You are right, it does render nicely.
the colors here seem off
![[Image: i-bSC7z6H-XL.jpg]](https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-bSC7z6H/0/XL/i-bSC7z6H-XL.jpg)
...weird lighting...
...this lens was mounted on an X-T30...???...
(05-18-2020, 10:24 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]You are right, it does render nicely.
I am honestly not too excited, seems like there is a fair amount of outlining in background highlights. Personal preference, some like this kind of 'classic' rendering, I don't...
Why am I almost never seeing all of the "boken" issues that are such a big deal for others (unless it's something really left field, of course, like the "soap bubbles" made by mirror lenses.
)
I don't like the rendering very much. Although the disks are fairly clean (on their own), the overall rendering is rather busy.
I find my Fuji XF 35mm f1.4 much more pleasant.
I guess after having used a "bokehlicious" lens once, some of us are spoiled forever
The Viltroxes are not as good as the native Fujis ... but neither are they as expensive.
Fuji 35mm f/1.4 vs Viltrox 33mm f/1.4: $600 vs $280
Fuji 23mm f/1.4 vs Viltrox 23mm f/1.3: $900 vs $330
Of course, it's not so simple but it tells a story.
My statement that the JP manufacturers should get nervous is more about the maturity of the Viltrox offerings. These aren't comparable yet but these aren't the same cheap Chinese lenses anymore than we were mocking about a couple of years ago.