APS-C Special: This Lens Makes Full Frame Irrelevant
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2024
- GET THE LENS HERE (affiliate) - geni.us/gCsFrsC or geni.us/GFez
GEAR I USED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO
[VIDEO GEAR] (affiliate links)
A Camera - geni.us/fCo6 or howl.me/ckVm0lD1bLa
A Lens - geni.us/sKvSYgw or howl.me/ck41FnUiazg
B Camera (Table Top) - geni.us/FOSOn or howl.me/clacKmmiIpL
B Lens - geni.us/z0GG3y or howl.me/clacIJ2PzXk
On Camera monitor - geni.us/t7Fc or howl.me/clacMGXabwL
My off camera monitor - geni.us/AHOu or howl.me/clacNMVLO3E
The LUTS I used for this video - bit.ly/42Q58uQ
[AUDIO GEAR] (affiliate links)
Microphone (in shot) - geni.us/SAQ4uk7 or geni.us/PgtBlmS
Boom Microphone (out of shot) - geni.us/Tj8RI or howl.me/claeFm6CC9K
Cheaper alternative to boom mic (sounds just as good) - geni.us/0rN8FO or howl.me/claeF96KLvM
XLR Audio Recorder - geni.us/yDUf or geni.us/PgtBlmS
USB Audio Interface - geni.us/ZdN1a or howl.me/claeyKnGHYn
Wireless Microphone (out of studio) - geni.us/FPC4s or geni.us/j4Wdr
Podcast/Voice Over Mic - geni.us/SAQ4uk7 or geni.us/PgtBlmS
In Shot Mic Arm - geni.us/J7Fp or howl.me/claeHeGSgTP
Editing Headphones - geni.us/WmwFC or howl.me/claeI1mcuEm
Editing Speakers (super cheap but awesome) - geni.us/wfLkz
Stand for Boom Mic and Overhead Camera - geni.us/8O8UtdY
[LIGHTING] (affiliate links)
Main Light (Key Light) - geni.us/nQQ10
Main Softbox - geni.us/GysBN or howl.me/claeZmiRVXD
Light Stand (for Key/Main light) - geni.us/y4HuK4R
Hair Light - geni.us/waB7lTp or howl.me/clae0ZXBNf6
Background Light - geni.us/xFjA or howl.me/clae13MRGt4
Light Tubes (behind my monitor) - Small - geni.us/5Lvl Large - geni.us/4QPjp
[COMPUTER AND EDITING] (affiliate links)
Monitor - geni.us/lLrTKSZ or howl.me/clae6ljgAjk
Computer - geni.us/rOHA or howl.me/clae7xrpHw1
Dock (one plug for power, audio, monitor, and 6 hard drives) - geni.us/lwJDmz
Keyboard - geni.us/bA16W or howl.me/clae8BToiuQ
Touchpad - geni.us/PLaLMh or howl.me/clae9zb8HB3
Editing Software I Use - www.apple.com/au/final-cut-pro/
Awesome Free Editing Software (Pros use it!) - www.blackmagicdesign.com/prod...
* Some links are affiliate links, you do not pay any extra, but I may get a small commissions. Using these links allows me to make more videos like this one.
00:00 - Why this lens matters
00:42 - Compared to Full Frame
02:19 - Size Comparison (vs Full Frame)
03:51 - Why I Prefer 27mm
04:31 - Street and Travel
05:12 - Family and Portrait
06:17 - Food Photography
06:40 - For Video
07:45 - For Low Light
08:34 - Build Quality
09:24 - Distortion
09:48 - Vignette
10:11 - Chromatic Aberration
10:34 - LOCA
11:01 - Flare
11:49 - Close Up Image Quality
12:15 - Sharpness and Detail
12:57 - Bokeh and Background Blur
13:57 - Why This Lens Beats Full Frame - Навчання та стиль
GET THE LENS HERE (affiliate) - geni.us/gCsFrsC or geni.us/GFez
Or you know you could get an A7CR and have APSC lenses for most of what you do, and then throw on the FF lenses for when you need the FF look...Just saying.
@@mizinoinovermyhead.7523 The a7CR is a definite option if I get a6000 sicknesses! Cheers for the thought.
I'd appreciate it if you'd add the lens name in the name of the video. Especially if I'm looking for a lens I know you reviewed in the past, it's almost impossible to find the video.
It's to get people to click on and watch the video all the way through. It's playing the game of youtube. I love his channel & I do understand why channels use tactics like this, to be successful on here you have to play the game.
he could add it after 5 days or so - i think it would help archiv search
Or at least the focal length
Great point. Recently I was trying to find a review of a particular lens on this channel and couldn’t because a lot of the reviews are not named.
Go to the affiliate link first and click on it you will find the lens without watching all the way through.
I really enjoy all of your videos/reviews! It's a perfect mix between great info and an awesome, down to earth perspective. Especially great for newbies like myself. Thank you for what you do and keep up the great work!
Literally just bought this lens the day before you posted this video. I'm absolutely loving it on my a6700. Totally new to cameras and still trying to learn how to use manual mode versus auto. The weight is a decent amount but id say negligible once you see the pics your going to take. Thanks for the great vids. Keep them coming.
Nice video. I totally agree. Both the 27mm 1.2 Pro and 75mm 1.2 Pro are amazing lenses that can give you the full frame look. They are my main lenses in my aps-c kit.
Well, i'm sold!
I guess my next setup will be the one you're showing: a6700 + this wonderful Viltrox lens!
I love this lens, i have the fujifilm equivalent; super versatile, super sharp
excellent review
I am glad you brought up the concept of compression, when you take close up shots (with any decently fast lens), you can get that nice background blur. Not enough UA-camrs talk about compression when talking about background blur... they only talk about aperture.
I love your titles ❤
I remember when you showed us portraits you took with a Fuji APSC camera and 27mm Viltrox or Brighton. The pictures looked immaculate!
These lenses are great for apsc but ultimately they were the reason I switched to FF. 560g for a 1.8 equivalent depth of field? For the same weight I can carry the 35 1.8 and 55 Zeiss 1.8. And no body weight penalty with A7CII compared to 6700. If I shot wildlife and didn’t care as much about staying compact with shallow DOF I’d absolutely still be on cropped.
fully agreed. The main strength of apsc is always portability and ease of handling. Sacrificing that for a 'full frame look' defeats the purpose
With you, as well. My XH2 now with anything other than the smallest Fuji primes is just as big as my R5 with far less AF speed and accuracy. Drifting back to FF myself
@@angusnggwell there's a big price difference, too, but I agree. I have this lens on an x-t5, and you sacrifice a lot of what makes apsc great. I need a grip as well for this lens, which makes it a 700g package. It really feels like I've packed a FF rig. And honestly, for not much benefit. If I want more and better bokeh and more compression the 360g 33 1.4 does that. Fuji's own 23 1.4 is sharper and gets closer so you can still get good compression and again much lighter. The viltrox has "character" (seems reviewers are not allowed to call them flaws with Viltrox) with the swirly boleh and regular appearance of flare, but so too does the 180g 35 1.4.
Especially this focal length, which is in the middle of two do everything, daily carry focal lengths, it just doesn't make much sense for APSC.
But I'm not using Sony, so I don't know what alternatives they might have, as Sony has tended to ignore APSC. My last trip I considered taking it with me for the first time after 9 months of owning it, and purely for reasons of bulk I left it behind in favour of a lighter option. Smaller lenses are also easier to change on the go without slowing everyone else up in your party.
I will probably sell it. It just seems to be a lens to impress UA-camrs that need content.
@@mcelliotthe x-h2 never really made much sense as a camera on paper, and in the hand I just didn't understand what Fuji was trying to achieve. The x-t4 was already getting too big. X-h2s OK, but with what lenses to make it a worthwhile purchase over its other bodies?
Really, the X-s20 is a much better APSC body if you are a Fuji user and want that shape and PASM. Just make it a bit more robust.
And unfortunately Fuji's most popular line suffered the consequences of differentiation as the x-t5 was held back to make the x-h2 look better. There was no logical reason why it couldn't be compatible with battery grip, the fan (they managed it later with a GFX with the same screen style), better EVF, build.
If I wanted a faster camera for sports or wildlife to complement another Fuji body and only intended to use it with one or two specialty lenses for those purposes, I'd go straight to canon or Nikon.
Unfortunately Fuji seems determined to fight with FF, rather than push its own advantages as an APSC brand.
Cost. Pro lenses in FF is twice the cost of Fujifilm pro lenses.
Have you managed to have a go on with the Nikon ZF. Would love to know your thoughts/see a review
Using on fuji. It's incredible
I have an EF-M TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 that I got cheap. It is manual focus. Looks good on my M6 mark II. I have a couple of Viltrox products. A speedbooster and a mount adapter for EF to EF-M. I can use my tamron 24-70 f/2.8 lens with the speedbooster to get 17mm f/2. It is plenty wide enough for me.
I got this lens from day one for Fuji. The best lens what I ever had on any system.
This is a great lens on Fuji X-mount as well.
I just brought this for my sony fx30, it's amazing
Im running the tamron 24 f2 full frame on my 6300 and Im pretty happy with that being my daily carry :]
Have you tried attaching the lens to your full frame camera as it looks? Is it completely "only" for APSC or could you use the lens with minimal crop in post?
This is one reason why I love MFT. The lenses are very small and light when compared to full frame in angle of view and aperture only. But if I ever want the thin depth of field look at short working distances, I can get an f/0.95 or f/1.2 lens.
An equisite lens - for the price the quality is outstanding
If you only had one lens for general street/walkaround photography AND for youtube/talking head would you go for this or should you still go for the Sigma 16 1.4?
I have aps-c and FF Sony camera bodies - ideal for buying new lenses, but I tend to buy the more affordable, less bulky E lenses for the aps-c. Also I retain lightweight benefits if travelling/hiking and can still carry two aps-c with lenses fitted in a medium backpack - SORTED
The only thing is that the larger pixels of say a sony A9 or A7S means less noise at high iso. Having said that you can still use that super fast lens on a full-frame body.
ok i need a fullframe i wil buy the 14mm GM any way, for my apsc maybe a 20mm g, for night landscape the two sensor sizes will help
I finished the Viltrox Holy Trinity 13mm F1.4, 27mm F1.2 and 75mm F1.2! All of these lenses offer great opportunities for high-quality images in APS-C format! All three lenses work perfectly on my a6700 and my ZV-E10! Excellent sharpness in low light and wonderful background blur when needed. Thanks for this great video!
That's why I love my Fujifilm XF 56mm F/1.2 which is equivalent to the 85mm on FF
If Nikon made APSC cameras with IBIS I would be all over this lens. I use Viltrox full frame lenses on my Nikon Z5 and absolutely love them.
I just got this lens for my a6700… mind blown. I can’t believe how good it is.
Would you recommend this as the one-stop lens for travel photography? Going to Greece this summer.
Last year my favorite focal length became 28mm. I think I would buy this lens if I ever have a APS-C camera.
Hi Mark! I thoroughly enjoy your videos, although I must admit I am often puzzled why you don't often mention the make or manufacturer of the lenses you review, even in your show notes. I've long wondered about your reasons for this decision.
That aside, I do have one point of inquiry: as I understand it, the multiplication by crop factor for smaller sensors isn't so much about the light performance of the lens as it is about the noise levels of the sensor; since the amount of light an APS-C sensor is able to gather with a surface area 1.5 times smaller than that of a full frame sensor, lenses at the same f-stop are supposed to give a noise/shutter speed edge to full-frame sensors.
I think I can test this theory with the crop sensor mode on my full frame body, and would be glad to apprise you of the results if you're interested.
Keep up the great work!
Anyone compared the Viltrox to the Samyang 45mm f/1.8? I am particularly interested in AF performance.
so if you put this lens on a full frame then put it on crop sensor mode then you have a full frame look on a full frame. Camera Inception. I don't get the point of saying something has a full frame look when the lens works on both cameras and won't look the same. Unless your getting the full focal length you won't have a full frame look because the Full frame will use that same lens and get more out of it.
I use the Tokina 33mm f1.4X (50mm equivalent) on my Fuji cameras. Superb lens, giving a great shallow depth of field, but at a fraction of the cost of the equivalent full frame, or Fuji 33mm 1.4 lens. Absolutely great lens for portraits, as is the 56mm f1.4 Sigma lens, which is 1/3 of the price of the Fuji 56mm 1.2 and a heck of a lot faster focussing then the original Fuji 56mm 1.2. It gives a bit of nostalgia of shooting 50mm f1.8 on a film camera such as an OM1,2, etc, which I also love doing, but of course the viewfinder image on even Fuji cameras is a bit smaller compared to an OM1 viewfinder Many other manufacturers' digital viewfinders are quite honestly, pathetically small compared to the OM1, which is like comparing panavision to a 32 inch TV!
I use thus Lens on my Nikon Z-fc ( and on my Full Drame Nikon Z8) together with 75mm F 1/2
I prefer a f-stop range of f2-f4. Having used both APSC and FF, the main advantage of using FF has been been while using the Standard zoom lenses like 24-105 & 70-200. For longer range the aperture variation has not mattered much. With prime lenses as well, cheap 1.8 + APSC is pretty good.
Every platform has their answer to the "holy trinity" of lenses. Sure, it's technically possible to get a 24-105 f/2.8 lens today (Canon FF), but historically, you'd have your option of a constant f/2.8 trinity that's larger and pricier, or a constant f/4.0 trinity that's lighter and lower cost... both in the professional lineup. The focal lengths will of course be different for APS-C or Micro Four Thirds, and you'll have to go to a third party to get pro-grade glass for Sony/Nikon/Canon APS-C, last I checked, but they do exist.
Can you used the sigma 18-35 art lens on the 6700? I'd love that aps-c lens for aps-c cameras
Yes, ans I do, with an an adapter.
@@markwiemels COOL LOVE THAT LENS SO MUCH
Special price too!
3:10 Since this lense is larger and heavier than its full frame equivalent, it doesn't really make sense to use crop anymore here...and if you really want small and compact, get the A7C, right?
It's still and f/1.2 in terms of light gathering. A 40mm f/1.2 for full frame is absolutely a monster in terms of size, weight, and price. The f/1.2 on aps-c is equivalent to the f/1.8 full frame in terms of depth of field so if that's your main point of comparison, then yes, the full frame equivalent is smaller and lighter (but still more expensive apparently)
@@PhillipRPeck Yes it's an f1.2 lens. But a full frame also has a bigger sensor thus an f1.8 lens on a full frame sensor receives the same amount of light overall as a f1.8 on an aps-c sensor. So it all comes down to noise performance. An f1.2 lens on an APS-C sensor will have the same noise performance as an f1.8 lens on a full frame sensor.
However, overall, especially zoom lens, you can still have a smaller set-up with APS-C. If you only have this one lens for your camera, then your argument is correct. But as the video title suggest, which is not true, this one lens does not make full frame irrelevant. It's a click bait title. It all depends on your type of photography.
@@PhillipRPeck APS-C lens it's actually only one stop faster than 1.8 and I'm not sure that it has an equal to FF image quality due to more complicated optical design.
I mean, it’s an interchangeable lens. This is a lens which can get a “full frame look” when you want it on a standard focal length, but swap to the 20mm pancake, or a smaller zoom lens than a FF, and so forth. The APS-C kit will be noticeably smaller most of the time, and use a chonker lens sometimes, and for some folks that might make more sense than a FF kit and lenses. And for someone else, an a7C and the 40/2.5 G is going to be perfect.
There is a reason why medium format cameras are used in studio. You have to stop down the aperture to get more focus on subject in the picture. Thats why you need flash. If you open the aperture, you wont get enough in focus. Thats where APS-C is "better" than fullframe. You can gather much light and even than get enough of the subject in focus. The more bokeh the better - game is for beginners IMO. Even 0.95 is usable with APSC.
I had a single Viltrox Lens (50mm F1.8), but I absolutely disliked the lenshood. It always took me some time to put it on, while I had no such problems on Sony or Tamron lenses. I personally prefer the Sony 15mm F1.4 over a 27mm. I do a lot of filming though and prefer to capture more of the surroundings.
I can get a secondhand Nikon 50mm f1.4G in good condition for one third of the cost of this lens. One reason why I'm reluctant to sell my D610.
If you don't care about the advantages of mirrorless today, DSLR is and will remain great discount options. The sensor technology is widening the image quality gap between both platforms, but the glass to do those new sensors justice doesn't come cheap. And really, any interchangeable lens camera of the last 10-15 years is likely to outperform film. Folks shot 35mm for 100 years, mostly without problems with quality.
Very nice review! I just bought the lens a few weeks ago and it is fantastic. But it has one (for me) major flaw and that's the lens hood. I use lens hoods everytime when i go out. It's very important to me to protect the front lens with it. That's why i was so disappointet to see how loose the lens hood fits in front of the lens. It's so loose that i would not consider to go out with it because it would fall off surely. I'm keeping the lens but it's still a shame because otherwise it would have been a perfect lens...
Buy another one lmao
@@isaiaharmstrong1799 What do you mean with that?
im not an expert
is there a similar lense for Canon R7 ?
No. Canon only recently open their lens mount to third party and only to Sigma and Tamron. The best you will get soon is going to be F1.4 prime lenses.
Great review, Mark! I'm glad you reiterated that 1.2 is the same light on both aps-c and full frame. Many people pull out the full frame card and will falsely claim full frame is better in that aspect. Here is to hoping Viltrox gets this lens for the RF-s or RF mount in the near future.
Thanks, yah, Canon has really killing there APS-C lineup with that restriction.
Yes, it is a common misconception I admittedly used to believe as well, as the total light and thus exposure is not determined by the sensor size. Hence why light sensors don't require that information.
To be technically correct the exposure settings on an aps-c camera with a f/1.2 lens and a f/1.2 lens on a full-frame camera should be the same, because the density of the light is the same. However, the total amount of light would be more than double on the full-frame as it has a larger surface area. Think about solar panels, a 1sq foot panel and a 2sq foot panel are side by side, the 2sq foot panel will produce twice the power even under the same sunlight, in the case of sensors this would equate to a better signal to noise ratio.
I have three full frame and one micro 4/3 camera. It is such a struggle to choose with direction to go.. in retrospect I kind of wish I had just gone APC. The lenses are half the price.
Yes and no but it is not really the same. I have shot mft, aps-c and full frame. The truth is this, between all the different sensor sizes and lenses both vintage and modern. There will always be a trade-off. Nothing will be perfect.
speaking about how much light hits the sensor, it's the same amount of light that hits the APS-C sensor from 1.2 lens as full frame sensor from 1.8 lens. Light density is higher from 1.2 lens, but the sensor is smaller, the total amount of light is light density times sensor area and the things do even out this way. Noise performance depends not on the light density, but on the total amount of light, so it would indeed be identical on APS-C with 1.2 and FF with 1.8. By the way, it is a bit unfair to compare the cost of a third-party lens to the Sony offering for full frame: Samyang 35mm 1.8 for full frame costs less than this Viltrox and performs just as well as Sony 35mm 1.8.
I was about to comment on the exact same thing. You are correct. It's erroneous to conflate the amount of light with the density. Yes at f/1.8 the exposure should be the same regardless of sensor size but that does not mean that different sensor sizes collect the same amount of light. More light = better signal to noise ratio.
Hmm. Intriguing, I have a xpro2 with the voigtlander 35mm 1.2. Was thinking of picking up a zf with the voigt 40 1.2. My assumption was they gathered the same amount of light, but does the sensor size really matter that much?
@@isaiaharmstrong1799 Of course, sensor size matters, the difference between full frame and APS-C is approximately a full stop of light. Other settings being the same, you would have the same ISO on FF and APS-C, but the ISO 3200 on APS-C would look like ISO 6400 on FF. However, to realize this advantage of FF you need to either use a longer focus lens or get closer to your subject. If you use the same lens, e.g. 50mm, on the FF and APS-C and are at the same distance from the subject, then to achieve the same framing you would need to crop the FF image to effective 75mm. By cropping, you loose light all the same, and the two images would look identical. Even worse, if the two cameras have the same pixel count, you would end up with less pixels for your subject on FF, so the image quality could potentially be inferior. That is why in wild life photography when the subjects are usually very far, and the pics are cropped anyway, many people use APSC or even MFT cameras, so that they have cropped images to start with. But if you have a possibility to compose that you don't need to crop or if you crop to the same extent on FF and APS-C, than FF have a clear advantage. In your case, you would need to be a little closer to your models using ZF with 40mm 1.2 than using xpro with 35mm 1.2 (1.5 times closer if it was 35mm, but since it's 40, a little bit less than 1.5). You owe me for a lesson in photography that most pro would not give you for all your money (the reason being they don't understand that themselves) 🤣🤣
@@isaiaharmstrong1799 The exposure settings will be the same as the intensity of light across the sensor will be the same but the total amount of light from an APS-C to FF sensor is roughly double. The difference is more noticeable in low light.
WTF!? Why is this not available in MFT? I just looked, and they made it in every single APS-C mount except M43??? Literally makes no sense!
P.S. - I realize MFT is not APS-C, but to the 3rd party lens manufacturers, it is. They always take their APS-C lenses and put MFT mounts on them. I don't understand why they didn't on this one... especially considering how popular the sensor is in cinematography
APS-C makes sense for so many reasons. Small, affordable, lightweight, more light in the same package. Some really unique focal lengths, more zoom on telephoto lenses. Perhaps the only real downside is that for the exact same lens, the APS-C can reveal more flaws. Looking back I'd probably go with the smaller sensor, but I got an older A7 to save money so that's what made sense at the time.
There are many other differences. One is the selection of ultrawide focal length lenses.
@@altruistx Yeah I should have listed more. There's definitely pros and cons. For me a smaller setup and cheaper one would work better. You have what you have though!
I run the Tamron SP 35 f1.4 on my Canon 80D for professional food photography. I have the Sigma 18 - 35 f 1.8 on my R7 for action and internal spaces. Add the Canon 100mm Macro L series f2.8 and I'm pretty well covered. If I want to travel light I carry my R7 with the 18 - 135 and my 50mm f1.8. Running the R7 with an adaptor allows me access third party, EF, EF-S, RF and EF-S lenses. Yes, I want an R6 mk ii. Do I need one? No. Do they make this lens for Canon?
Canon is still blocking most third party manufacturers from making RF-mount lenses. They did announce open up support for APS-C RF lenses, but I didn't see any activity from Viltrox on this.
Lightroom and others like now have select subject.
Happy days, select subject or even better, background and add blur.
As we say here in the UK, "Jobs a goodn"
Full frame look from any lens, well within reason.
Be lucky stay safe.
6:50 IBIS
7:30 Ibis!!!
omg. That's pretty good.
Crazy how many quality lenses there are at affordable price points. Awesome video. Great seeing you at NAB!
Yes! Looking forward to getting to have a bit more of a chat next year, it all went by so fast. Yea, a cheap Viltrox lens now, is what a Canon L series lens was a few years ago.
When you are talking about the same amount of light and better low light capabilities of FF, why you don't mention main reason of this?
FF with a same resolution have a bigger pixel size, this is the main reason of a better low light performance.
This is not an Crop vs FF debate. It's an vidoe essay about why the Viltrox 26mm F1.2 is such a great purchase.
Canon APSC users are blessed with Sigma’s Art 30mm f1.4 DC HSM
If you add the cost of this lens, we can buy a full frame camera: ZV-E1 :)
You are wrong about saying that it lets the same amount of light on the sensor 2:10. It's the same amount per area but as the FF sensor is larger it gets more light. See Gerald Undone's great explanation.
Yes, I am aware of this, and what I was saying is compatible with that fact. I don' think you understood what was being what was being said. I resist this later in the video as well.
Nope, he's correct: the sensor receives the same amount of light. The advantage the FF has is noise performance and dynamic range thanks to its larger surface area. It's a common misconception that the sensor receives more light. The amount of light arriving to the sensor is determined by the amount of light coming in from that field of view, the lens objective diameter, aperture, and glass transmittance.
Is there a Fuji version of this lens?
Mask On Nurse Marty (Ret)
Yes
I mean i could just cheese it by connecting my aps-c camera to my telescope, its literally just a giant prime lens with less elements.
A 27mm is 27mm regardless of it being apsc or full frame. 40mm equivalent is not 40mm, regardless of image quality. I use both FF and apsc for its different strengths, not their similarities. A lens this size doesn’t make sense for me because FF 40mm are smaller and lighter. Sure, it might have better aspects of IQ/AF than let’s say a 40 f2 batis because it’s much newer but it doesn’t have the versatility of close focusing. You can find a 40 batis used for the same price or opt for the much smaller Sony 40mm 2.5 G. It’s good that we have good options for apsc now but it doesn’t make FF irrelevant.
While true, that's not the whole story.
A 27mm for DSLR is also required to be a retrofocus design -- which is an "inverted telephoto" lens, more complex, more elements -- while a 27mm designed for mirrorless, FF or APS-C, is not. A 50mm for DSLR is not retrofocus, while a 40mm for DSLR probably is, but certainly neither is retrofocus on mirrorless.
The other factor is simply that a good f/1.2 design, regardless of image circle target, is more complex than a good f/1.8 design. That's really where you get the increased size between the two.
It's also the case that, on an APS-C camera, the lens designed for APS-C will deliver the better image for the same lens quality, versus an FF lens on APS-C. So FF is always an options, but not always the best option.
This Lens might be very good, but to heavy for a small APS-C Body in my opinion.
I was agreeing with you to a point. The Sony Full Frame comapct G lenses are very compact and excellent performers (24, 40 and 50mm). So you can shoot a focal length you like 40mm on your FF camera and it's tiny. Add the Sigma 90mm f2.8 and you have an excellent short tele compliment.
Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is "full frame look"
I'm actually using a popular term that I don't totally buy into, but you hear a lot. In this case I'm referring to subject isolation using shallow depth of field (blurry bacgroud) and clean low light photos and videos.
@@markwiemels Now I understand. Thanks!!
@@markwiemels I have been trying to understand the term too. Some people told me FF gives off a better and unique look while APSC is more flat. I still can't really see that to be true with a good lens on the APSC.
That's when they're slicing the field of focus so thin, in the interest of "cool bokeh, dude" that you'll only see one eye in-focus in a portrait, and just the eye, not the eyelashes. AF can actually be that good and that discerning, though there was a funny issue in the early version of the Nikon Z6/Z7 firmware that consistently did have it nailing perfect focus on the eyelashes and missing the eye. The culprit is usually the 85mm f/1.2 that every portrait photographer wants. That's also digital MF with an f/2.8 lens. You paid all that money for that gear, you can't just stop down and be thought to be using an APS-C or M43 camera, eh!
That combo is bigger and heavier than my a7iv and 40 mm 2.5, even heavier that with the batís 40 mm🙄🙄🙄
You still have to get more light on a crop sensor. The reason are the pixel density on Apsc are smaller and get lower light than a greater density FF sensor. Which are that 1.5 lesser light than an FF sensor.
The pixel density on a typical 25-26 megapixel APS-C camera today translates to about 54 megapixels in Full Frame. So very close to today's 45-47 megapixel FF cameras, and actually lower density than the recent A7R models. Sure, there are the 33 and 40 megapixel APS-C chips today. It's not all about high-speed shooting in low light. I switched from Canon FF to Micro Four Thirds ten years ago because I was getting BETTER low light performance thanks to IBIS. Also got me used to being able to hand-hold -- if I didn't have too much coffee -- as long as 5-6 seconds. Which totally ruined my brain for a non-IBIS camera like my Fujifilm X-Pro1.
Ok...but wtf is the "full frame look" I keep hearing? I've shot FF and APS-C for years now, finally have gotten into M43 (and the even crazier crop of Nikon 1 series 2.7x crop factor), but I still don't have a clue what's in this "look." In most standard shooting scenarios for the general populace, it really won't matter too terribly much what sensor size you have. Unless we're talking making your APS-C camera work a little less hard in low light settings to produce an image that is more natively possible on a full-frame camera, I'm confused on what the "look" is in regards to what this lens does.
This sounds like a good lens, but by no means is it a FF killer. What this DOES sound like is a good lens definitely designed for cinema shooters in-mind with that de-clickable aperture ring.
"This Lens Makes Full Frame Irrelevant" - I'm hearing that Full Frame will be (or already is) irrelevant for 10 years. But it's still better for photography than APS-C. Actually you buy a small APS-C camera and add a big, heavy and expensive lens to get an image similar to FF with some 35 1.8 or 2.0.
Almost everything they say over and over in photography for ten years and hasn't come true simply isn't true. There are rare exceptions, but pretty much. Now, if they say if for five years and it comes true -- usually "Mount [insert letter here] is going away, [manufacturer] is just trying to sell out their existing stock -- that's of course true.
A single budget, third-party prime lens makes an entire segment of digital photography irrelevant.
It's not really a segment of photogprahy, it's a sensor size, which is one factor in many. When someone looks at a good photo they will rarely ask what sensor you used.
Yeah, but this lens and pretty much all of Viltrox is overly sharp. It has zero depth. Way too much contrast and way too little micro-contrast. Nothing pops.
When will we get AF lenses that create images with actual feel to them?
Mark you have lost me at the start already... You way of explaining crop vs full frame and lens "brightness" maximum aperture makes no sense if we aren't talking pixels. Let's compare again. Take sony full frame sensor of 24 megapixel and compare it with sony aps-c sensor of 24 megapixel and tell me that you are getting the same iso and fof results. Amount of light ( photons) is captured by photo diodes and if the are smaller, they will capture less light. One of the reasons that A7s has only 12 Mpx full frame sensor is just that. You know that lenses like sigma 18-35/1.8 and 50-100/1.8 was made to create holy trinity full frame look on aps-c, right? Because f/1.8 on aps-c is f/2.8 on full frame when it comes to depth of field. When it comes to light you need to know how big photo diodes are on that sensor.
There is also the tech of the sensor, which plays a significant role. The bigger point here is that f1.2 can actually help compensate for the smaller photosites, as many people that can afford a f1.2 APS-C lens, can't afford a similar quality f1.2 lens on full frame, meaning they will likely be using an f1.4 or f1.8. What I have said in the video does not disagree with your comment, at least it's not meant too.
Larger sensors will collect more light but that's not the reason that the A7S in only 12MP, it has more to do with the processing power requirements for video on higher resolution sensors. Higher resolution = better image quality, within practical limitations of course. Tony did a fantastic video showing exactly this: ua-cam.com/video/VSFqCnzIe9M/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Tony%26ChelseaNorthrup
Point I am getting at is higher iso on a higher-resolution sensor produces more resolvable detail, I also used to believe that lower resolution = better low light performance but actual tests show that to not be true, again check Tony's video, he debunks that across three camera brands.
1. 27 1.2 is 40.5 1.8 lens for 550$ not a big deal :))). 2 It is how it works you need to calculate the f-stop. You dont understand that photography is practical apliance not technical. To get the same shot with same character you need to calculate the f-stop. And second FF sensor have better low light performance so again you need to calculate the f-stop. So theory is a bit different than technical explanations. So this video is basically nonsense. You can get Samyang 50 1.4 mk2 for the same money for Full Frame. APS-C is dead from long time in terms of value except very cheap lenses and bodies.
In addition, while there really isn't a directly comparable full frame and crop sensor, the theoretical comparison is in the ISO performance, where you multiply the ISO of the full frame by the crop factor^2 (squared because ISO is an approximation of a 2-dimensional metric). This works as only an approximation because 1) different size sensors are not usually made with exactly same photosites/technology and 2) ISO in digital cameras is not a metric measurement, it's technically arbitrarily defined by the organization ISO.
So for example, to get the same image as a FF f1.8 ISO450 on Sony APS-C, you would need f1.2 ISO200.
EDIT: oh, also forgot to mention, the framing is also only an approximation of ONLY the subject, because to get an equivalent framing on a crop sensor, you necessarily change the relative distance of the subject to the foreground and background to the sensor. But in most cases, the final look is close enough.
@@mynameissang You are absolutely incorrect with regards to having to multiply the ISO for the crop. The exposure does not change, only the depth of focus. You can prove this to yourself using a constant aperture zoom lens on a FF camera and crop mode. Without changing ISO, if you take an image at 23mm f2.8, then zoom to 35mm f2.8, the exposure is identical. If you crop the 23mm to 35mm the exposure is still identical but the depth of field is the same as the 23mm not the 35mm that you cropped to.
That's why constant (ratio) aperture lenses work at keeping the same exposure regardless of focal length. It's also why light sensors don't need to know crop factor when providing exposure settings.
@@Thirsty_Fox ah, I think I worded it poorly. Yes, the exposure is the same regardless of crop factor, but if you take noise performance into account in the output, the ISO^2 factor approximates that difference.
And technically, it is not the depth of focus that changes with the crop factor, it is the relative framing and distance of the sensor to the subject/foreground/background that changes, and it is the change in relative distance that affects DoF for a desired framing of the subject.
@@mynameissang Yes, the noise is about 1 to 1.5 stops improvement IF using the same sensor and processing technology. Modern APSC crops have similar or lower noise than older FF, so it isn't absolute and depends on the camera, but seems to be about right for gear of the same era. Even within the same sensor size the noise can vary.
The depth of field reduction comes from the reduction in focal length when composing for the exact same shot. You, your subject, and the background don't change distance at all, but you use a 23mm instead of 35mm for example, so DoF calculations show an increase when the focal length is reduced (keeping aperture unchanged) for the equivalent crop.
If, however, you kept the same focal length and didn't recompose, the DoF is the same but the photo is cropped/'zoomed'. If you back up to try to make the subject size in the frame similar (background will be compressed) then the DoF increases due to that as well. Either way, less bokeh on crop for equal aperture, it's how it goes!
@@Thirsty_Fox @Thirsty_Fox yes, the point I was originally wanting to make was that the crop factor for noise performance is approximately ISO^2, for exactly the reasons you mention. It was just in response to the point made in the video that seemed to suggest that low light performance is purely dependent on exposure level (as a function of aperture) and not dependent on sensor size, although even that gets admittedly further muddied when you consider the codec compression in video.
It's actually a wide misconception that focal range affects DoF. For example, on the same sensor, if you change focal length and change distance to compensate, the DoF is pretty much the same (although that gets messy when you consider things like focus breathing).
I guess relative distance is not the right term. Maybe relative framing? In your example of 23mm vs 35mm, what I was saying was just exactly what you were saying in your third point, that for the same focal length on different sensor sizes, recomposing is necessary, and that's what actually affects the DoF. When you stay in the same spot and change sensor AND focal length, yes the DoF changes, but it is technically not due to the focal length directly (like in the example I mentioned before), it is because the crop sensor is now cropping in on a completely different framing. I mean I guess you could say that focal length changes DoF by making you change the distance to the subject, but I've always preferred to think of it as in your 23mm vs 35mm example, the crop sensor is just cropping in on a completely different image now. It really is semantics, because the calculations end up the same.
But yes, regardless, bigger sensor means more bokeh, and there's no way around it. Not sure how DoF/bokeh came into the conversation in the first place, I was really just making a point about noise/low light performance in the beginning lol
APSC isn't good for portraits. But it's great for sports and wildlife and travel
Please stop calling it « the full frame » and the « full frame look » the term « full frame » was invented by a bunch of idiots that wanted to shine in 2008 when they upgraded from their D200 to the D700/D3s and barged about the fact that their 35mm lenses « filled the frame of the 35mm sensor again » but the only truth is that ANY DEDICATED SYSTEM WITH DEDICATED LENSES is « full frame » a Mamyia 645 of 6x6 or even a micro 43 or 1inch camera lens system will « fill the frame » of their dedicated sensor
Intesting, but an exagerated conclusion.
You can"t get "those" ff 50mm f1.2 or 135mm f1.8 dreamy bokehs with this.
Wrong, wrong, wrong....😖
Clearly didn't watch the video.
@@markwiemels Clearly wrong....
Don't BS yourself folks. Full Frame is often imitated but never duplicated. Just get the real thing (Full Frame) and be finished with it.
The problem with Sony's APSC is the fact that pictures are dramatically worse than the photos from A7 series
They are not dramatically worse. Maybe you don’t know anyone with a crop that knows how to shoot. Fake News
@@dronephotogeek I've seen hundreds of pics from Sony's APSC. None of them even close to Sony's full frame cameras. Photos from any A7 camera are stunning without any processing. Oh, yeah, shall I shoot RAW? No way! Meanwhile, Nikon's or Canon's pics from APSC are very close to full frame as well
@@user-dr2sk4go4l Nearly all Sony APS-C cameras are shooting with consumer-grade lenses. In a few cases, you get Sony FF pro-grade lenses on Sony APS-C, which will also be lower quality than the same shot taken on a comparable generation FF model. This is true of Canon and Nikon, too... they want APS-C to be seen as a lesser, consumer thing. And no, there are plenty of clunkers shot on A7 cameras of all generations. And the better ones are edited, because Sony's color science until recently was among the worst... they're not generally looked to as JPEG cameras.
Look at some of the better photos taken on Fujifilm, or for that matter, Micro Four Thirds. You might just be surprised.
And that's just the technical discussion. Who's using the particular camera also matters. So many shooting Sony APS-C are amateurs, it's not surprising that any arbitrary photo shot on such a camera isn't as good as many FF shots, but has nothing to do with the camera itself. It's the composition, the knowledge of the photographer, the "darkroom" work, etc.
screw sony and its cripple hammer. also nothing beats fullframe for where full frame shines.