risespray 35/1.2

[nzeeman]

made a small test of this super cheap lens... its very good - just aperture markings are totally off - so i had to correct those by checking when shutter speed is half from the one before
@1.2

@1.8

@5.6

i didnt go through all apertures because more significant improvement is at f5.6

 

[nzeeman]

bokeh examples

@closest distance

@just face in frame (i focused myself in reflection because it was easiest)

@normal portrait distance

@minimum distance without glass in front - just house objects

 

[nzeeman]

few night photos wide open

 

[nzeeman]

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Very prominent barrel distortion. Looks decent enough for some editorial or reportage work as long as buildings or vertical lines aren't near the edges of the frame.
Phil Forrest

 

[nzeeman]

Very prominent barrel distortion. Looks decent enough for some editorial or reportage work as long as buildings or vertical lines aren't near the edges of the frame.
Phil Forrest

i agree-but fuji 35/2 also have same amount but is software corrected... im very annoyed by that laziness in fuji so i will sell the fuji
lens-i feel fooled to pay 300-400 eur for bad design... its slower and with same distortion...

 

[Evergreen States]

To me, some barrel distortion and field curvature can help make more warm and flattering portraits.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

i agree-but fuji 35/2 also have same amount but is software corrected... im very annoyed by that laziness in fuji so i will sell the fuji
lens-i feel fooled to pay 300-400 eur for bad design... its slower and with same distortion...

Fuji designed that lens that way so they could deliver a very good optic. If it can be corrected in the camera body then that's great, but it is extraordinary. To get a 35mm lens at a low cost with extremely low distortion, you need to get a Jupiter-12 or a Zeiss Biogon, but they aren't as fast. The Cosina variants have some distortion but not as much as that pictured here and they can't be corrected as easily until post. After that, it's Leica.
I find distortion distracting and unsightly. It's my personal preference and I try to use lenses that are very well corrected, or are non-retrofocal symmetrical designs which have inherently low or zero distortion. There's a reason why so many folks who love the Super Angulon pay what those lenses are worth, because they are perfect.
Phil Forrest

 

[nzeeman]

Fuji designed that lens that way so they could deliver a very good optic. If it can be corrected in the camera body then that's great, but it is extraordinary. To get a 35mm lens at a low cost with extremely low distortion, you need to get a Jupiter-12 or a Zeiss Biogon, but they aren't as fast. The Cosina variants have some distortion but not as much as that pictured here and they can't be corrected as easily until post. After that, it's Leica.
I find distortion distracting and unsightly. It's my personal preference and I try to use lenses that are very well corrected, or are non-retrofocal symmetrical designs which have inherently low or zero distortion. There's a reason why so many folks who love the Super Angulon pay what those lenses are worth, because they are perfect.
Phil Forrest

yes i hate distortion as well-thats why i prefer to at least use fast lens with distortion that i got for 50eur - instead of not so fast lens with distortion for 400...but their 35/1.4 lens didnt have almost any distortion and was just slightly larger-so i have no idea why they did this - they slowed down lens and made wrong priorities.. i would accept even more distortion if they made super tiny lens-but like this it makes no sense... and yes biogon 35/2 is same speed and almost no distortion..

 

[Phil_F_NM]

It's much easier to design a slower lens and correct for distortion in camera or in post. They did this because it is a superlative optic with excellent performance and highly corrected. To design a lens without the constraints of distortion correction is far easier than to include it. Making it a stop slower also relaxes this a bit and Fuji are using the fact that you can use higher ISO when necessary to make up for a stop loss in speed. F/2 is not slow either.
Phil Forrest

 

[nzeeman]

It's much easier to design a slower lens and correct for distortion in camera or in post.

exactly-they already had it all in 35/1.4 and it was without distortion. and then they made it smaller few mm and made huge distortion and stop slower... its not more compact but lost the speed,character and got more distortion - i really dont know whats the logic behind.

 

[f.hayek]

What's a 'Risespray'?
Another Chinese pop-up workshop?

Just curious. 😎

 

[raid]

What's a 'Risespray'?
Another Chinese pop-up workshop?

Just curious. 😎

I try out less costly lenses, but I seem to gravitate back to Leica lenses. 😀

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I have known for a long time that pretty much any Fujinon is on par with the best lenses out there focal length to focal length.
Phil Forrest

 

[f.hayek]

I have known for a long time that pretty much any Fujinon is on par with the best lenses out there focal length to focal length.
Phil Forrest

The Fujinon-designed lenses I have are for the Xpan, and they are superb.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The Fujinon-designed lenses I have are for the Xpan, and they are superb.

I think the XPan lenses are derivatives of the Fujinon W and SW EBC lenses for large format, which are extraordinary. The XPan lenses would have better coatings probably as they may be newer for the most part. Fujinons are some of the best lenses ever made.

Phil Forrest

 

[f.hayek]

I think the XPan lenses are derivatives of the Fujinon W and SW EBC lenses for large format, which are extraordinary. The XPan lenses would have better coatings probably as they may be newer for the most part. Fujinons are some of the best lenses ever made.

Phil Forrest

One day I hope to get an X1D mk II and try them out on digital. They have proven to be superlative on Ektachrome and Ektar.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

i agree-but fuji 35/2 also have same amount but is software corrected... im very annoyed by that laziness in fuji so i will sell the fuji
lens-i feel fooled to pay 300-400 eur for bad design... its slower and with same distortion...

This is not a Fuji thing. Software correction has been standard practice for most mirrorless lenses for more than a decade...

It’s also not a laziness thing. Just lens designers taking advantage of the tools and technology they have available.

 

[Sierra Club]

This is not a Fuji thing. Software correction has been standard practice for most mirrorless lenses for more than a decade...

It’s also not a laziness thing. Just lens designers taking advantage of the tools and technology they have available.

I generally agree with you that advantage should be taken of the new technology to offer more advanced and improved tools.

However, I also think that all of the manufacturers seem to rely too much nowadays on image post processing when they design their optics.
It effectively means that a lens would work correctly only if its software driver is properly configured and available.
Otherwise, consdering just the raw output, it's not much better than the cheap knock-offs.
Sooner or later a new camera model is released which has no legacy correction data loaded because it's an effective way to force users into buying irrelevant "upgrades".

Further, compensating lens imaging defects with software does tend to make manufacturers lazy in terms of developing new optical systems or glass types to alleviate said defects.

 

[Out to Lunch]

No idea what software can or cannot do. I am happy with my Fuji 35, the Zeiss, and the Voigtlander. No want or need to source a 'cheap' alternative in China or elsewhere.