Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Rmcp20 Senior Member • Posts: 1,320
Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)
8

After reading the threads about the optical limits rating for the Viltrox 23mm 1.4, i decided to read some more reviews before deciding if i would Exchange my XF f2 for it.

I wanted na 1.4 as i shot a lot indoors at home (documenting family life for exemple).

So i went back to read OL full review, and noticed some importante points. People mostly resume they input to "its better then…" or "its worst then...", and base their comment in the final rating.

Viltrox 23mm f1.4 vs XF 23mm f2

Less vignetting 0.9 vs 2.64 (over 1.5 stops difference at f2)

Resolution at f2 (Viltrox first):
Center: 3429 vs 2709
Border: 1982 vs 2459

Resolution at f4 (Viltrox first):
Center: 3584 vs 3102
Border: 3027 vs 2675

Chromatic Aberrations at f2: 1.71 vs 0.53
Chromatic Aberrations at f4: 0.62 vs 0.44

So the viltrox beats the XF23mm f2 except for resolution on borders at f2 and also have more CA at f2 (at f4 difference is very small)

CA correction affects less the image quality than vignetting correction, considering the start point is 2.64 stops (uooowww).

Viltrox 23mm f1.4 vs XF23mm f1.4

Less vignetting 1.32 vs 2.04 (2/3 of a stop difference)

Resolution at f1.4 (Viltrox first):
Center: 3129 vs 2628
Border: 1861 vs 2099

Resolution at f2.8 (Viltrox first):
Center: 3719 vs 2943
Border: 2735 vs 2352

Resolution at f5.6 (Viltrox first):
Center: 3314 vs 2975
Border: 2971 vs 2666

Chromatic Aberrations at f1.4: 2.09 vs 0.78
Chromatic Aberrations at f2.8: 0.92 vs 0.55

So the Viltrox has better resolution power (much better actually in center). Also has 2/3 of a stop less vignetting wide open.

Issue again is CA wide open, which again, can be corrected in post.

Important notes from Opticallimits in the comments of the review:

"Also - the ratings for the Fujinon will also be much lower in the scope of the 26mp-based tests. The very same happened when we transitioned to the EOS 5Ds R from the EOS 5D II. Unfortunately, lenses don't scale quite as good as sensors."

"However, based on our experience with the test transitions (it wasn't the first one really) suggests that the Fujinon remains better at f/1.4 and f/2. We'll see. Markus is planning some re-tests but this will take a while."

These comments they made in reply to users are also very importante. They imply that the resolution of the Fujis will lower when tested in the 26mpix sensor (both seem to have been tested in 16mpix, the 23mm f2 in an x-pro1 and the 23mm f1.4 on an X-E1).

They plan to measure the ratings for the fuji XF lenses in a newer sensor, we just don't know when.

Point is, analyse the information provided and not only the final rating. Comparing final ratings is missleading, and this applies for every product you can buy.

https://www.instagram.com/rui_porfirio/

 Rmcp20's gear list:Rmcp20's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm X-T30 Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +2 more
Canon EOS 5DS R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR Fujifilm X-Pro1
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
CAcreeks
CAcreeks Forum Pro • Posts: 15,324
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)
1

Thanks for the summary!

I missed your post a week ago. It wasn't controversial enough to have comments.

Based on samples posted here, one of the lenses (XF 23/2 or Viltrox 23/1.4) is not really a 23mm lens. The Fuji is wider angle. I didn't see that mentioned on Optical Limits.

unhappymeal Contributing Member • Posts: 712
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)
1

It’s kinda funny how many negative reactions this lens is eliciting. I know numbers aren’t everything, but you would think Viltrox killed someone’s dog by producing a lens that has better sharpness than the Fujinon, but is not absolutely perfect.

If you want perfect, fast primes, the Olympus f1.2 Pros and the new RF-also are superb, but thy will set you back a lot.

jgbbxl Regular Member • Posts: 121
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)
7

I don't think it makes any sense what you're doing because these lenses were tested on very different cameras. The Fuji lenses were tested on an older 16mpix body while the viltrox was tested on the newest generation 26mpix body. So especially things like resolution can't be compared afaik.

 jgbbxl's gear list:jgbbxl's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R
HatWearingFool
HatWearingFool Senior Member • Posts: 2,512
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)

jgbbxl wrote:

I don't think it makes any sense what you're doing because these lenses were tested on very different cameras. The Fuji lenses were tested on an older 16mpix body while the viltrox was tested on the newest generation 26mpix body. So especially things like resolution can't be compared afaik.

Optical limit's addressed this and the OP quoted them... did you read the OP?

-- hide signature --
 HatWearingFool's gear list:HatWearingFool's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Olympus PEN E-PM1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +3 more
OP Rmcp20 Senior Member • Posts: 1,320
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)
2

unhappymeal wrote:

It’s kinda funny how many negative reactions this lens is eliciting. I know numbers aren’t everything, but you would think Viltrox killed someone’s dog by producing a lens that has better sharpness than the Fujinon, but is not absolutely perfect.

If you want perfect, fast primes, the Olympus f1.2 Pros and the new RF-also are superb, but thy will set you back a lot.

Some comments aren't really negative reactions, although the way they are written transpire that.

Many people say "i would preffer the XF 23mm f2 everyday because its a Fuji lens".

Although that can be read as something negative for the Viltrox, you have to read: "i don't need f1.4 so i will buy the Fuji, its WR and smaller as well, similar price…"

If they needed f1.4, they would say: "hmmmm, $400 more for a bit of better corner sharpness from 1.4 to 2.8....i will try the Viltrox…"

Another problem is that people tend to defend their options with more effort than what they employ on thinking about adjusting to reallity.

Not that buying a Fuji f2 or 1.4 is a mistake, it isn't, i have na 23mm f2 myself, its just that thinking about someone buying something that does the job cheaper then what we spent makes us angry...

This said, there are many people who make their decidions or place their comments based on the pros of each lens vs their needs.

Someone who needs fast AF and 1.4 will lean to the Viltrox, other people wanting corner to corner sharpness will pick the 23mm 1.4. Others who want fast AF and WR, will lean to the XF f2...

But its definitly a good thing to have options, and unfortunatly not everyone agree...never understood why.

 Rmcp20's gear list:Rmcp20's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm X-T30 Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +2 more
unhappymeal Contributing Member • Posts: 712
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)

Rmcp20 wrote:

unhappymeal wrote:

It’s kinda funny how many negative reactions this lens is eliciting. I know numbers aren’t everything, but you would think Viltrox killed someone’s dog by producing a lens that has better sharpness than the Fujinon, but is not absolutely perfect.

If you want perfect, fast primes, the Olympus f1.2 Pros and the new RF-also are superb, but thy will set you back a lot.

Some comments aren't really negative reactions, although the way they are written transpire that.

Many people say "i would preffer the XF 23mm f2 everyday because its a Fuji lens".

Although that can be read as something negative for the Viltrox, you have to read: "i don't need f1.4 so i will buy the Fuji, its WR and smaller as well, similar price…"

If they needed f1.4, they would say: "hmmmm, $400 more for a bit of better corner sharpness from 1.4 to 2.8....i will try the Viltrox…"

Another problem is that people tend to defend their options with more effort than what they employ on thinking about adjusting to reallity.

Not that buying a Fuji f2 or 1.4 is a mistake, it isn't, i have na 23mm f2 myself, its just that thinking about someone buying something that does the job cheaper then what we spent makes us angry...

This said, there are many people who make their decidions or place their comments based on the pros of each lens vs their needs.

Someone who needs fast AF and 1.4 will lean to the Viltrox, other people wanting corner to corner sharpness will pick the 23mm 1.4. Others who want fast AF and WR, will lean to the XF f2...

But its definitly a good thing to have options, and unfortunatly not everyone agree...never understood why.

Yeah, there's an element of hyperbole to some posts, but others seem to be personally offended that you would even compare the Viltrox against the Fujinons (f/1.4 or f/2). It's bizarre. I saw posts in the other thread stating that the Viltrox had such border sharpness that it was intolerable--the Fujinon f/1.4 isn't exactly perfect either.

OP Rmcp20 Senior Member • Posts: 1,320
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)
2

unhappymeal wrote:

Yeah, there's an element of hyperbole to some posts, but others seem to be personally offended that you would even compare the Viltrox against the Fujinons (f/1.4 or f/2). It's bizarre. I saw posts in the other thread stating that the Viltrox had such border sharpness that it was intolerable--the Fujinon f/1.4 isn't exactly perfect either.

Actually thats something funny. Fuji 1.4 has better corner sharpness, nor somethign we can discuss about.

However, people were saying the Viltrox had horrible vigneting...

Hmmm, the Viltrox actually vigentes less than both the f2 and the f1.4 Fujis, what you get in jpgs is in camera correction. But to correct 2.5 stops of vignetting you loose the resolution advantage you had in the corners anyway.

So both arguments were used, and a lot of times, when in reality you will either have better sharpness with more vigneting, or less vigneting without better sharpness.

Others said vigneting is easily fixed in post, but the CA on the Viltrox is a deal breaker.

As far as i know, CA are also very easily corrected.

Myself i will just wait for the Tokina 23mm f1.4 to see is coatings or glass elements are diferent from the Viltrox. Also it depends on the price Tokina will ask.

If its the same but more expensive (tokina branding costs), then i will buy the Viltrox, as i don't even consider spending $800 or more in a 23mm lens, but for $300 or $330 im fine with that.

 Rmcp20's gear list:Rmcp20's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm X-T30 Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +2 more
michaeladawson Forum Pro • Posts: 14,363
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)
8

All those resolution comparisons you are doing are meaningless.  They are shot with different cameras with a huge difference in pixel density.

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

 michaeladawson's gear list:michaeladawson's gear list
Nikon D5 Nikon D810 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-H1 Nikon D7200 +30 more
baobob
baobob Forum Pro • Posts: 15,189
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)
7

A big mistake : not tested with the same sensor and same resolution ...

So figures are just not comparable

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

 baobob's gear list:baobob's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus Tough TG-4 Panasonic ZS200 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm X-T3 +10 more
unhappymeal Contributing Member • Posts: 712
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)
1

baobob wrote:

A big mistake : not tested with the same sensor and same resolution ...

So figures are just not comparable

They addressed that in the article...

michaeladawson Forum Pro • Posts: 14,363
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)
7

HatWearingFool wrote:

jgbbxl wrote:

I don't think it makes any sense what you're doing because these lenses were tested on very different cameras. The Fuji lenses were tested on an older 16mpix body while the viltrox was tested on the newest generation 26mpix body. So especially things like resolution can't be compared afaik.

Optical limit's addressed this and the OP quoted them... did you read the OP?

Yes, they addressed it by coming right out and saying the numbers can't be compared.  So why bother taking up half the post comparing the numbers?

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

 michaeladawson's gear list:michaeladawson's gear list
Nikon D5 Nikon D810 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-H1 Nikon D7200 +30 more
unhappymeal Contributing Member • Posts: 712
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)
1

michaeladawson wrote:

All those resolution comparisons you are doing are meaningless. They are shot with different cameras with a huge difference in pixel density.

They addressed the MP difference in the article. Based on their past pixel density tests, the Fujinon should perform worse on the new 26 MP sensors.

At the end of the day, the two lenses will probably be pretty comparable: more corner sharpness on the Fujinon and more centre sharpness on the Viltrox. It's up to the buyer if it's worth paying more than double to lose some centre sharpness and gain more corner sharpness on the Fujinon. Options are nice.

Atsel
Atsel New Member • Posts: 19
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)

OP compares resolution numbers. Its meaningless except in cases when Fujinons are better despite lower resolution sensors used.

 Atsel's gear list:Atsel's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL2 Sony RX100 II Samsung GX-20 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 +23 more
ricktachtig Forum Member • Posts: 62
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)

The price difference is huge over here. So this makes the Viltrox really interesting. The Fuji 23mm f1.4 is $926 vs $378 for the Viltrox 23mm f1.4

 ricktachtig's gear list:ricktachtig's gear list
Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R
michaeladawson Forum Pro • Posts: 14,363
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)
5

unhappymeal wrote:

michaeladawson wrote:

All those resolution comparisons you are doing are meaningless. They are shot with different cameras with a huge difference in pixel density.

They addressed the MP difference in the article. Based on their past pixel density tests, the Fujinon should perform worse on the new 26 MP sensors.

Sure they addressed it.  They said the numbers between the two lenses are meaningless.  So why does the OP devote half his post to comparing numbers?

The only thing of relevance in the OP post is the opinion statement from OL that they "think" the Fuji may be better at f/1.4 and f/2 if they were to rerun the tests with the same sensor.

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

 michaeladawson's gear list:michaeladawson's gear list
Nikon D5 Nikon D810 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-H1 Nikon D7200 +30 more
OP Rmcp20 Senior Member • Posts: 1,320
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)

Atsel wrote:

OP compares resolution numbers. Its meaningless except in cases when Fujinons are better despite lower resolution sensors used.

My point is very clear.

People were bashing the Viltrox because it was rated 3.5 , so lower than the Fujis.

My point was to show that what the graphics/tables show its that all lenses were better in some aspects. Still, even tested in a more demanding sensor the Viltrox achieved better center sharpness and less vigneting (much less actually).

And the diference in numbers from the corner sharpness table would be as big as it is now.

https://www.instagram.com/rui_porfirio/

 Rmcp20's gear list:Rmcp20's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm X-T30 Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +2 more
Atsel
Atsel New Member • Posts: 19
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)

Rmcp20 wrote:

Atsel wrote:

OP compares resolution numbers. Its meaningless except in cases when Fujinons are better despite lower resolution sensors used.

My point is very clear.

People were bashing the Viltrox because it was rated 3.5 , so lower than the Fujis.

My point was to show that what the graphics/tables show its that all lenses were better in some aspects. Still, even tested in a more demanding sensor the Viltrox achieved better center sharpness and less vigneting (much less actually).

And the diference in numbers from the corner sharpness table would be as big as it is now.

https://www.instagram.com/rui_porfirio/

"More demanding sensor" makes resolution numbers higher. So of course Viltrox has higher numbers in some cases. In the same time you show that Fujinons still have higher numbers in other cases despite lower resolution sensor which is pretty remarkable.

 Atsel's gear list:Atsel's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL2 Sony RX100 II Samsung GX-20 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 +23 more
Cagey75
Cagey75 Senior Member • Posts: 1,317
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)

I stopped reading their all-over-the-place 'reviews' long ago, I've seen them give some excellent lenses [in mine and many other's experience] 2.5 - 3 stars and some really so-so lenses 3.5+ Consistency is certainly not their strong point.

The only reason I wouldn't buy the Viltrox pair 23/33 is because the close focus capabilities are poor. Otherwise, other reviewers have shown that for example the 33mm 1.4 is sharper at ever aperture up to 5.6 than the Fuji 35 1.4, it is also silent and much quicker to focus. It's got everything [bar WR, which is insignificant to me tbh] else covered inc a very attractive price.

 Cagey75's gear list:Cagey75's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Venus Laowa 100mm F2.8 Macro Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +1 more
OP Rmcp20 Senior Member • Posts: 1,320
Re: Viltrox 23mm 1.4 - About optical limits review (not just reading the final rating)

Atsel wrote:

Rmcp20 wrote:

Atsel wrote:

OP compares resolution numbers. Its meaningless except in cases when Fujinons are better despite lower resolution sensors used.

My point is very clear.

People were bashing the Viltrox because it was rated 3.5 , so lower than the Fujis.

My point was to show that what the graphics/tables show its that all lenses were better in some aspects. Still, even tested in a more demanding sensor the Viltrox achieved better center sharpness and less vigneting (much less actually).

And the diference in numbers from the corner sharpness table would be as big as it is now.

https://www.instagram.com/rui_porfirio/

"More demanding sensor" makes resolution numbers higher. So of course Viltrox has higher numbers in some cases. In the same time you show that Fujinons still have higher numbers in other cases despite lower resolution sensor which is pretty remarkable.

I was thinking it would affect the oposite way, so i tried to ready about it.

Line Widths or Pairs per Picture Height (LW/PH or LP/PH)

The above is what Optical Limits use.

When searching about how pixel density/size can affect measurements, i found this:

"Resolution is measured using edges, Siemens stars or other regular structures with íncreasing frequencies. Units like LW/PH, LP/PH, or Cycles per pixel are independent of the sensor size and the pixel pitch.

They just take the resulting image and its frequency content into account not caring about the size of each pixel. Dimensions like LP/mm, L/mm, or Cycles/mm require the knowledge about the sensor size / pixel pitch."

-- hide signature --

LP/PH

"If you only express the resolution in LP/pix, you do not take into account that the sampling itself will reduce the resolution. So if you have camera A with 0.5 LP/pix and camera B with 0.4 LP/pix you would say that A is better than B. But if camera A has only 320 pixel in height and camera A has 2000 pixel, camera B will definitely show more details in the same scene. So to make the test results comparable with the efficiency (LP/pix) and the amount of pixel combined, express the resolution as line pairs per picture height. In this example, this would result in a comparison of 160 LP/PH to 800 LP/PH.

So it looks like unlike what optical limits said, pixel size is not important.

Source: https://www.image-engineering.de/library/technotes/761-resolution-measurement-and-its-units

--
https://www.instagram.com/rui_porfirio/

 Rmcp20's gear list:Rmcp20's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm X-T30 Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +2 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads