Up next in 10
Photographer Dustin Abbott shares a deep dive review of the Meike MIX 24mm F1.8 full frame prime for Sony FE and Nikon Z | Read the text review on dustinabbott.net: | Purchase the Meike MIX 24mm F1.4 @ B&H Photo https://bhpho.to/4nOup22 | Adorama https://howl.link/94gy87qhax8a9 | Amazon https://amzn.to/3LyP9h5 | Amazon Canada https://amzn.to/3JNqJ2P | Amazon UK https://amzn.to/4nOv57A | Amazon Germany https://amzn.to/4hPcabq
Check out the DA Merch here: https://bit.ly/TWIMerch | Become a Patron: https://www.patreon.com/dustinabbott | On the Web: http://dustinabbott.net/ | Sign up for my Newsletter: http://bit.ly/1RHvUNp | Instagram: http://bit.ly/DLAinsta | Facebook: http://on.fb.me/1nuUUeH | Flickr: http://bit.ly/1UcnC0B | 500px: http://bit.ly/1Sy2Ngu Follow Craig @ https://www.instagram.com/craigstoffersen/
Want to support this channel? Use these affiliate links to shop at:
B&H Photo: http://bhpho.to/1TA0Xge
Adorama: https://howl.link/nt4zdz1goa7ql
Camera Canada: http://bit.ly/DLACameraCan
Sony Canada: https://www.thesonyshop.ca/?ref=abbott
Amazon: https://amzn.to/3HrY64d
Amazon Canada: https://amzn.to/3qG1p18
Ebay: http://bit.ly/DustineBay
Into the AM Clothing: https://bit.ly/intotheAMda and use code DUSTIN10 for 10% off
Fioboc Clothing: https://tinyurl.com/FiobocDA20 and us code DUSTIN20 for 20% off
Make a donation via Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/dustinTWI
=============================
Table of Contents:
=============================
0:00 - Intro
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
[Music]
0:10
Hi, I'm Dustin Abbott and I'm here today
0:12
to give you my review of the new Mike
0:15
Mix 24mm F1.4. Their Mix series is this
0:19
is now the second uh lens in this series
0:21
of fast aperture full-frame prime
0:24
lenses. There was an 85mm f1.4 and now
0:27
this 24mm f1.4 4. And by the way, I will
0:30
be filming with it on my Alpha 1 Mark II
0:33
on all of these outdoor settings. And so
0:36
you get a sense of the overall rendering
0:38
and how well it does in tracking me
0:40
during this process. I'm always happy to
0:43
see a new 24 mm lens and particularly a
0:46
fast aperture. This lens is coming to
0:48
both Sony E-mount and Nikon Zmount. And
0:51
while there are lots of 35, 50, and 85mm
0:54
lenses, seems like everybody is making
0:56
those, there are much fewer 24mm fast
1:00
aperture lenses. And so there's only a
1:02
few options on Sony and then on Nikon
1:04
Zmount, there really isn't anything that
1:06
quite falls in this category. So this
1:08
lens at under $600, it could be really
1:11
interesting if it holds up in my test.
1:14
This is pitching itself into a premium
1:16
class in terms of the build and the
1:18
optics and even to some extent the
1:20
feature set. So, we'll explore all of
1:22
that in today's review. First, however,
1:24
I do want to thank Mike for sending me a
1:27
review copy of this lens. But, as
1:29
always, they have had no input in the
1:31
review process, nor will they see this
1:33
video before you do. This is a
1:35
completely independent review. So, let's
1:37
dive in and see if this is a lens worth
1:39
buying. All right, let's talk build and
1:42
handling here. And I think the most
1:43
logical place to start is with price. I
1:46
mean, the primary reason I think that
1:47
anyone is going to consider the Mike Mix
1:50
24mm is going to be because of the price
1:53
itself. So, this retails at 5.89 USD.
1:57
The G Master 24mm F1.4 G Master is
2:01
currently on sale retailing at B&H Photo
2:03
for about 1,500
2:05
USD. And then the Sigma 24 F1.4 for art
2:10
is $869 or $870
2:13
uh and then finally on top of that we've
2:16
got the on the Nikon platform where this
2:18
also will come in Zmount really the only
2:21
24mm point of comparison is going to be
2:24
the 24mm f1.8 S-line lens and while it
2:28
is only f1.8 versus f1.4 for it still is
2:31
north of $1,000. And so I think it's
2:34
going to be probably in some ways most
2:36
compelling price-wise there in that it
2:38
is close to half the price of the Sline
2:41
lens while giving an F1.4 versus an F1.8
2:44
maximum aperture. The build quality here
2:47
is very nice. Uh in many ways I would
2:50
say that the overall design and feel of
2:53
the lens actually feels a bit like a
2:55
Canon L series lens to me here. Um, it
2:58
has that kind of light flock material
3:00
and then of course it doesn't hurt to
3:02
have the red gasket that gives kind of
3:04
the red ring that is Canon L Canon L
3:07
seriesesque. And that uh ring here is
3:11
the beginning of a pretty thorough
3:13
weather sealing as you can see from this
3:15
diagram. I can't tell if it's seven or
3:17
eight seals, but either way it is it's
3:19
got a thorough weather sealing at
3:21
various points throughout the lens
3:22
itself. It also has a USBC port here on
3:26
the lens mount that will allow for
3:27
firmware updates. Always glad to see
3:29
that. And to me, that is the most
3:31
logical place to put the USBC port for
3:34
that. This lens is a little bit bigger
3:37
and heavier than competitors, though not
3:38
in kind of the extreme way of the
3:40
Viltrox Pro Series lens. And I think
3:43
that Mike is kind of fortunate that to
3:45
this point there is no Pro Series lens
3:47
because that's probably going if
3:49
something ever arrives in the 24mm focal
3:51
length. That's going to be obviously the
3:52
the chief competition uh in terms of
3:55
that price range there. So this lens is
3:58
79 mm or 3.1 in in diameter, 107 mm or
4:03
4.2 in long. So by comparison on that
4:07
length, the Sigma is 97 12 mm. So, right
4:11
under 10 mm shorter. The GM is shorter
4:14
still. It's 92.4
4:17
millime. And so, you know, close to 15
4:19
mm shorter. Likewise, when it comes to
4:21
the weight, this weighs in at 556 g or
4:25
19.2 O. It's got heft, but not in the
4:28
way of these recent Vtrox Pro series
4:30
with their all- metal body and 800 g
4:33
weight. You know, that you really feel
4:34
those in the hand. This you feel, but
4:36
you know, to it's it's a moderate weight
4:38
at 556 g. And that compares to the Sigma
4:41
510 g. So, you know, about 50 g
4:45
difference. And then the GM is a more
4:47
significant 445 g. So, more like a 100 g
4:50
difference between the two lenses there.
4:52
And so, definitely it is bigger and
4:54
heavier, but not in any any kind of
4:56
extreme or deal-breaking kind of way.
4:58
Really, it's the GM lens that is, you
5:01
know, is more different in terms of size
5:04
and weight relative to the Sigma. And
5:06
but of course, you know, you're going to
5:07
pay nearly three times for the the GM
5:10
lens. And so for many people, they
5:12
probably could handle an extra 100 grams
5:13
for an extra $1,000 in their pocket.
5:16
What we do have in terms of feature set
5:18
here is we have an aperture ring. I'm
5:20
always glad to see that. Though in this
5:22
case, it's not quite as featurerich as
5:25
some others that we have seen recently.
5:26
There is no D-click option here, and so
5:28
you have one-/ird stop detents, and
5:30
there's also no iris lock. And what's
5:32
more, there's not a very firm detent
5:35
between f-16 and the automatic point.
5:38
And so for those of you that don't like
5:39
aperture rings, it's going to be easy to
5:41
bump it out of the automatic and into
5:44
the manual aperture ring. And for those
5:46
of you that that like the manual
5:47
aperture ring, it it is possible to go
5:49
past F-16 pretty easily into the
5:52
automatic zone. So implementation is
5:55
okay, but not fantastic. We've also got
5:57
an AFMF switch. Always glad to see that.
5:59
And then we have got a custom or
6:01
function button that can be programmed
6:03
from within the camera itself. Aperture
6:05
iris is 11 aperture blades. The geometry
6:09
is fairly good. You can see here as we
6:11
stop down at f2 and f2.8 that retains a
6:14
circular shape. I do find for the
6:16
specular highlights there's a little bit
6:18
of a soap bubble type effect. A little
6:20
bit of outlining with specular
6:21
highlights. Some people like that look,
6:23
some people don't. And so just I just
6:25
want to highlight it and so you're aware
6:27
of it. We do have a fairly uh sculpted
6:31
pedal-shaped lens hood. My one complaint
6:33
here is that it fits a little bit
6:35
tighter than what it should. And so,
6:38
particularly to get into that lock, you
6:39
actually have to put for both locking
6:42
and unlocking, you have to put what I
6:44
would consider an uh uncomfortable
6:47
amount of pressure on there. So much so
6:49
that the first time I went to remove
6:51
that lens hood, I went looking for a
6:54
lock because I felt like there was too
6:56
much resistance and I was, you know, in
6:58
risk of breaking a lock on it. Turns out
7:00
that's not the case. I suspect that as
7:02
the lens gets used that that will loosen
7:04
some up, but even right now like I I
7:06
have to really put quite a bit of force
7:08
on there to click it into place. Now,
7:10
the upside of that is that it's not
7:11
probably going to slip out of out of
7:13
place. Up front, we have 72mm front
7:16
filter threads. That's the same as the
7:17
Sigma, a little bit be bigger than the
7:19
67 millimeter filter threads of the G
7:21
Master lens. Minimum focus distance is
7:24
not a strength. It's 28 cm and the
7:27
resulting magnification is is low,
7:29
probably in the 0.10
7:31
times range. And so if you're looking to
7:33
do close-up work as a part of your 24
7:36
millimeter work, not really a strength
7:38
for this lens, although the uplose
7:40
performance is fairly decent. Um, I
7:43
don't really have any complaints about
7:45
the image I get up close, but I just
7:47
can't get particularly close. And so
7:49
that could be a potential deal breaker
7:51
for some people, but in general, this is
7:54
a nicely built lens. It's a far cry from
7:57
the last mic lens that I reviewed. This
7:59
feels like a, you know, it's competing
8:02
in this space of these moderate um, but
8:06
professionalgrade build lenses. And so,
8:09
kudos to them on making that progress.
8:11
So, let's talk autofocus. Mike has used
8:14
an STM or stepping focus motor here in
8:17
the Mix 24 mm uh lens. And while you
8:21
know these days it seems like the better
8:23
quality lenses are using either linear
8:26
or a voice coiled type focus motors
8:29
certainly in this case I would say that
8:31
the STM focus motor works just fine. It
8:34
is quiet in operation. This is a I find
8:37
that the quality of STM motors does vary
8:39
somewhat. And this, I would say, is a
8:41
better one. When it comes to focus
8:42
speed, it's helped by the fact that 24
8:44
millimeters is relatively wide. So, a
8:46
little bit less uh thrust that is needed
8:48
to drive the elements. And I found that
8:50
I could go from near to far with good
8:53
elacrity and move back and forth well,
8:54
whether indoors or outdoors. And of
8:56
course, f1.4 aperture does make it a
8:59
little bit better when you're shooting
9:00
in, you know, those dimmer lighting
9:02
conditions. it's can suck in more light.
9:05
I also found that in the various things
9:07
that I shot, whether it was taking
9:11
photos of the cats or in my just outdoor
9:14
general kind of shooting, I found that I
9:16
got good focus results, good focus
9:18
consistency, I didn't really notice any
9:20
issue where I felt like focus was off.
9:22
And there's enough focus speed that in
9:24
most situations, I think that you're
9:25
going to have plenty of speed to achieve
9:27
what you want. I certainly think for
9:29
portrait work or shooting interiors,
9:31
you're not going to have any kind of
9:32
issue like that. And then when it comes
9:34
to sports, typically I would say that if
9:36
your goal is shooting sports with any
9:38
kind of focal length on Sony, it's
9:40
probably better to invest in the Sony
9:41
lens because then you're unlocking the
9:43
full potential of your camera in terms
9:44
of the burst speed and any kind of other
9:47
focus aids. But for most people, I don't
9:49
know that they're going to want to spend
9:50
that extra thousand to go to the G
9:52
Master lens. And so I think that in most
9:54
situations, other situations, this is
9:56
going to be sufficient in terms of focus
9:58
speed and quality of focus. So in
10:01
general, no reservations. It did the job
10:03
that I wanted and didn't have a lot of
10:05
drama in doing so. So let's talk video
10:08
autofocus. I actually thought that this
10:11
lens did quite a good job when it came
10:13
to video AF. When it came to things like
10:15
focus pulls, I found that it moved back
10:18
and forth with good confidence. No
10:20
issues there. and it did basically
10:23
everything that I wanted. You can see
10:24
that there is some focus breathing, but
10:26
it's not extreme. And so, I think that
10:28
it did just fine in that regard.
10:30
Likewise, with my hand test, I found
10:32
that it transitioned from my hand to my
10:35
eye good. And likewise, when I
10:36
approached the camera and I stepped in
10:39
and out of frame, you can see that it
10:41
picks me back up fine. No real issues
10:44
with that either. And so then I guess
10:47
probably equally important in shots like
10:49
this, you can see that focus is staying
10:51
stable on my face. It's tracking my eye
10:53
as it should and I'm not having any kind
10:55
of issue with it pulsing or losing focus
10:58
in this kind of setting. So at the end
11:00
of the day, once again, while it's not
11:02
the highest end focus system, it's
11:04
getting the job done. And certainly
11:06
while this lens might be a little bit
11:08
heavy for gimbal work in some
11:10
situations, I would say that as far as
11:11
the quality of focus, it would work
11:13
quite fine in that situation. Okay,
11:15
let's talk optics here. This is an
11:17
optical design of 15 elements in 12
11:20
groups. Fairly complex. And that
11:21
includes three uh extra low dispersion
11:24
elements, two high refractive index
11:26
elements, and then three aspherical
11:28
lenses in that optical design. Taking a
11:30
look here at the MTF, it shows a strong
11:33
center and mid-frame, both well above
11:36
the 80% threshold. And then you'll see a
11:38
dip as we get out towards the corners.
11:40
Um, but in general, it's a pretty
11:42
good-look MTF chart. There is an F8 MTF
11:45
chart that has some kind of weird defect
11:47
with a black line through it. That's
11:48
just the way it was on their website.
11:50
But anyway, it's it shows that the
11:52
performance stopped down. It's not as uh
11:55
strong in the center and the mid-frame,
11:57
but it's more consistent across the
11:59
frame. And that's a fairly common uh
12:01
kind of MTF profile for lenses like this
12:04
that as you stop them down, you might
12:06
lose a little bit in the center of the
12:07
frame, but you're gaining it just in
12:09
consistency across the frame. Now, when
12:11
it comes to distortion and vignette, I
12:13
there's a a relatively small amount of
12:16
of actual distortion. So, that is good
12:18
for 24mm lens. I only needed a plus
12:20
three to correct. However, what little
12:23
distortion is there is a little bit
12:24
complex. There's a bit of a mustache
12:26
pattern there. And so you're not going
12:28
to be able to manually correct it
12:29
cleanly. And so better to get a profile.
12:32
Unfortunately, in camera, you're not
12:33
necessarily getting correction uh in
12:36
camera. And so you're going to need to
12:38
do that in post. But in many situations,
12:40
and you're probably not going to have
12:42
enough of it for it to really show up.
12:44
Here's one example where I did see it,
12:46
and that was shooting through a window
12:47
frame with very straight lines. And you
12:49
can see kind of a before and after when
12:51
I manually corrected it, which I I could
12:52
do, and it wasn't terrible in that
12:54
situation. Uh, as far as vignette, it's
12:57
a plus 57, so a moderate amount. A
12:59
couple of stops of vignette in the
13:00
corners. Nothing terrible there at f1.4.
13:03
And it will of course lighten up as you
13:05
uh stop the lens down. I did find that
13:07
chromatic aberrations were well
13:08
controlled. Longitudinal style chromatic
13:11
aberrations were basically not an issue
13:12
at all either on my chart or shooting
13:15
the old SLR. Lateral style chromatic
13:17
aberrations in the corners. I did see a
13:20
little bit on my test chart, but in real
13:22
world shots, it was clean enough that I
13:24
don't think it's going to be any kind of
13:26
factor at all. And so, uh, good results
13:29
there. Now, looking at my test chart,
13:31
I'm testing on a 61 megapixel A7R Mark
13:34
5. So, obviously as high demanding as
13:36
you're going to get on full-frame at
13:37
this point. And what I found is that
13:40
when I look at the crops at 200% very
13:42
high magnification that the center and
13:44
the mid-frame and even into the corners
13:47
good sharpness contra contrast is not
13:50
off the charts at that point. And I
13:51
found in real world shots that that was
13:54
mostly what I saw though I did see some
13:56
variation. I did feel like at the closer
13:59
to medium range that contrast actually
14:00
looks pretty good in real world shots.
14:03
Uh less impressed at in like infinity or
14:06
landscape type distances. And so I
14:08
definitely saw a pretty notable
14:09
difference when stopping down uh when
14:12
shooting at infinity as you can see
14:14
here. Now going back to the test chart
14:16
for a moment at f1.8 there's a very
14:19
noticeable jump from f1.4 to f1.8 in
14:21
terms of contrast. And so if you need a
14:24
contrast boost just stop down a little
14:26
bit and you really it jumps up there
14:28
really quickly. I found by f2 corners
14:30
starting to look good. By f2.8 they're
14:32
looking pretty fantastic. And so at
14:35
landscape type apertures, you get really
14:37
good results, good detail, uh good
14:39
contrast across the frame. So no
14:41
complaints when it comes to the
14:42
sharpness from the lens itself in those
14:44
situations. Defraction is going to show
14:46
up by about f11 and then become more
14:49
noticeable at f-16. That will be a
14:52
little bit less extreme if you're
14:53
shooting on a lower resolution body,
14:56
however, but certainly I would use kind
14:58
of f11 as a practical upper limit for
15:01
that. The rendering from this lens is
15:03
actually quite nice. Now, a 24
15:05
millimeter lens, just by the nature of
15:07
the focal length, even with an f1.4
15:08
aperture, means that in most situations,
15:10
the background is still going to be
15:12
visible. You're not going to completely
15:13
obliterate it. If you get really really
15:15
close to it, obviously you can create a
15:17
defocused background as you see here,
15:19
but not to where it's just, you know,
15:22
just cream beyond it. And so, uh, and
15:24
and then if you're you're back a little
15:25
ways from your subject, um, your your
15:28
subject is going to stand out from the
15:29
background, but the background is still
15:30
going to be visible, as you can see in
15:32
this shot here. But I would say that the
15:34
overall rendering is fairly soft for a
15:37
wide-angle lens, and I had no complaints
15:39
about that. Likewise, another critical
15:42
thing for a wide-angle lens is its flare
15:44
resistance. And I actually felt like the
15:45
lens coatings did a really good job
15:47
against bright lights with minimal uh
15:50
ghosting and not hardly any veiling
15:52
there. And so good results there. I also
15:54
had an opportunity to shoot the night
15:56
sky and I saw fairly low levels of coma
16:00
in the corners. The star points in the
16:02
corners at f1.4 aren't like super crisp
16:05
and so I think that again if you stop
16:08
down a little bit f1.8 8, maybe f2. You
16:12
might get a little bit light, less
16:13
slight gathering potential, but you
16:14
would get a more even illumination, less
16:16
vignette, and also crisper star points
16:18
in the corners and a little bit less
16:19
coma. So, that might be worth doing
16:21
there. In general, however, for a 24mm
16:25
lens, which again, it is a it's a harder
16:27
engineering feat as you go wider and you
16:29
still attach f1.4 to it. And so I think
16:32
that they've done a really solid job of
16:34
giving a really strong optical
16:35
performance here and a lens with a, you
16:37
know, a moderately inexpensive price. So
16:41
in conclusion, I would say that I came
16:43
away fairly impressed from what Mike has
16:46
done with the 24mm 24mm f1.4.
16:50
This is a lens that, you know, fills a
16:53
niche in that there really isn't a lot
16:55
of 24mm f1.4 budget options. And while
16:59
right under $600 isn't like absolutely
17:02
cheap in a you know $200 or $300 space,
17:05
this is a higherend lens than that and I
17:07
think relative to the the cost of the
17:10
lens, you're getting a lot of lens for
17:11
your money. Now the challenge will be at
17:14
least on the Sony platform is that
17:16
you've got the Sigma 24mm f1.4 4, which
17:20
is a little bit more featurerich and
17:22
slightly higher performing,
17:24
and it's also a little bit smaller and
17:26
lighter, though not by any kind of
17:27
significant factor, and it's going to be
17:29
available for roughly an additional
17:31
$300. Now, that's still an extra big
17:34
chunk of money, but there may be some
17:35
people who are more likely to spend
17:37
money on a proven lens like the Sigma as
17:40
opposed to the mic. But also on the
17:42
Nikon platform, there is it's just not
17:45
really a whole lot there, particularly
17:46
if you're looking for f1.4. So, I do
17:49
think that there is going to be a market
17:50
for this lens and you know, probably
17:52
when it hits sales in the future, it's
17:54
going to be even more affordable and
17:56
thus even more attractive from a price
17:58
to performance perspective.
18:00
At the end of the day, however, Mike can
18:02
only control what they can control in
18:04
terms of their own design. And I think
18:06
that they've done a good job with this.
18:08
This lens is really strong optically.
18:10
Autofocus seems to be good and confident
18:12
here on Sony. No issues there. And
18:14
optically, I feel like you're getting a
18:16
really nice performance. um in a lens
18:18
that is reasonably priced. This lens, I
18:21
would say, exceeded my own personal
18:22
expectations, particularly when it comes
18:24
to the quality of the rendering from the
18:26
lens. So, I have no problem giving it a
18:28
recommendation if you're looking for a
18:30
24mm f1.4 lens and you're on a tighter
18:34
budget. Now, if you want more
18:36
information, you've got a couple of
18:37
options here. You can either check out
18:39
my full text review, which is linked in
18:40
the description down below on the newly
18:43
redesigned dustinbot.net. So, check that
18:46
out. And if you are interested in a
18:49
deeper dive into the optical
18:50
performance, you're in the right place.
18:52
And we're going to jump into that
18:53
together right now. Okay, let's start by
18:56
taking a look at vignette and distortion
18:57
here. And so you can see that for a 24mm
19:00
lens, this isn't a an excessive amount
19:03
of distortion in terms of the quantity.
19:05
It's really not bad. However, you can
19:07
see here post correction, there is a bit
19:09
of a wave there. So it's not a linear
19:11
distortion. And so it is a little bit
19:13
more complicated to correct. Likewise
19:15
for the vignette, I needed a plus 57 to
19:17
correct. And probably my biggest kind of
19:19
negative here is if I happen to be
19:21
shooting on snow, which unfortunately
19:23
I'm about to be doing for months on end.
19:25
This kind of discoloration in the corner
19:27
is a little bit harder to correct for.
19:29
And so that's my biggest complaint
19:31
there. I would say the amount of
19:32
distortion is mostly low enough that you
19:34
won't see it very often. However, in
19:36
this image, because I had a little bit
19:38
of an uptilt with the angle of the
19:41
camera, and then also we can see that it
19:43
was very straight lines I was shooting
19:45
through, you can see you can see some
19:47
effect from that. Over here on the
19:48
right, I was able to manually correct in
19:51
what looks pretty clean to me. So, it is
19:54
certainly correctable, but in some
19:56
situations, it will require correction.
19:58
Now, longitudinal style chromatic
20:00
aberrations, that's fringing that comes
20:02
before and after the plane of focus at
20:04
wide apertures. very very well
20:06
controlled. Nothing really before or
20:08
after. Here on my dad's SLR, you can see
20:11
that uh the lettering is nice and crisp.
20:13
And then as we look towards all of the
20:15
shiny bits here, there's no fringing
20:17
marring them. Taking a look at the
20:19
specular highlights, we can see that the
20:20
geometry stays quite good. However,
20:23
there's kind of an inner glow that gives
20:25
it a little bit of a soap bubble type
20:26
effect. And I also noted that while the
20:28
geometry stays fine as you stop the lens
20:31
down, you can see that the bokeh circles
20:34
get progressively busier as you go. So
20:36
just noise inside and that inner
20:39
outlining becomes more and more
20:41
pronounced. Here's another close-up shot
20:43
that shows, you know, good control of
20:45
fringing. You can see a bit of those
20:46
specular highlights coming and very,
20:48
very low fringing before and after the
20:50
plane of focus. lateral style chromatic
20:52
aberrations show up near the edge of the
20:54
frame and you can see there are a bit of
20:56
them there, but I didn't really see them
20:58
much in real world images, so I'm not
21:00
particularly concerned. Now, we'll take
21:02
a look at resolution and contrast. This
21:04
again is a 61 megapixel A7R Mark II, and
21:07
this is a 200% level of magnification.
21:09
In the center of the frame, we can see
21:11
that there's lots of detail and contrast
21:13
is good, not great. We can see, for
21:15
example, in the lettering, it's a little
21:16
bit faded looking. And as we see look
21:19
here the mid-frame again it's mostly
21:21
good but just like a very slight haze on
21:23
the texture due to slightly lower
21:25
contrast. Uh we see however a good
21:28
consistency here to here. So it's not
21:31
dropping fast and even into the corners
21:33
we can see the corners are softer but
21:35
not extremely so. What I found in real
21:38
world shots is that my perception of
21:39
sharpness and contrast kind of varied
21:41
from the focus distance. And so in this
21:44
shot for example I was a little
21:45
disappointed by this. It was softer than
21:48
what I expected. As I look out towards
21:50
kind of infinity, there's just uh some
21:53
murky looking textures, not particularly
21:55
crisp. Here's a second shot here at f4.
21:58
And it shows you what I'm talking about.
22:00
You can see a pretty radical difference
22:02
in the amount of sharpness and contrast
22:04
here, stopping down to f4. And so this
22:07
lens is certainly capable of much
22:08
crisper results, but wide open at
22:10
landscape distances, it's not
22:12
particularly impressive. In this shot at
22:14
f1.4 for at a closer focus distance.
22:16
Contrast and detail looks really quite
22:18
good. You can see all the fine hairs
22:20
around the eyes. They look really nicely
22:23
delineated. You could see good contrast
22:24
looking on the trunk and the portion
22:26
that is in focus here. Likewise in this
22:29
shot, I feel like look at those ice
22:31
crystals. They look, you know, very good
22:33
contrast and detail on that. Uh looks
22:36
good. And then finally this shot, you
22:38
can see it looks very crisp and good
22:40
contrast here at f1.4. So at these
22:43
closer focus distances, good, not so
22:46
much at landscape. The good news,
22:47
however, is that there's a lot of extra
22:49
contrast available just with a very mild
22:52
stop down to f1.8. And you can see
22:54
there's a pretty significant jump.
22:56
Looking at this text in particular, you
22:58
can see it is just much crisper here in
23:00
the mid-frame. Look at the the word
23:02
Canada, for example. The darks here at
23:04
f1.8 are just so much darker. And so
23:06
that allows there to be more contrast in
23:08
the textures, in the writing. All of
23:11
that is starting to pop out. And while
23:13
the corners are not super crisp yet, you
23:15
can see that they're brighter and there
23:17
is more contrast. So, a very significant
23:20
improvement. You can see from f1.8 to
23:22
f2.8 that that contrast and detail is
23:25
really, really growing. And so, now I
23:27
would say the corners are looking quite
23:29
good overall. If we pop up to the upper
23:31
left corner, you can see that there has
23:34
been a mild further improvement by f5.6.
23:37
everything just feels a little bit
23:38
brighter and with a little bit more pop.
23:40
But we're hitting at a very good level
23:42
here already by f5.6. And so if we take
23:44
that into the real world, you can see
23:47
this is at f6.3 that there's great
23:49
detail here looking throughout the the
23:52
image. But even if we pan here to this
23:54
side, you can see the detail is holding
23:56
up there. We swap over to the other
23:58
side, you can see very fine delineation
24:01
of all of those pine needles and the
24:03
trunks here. Everything looks nice and
24:05
crisp.
24:06
Likewise in this image, which was pretty
24:08
impressive because it is very strongly
24:09
backlit, and you can tell that by
24:12
looking at how much light is being
24:14
reflected off of the water here. But
24:16
even in this really high contrast
24:18
situation with really bright
24:20
backlighting, you can see that the
24:21
detail and contrast is holding up
24:24
really, really well all across the frame
24:26
here. So I was actually really impressed
24:28
by this particular image. So that detail
24:30
and contrast will carry through f8. By
24:32
f11, it's starting to get a little
24:34
softer due to defraction. And then by
24:36
f-16, which is the minimum aperture, you
24:38
can see it's considerably softer on my
24:40
high resolution body due to the effects
24:42
of defraction. Now, we've already noted
24:44
that the level of magnification is not
24:46
particularly high. This is minimum focus
24:47
distance here. But on the plus side, you
24:50
can see that detail and contrast are
24:52
really quite good in that area of focus.
24:54
And here, this was as close as I could
24:56
get while focusing on this leaf. So the
24:58
the magnification is not impressive, but
25:00
the amount of detail there is quite
25:03
good. And looking at the out of focus
25:05
area, you know, it looks quite nice.
25:07
Here's another shot kind of showing us
25:09
the out of focus. In these optimal
25:11
conditions, it really looks quite good.
25:14
Um, there is some of that outlining
25:15
there, but it's not too obvious. This is
25:18
a slightly less favorable ratio because
25:21
the background is more complicated and
25:23
you are seeing a little bit more edges
25:24
there. And if I take another step back,
25:27
you can see it gets a little busier.
25:28
Lots more of those things are just less
25:30
defocused and so more of those hard
25:32
edges emerge. This shot again getting a
25:34
little bit closer and a little more
25:36
favorable background. It looks nice to
25:37
me. The image as a whole I really like.
25:40
Here you can see I'm a little bit
25:42
further back, probably about 2 m, 6 feet
25:45
away from my area focus. And so you can
25:47
see that everything even at f1.4 is
25:49
still quite in focus. And the edges are
25:52
a little bit harder. It's going to trend
25:54
more towards contrast here than it is
25:56
towards just softness of defocus. But in
25:59
general for a 24mm lens, the bokeh
26:01
quality is pretty decent. And we'll
26:04
revisit flare resistance again for a
26:05
moment because I think this is a real
26:06
strength for the lens here at f 1.4.
26:09
Just that tiny little ghosting artifact.
26:12
Here you can see a little bit of a
26:13
prismatic haze. This is at f11, but the
26:16
sun star looks good. The image is nice
26:17
and clean. And you can see here that at
26:20
certain angles you'll get kind of that
26:22
pattern. And I'll show you f11 again
26:24
panning back and forth. This is probably
26:26
the most of ghosting artifacts, but it's
26:28
a stylish flare pattern, so I consider
26:30
that to be useful. One final metric that
26:33
we'll look at is for the night sky for
26:35
coma. In the center of the frame, star
26:37
points look nice and crisp. As I move
26:39
towards the corners, they're a little
26:40
bit softer and less defined. There is a
26:42
tiny bit of coma as you can see here,
26:45
but it's not bad. My recommendation from
26:47
what we saw is stop down to f1.8. you'll
26:49
get more consistent illumination in the
26:52
corners, maybe a little bit less coma,
26:54
but sharper, crisper star points. And I
26:56
think that, you know, when used that
26:58
way, this is a nice astro lens. So, in
27:00
general, a pretty strong optical
27:01
performance. So, hopefully the deep dive
27:03
into the optics has helped you to
27:05
determine whether or not this lens is
27:07
for you. As always, thanks for watching.
27:09
Have a great day and let the light in.
27:13
[Music]