ART vs LAB | 135mm Showdown

0:00
[Music]
0:08
[Music]
0:10
The two most recent 135mm lenses on the
0:14
Sony E-mount platform are probably the
0:17
most interesting. One of those that was
0:19
released last year is the Viltrox Lab
0:22
series 135mm f1.8. And then we have the
0:25
new contender which is the Sigma 135mm
0:28
f1.4. 4, the world's first f1.4.
0:32
I thought I would take advantage of
0:34
having these two lenses at the same time
0:36
to give you one of my head-to-head
0:38
comparisons because I suspect that these
0:40
lenses might get cross shopped a bit.
0:43
And those of you that are trying to
0:44
decide on whether or not you want 135
0:46
millimeter lens, which one to go with,
0:48
there are definitely some really
0:49
compelling options here. Now, both of
0:51
them have a really obvious advantage
0:53
over the other. In the case of the
0:55
Viltrox, it retails for under $900.
0:59
Whereas the Sigma comes in at $1,900.
1:02
That's a $1,000 difference. That's
1:04
pretty obvious. But of course, the Sigma
1:06
is the world's first with an F1.4
1:08
aperture at this 135mm focal length. And
1:11
as we're going to see, that does give it
1:13
some advantages. So, what I have done is
1:16
I have worked off of a tripod and I have
1:18
done a series of comparison shots.
1:21
everything from chart testing to
1:23
portrait work and then of course a lot
1:26
of things in between trying to look at
1:27
the bokeh quality, the various optical
1:30
qualities along the way. And so today
1:32
we're going to do a series of
1:34
comparisons and at the end of the video
1:36
we'll do that actual deep dive into
1:38
those head-to-head if you want to see
1:39
all of that. But in the short term I'm
1:41
going to look at the things that are
1:42
similar between these lenses, the things
1:44
that are different and what I consider
1:46
to be the advantages for each one. and
1:48
so you can make a more informed decision
1:50
as to which one is your winner. Sound
1:53
interesting? Let's dive in and find out.
1:56
Now, in interest of a future showdown,
1:58
just to let you know, I am filming on
2:00
another one of these brand new Sigma
2:02
lenses. In this case, the 35mm F1.2 Mark
2:05
II, and I will be putting that
2:07
head-to-head with another Viltrox lens,
2:09
the Lab 35mm F1.2. So, stay tuned for
2:13
that in the future. Let's start by
2:15
talking about some of the things that
2:17
are similar between these lenses. They
2:19
do have a mostly similar feature set and
2:22
so that includes the ability to have
2:25
complex aperture control, be able to
2:27
declick the aperture, do aperture
2:29
racking, things like that. They have uh
2:32
an auto AFMF switch. They have custom or
2:35
function buttons and so the ability to
2:37
control various features like that. They
2:40
both have thorough weather sealing
2:42
starting with a gasket at the lens mount
2:44
and then seals throughout the lens and a
2:46
special coating on the front to resist
2:48
fingerprints and moisture. Both of them
2:51
have roughly similar autofocus speed.
2:53
They both have dual focus motors,
2:55
advanced focus motors, and autofocus is
2:58
near instant. And you can see here
3:00
whether we're looking at the Sigma or at
3:02
the Viltrox autofocus that both of them
3:04
are achieving, you know, really, really
3:06
snappy results back and forth. Not
3:08
enough difference there, I think, really
3:10
to distinguish the two. Neither one of
3:12
them have any issues with fringing, be
3:14
it longitudinal style or lateral style
3:17
chromatic aberrations. And we'll see
3:18
that a bit more in one of our test at
3:20
the optical breakdown at the end. Both
3:23
being thirdparty lenses suffer from the
3:25
same limitations here on the Sony
3:27
platform that I'm testing. Namely, you
3:29
can't shoot any faster than 15 frames
3:31
per second on any of the sport bodies.
3:33
and they also don't have access to
3:35
things like focus breathing
3:37
compensation.
3:38
So those are going to be limitations
3:40
that they both have to deal with.
3:42
Neither one of them has teleconverter uh
3:45
compatibility and that would be true
3:48
here on Sony because they're thirdparty
3:49
lenses, but neither one of them are
3:51
designed for use with teleconverters
3:53
either. And so both of them share those
3:55
limitations. Now, one obvious difference
3:57
that I'm just going to call a neutral
3:59
difference is that because the Sigma is
4:02
bigger and heavier, it does have a
4:04
tripod collar and foot here. And so, for
4:07
some of you, that might be a plus
4:08
because if you're working off of a
4:10
tripod, having that ability could be
4:12
good. However, with the Viltrox lens, it
4:14
doesn't have one, and neither have I
4:15
ever looked for one. And of course, it
4:17
needs a little bit less because it's
4:20
hard to call this lens smaller and
4:21
lighter, but in this case, it actually
4:23
is. And so, uh, that's a a distinction
4:26
there, but I'm not sure that it is
4:28
really a pro or a con because of the way
4:31
that it plays out. So, let's start by
4:33
talking about some reasons to choose
4:35
last year's Lab Series lens. The first
4:38
and most obvious of those, as we
4:39
mentioned in the intro, is the price. It
4:42
retails for the MSS MSRP is $899,
4:46
but with a discount code ones available
4:49
down in the description, you can drop
4:51
that price by about 5% and get more into
4:54
the $850 range. Whereas the Sigma lens
4:57
has an MSRP of $1,899.
5:01
So, at least $1,000 difference between
5:03
the two. That's obviously huge. You can
5:06
buy two of these for the price of the
5:08
one Sigma and have a little bit of
5:10
change left over there. Also, the lab
5:13
lens because it has an LCD screen and a
5:17
different kind of implementation here.
5:18
It actually has the ability to customize
5:21
it a little bit more. It has two
5:23
function buttons as does the Sigma lens,
5:26
but whereas the Sigma buttons will only
5:28
work redundantly, you can actually
5:30
program a different function to each of
5:32
these lenses through Viltrox's app. And
5:34
so that you can actually set like AB
5:37
focus for example and so do do instant
5:39
focus pools to that. So you have a a
5:42
focus distance scale, little things like
5:44
that. And so Viltrox definitely took a
5:46
little bit more risk when it comes to
5:48
the development of their design, but it
5:50
does give you a few more options there.
5:52
Another interesting uh advantage for the
5:55
Viltrox that is lacking on the Sigma,
5:57
one that I'm surprised by, is that the
5:58
Viltrox does have a focus limiter switch
6:02
that can be useful obviously if you're
6:04
trying to constrain your range to
6:06
exclude close focus or to only shoot at
6:08
close focus. And whereas with the Sigma,
6:11
you're stuck shooting the full range all
6:13
of the time. that's probably more useful
6:15
on the Viltrox because that leads us to
6:17
another advantage for the Viltrox and
6:19
then it is has the ability to focus down
6:22
much more closely uh into the like 70 cm
6:26
range as opposed to the 110 cm range for
6:28
the Sigma and the resulting
6:30
magnification is much higher on the
6:31
Viltrox a 0.25 25 times magnification or
6:35
a 1:4 ratio whereas we have more like a
6:38
0.144
6:40
times magnification here on the Sigma
6:43
lens. So as you can see that is
6:45
radically different.
6:47
Now while the neither one of these
6:49
lenses suffers much from vignette, the
6:51
Viltrox has less and it more obviously
6:55
has much less distortion. It basically
6:57
has zero distortion and zero vignette,
7:00
whereas the Sigma has a little bit more
7:02
vignette, but more importantly, it has
7:06
pretty obvious amount of pin cushion
7:08
distortion. So, definitely an optical
7:10
advantage there for the Viltrox. The
7:12
Viltrox, although it is a big heavy
7:15
lens, a year ago, we were complaining
7:16
about how this was bigger and heavier
7:18
than all of the other 135mm options on
7:21
the platform, it now has seated that to
7:24
the Sigma. And so it is actually nearly
7:26
200 grams lighter. It is about 19
7:30
millimeters narrower in diameter. And
7:33
while it is a hair longer, uh what you
7:36
mostly see is that big big diameter up
7:39
front that is much much larger larger on
7:41
the Sigma due to having that f1.4
7:43
maximum aperture. The other thing that
7:45
comes out of that is that the lens hood
7:48
for the Viltrox is kind of a what you
7:51
might call a normal size, whereas the
7:54
hood for the Sigma is what you might
7:56
call massive. And so you can see here
7:59
that that hood for the Sigma just goes
8:02
uh easily all around the entire diameter
8:05
of the Viltrox lens. Whereas here um if
8:08
you tried to put this hood on the Sigma,
8:11
you can see that there's a lot of room
8:12
to spare. And so these two hoods are
8:15
just the Sigma Sigma's hood is massive.
8:18
I can drop the hood of the Viltrox
8:20
inside of it. And so that's certainly a
8:23
factor that you might want to consider.
8:26
One other thing while we're looking up
8:27
front is that the Viltrox has a very
8:31
common 82mm front filter thread. That's
8:34
what basically all the other 135 f1.8
8:37
lenses on Sigma have. And whereas on the
8:40
Sigma, we have a very large 105 mm front
8:44
filter thread. So filters are not only
8:46
going to be more expensive, they're also
8:47
less common. And in this case with a
8:50
fast maximum aperture, you might want
8:52
filters. And so, you know, particularly
8:55
like an ND filter, which means you're
8:57
going to be spending even more money to
8:59
purchase filters to cover that, whereas
9:01
you be more likely to have 82 millimeter
9:04
filters. And if you don't, they are
9:05
cheaper than 105 millimeter filters.
9:09
So, how about some reasons to choose the
9:11
new Sigma instead? Well, the obvious
9:14
reason is the trade-off for that big
9:16
maximum aperture is that it is a big
9:18
maximum aperture. It is 2/3 of a stop
9:21
brighter than the f1.8 of the Viltrox
9:24
lens. And so, that means it's able to
9:26
let in a lot more light. And that comes
9:29
with a lot of different advantages that
9:31
we'll detail here. One of those is that
9:33
it comes with bigger, softer bokeh
9:35
highlights. And so definitely if you're
9:37
looking at specular highlights and an
9:39
applesto apples comparison, the ones on
9:41
the Sigma are much obviously bigger and
9:44
softer. It also means that you do have
9:47
some other bokeh advantages and just
9:49
kind of the optical signature. I feel
9:51
like the Sigma lens is a bit smoother in
9:53
the transition zone and has just a
9:56
smoother transition from focus to
9:58
defocus as a byproduct. It also is going
10:01
to demonstrate better low light
10:03
performance. One of the great
10:04
applications I found with the Sigma is
10:06
that it's really fantastic for doing
10:09
something like deep sky
10:10
astrophotography. Uh, and so shooting at
10:13
night, it's got low vignette. It's very
10:15
sharp and it's very bright and so it's
10:17
really useful for that. More so there
10:20
than what the Viltrox is going to be
10:22
because it's sucking in that much more
10:23
light. I also find that while you know I
10:27
as I said Viltrox took some risk with
10:29
the implementation of their uh having
10:32
LCD screen and the way that it functions
10:34
with the aperture ring I vastly prefer
10:36
the traditional aperture ring here that
10:39
comes with the Sigma. It just works more
10:41
efficiently. It's less glitchy. uh you
10:44
know, even on my copy of the Viltrox,
10:46
the what shows up on the LCD screen
10:48
doesn't perfectly line up with the
10:50
aperture stops, and so it's just it's
10:52
not perfectly calibrated. So, it's
10:54
little things like that that aren't a
10:56
big deal, but they're kind of annoying.
10:58
And the Sigma just feels like it's
10:59
better implemented. Now, I critiqued the
11:02
Sigma for the size of the hood, but one
11:04
thing I do like better between the two
11:06
lenses, and that is the simple fact that
11:08
the Viltrox hood, it doesn't stay locked
11:11
into place nearly as well. Whereas the
11:14
Sigma hood, while it is massive, it
11:16
actually has a dedicated lock and so
11:19
it's not going to be slipping around at
11:20
all. You do have to release that lock to
11:22
release the lens hood, but it's just
11:24
much more reliable than this Viltrox
11:26
hood, which just doesn't stay on right.
11:29
And so I do find that a bit annoying
11:31
there. And finally, Sigma has been
11:33
making lenses for a long time and it
11:36
shows. They're just a little bit more
11:37
polished in their general presentation
11:39
than what Viltrox is with the Lab
11:41
series. This Lab series represents
11:43
Viltrox trying some new things. And some
11:46
of those things I like, some of the
11:48
things I don't like as much. But I will
11:50
say generally I find that the Sigma just
11:53
feels like a little bit more mature,
11:54
less quirky product than what the
11:57
Viltrox does. So, that leads me to my
12:00
conclusion. Both of these lenses, as
12:02
you're going to see if you stick around
12:03
for the optical comparison, they are
12:05
amazing optically. They're just some of
12:07
the very best lenses that I have tested,
12:09
they both actually have really, really
12:11
good autofocus that is fast, accurate,
12:14
quiet, and operation. As I've just said,
12:16
I feel like the Sigma feels like a
12:18
little bit more mature product. And
12:21
obviously, that f1.4 4 aperture does
12:23
come with some certain assets, but the
12:26
Viltrox has truly unbelievable image
12:28
quality in some ways even a little bit
12:31
better than the Sigma as we'll see. And
12:33
obviously you can get that for way less
12:36
money. It's also of course smaller and
12:38
lighter and that's going to be a
12:40
consideration. So I would say buy the
12:42
Sigma if you just desperately want that
12:44
f1.4 for aperture and the things that it
12:47
can accomplish. And there are some
12:49
really some true values that come with
12:51
that. But if f1.8 works for you, save
12:56
your money and buy the Viltrox because
12:58
it remains a stunningly good lens
13:00
optically that really works beautifully
13:03
well for a whole lot less money, less
13:06
than half in fact. And that is a pretty
13:08
compelling argument for it. Now, if you
13:10
want more information, you have a couple
13:12
of options in the description down
13:14
below. There are links to my full
13:16
reviews on both of these lenses. And I
13:18
have thoroughly tested them in both
13:20
video and text form. And you can find
13:22
those in the description down below now.
13:24
And you if you want to see how they
13:26
compare optically and all of those
13:27
head-to-head situations that I
13:28
described, stay with me right now and
13:30
we're going to dive into that together.
13:32
So, we'll go through a series of
13:34
comparisons here. Always I'm going to
13:36
keep the Sigma on the left side and the
13:37
Vilt Trucks on the right side so you
13:39
know what you're looking at. Starting
13:40
here with vignette and distortion. You
13:42
can see that in both of these metrics,
13:44
the Viltrox takes a win. Uh it has
13:48
basically no measurable distortion and
13:50
almost no measurable vignette here on
13:52
E-mount. Whereas while the Sigma has a
13:56
low amount of vignette, it does you can
13:59
see that it does require some correction
14:00
and quite obviously it has a fair bit of
14:03
pin cushion distortion. So definitely a
14:05
win for the Viltrox on that front. So
14:07
we'll take a look at resolution and
14:08
contrast next. This is 61 megapixels
14:11
shown at 200% magnification. We'll start
14:13
with both lenses wide open. So that's
14:15
f1.4 for the art lens, f1.8 for the lab
14:20
series lens. So in this case with both
14:23
lenses wide open, the Viltrox is
14:26
slightly sharper and higher contrast in
14:28
the center of the frame. In the
14:30
mid-frame where I would argue that the
14:32
Sigma is best, it is a really really
14:35
close comparison. I think that the
14:36
Viltrox is still ever so slightly higher
14:39
contrast if you look at like the text
14:41
through this area, but the two lenses
14:42
are close there down into the corners.
14:45
Once again, the competition is very,
14:48
very close with hard to call a winner.
14:51
Though, I think maybe the contrast for
14:54
the Sigma lens is very slightly better
14:56
in the corners. Now, if we stop the
14:58
Sigma down to f1.8, 8. The center
15:00
comparison closes to where now I would
15:02
call them very very close in the
15:05
mid-frame area. It also is very close to
15:08
being a draw. They are both very good.
15:11
And down in the corners, I would say now
15:14
it is the Sigma that is sharper there.
15:16
Over here on this left side, the Viltrox
15:19
looks like it has a little bit higher
15:20
contrast in this kind of middle of the
15:22
frame zone and in this upper corner. The
15:24
two look very, very similar out in this
15:27
area. Maybe just a little bit more for
15:31
the Sigma lens. So definitely some give
15:33
and take with both of them at f1.8.
15:35
We'll just look at one more aperture,
15:36
f2.8, where both of these lenses are
15:39
pretty much perfect as sharp as they're
15:41
going to get. That is just a little bit
15:43
higher for the Viltrox, which as you can
15:45
see from the Moir there, it's almost
15:47
popping off the page. It is so sharp and
15:50
high contrast in the center of the
15:51
frame. Really, really fantastic.
15:53
Mid-frame, they both look really, really
15:56
excellent. And I think the Sigma, at
15:58
least in this zone, has very much a
16:00
slight edge, but the two of them are
16:02
extremely close. Down in the corners,
16:05
however, it's pretty clear that at least
16:08
in this area that it is the Sigma over
16:10
in this zone where Viltrox was a little
16:13
bit better before, it's still a little
16:14
bit better. And up in this corner, the
16:17
two of them are much more competitive,
16:19
very, very close. And so, I mean, it's
16:21
again, it's a bit of give and take. I
16:23
would say that the Viltrox is very
16:25
slightly more consistently good across
16:27
the frame. We'll look at one more of
16:28
these mid-frame areas. And both of them
16:30
are just amazing. Viltrox is just ever
16:33
so slightly higher contrast. Now,
16:35
another area where the Viltrox has a
16:37
pretty clear advantage is when it comes
16:39
to minimum focus distance and thus
16:41
maximum magnification. You can see that
16:42
the Viltrox is 0.25 25 times
16:45
magnification is much much higher than
16:48
what we see from the Sigma lens which is
16:51
down in the 0.14 times range. So
16:55
definitely a win for the Viltrox in that
16:57
metric. And of course that plays out in
17:00
the real world where not only do you get
17:01
a higher level of magnification but in
17:03
this case although the Sigma has the the
17:06
bigger maximum aperture and thus more
17:08
potential for blurring out the
17:09
background at most distances up close
17:12
the Viltrox is going to be the winner.
17:14
capable of just, you know, blurring out
17:16
the background completely, even though
17:18
the maximum aperture is a little bit
17:19
smaller. Sigma claws out a clear win
17:22
when it comes to the size of the
17:24
specular highlights. However, and you
17:26
can see that the bokeh balls, as they're
17:28
often called, are much bigger and also
17:32
rounder uh at the wide open apertures
17:34
between these two lenses. If I take a
17:37
look up here at just the contrast to see
17:39
if there's any kind of fringing, there's
17:41
a little bit more contrast for the
17:42
Viltrox lens, but neither one of them is
17:44
really showing any kind of fringing. The
17:47
biggest difference here though is the
17:48
size of those specular highlights. I
17:50
also noted when stopping down here at f2
17:53
that the Sigma does a better job of
17:55
getting that circular shape faster by
17:58
f2.8. However, both of them are quite
18:01
good. Now, the Sigma does have two more
18:03
aperture blades, 13 versus 11, but we
18:07
can see that both of them achieve kind
18:09
of a similar effect when it comes to
18:10
specular highlights here. Now, this test
18:13
shows one win for the Sigma lens and one
18:17
for the Viltrox lens. The Sigma win at
18:20
f1.4 versus f1.8. As you can see, that
18:23
background is just softer and creamier
18:26
than what it is from the Viltrox.
18:28
However, if we zoom into a pixel level,
18:30
we can see that the Viltrox is
18:32
definitely delivering better levels of
18:34
micro contrast. All of these textures
18:36
just really stand out with more
18:39
definition. And even if we stop the
18:42
Sigma down to f1.8, so apples to apples,
18:46
the Viltrox is still clearly higher
18:48
contrast, just better micro contrast in
18:51
those textures. Here's another situation
18:53
where I have focused on this area right
18:56
here. And if we look at these compared,
18:58
they're pretty close at this point. I
19:00
wouldn't really call a winner, but when
19:02
it comes to the softness of the
19:04
background, we do have a winner in that
19:06
the lines are just less obvious showing
19:08
up here. They're just soft. They're not
19:10
quite as soft looking on the Viltrox,
19:12
softer on the Sigma. And so that is the
19:15
advantage for the Sigma because of that
19:17
larger maximum aperture. In fact, even
19:19
if we stop the Sigma down to f1.8, 8. I
19:21
do think it retains a bit of an
19:23
advantage with the softness here uh
19:25
compared to the Viltrox lens. So, how
19:28
about flare resistance? Uh in this case,
19:30
I've positioned the sun kind of a a
19:33
typical shot where you might be shooting
19:34
with maybe the sun setting behind a
19:36
portrait subject. And you can see here
19:38
that the two lenses react in similar but
19:40
not identical levels. There's a little
19:42
bit of a halo effect on the uh Sigma
19:45
lens that's not present on the Viltrox.
19:48
There's also a little bit more of like
19:50
almost a light leak type look uh here of
19:53
kind of a veiling effect in the bottom
19:55
right of the image uh from the on the
19:57
Viltrox lens that isn't present there on
19:59
the Sigma. Now, interestingly, as I
20:02
stopped the lenses down, I found that
20:04
the Sigma's effect remained largely the
20:06
same. And so, in this zone of the image,
20:08
the two look very, very similar. But
20:10
what we see is that the Viltrox is
20:11
actually gone to a little bit higher
20:13
contrast level. So, shooting at f2.8,
20:15
eight, it actually does a little bit
20:18
less veiling than what the Sigma lens
20:20
does. These distinctions are really,
20:22
really minor, so probably not a major
20:23
difference. We'll conclude by looking at
20:26
a series of portrait uh images just to
20:29
see how they compare in this instance.
20:30
And so here in a similar type setting
20:33
and a roughly similar type pose, we can
20:36
see that if we compare the faces in
20:39
terms of the detail there, the results
20:41
are really, really close. Obviously, the
20:44
lighting is very slightly different
20:45
here, but as far as the amount of detail
20:48
that's there, both are very similar. If
20:50
we look towards the backgrounds here in
20:52
this particular image, they are not
20:54
radically different. Uh I would say that
20:56
if you looked at these images, you might
20:59
be you would be excused at least in
21:01
thinking that they were both shot with
21:03
the same lens because there isn't a
21:04
radical difference. However, I do think
21:07
that that superior geometry for the
21:09
Sigma does show up as you get towards
21:11
the sides here. And so, it's just a
21:13
little bit rounder looking in those
21:15
specular highlights and also a little
21:17
bit softer even though both of them are
21:18
at f1.8.
21:20
This particular image, however, shows a
21:22
bigger contrast. And so, number one, if
21:25
we start at f1.4.
21:27
So, these poses aren't identical. We'll
21:29
get to the identical pose here in just a
21:31
moment. You can see that both of them,
21:33
however, are producing plenty of
21:34
sharpness for this kind of setting.
21:36
Where I want to draw your attention,
21:38
though, is in this zone, which is
21:39
falling into a transition, a little bit
21:41
more of a complex area. There's no
21:43
question that the Sigma looks softer in
21:45
this zone versus the Viltrox. And so,
21:48
definitely an advantage there. Now, even
21:50
if we move to an applesto apples pose
21:52
here and so we can see both of these are
21:55
now at f1.8, 8. But looking at this
21:58
area, it still, to my eye, I think looks
22:00
a little bit softer on the Sigma than
22:02
what it does on the Viltrox. Now, yes,
22:04
the lighting isn't identical. That's the
22:07
problem with doing outdoor test. There
22:08
are variations in lighting. So, that
22:10
could potentially be a factor because it
22:12
is it's highlighting some of those
22:14
specular highlights with light that are
22:16
less so here. But, I do think that in
22:19
general, we're going to find that again,
22:21
the the backgrounds are just a little
22:23
bit softer with the Sigma lens. And if
22:25
we compare looking at sharpness and
22:28
contrast, even skin textures, they're
22:30
very, very different. The color
22:32
signature isn't identical between the
22:34
two, but they are extremely close. A
22:37
second shot here in this series, we can
22:40
see that again the can see those
22:42
background differences. They are minor,
22:44
but they do exist. And likewise, when we
22:46
look at the sharpness and contrast on
22:49
the face, the skin tones, it is very,
22:51
very similar. So, how about this shot
22:54
where we've got a nice full length here.
22:56
And so, this is where the advantage of
22:58
the f1.4 comes into play. Just giving
23:00
you a little bit more of a cutout look
23:02
from the background. So, again, if we
23:04
look at subjects at this distance, I
23:06
mean, there's plenty of detail on both.
23:08
There's a little bit more contrast,
23:09
micro contrast on the Vtrox if you look
23:11
in like the hair, but again, you would
23:14
be perfectly happy with that normally.
23:17
Looking towards the background, there is
23:19
that bit of difference where the
23:20
background is just a little bit softer.
23:22
the specular highlights are bigger uh
23:25
off of the Sigma lens and that gives a
23:27
bit of an advantage. Finally here with
23:29
both of them at f1.8 and a similar type
23:32
setting. Once again if we look in at the
23:34
subject micro contrast very slightly
23:37
higher on uh on the Vtrox lens but they
23:40
look very very similar. Not a whole lot
23:42
of difference. And again, if we look at
23:44
those backgrounds, you see kind of those
23:46
similar patterns that we have seen where
23:49
while there's a little bit of a kind of
23:51
a soap bubble effect here that's a
23:52
little more pronounced on the Sigma. And
23:55
at the same time, I do think that the
23:56
background is generally softer than what
23:58
it is on the Viltrox. So, that gives you
24:01
a look at maybe some of the comparative
24:03
strengths and weaknesses of the two
24:04
lenses optically. So, at the end of the
24:07
day, hopefully the deep dive into the
24:09
optical performance has helped you to
24:11
determine which one of these lenses is
24:13
going to be the best for you. As always,
24:15
thanks for watching. Have a great day
24:17
and let the light in.

ART vs LAB | 135mm Showdown

Dustin Abbott

TTArtisan AF 24mm F3.8 VCM Review | Full Frame $99 Pancake Treat

Sigma 50-120mm F2.8 DC OS Review | It Just Makes Sense!

SongRaw vs Viltrox Pro | 85mm Z-Mount Showdown

Laowa AF 35mm F2.8 APO Macro - A Flawed Macro Gem

7Artisans AF 18mm F2 | An APS C Pancake for $169!

The Best (Affordable) Way to Reach 600mm and 800mm on Sony

SongRaw 85mm F1.2 MS Review | Huge Lens, Huge Performance

Sony FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS Review | 600mm in Under a Kilo!

Sony FE 400mm F4.5 GM OSS Review | Lightweight Perfection!

Bluetti Elite 100 Mini Review | 1000Wh in a Small Package

Peak Design Roller Pro | A Perfect Bag at an Imperfect Price

Sigma 20-60mm F2.8-4 C Review | Your New Favorite Tiny Zoom Has Arrived

Sigma 85mm F1.2 ART Review | My New Favorite 85mm F1.2

7Artisans AF 10mm F25 MAX Fisheye Review - A Better Fisheye?

Phenyx Pro PTU-7000 Wireless Microphone System Review

Up next in 10

ART vs LAB | 135mm Showdown

Dustin Abbott