risespray 35/1.2

nzeeman said:
there are no my personal feelings-i just want to share with people what they can get for almost nothing-i still stand behind my opinion that both fuji lenses i tried 18/2 and 35/2 would be considered junk if not software corrected in camera. if u see them uncorrected and with chinese name on front you wouldnt say its finest lens - but its chinese junk - its not for me... do you wanna try? i can make you non corrected fuji photos and chinese lens photos and you will tell me which one is fuji and do you still consider it quality lens... and please - if you dont like it-say you dont like it and ignore the existence of this thread-but i see you feel the need to comment because you feel chinese is making disturbance in your perfect expensive hobby world... well its not anymore like that - now everyone can make same lens and anyway all those new lenses you love so much are made in same factories.
Click to expand...

You are fervently trying to convince me of the merits of this lens, in spite of my disinterest in it. I was drawn to this thread by 35mm and f/1.2 out of curiosity. I saw the results and read your very own assessment of the QC and build quality of the lens, and I decided it wasn't for me. I also chose to step up and say that Fujinons have been some of the best lenses I've ever owned, and they have had a fantastic reputation for decades. Yet, you still insist that I acknowledge that this lens is what you believe it to be.
Ok, it will draw an image that is sharp in places. So will my 1913 Kodak meniscus lens which, when stopped down to about f/11, can give results almost indistinguishable from my 180mm Fujinon-W EBC. I choose to use both, for different reasons. The lens in this thread, I'll treat the same way, it doesn't fit the way I shoot, doesn't have the look I want, doesn't have the build quality I like. Deal with it. You don't have to keep trying to convince us all to validate your choice of lens you shoot with, just shoot with it.
Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
You are fervently trying to convince me of the merits of this lens, in spite of my disinterest in it. I was drawn to this thread by 35mm and f/1.2 out of curiosity. I saw the results and read your very own assessment of the QC and build quality of the lens, and I decided it wasn't for me. I also chose to step up and say that Fujinons have been some of the best lenses I've ever owned, and they have had a fantastic reputation for decades. Yet, you still insist that I acknowledge that this lens is what you believe it to be.
Ok, it will draw an image that is sharp in places. So will my 1913 Kodak meniscus lens which, when stopped down to about f/11, can give results almost indistinguishable from my 180mm Fujinon-W EBC. I choose to use both, for different reasons. The lens in this thread, I'll treat the same way, it doesn't fit the way I shoot, doesn't have the look I want, doesn't have the build quality I like. Deal with it. You don't have to keep trying to convince us all to validate your choice of lens you shoot with, just shoot with it.
Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

i shoot with it and you keep coming back to this thread... yes its sharp everywhere in same amount as fuji. btw all.the software correction applied to fuji makes its corners smeared same as 7artisans 25/1.8.. so if you think that is perfection then idk.... anyway you were interested in 35/1.2 - you dont like it - you can leave whenever you like... but what itches you is that people get same quality of image as you get for much more money but you cant stand to be seen without nice name on lens and camera - well if you want nice name then pay for it i dont care. but dont sell me mud as its a chocolate cake just because fuji made it. i tried both and i still have both and fuji is collecting dust on shelf last month or two. so until you try any chinese lens dont comment on it. if you enjoy watching leica or fuji design mistakes and like to call them character - you are free to do it but please dont do it here. we discuss this lens and try to show good sides of it instead of spreading darkness. so i hope its the last time i see you here because its mainly image thread with you jumping in and making it argue.
 
As a matter of fact, you'll look and see that it is NOT largely an image thread, but I'm just splitting hairs there. I don't pretend to be a Leica fanboy and considering how they treated me with the M8 and M9, I'm not going back but I still own a Leica and occasionally shoot it, when I feel like it. I mostly shoot Nikon 35mm cameras and I'm a mental health clinician with a lot of debt, so I'm not rich, well off, or even financially secure. A single emergency dental trip or pet visit will have me and my significant other juggling bills to pay for food, heat, water. So you can step off your high horse about how I'm strutting around with a fancy camera and lens saying it is better than yours. I use a beatup Nikon F2 with a bunch of very used lenses that I've collected over the past decade when I could afford them. I once put a Helios-103 against a Leica 50mm Summilux and the Leica wasn't worth the extra $3000 for the 5% of image drawing capability, so I'm with you when it comes to democratizing lens options. The flip side of that is that I didn't try to talk people out of buying Leica Summilux lenses and demean them for making those decisions. I also have a Pentax MX that I got from a thrift store and saved up for 7 months to get CLAd. I have a couple old digital cameras as well which are fun to use. As I've said, if you like your lens, have fun with it and shoot it, but don't proselytize and demean the choices of others unless you are just baiting them to call your lens garbage; no one here has done that, myself included. If you don't want disagreement, maybe post somewhere else, but you'll find detractors for every lens of every marque on this forum and most others. Get used to it.
Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
. I once put a Helios-103 against a Leica 50mm Summilux and the Leica wasn't worth the extra $3000 for the 5% of image drawing capability, so I'm with you when it comes to democratizing lens options.
Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

I just kept thinking about something you also mentioned - every small increase above a certain quality threshold requires quite significant investment (one can compare this to diminishing marginal return law). The quality of a lens and the price are never linear. If one is willing to pay triple price for 5%-10% improvement is an individual choice.
Another factor people forget when discussing prices - it’s not only the quality that they pay for. There are cost of production - both direct and indirect. Not only R&D, material, current salaries, future pensions. Profit? Sure. But even ignoring profit one understands that on many occasions cheap lenses are cheap for the reason. Cheap labor, little or no taxes paid, no environmental investments etc. I am not pointing to a specific lens that is discussed here, just in general - blunt price comparison is not always fair. I am willing to pay more for the coffee that tastes the same as any other coffee if I know local farmers were treated fairly. So all I am saying - price is not everything. Whatever floats your boat. I am as happy with my 30€ Konica SLR lenses as with some Leica M lenses. I acknowledge the difference in price is much higher than the difference in quality, but hey - use whatever you like. I agree there is no point in junk naming something else others use.
 
i junk name stuff i used... i never said nikon lenses are **** because i never used them... i used leica and fuji and i dont see any advantage over fsu lenses or chinese ones and thats all... i was just impressed thay even worst cheapest one i found gave me 90% of what fuji did plus one stop gain-thats all and that was my point. i dont care to talk someone out of using leica or fuji-but i really refuse that someone tell me to see quality that i dont see. i had them all paralel and still have for example ultron 35/1.7 that looks bad even compared to 7artisan 35/1.2 (and that one is not good lens-but was fast and ok for low light). i still love ultron somehow but looking it objectively it has so much ghosting on digital that is really annoying so i use it only for film... so yes my point is - yes im satisfied with this and i dont want to pay premium for name anymore. i know marketing all too well that i wouldnt say research and quality go into price-its 90% brand and everything else is production... and yes this is image thread - as you may noticed i try to continue with photos but for every set i get essay with questioning my motivation or my opinion. i say again-if you dont like lens and dont like my opinion-dont read or comment-its just one thread in thousands-dont let one different voice throw shadow on your brand love. i will maybe make a thread for a no name 25/1.8 - so hope you dont hate me for using something so awful without even name/lens papers/diagram and if i say its better than voigtlander 25mm please ignore me and just proceed. and yes i wont post elsewhere just because you say so-rff was never so aggressive place like it is last few years-we were praising lenses and talking stuff and hen we disagree we didnt come and destroy whole threads. i dont go around and read leica threads and post how bad some things are in their lenses even if i could so please do the same. i understood-this chinese lens is **** and you wont buy it - ok your opinion. i will even say i agree - this is worst lens and fuji is best brand- can we stop now?
 
Phil_F_NM said:
You're taking this way too seriously.
Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

said the man who started it all..
but lets continue where we were interrupted...

U3753I1604219475.SEQ.0.jpg


U3753I1604219476.SEQ.1.jpg


U3753I1604219477.SEQ.2.jpg


U3753I1604219477.SEQ.3.jpg
 
I am sure that this has been written elsewhere, but we live in a time of super-choice. It's great for photographers who like to play with different lenses. So if a lens has a look that works for you, great! My own sense is that you ca always degrade the performance of a lens in Photoshop (or similar) but you can't put detail or data in that isn't there. Or at least I can't. So when I take out the digi-chip on which I spent a good deal of coin, I tend to put the best lens I can afford on the front. Is some of that marketing? Perhaps. But I am fine with that, based on my results. Here's a shot with C/V's 35/1.2 v.1 on an M9. I like the lens a lot and wouldn't swap it out for a later (or lighter) version of the same lens, or another 35/1.2 regardless of the price.

Here's an image recently posted in another thread:

L1010525_Velvia.jpg

The picture doesn't prove anything about the lens, of course. But I think it shows why I like it. I should say too, that we tend to discuss lenses as if they have behavior that is independent of the software "behind the chip" (even in RAW mode). In a sense, all photography is computational photography today, isn't it?

BTW, not to derail the dialogue here, but best vs. worst? It's kind of a red herring. If you want to see degraded performance, try mounting a Sears brand 1980's zoom lens on a modern digital camera. Yeesh.
 
i agree but i never put any considerable money in a chip - i bought fuji xe1 thatbcost me some 150eur. i think that amount of information in photo is irrelevant as long as it capture a photo. i used few more expensive lenses on my film camera and to be frank i never saw a reason to use them because i didnt see any difference between leica, voigtlander, zeiss and jupiter/industar. my best photos were with jupiter 8 anyway. and on my digital i made better photos with chinese than with fuji 35/2 and 18/2. they worked fine and all but had super boring look - so even well composed scenes and interesting moments had some dullness in them...
 
oldwino said:
I’ve read through this entire thread, hoping to find out what a “risespray” is. I was sorely disappointed.
Click to expand...

initially i made this thread just to show people results from cheap lens that in my opinion is fast enough and do the great job for 50eur. but everyone always brings other ten time more expensive lenses in game and compare to them. point is - i share photos - i dont edit anything apart from correcting shadows and highlights so everyone can check and make his own decision whether to buy or not. and what is risespray i dont know - my research showed that it is same lens as second version 7artisans 35/1.2 and pergear 35/1.2. it is a typical double gauss design. hope it helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
Nikon's Fastest Normal Lenses: The Insatiable Quest for Speed
Replies
8
Views
5K
former member
F
J
  • Article Article
Weird & Wonderful Scale Focusing 35mm cameras: 11 cool models of bygone era that are still fun user-collectibles!
Replies
10
Views
955
Muggins
Muggins
J
  • Article Article
The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of the 110 Format By 2009, 110 was kaput. Lomography brought it back! Part 2: A selection of fascinating 110 cameras.
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Timmyjoe
Timmyjoe
J
  • Article Article
Scale-focusing full frame 35s: A cherished bygone breed. Part 1Simple, ubiquitous, and charming, they flourished for over a century!
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
ChrisPlatt
ChrisPlatt
Back
Top Bottom