We’re gonna test it out and see if it sucks and is a giant waste of your 82$ or if it’s a bargain if you should pick one up.
This one is from Microfauna 30. But a version for Fuji for the same price.
And Sony for about 25$ more, which I link all three in the article description. The brand is called newer.
And it was very surprising to see them make a lens. It’s a fully manual, 35 millimeter F 1.7, which is really nice if you want to shoot in low light if you want to isolate your subject from the background, like in portrait shooting, all of the video clips you see are completely hand-held.
And even though the lens doesn’t have stabilization, many of the latest cameras like the Eiman mark include it in the body, which smooths out the video and allows for slower shutter speeds when taking photos. Make sure to hit that subscribe button to see my full review of this new Olympus camera that has the ibis built-in as-built quality.
I was really impressed. It has a bit of weight to it because of its all-metal design, including the lens mount and its front cap, which doesn’t clip. It just slides on.
But the way they designed it, it stays on. The lens is fully manual, meaning you select your aperture and set your focus manually on the lens. The focus reading a smooth with hard stops and along through this makes manual focusing so much enjoyable and precise compared to using lenses with focus by wire systems.
The capture ring is clipless, so you can smoothly change the aperture without it being a noticeable shooting video. As far image quality. The price speaks for itself.
Sharpness isn’t horrible. Wide-open like the 50 millimeters 1.1 SLR magic that I reviewed last year. Compared to that, it’s usable.
But don’t expect stunning results, especially with photos for key video is less demanding on lenses. Here, the lens performs better. If you want sharpness, I would suggest stopping down the F to a weight where it noticeably better and the corners are much sharper at F 5 6. The lens performs exceptionally considering the price in real-world uses.
I didn’t notice distortion, but when doing my sharpness tests on a flat box with lines, it’s noticeable.
Like with most cheap lenses, fringing is the issue and is noticeable with high contrast situations. This is fairly easy to fix with photos, but much harder with video, depending on your use case. This may not be an issue, if you shoot with lights or sky behind your subject or in the snow, it will definitely be noticeable.
If you have to shoot in one of these situations, I’d suggest stopping down F to wait to reduce fringing.
The only native micro for third’s lens that has the focal length is my twelve to 35, which sells for between 702000$ and f 2.8. The sharpness difference is definitely noticeable, in the corners.
But at 5 6, while not being sharp, the New Year keeps up.
Being this close to our subject and shooting straight lines in the corners, the barrel distortion is really visible. If you’re a photo shooter and you want to shoot portraits with a shallow depth of field, I would definitely suggest trying to scrape up a bit more money and get a native lens that’s gonna be sharper and with autofocus.
I’ll go ahead and link some good low price options for all three camera systems in the article description.
If you shoot a video, honestly, this is a really great starter lens. If this is what your budget allows. It’s easy to manual focus and it’s really cheap. Sure, you can buy adapters and try to find vintage glass, but a lot of those lenses aren’t very sharp either.
And with this, you just put it on and you’d have to worry about it.
Keep in mind my lenses for micro for third. So with a larger sensor, edges will be softer and you’ll have more of in the setting and barrel distortion noticeable.
I’ll have a link to this lens and all three mounts, along with some good low priced alternatives in the article description below.
If you enjoyed this article.A big shout out to all the patrons who make articles like this possible and get some perks for just a few bucks a month.