Hi, I have that lens and like it a lot. It is not too sharp at wide apertures ( so it never excels in technical reviews) but the rendering is pleasing and it shows depth almost to the level of the Voigtlander Nokton 58 SL. Out of focus objects look rather creamy, which is the its main strength. The 58mm focal length is somewhat less usable than both wider and longer ones. I use it for portraits.

@@sneye1 Thank you . I read the similar statements about it being a poor performer for sharpness, but i agree that the rendering is gorgeous. Do you think lens design is a tradeoff between color richness/rendering and sharpness ? Im beginning to suspect thats the case. I have even heard that lens coatings can come at the expense of color taking a hit, at least on large format film. Have a great day! Thank you for taking the time to respond and for putting in such tremendous efforts in making these videos. They are a breath of fresh air.

Depends how you look at sharpness. The vast majority of modern lenses, including the 58 G wide open, are sharp at normal viewing distance. The issues start when pixel peeping. I suspect that the compromise between sharpness and rendering is due to the use of extra low dispersion glass. Not coatings. In modern lenses the coatings rarely affect color.

Thank you.

What is your experience with the 35 G? Just curious.

As to your question, I don't put too much thought into composition in those videos. Trying to get over and done with them as quickly as possible.

@@sneye1 First session was good, but I need more time behind the wheel.

Thanks. That was very helpful

Thank you. I actually bought that Viltrox specifically for video. Alas, I am used to making mistakes. The Nokton 35/1.5 is my least favorite Voigtlander. Can't explain why. It is clearly poppy with nice colors. The Nikon 1.4. G may indeed be the winner here.

yeh, just stop down a bit, maybe 0.05xfocal length?

​@@sneye1@f2 is really nice to me, fir sure too contrast, for me, can produce beautiful color. May I say your lighting hurts my eyes? not to be rude!

@@sneye1 What is your most favorite voightlander, with the most 3d pop?

​@@brugj03Don't know. I only have this one. Maybe the 35/1.4 classic has more pop. Look at sample images on flickr. You can search there by lens.

Don't know. It should be...

Didn't have a chance to use the Z 1.8. I do like the 1.4 G though. The new one seems really nice for people. I was surprised by how sharp the G looked on video compared to the Voigtlander. Not sure which one I like better.

the f1.8 is far superior optically another league.

Thanks. I share your opinion. Lenses do make a difference even in video.

I prefer the Nikon for documentary stills, not necessarily for video. It is not quite sharp if you pixel peep, but it's highly poppy and colors are nice and warm. The Nokton 35/1.5 is below average for Voigtlander, though still nice.

@@sneye1 I'm on a calibrated 43 inch screen here: no complaints about sharpness. :)

I always thought Olympus truly understood the needs of photographers. I liked its philosophy of trying to make the experience of using a camera fuss free while providing some of the best Jpeg processing, saving you time and hassle.

I'm with you. Nobody ever complained about my photos not being sharp.

Z lenses too?

Great! I bet those old EF lenses are nice.

@@sneye1 sure beats my Sony kit lens even if it says “Zeiss” on the side.

Thanks. Will do my best.

Yes. You do lose it. Until this issue is solved too.

@@sneye1 Lets hope so

@@ElRubio864 I use adapters, but I am a fair weather photographer so no real issue . But may get a second body that fit the lenses and give me the weather seal

Ordered one. It's on you now ;)

Thanks for the tips.!

Love it.

@@sneye1 That rendering is amazing, despite this (I'm selling the 20 G because of focal length) I'm too attracted by the 24 GM as primary wide angle, but the Nokton is really something in term of rendering and those colors are hypnotic

Not specifically. However, most double Gauss designs from that era are very similar, with quite good depth rendition in my opinion. Look for a channel caled Zenography for information on vintage 50s with many examples.

@@automotivephoto The Planar! Low contrast. Overpriced.

@@knnry haha. Whong. Wanna see commercial projects on it?

@@automotivephoto I know is good for video, but If I could get a deal for a very good copy I'll choose a Topcor 58. Btw that's really mushy Imho

@@automotivephoto low contrast WO for sure, every other planar gains contrast faster stopping down, I just don't like it. I really think is overpriced.

That doesn't surprise me. Lots of older lenses do.

You are probably right. Depends on the "quality" you need.

@@sneye1 I have nothing against China lenses, I own the Mr Ding, I love what LLLis doing, never owned a 7 Artisns or a TT artisan... Those Typoch didn't convinced me, especially the 28, you can directly compare with the Nokton, and in terms of 3Dpop there is much left to be desired, despite field curvature is controlled and bokeh is good. Those haptics and ergonomy...

It affects only short distance performance, so if you sta at infinite focus there is no quality problem fro fle.

I don't like Simeras but that Eureka 50mm F2 is really interesting!

Thank you Gary. Perhaps you are overestimating me just a bit.

I don't use zooms very often. Older ones sometimes show some pop. Look for zooms that don't contain ED glass.

@@sneye1 Thanks for the reply! Will try to look for some without ED elements (Although that's sometimes difficult to find / see if it does indeed contain those elements) Cheers :)

Btw the new 55 1.2 is for sure sharper, I like also the Ais 55

I am honoured to be mentioned in the same breath with Camera mystique.

Look through the older videos on this channel. Especially 4 to 7.

@@sneye1 Thank you! Hope to find some in the 22-28mm range Ahh, I see you reccommend the Nikon 20-35mm. I still don't quite understand what the amount of elements really does in terms of poppiness - I initially thought less elements mean more 3d pop, but the 20-35mm has rather many elements (14) and still pops.

Sorry for the slow presentation. Just increase the speed.

CameraMystique and I have different, slightly overlapping approaches. His focus is centred around micro contrast. I try to avoid mentioning it due to lack of a consensus definition of the term. His thoughts are interesting and mostly sound in my opinion.

@@sneye1 I did, no worries! Just wanted to tell you, in case you use premiere, there's an AI cutting tool now, that identifies fill words and cuts them out automatically. Really practical ^^

@@sneye1 always interesting to see different approaches. Mainly because I don't always see this 3D pop, so I'm still wondering if it's more a lighting, perspective and composition thing mostly, or if there really is such a difference in lenses. Got a color ultron 50mm, and it's a nice lens, but in most conditions I don't see any more pop than on fuji lenses or even the sigma 56mm. Same with cheap, low element Chinese lenses (7artisans mostly)

Thanks. Most macro lenses are near perfect, which makes the image they produce very clean. Some CA is needed for good rendering of depth, I think.

@@HoggetBlanker Course I do! Bring them on :)

​@@sneye1 Ok, so I posted some pictures for analysis. There are eight 35mm lenses (well, one is a 40mm and some are zooms set at 35mm) and while I shot them all from wide open to the smallest aperture, I only shared photos set at the maximum apertures and set at f/5.6, both in color and black and white (some people equate pop to tonal fidelity and eliminating colors tends to allow better focus on this aspect). The camera was set to aperture priority at the lowest ISO value (100) and all lenses were focused manually on the toy's left eye (our right, the one in the dark patch of fur). Lens correction was turned off in both the camera and the raw processing software, and no editing was done except for using a default preset for black and white conversion. So for all intents and purposes, for better or for worse, the photos are all straight out of camera with no corrections applied. I won't be looking too closely at the pictures for another few days but wanted to share now. The photos are posted individually to allow for closer scrutiny but there are also jpegs displaying all photos by category (max aperture black and white, color photos at f/5.6, etc.). The latter are probably the best place to share any thoughts and will also be where I'll be revealing the lenses in about a week, to give enough time for evaluation while avoiding any bias. You can find the pictures here (assuming the link can be shared): flic.kr/s/aHBqjBAAg7 I'm open to suggestions if you feel the test scene can be improved. I want to repeat the test with an APS-C camera that will add a few more 35mm lenses to the mix but will wait for any recommendations. If all goes well, I'd also like to repeat the process for the 28mm, 50mm and 135mm lenses I have. Cheers!

Hi, the lenses I would call "poppy" are 1, 5 and 8. 2, 3 and 6 are distinctly flat. I looked at the color images shot at f/5.6. Please let me know when you reveal the identities. Cheers.

@@sneye1 I've completed my own analysis, and though I agree with the poppy lenses you identified, 6 also ranked high for me. Maybe I'll take another look later this week and change my mind :P I'm looking to share the pictures with groups to see what others say before revealing there but didn't want to leave you hanging, so here are the lenses used: 1- Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 (I was pleasantly surprised at how well this one did) 2- Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 ZE (I was disappointed with this but impressed that you picked it out; I remember you saying it wasn't poppy in another video) 3- Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 II 4- Canon EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6 II 5- Nikon Series E 35mm 2.5 (I really like how this one performed, it's probably my favorite of this bunch) 6- Vivitar Auto Wide-Angle 35mm f/2.8 7- Canon EF 24-105mm F/4 L (I was really hoping this would do better) 8- Olympus Zuiko Auto-W 35mm 2.8

@@kalo3547 Hi, I happen to own the 40/1.2 (VM version) and a ZF. The 1.2 is superior to the 1.4 classic in every way bar 3D pop. Consider using a Techart MTZ 02 adapter and M mount glass. The adapter will give you those contacts with the added benefits of close focusing and AF. Not perfect but worth it.

@@sneye1 indeed!

Thanks. Many complain that it's too soft and patient 😉

@sneye1 ... when senior experienced and knowledgeable person speaks it is with care and caution. 🙏🏻

Thanks. Detective? Maybe not ;)

Got to know about the detective from you, thanks Casey! @cameraconspiracies

Casey always looking for 3d pop😂

I've learned scads from you, Casey, but didn't happen to see your reference to this Dirty photography club. Perhaps I can thank KZbin for suggesting this site to me, based on my frequenting Camera Conspiracies. Guess I should humbly count my lucky algorithms. どうもありがとう ... Dōmo arigatō

Thanks. I know all that. The issue here is the subjective, perceptual nature of the dependent variable. I am not aware of objective instruments that can measure it so I did my best to evaluate it in a blind test. The testing methodology is described in the second video on my channel. By the way, those practices are quite common in social science.

Hi, I am familiar with that channel. A great resource for M42 lenses. I do not have any thorium optics. In fact I have been careful to avoid them, so I can't really comment on their quality. Results I have seen from the Takumar 50/1.4 are pleasing, but other lenses in that category are just as nice.

@@sneye1 Thanks for your reply. Yes the radioactive qualities of those lenses is certainly an interesting feature! The measurements suggest they are harmless unless you ingest or inhale the glass (eg if it were smashed or ground into dust). But otherwise they are considered very safe. So I’m happy to own a few personally and keep them safely tucked away in my garage.