Brightin Star 35mm f/0.95 (APS-C) lens review

[@itsover9008]

Thanks for being much more critical of this lens than other content creators who ignore everything just because it is relatively inexpensive. Your honesty helps even those of us who have a small budget.

[@cognitionengine]

Top notch work here as usual. I just watched Simon's Utah review. It seems they mostly come to the same conclusions about "faults" this lens (CA, flaring etc.). However, Simon uses "sharpness" in real world terms relative to where this lens sits to the broad range of wide aperture lenses (citing the legendary Tomioka 55mm f1.2 which will cost you at least 3x as much with worse performance). Christopher refers to "sharpness" in mainly technical terms relative to charts that measure how good lenses "should" perform (think Canon L, Sony G master etc). But if I go on the old adage, 'you get what you pay for', it seems this lens is a great deal and has lots of potential in terms of artistic capabilities given that it's basically a 'retro' lens with modern glass. As others have said, if you're shooting for technical perfection, don't bother with budget Chinese lenses.

[@cy9nvs]

I actually think it really is pretty sharp in the centre for a cheap f/0.95 lens, there are just a ton of chromatic aberrations and low contrast making it look softer than it is, at first glance.

[@trakkino]

Its ghosting, not low contrast. Ghosting is really bad.

[@undifinder6643]

Seeing the performance at 1.4 I can safely say the ttartisan 35mm f1.4 blows this out of the water and its $120 less, the fading ghosting on this lens is very bad and fringing so much.

[@thecaveofthedead]

I'm glad Chris got around to this. I'd been requesting it. But it reinforces how his reviews are the gold-standard for KZbin lens reviews. The review that made me excited for this review rather exaggerated its optical qualities. Wait until you see it here folks.

[@carlosandreviana9448]

just received and tested. Contrary to this review, it is sharp in the middle. The area it covers in a fx body is unbelievable.

[@thecaveofthedead]

If that's true on your lens, all it proves is that the build quality is inconsistent.@@carlosandreviana9448

[@The_Cat666]

The only person who gives actual honest reviews on KZbin.

[@dan.allen.digital]

I like this lens but my copy loses 2 stops of light between 2.8 and 4. This means the aperture ring is not marked correctly. F4 is actually F5.6. Chris is your review copy the same way?

[@tbrown2892]

I enjoyed the artistic flaring effects, something that I appreciate for certain projects. Good work!

[@october001]

I have this lens on MFT and used properly, it's possibly the sharpest lens, in the center, in my kit.

[@_Thumbnail_]

Thank you Christopher that you have been and hopefully always will remain a trustworthy reviewer. Lots of youtubers have praised this lens to heaven ("The first sharp .95 lens!" etc). 👍

[@larvenfritson]

I've stopped bothering with those kind of lenses displaying that much CA. Just not worth the hassle nowadays no matter the price.

[@gbcb8853]

Skip to the conclusions. Can't bring myself to skip completely though.

[@CanditoTrainingHQ]

​@SomeDudeSomewhere literally all lenses have meaningful CA. To say any TTartisans cheapo lens has "none" is absurd.

[@anonymousl5150]

Chromatic aberration is not hard to mostly correct. It's also not very visible outside of pixel peeping. It's a very silly thing to complain about, most photos ever taken have CA.

[@TechnoBabble]

@@anonymousl5150 When it has tons like these lenses do it is noticeable and has noticeable artifacts after correcting. Plus the other aberrations just pile on.

[@TechnoBabble]

@@CanditoTrainingHQ All lenses is a stretch. There are plenty that have functionally no purple fringing/lateral chromatic aberration, take the Sigma Art 40mm f/1.4 for example.

[@jmoffitt36]

It’s a “art” lens so I can live with and even desire its flaws. Overall it’s a sharp lens and could make some really nice portraits. Just ordered one for my em5 mkI and em1 mkIII for family portraits this summer. Granted I will mostly use my 12-40mm f2.8 pro. I like mixing it up with vintage lens and this looks like best of both worlds. As for the review it’s honest but kinda pixel peeping over critical. Flaws often make the best pics. Thats why I use a couple hazy fungus infected vintage lens that make you cringe but have a certain character and charm. I still recommend buying clean vintage lens.

[@quanghungpham269]

Thanks for still using the A5100 for comparison.

[@maircraft4079]

I love my copy. I use it FF and then crop. I use my HN-3 Nikon hood from my Nikon 35 f2. The 0.95 is sharper in the middle wide open than most old legacy 35 1.4 lenses wide open. That "dreamy look" means, not sharp at all. This lens in not so dreamy and has better center sharpness @.95. I got my copy just before xmas and really am enjoying it. Thanks for you work, I use you often as a resource for lens comparison.

[@trym2121]

Maybe because of FF, it exhibits less CA or LoCA? Can you ascertain this?

[@maircraft4079]

@@trym2121 There is plenty of CA in the BS lens but is it is decently sharp by comparison to the old fast glass.

[@helios007]

Hey mate! im also thinking about getting it for my z7. most of the time i dont really about sharpness at the edges. As far as i know all the z cameras have an auto crop when using an apsc lens. Is this disabled because it doesnt transfer data - so you get pictures with dark circles? Because i would love to use it like this!

[@maircraft4079]

@@helios007 This is a totally manual lens. It does not talk to the camera. The image fills a FF sensor but with heavy vignette. So just leave some space along the edges. Enjoy!

[@Cardi_Lemmens]

Thanks for the review, since I asked for it too! Best wishes for 2024!

[@JennyDarukat]

All else aside, lenses like this one that cover almost-but-not-quite full frame have me wishing we had more options to set things like custom in-camera crop factors.

[@gregjarman2583]

I think Sony cameras at one point in time had something called Clear Image Zoom which allowed you to adjust the FOV of the camera. I don't remember if that was for Stills or just for Video, though.

[@sunlbx]

and that's why I got canon 5dsr not only can it do 1:1 crop in camera as well as 1.3x and 1.6x crop, but also the viewfinder reflects the chosen crop field of view

[@ronmasters751]

Brightin Star offers a $5 or $6 lens hood with a 52mm filter thread. Short, but can be a reminder not to bump into things.

[@doctorsnarf8764]

Looks like Laowa 33mm F0.95 is still the king of the 0.95's!

[@roycaesarcoloscos9869]

How does this compare to the mitakon 35mm f0.95? Thanks

[@HansWahlgren_Stureby]

Thank you for reviewing this lens. I was about yo buy one for my Fuji X-E3, but now I'm not. What 0,95 lens is the best, in your oppinion?

[@Qimchiy]

Could you review the Brightin Star 35mm f1.2? Could be better and sharper. Might even have the same lowlight capability wide open.

[@ethannarrow5209]

Well i like it haha could be fun for a little point and shoot setup. Just shoot in black and white for that chromatic aberration

[@TrueKyanite]

These new extreme aperture lenses has got me wanting an old apsc Sony camera

[@olafkliemt1145]

a5100. 24MP, excellent auto-focus, and focussing by tapping the touch screen.

[@roamwithdory]

I wish they make these camera for Canon RF cameras too

[@jameshotten]

Hmmm, im a bit disappointed TBH. Every other review of this lens is positive, and while I'm willing to ignore some of them, one of my favourite channels (Simons Utak) gave this a pretty good review. I've already ordered this, so I guess I'll find out in the next couple of weeks who was right. I'm wondering if we are reaching the point where the sharpness test you do should be supplemented with something like a studio shot so that real world performance can be seen.

[@boonnamgoh8914]

It's probably manufacturing inconsistency and poor QA (which some reviews on e-commerce sites seem to have a few such comments from verified buyers). My copy is quite ok and happy with it. Hope yours is too. What can't be forgiven of Brightin Star is that this is not a blind review where the reviewer buys the lens without Brightin Star knowing it will be used for review. For this review, it was Brightin Star sending the lens to a reviewer specifically for review - the least they could have done was to check the copy they send out was a good copy. Pity they didn't do that.

[@jankucera8505]

you are not going to be taking lab photos... you will barely shoot so contrasting pictures.

[@malfunkt]

Did you end up with the Brightin Star 35mm 0.95? If so, how are you enjoying it and do you have any other fast lens to compare it too.

[@FelanLP]

Honestly I have no Idea how this Lens gets praised as "as sharp as 5 times its price" and "Surprisingly good" all over YT. I have the 7artisans from some years ago and recebtly bought this one here, since it was highly praised everywhere, onlike the 7artisans which was always just "good for its price". But seing now videos of both lenses here it tells me what I was thinking from day one when I used the Brightin Star version. The 7 is "just" 50 bucks more expencinve but way WAY better. The Brightin Star stands no chance agains its older alternative. This lense is the best example for "buy cheap, buy twice".

[@Strokkkk]

I own a 7artisans 35mm f1.4 and I think it's overall a better lens, and also much cheaper. Would suggest for you to review it Chris :)

[@ets160]

Do you have the mark ii? I just picked it up and am very happy with it hoping Chris would review it

[@Strokkkk]

Yea, I have the mark ii

[@ets160]

@@Strokkkk nice what do you think about it? I personally feel it’s a bit soft wide open but stopped down it’s really nice. Aperture clicks would be amazing but I don’t think there are any good Chinese lenses that have aperture clicks.

[@judivama]

I really appreciate this very objective and good review.

[@beast_boy97]

Thank you for your reviews! Would love to see you get your hands on the new Canon RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 next!

[@talpalatnyizold]

Where is L mount again?

[@EricRoseBahamas]

Good review of an interesting lens. Too bad it's not sharper. Quite off topic, do you still like the Sigma 8-16mm lens? Waving from The Bahamas 🇧🇸

[@boonnamgoh8914]

It can be sharp but quality control is not consistent, so if unlucky to get their not so good ones, then will be something like this review. My purchase was relatively good. Brightin lost a great opportunity to get good review from one of my most respected lens reviewer - all Brightin had to do to pre-test the lens that it wants to send to reviewers for review, before sending them out. The person in charge really not doing a good job.

[@helios007]

Lets be honst, If you buy a f0,95 lense, you will not shoot at f4 and below. So i dont see too big of a problem that the focus ring is rather tight there.

[@carlosandreviana9448]

I don't get it. May be you got a bad copy. I watched other reviews with amazing sharpness

[@ivansusic562]

Agree. Also confused after this review.

[@alpigiano]

There may be a big difference between samples. But I assume they'd send good ones to reviewers! I am happy with my copy, but I haven't tested it so thoroughly. In real life, it's a fun lens to use, not sure it's a real 0.95 but with some post processing photos look much better than with any other Chinese lens I've tried. Surely lots of loca, but not that soft. Will do some tests...who knows

[@alibarancelik8903]

@@alpigiano According to my (admittedly very rough) measurements, compared to known values of cine glass, these geometrically F0.95 Chinese lenses tend to be around T1.4-1.8. I've seen a few as bad as T2+, so consider that when you look for low light performance. I couldn't find this one for sale anywhere though.

[@alpigiano]

@@alibarancelik8903 I've done some tests comparing with the Fuji 35mm f1.4. My copy is one full stop slower than the Fuji - i.e. wide open has the same SS as the Fuji wide open! So it's a ~T1.4? By f4, SS matches up again. DoF is shallower at least, but for everything else the comparison is a bit embarrassing...for instance, the transition to OoF is so harsh on the Brighting Star compared to the Fuji, which I guess creates ghosting and halo effects which you may hate or use to your advantage. Sharpness is good enough for me in the centre, and wide open I'll never be able to focus the whole frame anyway. All in all, I am glad Chris tested it properly - some KZbin reviewers were way too enthusiastic about it. I'd say the only reason to get this lens over a second hand 35mm f1.4 is to use that extreme/harsh DoF, but the weight penalty is a lot. Mmmh...

[@evtimstefanov8377]

Great review as always. Thank you! What do you mean by ''Outlining bokeh''? I heard you mentioning it for a few lenses... What exactly do you mean by that, as I couldn't find any explanation that makes sens in this regard. Thanks again!

[@evtimstefanov8377]

@@SomeDudeSomewhere Thank you! I didn't think he meant exactly that, as it is hard to get the meaning by that very word... Thanks again!

[@alibarancelik8903]

Some lenses also produce "onion ring" patterns in the bokeh balls, which I find annoying. I even have some older Canon projector lenses that give a "wrinkly cloth bokeh" effect. Objectively describing bokeh can be hard :)

[@comment_below]

i dunno -looks pretty dope to me -breath of fresh air from all the boring clinical lenses these days .... like can I get get some lens flare nikon, please

[@jarosawzon4272]

A really nice video. Thanks.

[@akkarparkiamopas3401]

They should have made this kind of lens for full frame camera as well

[@jankucera8505]

they have f0.95 50mm FF, which is the equivalent

[@professorpolymath]

Thanks for this useful review. There are no gods.

[@Marcikutyaful]

These results are quite desperate. I saw another test and it was absolutely perfect. There may be a problem with the variance of production quality.

[@benbunch4159]

Missing a notch at f/5.6 why.

[@2MinuteReview]

This is definitely a lens that is best reviewed in a real world scenario

[@TechnoBabble]

Technical reviews allow for comparison.

[@2MinuteReview]

@@TechnoBabble didn't ask

[@TechnoBabble]

@@2MinuteReview Public forum, cry about it.

[@2MinuteReview]

@@TechnoBabble you certain seem to be yes

[@SlaveNCMC]

Don't you think the tested lens was decentered? This asymmetric CA in the image center make me think so.

[@CRaul87]

was waiting for this one, glad i didnt impulse buy it, was real close though

[@AhloiFTW]

This look like a good pair with nikon zf-c

[@nicholascorby3109]

It is very heavy for street photography. I also found dificult to focus below f2. A better option if you are a Fuji user is the f2 35mm.

[@mytube001]

Really impressive center resolution wide open, considering how poor it is in almost every other way.

[@jankucera8505]

center sharpness is the most important attribute

[@96vipul]

Damnnn that's good

[@philmtx3fr]

When I see the little price of these all metal lenses it s just a shame Nikon sells its light all plastic (including the bayonet !!!) 28mm and 40mm SE at the price they sell it. It s indecent.

[@sklba632]

No one should buy f0.95 glass for technical performances.

[@kuroexmachina]

isnt this the same thing as the 7artisans

[@easyki]

the 7artisans has no clicks on the aperture ring. I use it for video on my Nikon Zf. Lots of fun !

[@danielmagicmusic2708]

After Comparing all the 35mm f0.95 (7 Artisan, TT artisan & bright In), Bright in start is the worse image quality despite so many youtubers praising it as "the sharpest". Surprisingly TT is the sharpest at 0.95, but sadly the corners are the worse

[@jankucera8505]

lab scenario

[@helios007]

really depends on the focus distance. the Artisan is extremly soft upclose until f4.

[@carbonium1264]

Chris please review ttartisan 50 mm f/2 manual focus pancake lens

[@D1PHAM]

Glad I watched this before buying and listening to other reviews.....

[@moprophotos]

You reviewd this lens and said it was the same lens as 7 Artisians, now your review is different about this lens.

[@ivanbernal16]

I believe that the 7Artisians basically the same to the Brighting Star is the 9mm F5.6.

[@evaross9249]

A ton of these Chinese brands are just a single company.

[@trym2121]

This brand is offshoot from 7art or ttart (forgot which one). This one claims has a better lens coating. TBH, this one is decent without color cast. Others have color cast which is quite annoying but this one has severe CA and LoCA

[@WalkerKirchman]

I did some research on the differences between the two lenses to buy one and the Brighton Star has a clicked aperture while the 7Artisans doesn’t advertise that.

[@PaulJewell-x9u]

he's not trustworthy

[@justinaszuolys8240]

7artisans f0.95 might be better, good review.

[@mastan7207]

exactly same lens as 7artisans 35mm 0.95

[@PaulJewell-x9u]

i don't trust your reviews your are the only one that has given this lens such bad i imagine Sony canon Nikon love you !!!!!!!!!!

[@k1k13004]

randomly it has exactly the same specs of 7artisans.

[@easyki]

the 7artisans has no clicks on the aperturen ring. I use it for video on my Nikon Zf. Lots of fun !

[@mattlau]

Some good images, but ultimately, you get what you pay for. At wide open, it's unusable. At this rate, a better purchase would be saving up for the Fuji XC35mm f.2

[@beardedbastard7753]

For the cost of this you can almost find a good used XF35mm f2.0. I got one one ebay 3 weeks ago for £220

[@mattlau]

@@beardedbastard7753 exactly, I’ve used a few cheap manual lens before, but it’s really a hit or miss. I was attracted to the f0.95 but if I can’t get good images at that aperture, it’s pointless

[@Andrey.Balandin]

Hello, Christopher! This Brightin Star looks very similar in design to the 7artisans 35 0.95 you reviewed a few years ago. kzbin.info/www/bejne/il7dpGmnl7SKbKs I definitely recognize very similar rendering, CAs, flares, ghosting and perhaps sharpness as well. Could it in fact be the same design under a different brand name? What do you think? Do you have a chance to compare them? I own the 7artisans, and I bought it based of your review from back then. I wonder if there is any point in switching to this Brightin Star.

[@Andrey.Balandin]

I did a bit of research, and even though physically the two lenses look very similar, 7A has 12 aperture blades vs BS's 9, the latter having stopped aperture mechanism, whereas 7A's aperture is clickless. So, it's not exact same design, and there may be differences in coatings and glass as well. But it is also possible that only the aperture is different, considering that the rendering is so recognizably similar.

[@Andrey.Balandin]

I have rewatched Christopher's review of 7artisans' lens, and I found that is actually has better sharpness and contrast wide open than Brightin Star. A7 has red color cast in the middle, but I actually quite like it for portraits as it compliments the skin, and I tend to red-shift my color balance anyway, so definitely not something that needs correction in my book. I was tempted by Brightin Star and Laowa. But I am keeping my 7A based on Chrisopher's reviews.

[@drbeardo6960]

1🎉

[@blazerbarrel2]

Just a soft lens .

[@WetDoggo]

it's optical performance is really bad... vintage lenses are better and cheaper... well okay you'll probably not find f0.95 ones, but the results are pretty bad until above f2 anyways... If you really need it for low light performance, just increase the ISO and use noise reduction... probably still sharper 😅

[@carlosandreviana9448]

you never used a Helios, did you? ;)

[@WetDoggo]

@@carlosandreviana9448 actually no 😁

[@WetDoggo]

@@carlosandreviana9448 i did not use a helios... how is it?

[@fuantaji]

Yet another 35mm lens that is worse than Samyang 35/1.2

[@TechnoBabble]

​@@SomeDudeSomewhere I have doubts that it's "faster". Most of these cheap f/0.95 lenses have terrible light transmition for their apertures. Cheaper, sure. But is the price difference big enough to be worth the sacrifice in image quality?

[@carlosandreviana9448]

@@TechnoBabble not everything is about sharpness. That's why I use a lot of vintage glass

[@TechnoBabble]

@@carlosandreviana9448 Can you please quote where anyone in this thread said that sharpness was the most important thing in a lens?

[@carlosandreviana9448]

just received and tested. Contrary to this review, it is sharp in the middle. The area it covers in a fx body is unbelievable.

[@TechnoBabble]

@@carlosandreviana9448 Sharp by your standards on whatever resolution camera you're using. Not in an absolute sense.