Thanks for your review!!! Appreciate that! This 50mm f0.95 lens, it's a cheap but super cost-effective choice for you, you gonna love it!! We just wanna bring something fun and also fresh to everyone and that's also our original intention.🥰🥰 And thanks for everyone's comment, please keep up with the new product for our brands, it will release soooon !!!
Hi Chris, one thing I would love you to include in tests of fast lenses is their effective light transmission. Many of those like to brag about F/0.95 aperture, but what people may not know, is their light transmission is often awful, even to a level of T1.3 and beyond.
T stops and equivalent aperture (not just focal length in 35mm) are the two things all reviewers really need to start doing. It helps everyone buying gear and helps to prevent companies giving misleading specs by calling them out on it. A new one which surfaced recently is with the Sony "1 inch sensor" phone which not everyone was specifying used only a portion of the sensor.
Yeah, and specifically the light transmission per-sensor. The major issue is that sensor microlenses are set up to block light coming in from too extreme an angle so that light for neighbor pixels doesn't blur into them, but a crazy wide aperture like a f/0.95 lens lets a lot more light in...except that light gets rejected by the microlenses, and it'll change for each sensor because they have different pixel pitches.
To add to my comment, and this relates a bit to vignetting, even mapping the light transmission to say 9 zones across the image, so we could know the avg amount of light transmission in each. I know it requires a bit more work, But I really think that those of us who care to maximize shutter speed and exposure effectiveness will care about. Really hoping reviewers will start doing that and collide ambitious claims about aperture and speed with real world results.
In extension to this, some of these only get quite sharp at a darker aperture. I have a 50mm f1.2 but it makes more sense to shoot my f2 lens despite the higher iso since the image is still sharper than a lower iso picture with the 1.2
Absolutely. This particular lens looks to be even darker than T1.3 or T1.4 if you average out the light hitting the focal plane of the whole image frame.
As you say, "at f2, picture quality begins to take shape" - so I stick to my 50mm f1.8 lens, no point in buying a 0.95 lens if you can't use the first f stops with satisfactory results.
you don't buy a 0.95 lens for its f/2 peformance, rather the Bokeh and that "dreamy" depth of field. It all depends on what you're looking for in a lens
@@krishnavandewalle9459 And low light ability for some. I use mine a lot for shooting video at night etc. But yeah definitely not for its f/2 abilities, lol
@@Fedorevsky I definitely use big apertures for low light concert/event photography where the effects of high ISO (even with noise reduction) are bad enough that I can live with soft corners.
Soft image and low contrast can work wonders for creative and pleasing portraits. Softening wrinkles for older people for example. Lens 'defects' can be very usefull. A technicaly perfect picture is often a boring one.
I bought one 4 months ago for my Panasonic S1R and I love it, I shoot wide opened for dreamy effect or stop down for sharp photos, can't complaint for the price paid.
Hi Chris, thank you for another great review. When you tested the 7artisans 50mm f/0.95 you also tested the light transmission (no real t-stop measurement but good enough to evaluate how good the low light abilities are). For me this would be an important point since most cheap f/0.95 lenses don't really shine when it comes to image quality and therefore the only reason to consider buying one is the low light ability. Please keep up the excellent work. I learned so much from your videos when it comes to decide which lenses are interesting for me and what I should check when buying one.
Both the illumination as well as overall image falling apart at the corners suggests this lens's image circle is not really fullframe. The center softness, halos and CA at wider apertures also indicate it is only as far as it can go for a sub-$400 super speed lens.
Nice review Chris!! But as I’ve banged on about before, if one has to stop down a lens to get any kind of quality, the stated f/ number should be disregarded. Just my opinion….this is a f/2.0 lens!
Can you name scenarios in which a lens used at f0.95 with only a sliver of depth of field requires extreme corner sharpness or indeed, a 100% crop from various parts of the frame?
It would make a great EF-s lens, the sharpness is okay wide open within the APS-c image circle It might have been designed with different mounts/formats in mind and then just slapped on to full frame
Hi Chris, thanks for the review and video. Your detailed reviews are my absolute guide before i choose and buy a lens. I was wondering are you planning to review relatively new 35mm f/0.95 version of Brightin Star lens? An individual review for this lens would be great but i think if you make a comparison video between the 35mm f/0.95 lenses include this lens too, i think that would be amazing and be watched quite a lot. I mean like the comparison for the 50mm f/0.95 lenses you made before. Looking forward to hear from you about Brightin Star 35mm f/0.95 in a video just for this lens or in a comparison video. Thanks again!
I know that flaring isn't desirable normally but as an artistic choice I actually rather like it. I'm not sure I would have a use for this lens though. But then, for the price it's not bad I suppose.
I bought one and like it. Obviously it's a 'creative' lens to play with, not a general purpose 50mm. But the price reflects that and it does function as a 50mm of reasonable quality from f2 onwards. I'm disappointed with the close-up quality, being too soft to use as a creative macro lens. I end up using it at the f1.2 - f1.4 range which somewhat defeats the point. Flares and ghosting, although worse than a regular lens, are better than some other budget wide aperture options and I haven't found them to be a problem.
These massive aperture lenses are largely a marketing gimmick. All of them need to be heavily stopped down for an acceptable image. The lowest aperture that I've ever seen tack sharp (note: I don't own any legendary $1000+ lenses) was f/1.8 on a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art lens. The major issue with massive apertures is that sensor microlenses are set up to block light coming in from too extreme an angle so that light for neighbor pixels doesn't blur into them (thus more sharpness), but a crazy wide aperture like a f/0.95 lens lets a lot more light in...except that light gets rejected by the microlenses, and it'll change for each sensor because they have different pixel pitches. Also, Chris, thanks for throwing in that iMovie song (can't remember if it was Buddy.caf or what right now) that DigitalRev TV's Kai loved so much. It was nice to hear that in a camera video again.
My Kamlan 50mm f1.1 mk2 is tack sharp in the centre straight from wide open. It's almost good enough for pixel peepers. The problem is that the focus plane is hair thin and not that useful for general use. My Soviet KP16 50mm f1.2 (projector lens, so fixed aperture) is even sharper in the centre but has quite severe petzval distortion, barrel distortion, and edge softness.
@@tomhsia4354 I have the original version of that lens. It's not nearly as good. I got angry when they released the second one because everyone said it was a huge improvement and I'm stuck with the original.
@@JodyBruchon Well, the original is a fun "art" lens, the second version is an actual good lens. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have the level of success they do now without the original f1.1. I did watch Christ's reviews before buying the second lens, that's why objective reviews are important.
An odd beast. I think the image quality is just a little too poor to make this tempting at any price. With those super-dark corners, you could argue that this is really an APS-C lens and no more. Can you perhaps add an APS-C corner chart?
It sounds like the design is such that, to get any kind of decent IQ, you need to stop down to f2 or f2.8; at that aperture range, there are a LOT of lenses to choose from, particularly if you throw in vintage glass since this is fully manual. I like the idea of it, but it just doesn't seem to be worth buying unless you really want a niche lens for very specific photos that need between f0.95 and f2.
Hi Chris. You've had a few lenses recently with poor close up image quality. Is it worth trying out a close up filter at the original minimum subject distance (so the focus ring would be set for much further away). If it worked it would make the lens more useful for portraits etc.
Hi Chris, maybe you could give a try at a chinese lens. Syoptic 50 1.1. A really nice and affordable lens. Mine is e-mount but there is other avaliable.
Considering the Brightin Star 50/1.8 is 1/4 the price and much better image quality - and smaller and lighter - there's really no point buying this unless you actually want blurry photos for some reason.
This look like a f0.9 lens that should have been a f2.8. I guess thats why there arent that many around, manufacturers see the limit of the lens and set the aperture from that?
I used mine for shooting a scene lit by only candles for a short film. It often comes in handy for low light video like that. That's why I got it. Low light video for narrative stuff where the softness just adds to the filmic quality. You won't need a black mist filter or similar for this when shooting wide open.
Excellent paperweight. People won't be happy when using it. I have experience in this because I bought a 1.4 lens that was not usable until stopped down a stop or two. In the end I gave up on it because of focus shift and so on. It is no joy.
Looks like a 50mm f/2.0 lens to me :| The fringing before that point is ludicrous, and the sharpness very limited. I much prefer any of my f/1.8's over this. Actually makes me wonder if this lets in f/0.95 levels of light.
This demonstrates clearly that building an f0.95 lens isn't difficult: building one that isn't awful at maximum aperture is. In essence this is really an f2.0 lens, and not a very good one.
