I always end up selling the Viltrox lenses for the same reason, no pop. Voigtlander never loses these types of battles, but the autofocus is handy on the Nikon lens. It was sharp too. I'd be using the Nikon G lens :)
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.
There are undeniable differences between the various lenses in their ability to convey an image that comes close to the usual human perception. These differences are clearly perceptible. I prefer the Nikkor and Voigtlander. They both give the impression of being a little closer to you, of being almost in the room. The difference with the Viltrox isn't considerable, but it's real. This is certainly the case on my Macbook's 15” screen. The Viltrox's ease-of-use qualities make no difference to the viewer. As for the Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon, it's difficult to judge, as there was a serious focusing problem on the video, which you noticed. Finally, if I had to choose between the Nikkor and the Voigtlander, I'd go for the former, but that's very subjective.
Thank you for another interesting video. I don’t feel almost any contributions from the lessens in regard to achieving a more personal conversation atmosphere between you and (let’s say me). I did notice that in your previous video you are in frame from waste up and your hands and hand gestures are a bigger part of the conversation and only that in itself contributes to above so much more than the lens gear. Look forward to your next video!!
I much prefer the 35/1.4 G, which I now have (based on your recommendation). Not so much for the rendering, but for its color. Second best here, on my screen, is the Viltrox. Related/unrelated question: you always sit to the side, and assuming you don't crop or sharpen in post, given their different MTF and how close you are to the sensor, the falloff for sharpness would be a factor on your right side. Have you noticed that? Is that a consideration (right ear softer than the left ear) when evaluating lenses used like this?
To my eyes, lens pop tends to be subtle, and I'm sorry to say I don't see much difference between the lenses you used. That being said, I feel the fault might be my own. While I have seen the effect, more often than not it seems to elude me. I was telling a friend the other day it's like I spotted sasquatch and now I'm chasing it down, trying to recreate the experience. While I own many lenses, the truth is I haven't shot with most of them, so maybe it comes down to the lack of experience.
"Real" 3D pop is a rarity and depends on the scene's background. I made a video a while back trying to explain its appearance ( look for "The psycho- physiological aspects of 3D pop..."). However, I find some lenses are consistently more true-to-life than others. I agree that the blank backdrop does not help spot the difference in this video.
@@sneye1 One thing I forgot to mention, to answer your question in the video, in your shoes I would save the artistic lenses for the art. It's fine if your aim is to make the videos artistic, but making videos is tough enough as it is and if the objective is more centered around the content, I suggest doing everything you can to make it easy on yourself.
Do you prefer the Nikon 35mm F1.4 DSLR lens to the Z mount 35mm F1.8S? BTW there’s a new 35mm F1.4 for the Z mount and it’s cheap but nobody did a good comparison with the 1.8S at F1.8 or F2. The Voigtlander is the first for me out of what you have, the Nikon emphasizes face detail too much.
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 Viltrox lens is okay but nothing really special indeed: flat colors, not extremely sharp. The Voigtländer is nice indeed: natural colors and depth, sharpness is okay but could be better. The Zeiss is hard to judge, given the shot was out of focus, but the colors are duller/flatter than on the Voightländer. The Nikon is nice but quite analytical due to its sharpness, which is ironic, given you talking about your work being that way and wanting to get away from that for sanity's sake. Colors are nice though: about the same as the Voigtländer.. This is the lens I also preferred the most, like you. :)
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.
I always end up selling the Viltrox lenses for the same reason, no pop. Voigtlander never loses these types of battles, but the autofocus is handy on the Nikon lens. It was sharp too. I'd be using the Nikon G lens :)
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.
There are undeniable differences between the various lenses in their ability to convey an image that comes close to the usual human perception. These differences are clearly perceptible. I prefer the Nikkor and Voigtlander. They both give the impression of being a little closer to you, of being almost in the room. The difference with the Viltrox isn't considerable, but it's real. This is certainly the case on my Macbook's 15” screen. The Viltrox's ease-of-use qualities make no difference to the viewer. As for the Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon, it's difficult to judge, as there was a serious focusing problem on the video, which you noticed. Finally, if I had to choose between the Nikkor and the Voigtlander, I'd go for the former, but that's very subjective.
Thanks. I share your opinion. Lenses do make a difference even in video.
Thank you for another interesting video.
I don’t feel almost any contributions from the lessens in regard to achieving a more personal conversation atmosphere between you and (let’s say me).
I did notice that in your previous video you are in frame from waste up and your hands and hand gestures are a bigger part of the conversation and only that in itself contributes to above so much more than the lens gear.
Look forward to your next video!!
Thanks. That was very helpful
focal length does offcourse,
as photography does
focal length matters, very much.
my only concern on your video still lighting.
I much prefer the 35/1.4 G, which I now have (based on your recommendation). Not so much for the rendering, but for its color. Second best here, on my screen, is the Viltrox. Related/unrelated question: you always sit to the side, and assuming you don't crop or sharpen in post, given their different MTF and how close you are to the sensor, the falloff for sharpness would be a factor on your right side. Have you noticed that? Is that a consideration (right ear softer than the left ear) when evaluating lenses used like this?
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.
To my eyes, lens pop tends to be subtle, and I'm sorry to say I don't see much difference between the lenses you used. That being said, I feel the fault might be my own. While I have seen the effect, more often than not it seems to elude me. I was telling a friend the other day it's like I spotted sasquatch and now I'm chasing it down, trying to recreate the experience. While I own many lenses, the truth is I haven't shot with most of them, so maybe it comes down to the lack of experience.
"Real" 3D pop is a rarity and depends on the scene's background. I made a video a while back trying to explain its appearance ( look for "The psycho- physiological aspects of 3D pop..."). However, I find some lenses are consistently more true-to-life than others. I agree that the blank backdrop does not help spot the difference in this video.
@@sneye1 One thing I forgot to mention, to answer your question in the video, in your shoes I would save the artistic lenses for the art. It's fine if your aim is to make the videos artistic, but making videos is tough enough as it is and if the objective is more centered around the content, I suggest doing everything you can to make it easy on yourself.
Do you prefer the Nikon 35mm F1.4 DSLR lens to the Z mount 35mm F1.8S?
BTW there’s a new 35mm F1.4 for the Z mount and it’s cheap but nobody did a good comparison with the 1.8S at F1.8 or F2.
The Voigtlander is the first for me out of what you have, the Nikon emphasizes face detail too much.
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.
The Viltrox lens is okay but nothing really special indeed: flat colors, not extremely sharp.
The Voigtländer is nice indeed: natural colors and depth, sharpness is okay but could be better.
The Zeiss is hard to judge, given the shot was out of focus, but the colors are duller/flatter than on the Voightländer.
The Nikon is nice but quite analytical due to its sharpness, which is ironic, given you talking about your work being that way and wanting to get away from that for sanity's sake. Colors are nice though: about the same as the Voigtländer.. This is the lens I also preferred the most, like you. :)
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. :)
Voigtlander was nice, Nikon was too sharp and clinical, viltrox was OK
Thank you.