images from a Nikon Z, Sony E, and Canon R cameras. I say that with some confidence because I made a video earlier this year that required I compare lenses from different makers and the sample shots taken with it were on the A7 IV, Nikon Z6, and Canon RP and despite the Nikon and Canon having slightly lower megapixel counts on their sensors, the sample images taken with the same lenses on each camera showed exactly zero difference in lens performance: th-cam.com/video/jz-vTJutMzg/w-d-xo.html Here's the best and only advice worth listening to about buying or using a digital camera: buy for the interface -- how the camera feels and how the buttons and software allow you to control it. If you love using a camera, you will use it. If you hate using it, you will waste all the money that you spent on it. Give exactly zero seconds of thought to brand and choose a camera based on how well you can customize it to your shooting style. If you don't know what that is, rent some camera bodies before you buy. LensRentals, in the U.S., is a great option and renting a half-dozen cameras in your purchase price range and shooting with them, setting them up in the menus, and so forth will tell you everything you need to know about which camera you want. If you rented one a week for six weeks, well, at the end of that time you would know which camera you like because it's the one you would want to rent again. That's how I arrived at the A7 IV.
I really like most of the cheap chinese lenses I've purchased. I don't have any of the 35/1.2 versions, but the Meike 35/1.4 and 28/2.8 are favorites, (though the 28 seems more like a 3.5 than a 2.8). Like you observed the markings on most of them are wildly inaccurate. My assumption is that it's down to tolerances and cost of having someone individually calibrate them during assembly. However, I do find them an interesting alternative to vintage lenses. For about the same money you can pick up something that may have a lower build quality than most vintage lenses, but often have similar image characteristics and you don't have to worry about fungus or any of the numerous problems that can plague vintage lenses when buying off ebay. And the vintage wides that most people are interested in for crop sensors are generally the worst of the vintage lens designs unless you're looking to shoot stopped down a lot. The chinese options are also native mount and much smaller than any vintage lens + adapter is going to be. On the other hand, as someone whose main complaint about pretty much every non-macro lens in existence is the terrible minimum focusing distances, the existence of helicoid adapters for a lot of vintage lens mounts is a good argument in that direction, though if you go that route you still often have the problem of inaccurate distance markings and infinity stops due to either adapter tolerances or the lenses themselves having been serviced by amateurs and not recalibrated properly for infinity. I wish there were more fast 28mm options as I consider that the perfect aps-c normal. I have the Kamlan 28/1.4 but have never been really satisfied with it in part due to terrible flare issues, and I don't think Kamlan was ever really going for the vintage look Meike and some of the others give. Why has no one made a simple 1.4 planar design 28mm now that flange distance is a non-issue?
Those are good points and old lenses can also have various amounts of wear. I've found that macro focusing adapters are very good for giving infinity focus and also improving minimum focus for lenses. For a 28mm Planar, I have to assume it's not happened due solely to image circle size. The 7Artisans is a Sonnar-derived design with some significant similarities to 60s Sonnar portrait lenses, and it's image circle doesn't cover full frame. Not being an optical engineer, huge caveat here with that, I assume that a Plana would have the same issue. On the KamLan 28mm 1.4, I'm around 25% of the way through still image capture with it for its RGR video. I'm mixed on it. I think it can be used really well but that it, like the other KamLan lenses, has some performance issues.
@@DavidHancock Yeah, I don't understand enough about optical design to know what the constraints are with enlarging the image circle. The abundance of 25mm cheap options in APS-C and m4/3 mounts suggests the possibility of some relatively fast and simple 28s being made. I think the 7artisan and Meike are both 7/5 designs and the Pergear 25 is 5/3 if I remember correctly. (I do wish they'd publish diagrams.) I can only assume all these designs go with 25mm since it's a m3/4 normal and therefore probably a larger market. I'll look forward to that Kamlan review. I do like their 50/1.1 II a lot.
I enjoyed this new comparison format, it seems you'll never stop re-inventing the wheel, David :-) Seriously, I don't know of any other channel than yours with such an in-depth side-by-side when it comes to actual image rendering. Thumbs up!
If there's one thing I could add it would be a visual break between the respective lenses' sample image sequences. In order to separating e.g. the 1.2-16(/22) scrolling samples a soft blackout cut in the video editing might support the eyes and give an additional hint that the next images have been taken with a different make.
Very much looking forward to the big "green bow tie things" coming up in 2022. Wish you a happy holiday season and all the best to you and your loved ones!
Thank you, Olaf!
I'll think about other ways to present that. My idea with this structure was that an immediate cut would provide a crisper impression of the difference with these.
This week I'm sending in some paperwork to one of the online magazines and I'm going to writer periodic articles for them this coming year (and hopefully beyond.) I think that the comparison RGR videos will be prime candidates for in-depth articles because I can upload full-res versions (I think) of all the sample photos and people can peruse them in whatever combination they'd like to compare performance.
The big green bowtie videos next year will, I hope, get a lot of participation. :D
@@DavidHancock Ah, I see, okay. Nevertheless I found my eyes wandering through image details, and sometimes I missed that the lens make caption had already changed. A floating cut with a vertical white line like in those before/after comparisons may be the way to go then, preferably from right to left, when you keep the captions to the left. That would help guiding at least my eyes. After all, perhaps it's just me and my hyper-focusing brain... :-D
As on the other prospects: sounds great, I hope you'll be able to utilize it for further growing your channel.
What's interesting is that in the sharpness comparison shots I think the clones are actually the sharpest around the image frame and in the Minimum focus distance compared to the Pergear, but the neewer is just atrocious. But if you like the look I think it's all cool, I love my cctv 35mm f1.7 and it's only 20 bucks, never sharp in the edges like a petzval but has huge amount of swirl. These things are fun and joyful.
I completely agree. I think that for center-composed portraits they all have a lot of potential, in and that all of them can take good photos. It's just important to level-set expectations.
What camera did you use for the comparison?
I read about Nikon Z like the better system to adapt vintage and vintage clones lenses, mostly because some reasons about the micro lenses on the sensor, being Sony and Canon the worst ones. I think it was in Alik Griffin web page
I have used Nikon Z, Sony E, Canon RF, Fuji GFX, Fuji X, and Olympus mirrorless cameras to adapt vintage lenses. Camera make has exactly zero bearing on image quality. Sensor format will affect the perceived lens performance, but it's solely a perception that can be replicated by cropping a larger image to the size of a smaller one. Here's a video I made on that subject: th-cam.com/video/u0qghlL-gTQ/w-d-xo.html
Anyone stating that one is better than the other based simply on brand or whatever may not realize that camera makers, pretty much excepting Sony, do not actually make their own sensors. Many of the cameras on the market all use Sony sensors regardless of the camera brand. In fact, Nikon Z cameras use Sony sensors, so it begs credulity that Z system bodies would be superior to Sony E bodies for anything.
That said, the different camera makers do provide Sony with their sensor specs and Sony makes the sensors as specifird by each camera maker. Where camera makers differ is in the software that backs up the sensors. Each maker does have different color space technology than the rest and in general most people will tell you that Fuji has the most-advanced color space technology. And having used multiple Fuji GFX and X camera with vintage lenses, I would agree that they are demanding on them and can pull a TON out of what the old lenses can deliver.
For this video specifically, I think the sample images were all taken on a Sony A6300. In fact, I use a Sony (A7IV now) for most of the work on this channel in terms of digital imagery and video because it's an amazing camera. 99% of what makes an image is how the photographer uses the camera and how the photographer edits their images. I can obtain roughly equivalent images from a Nikon Z, Sony E, and Canon R cameras. I say that with some confidence because I made a video earlier this year that required I compare lenses from different makers and the sample shots taken with it were on the A7 IV, Nikon Z6, and Canon RP and despite the Nikon and Canon having slightly lower megapixel counts on their sensors, the sample images taken with the same lenses on each camera showed exactly zero difference in lens performance: th-cam.com/video/jz-vTJutMzg/w-d-xo.html
Here's the best and only advice worth listening to about buying or using a digital camera: buy for the interface -- how the camera feels and how the buttons and software allow you to control it. If you love using a camera, you will use it. If you hate using it, you will waste all the money that you spent on it. Give exactly zero seconds of thought to brand and choose a camera based on how well you can customize it to your shooting style. If you don't know what that is, rent some camera bodies before you buy. LensRentals, in the U.S., is a great option and renting a half-dozen cameras in your purchase price range and shooting with them, setting them up in the menus, and so forth will tell you everything you need to know about which camera you want. If you rented one a week for six weeks, well, at the end of that time you would know which camera you like because it's the one you would want to rent again. That's how I arrived at the A7 IV.
@@DavidHancock thanks a lot. It's one of the best answers I have read about the topic. I'll watch the videos you quoted.
I really like most of the cheap chinese lenses I've purchased. I don't have any of the 35/1.2 versions, but the Meike 35/1.4 and 28/2.8 are favorites, (though the 28 seems more like a 3.5 than a 2.8). Like you observed the markings on most of them are wildly inaccurate. My assumption is that it's down to tolerances and cost of having someone individually calibrate them during assembly. However, I do find them an interesting alternative to vintage lenses. For about the same money you can pick up something that may have a lower build quality than most vintage lenses, but often have similar image characteristics and you don't have to worry about fungus or any of the numerous problems that can plague vintage lenses when buying off ebay. And the vintage wides that most people are interested in for crop sensors are generally the worst of the vintage lens designs unless you're looking to shoot stopped down a lot. The chinese options are also native mount and much smaller than any vintage lens + adapter is going to be. On the other hand, as someone whose main complaint about pretty much every non-macro lens in existence is the terrible minimum focusing distances, the existence of helicoid adapters for a lot of vintage lens mounts is a good argument in that direction, though if you go that route you still often have the problem of inaccurate distance markings and infinity stops due to either adapter tolerances or the lenses themselves having been serviced by amateurs and not recalibrated properly for infinity. I wish there were more fast 28mm options as I consider that the perfect aps-c normal. I have the Kamlan 28/1.4 but have never been really satisfied with it in part due to terrible flare issues, and I don't think Kamlan was ever really going for the vintage look Meike and some of the others give. Why has no one made a simple 1.4 planar design 28mm now that flange distance is a non-issue?
Those are good points and old lenses can also have various amounts of wear. I've found that macro focusing adapters are very good for giving infinity focus and also improving minimum focus for lenses.
For a 28mm Planar, I have to assume it's not happened due solely to image circle size. The 7Artisans is a Sonnar-derived design with some significant similarities to 60s Sonnar portrait lenses, and it's image circle doesn't cover full frame. Not being an optical engineer, huge caveat here with that, I assume that a Plana would have the same issue.
On the KamLan 28mm 1.4, I'm around 25% of the way through still image capture with it for its RGR video. I'm mixed on it. I think it can be used really well but that it, like the other KamLan lenses, has some performance issues.
@@DavidHancock Yeah, I don't understand enough about optical design to know what the constraints are with enlarging the image circle. The abundance of 25mm cheap options in APS-C and m4/3 mounts suggests the possibility of some relatively fast and simple 28s being made. I think the 7artisan and Meike are both 7/5 designs and the Pergear 25 is 5/3 if I remember correctly. (I do wish they'd publish diagrams.) I can only assume all these designs go with 25mm since it's a m3/4 normal and therefore probably a larger market.
I'll look forward to that Kamlan review. I do like their 50/1.1 II a lot.
I think the money is better spent on second hand brand name lenses from ebay. Thanks for the review.
I'd agree. I'd go so far as to suggest something like a vintage 55-58mm 1.4 instead.