PRO vs GM 50mm F1.4 Showdown | Can Viltrox Give Sony a Scare?

0:00
[Music]
0:10
For the last 2 and 1/2 years since March
0:14
of 2023, the Sony 50mm f1.4 G Master has
0:20
been my go-to 50mm lens on E-mount. I
0:24
think that it has an amazing combination
0:26
of performance, size, and the price at
0:30
the time was relatively good, at least
0:34
compared to the 50mm f1.2 G Master lens.
0:37
I use this lens all the time. It's my
0:39
go-to lens for filming for this channel.
0:42
And so, it gets heavy use. And I haven't
0:44
really seen a 50mm lens that I would
0:47
consider to be an adequate replacement
0:50
until maybe now. Part of the problem in
0:54
2025, of course, is that due to a lot of
0:57
pricing shifts around the globe, but in
0:59
particularly in the North American
1:01
market, the price of the GM is now
1:05
another $150 higher than the $1,300
1:08
price pack price tag it was when I
1:11
reviewed it. And so now you're looking
1:12
at about $1,450.
1:14
Whereas we have a new Challenger from
1:16
Viltrox, the Pro AF50mm F1.4. It's the
1:20
lens I'm I'm filming on right now at the
1:23
moment that you can get for $549
1:26
US. And you can get it for even cheaper
1:29
than that with a discount code that's in
1:30
the description down below. But more
1:33
importantly, it is the first 50mm lens I
1:37
feel like comes close to replicating the
1:40
overall performance of the GM lens. And
1:44
in at least one area, I feel like it
1:47
actually exceeds past what is maybe the
1:51
only weakness that I can think of on
1:53
this lens. And it's something that I'll
1:54
delineate in this comparison, but in
1:57
many ways, we've got a lens that has
1:58
fairly similar feature set. It has
2:02
fairly similar performance on most
2:04
areas. Now, the new Viltrox lens does
2:07
comes at a substantial weight penalty
2:10
compared to the GM lens. And so if
2:12
you're wanting to travel light, this is
2:13
still the way to go. But for those of
2:15
you that are on a tight budget and are
2:17
looking at a lens that gives you, let's
2:19
say, 90 to 95% of the GM's performance
2:22
for about a third of the price, well,
2:24
the new Viltrox might be interesting.
2:26
But let's see how they hold up when I
2:27
put them headto head. So, we're going to
2:29
dive in and we're going to take a look
2:31
at these two lenses, both of which are
2:32
my own personal copies of these lenses.
2:34
And so, there is no outside influence.
2:36
This is a direct head-to-head. And just
2:39
like you, I'm trying to make up my mind
2:41
which one of these two lenses I like
2:43
better. Let's take a look. So, this was
2:45
a really interesting comparison. And
2:47
before I jump into the reasons to choose
2:50
one lens over the others, let's take a
2:51
look at the overall build and feature
2:53
set because there is a lot of
2:55
commonality here on that front. So,
2:58
taking a look at the G Master in terms
2:59
of the build as far as the materials
3:01
here, it's a typical blend of engineered
3:04
plastics around a metal frame. There is
3:06
a weather sealing gasket here. internal
3:09
seals uh throughout the lens itself and
3:11
then a floor encoding on the front
3:13
element. As far as the feature set, we
3:16
have redundant uh function or focus hold
3:18
buttons that can be programmed within
3:20
the camera. Both have the same function,
3:22
but this isn't available if you're
3:23
shooting in the vertical position. You
3:25
have the AFMF switch here. And then you
3:28
have a very fullfeatured approach to
3:30
aperture, the ability to have the
3:32
aperture with clicks, the ability to
3:34
declick the aperture for aperture racks
3:37
or smooth movement in between. And then
3:40
we also have this iris lock. And so you
3:42
can uh click that. It is a little bit of
3:44
a firm switch, but if you click now into
3:47
the automatic mode, you can then lock it
3:49
there. And so if you don't want to use
3:50
the aperture ring, and of course you can
3:52
do the opposite if you don't want to
3:54
inadvertently, that switch is really
3:55
tight. um move into the automatic
3:58
position. You can lock it in there. We
4:00
do have a nice lens hood here that does
4:03
have a lock on it and a rubberized bit
4:05
up here. Overall, a nicely built lens.
4:08
And of course, as we've seen, it is
4:09
fairly lightweight for a 50mm f1.4. Now,
4:12
the Viltrox Pro AF here, it actually
4:16
feels like the more premium lens. It and
4:18
that's because its body is all out of
4:20
this aircraft grade aluminum alloy. So,
4:23
it feels really nice and has kind of a
4:25
almost a satiny feel to it that is
4:27
really really quite nice, particularly
4:29
in person. However, it is a little less
4:32
featurerich than what the GM lens. Now,
4:34
we do have the weather sealing gasket
4:36
here along with the the Viltrox USBC
4:38
port for firmware updates. And so,
4:41
there's seals throughout the body. They
4:43
have an HD nano coating that functions
4:45
similar to the flooring coating on the
4:47
GM lens. So all of that is similar, but
4:50
we have only one rather than two of the
4:53
function buttons. We do have the AFMF
4:55
switch. We do have the ability to
4:57
declick the aperture. And then so all of
5:00
that is good, but what we don't have is
5:01
the iris lock. And so we have a nice
5:03
firm detent between F-16 and automatic.
5:06
However, you cannot lock in or out of
5:09
that. One other thing I will note,
5:11
however, is that definitely the manual
5:14
focus ring is feels nicer. It's got a
5:16
heavier damping and so it just feels
5:18
more professional. The GM's is really
5:21
light. There's not much feel to it. And
5:24
uh and this just in this case, this
5:26
feels more like a true manual focus
5:28
experience. And there's not just
5:30
similarities when it comes to the build,
5:32
the design, the weather sealing, things
5:34
like that, but I also found that for
5:36
video work, which is actually the
5:38
primary way that I use the uh Sony GM
5:41
lens, really there isn't much difference
5:44
in terms of the autofocus and just
5:46
general quality of use in that kind of
5:48
setting. Let's take a look at a couple
5:50
of tests to illustrate that. Okay, this
5:52
time of year, there's a little bit more
5:53
sacrifice in getting these things for
5:55
you. It's cold and it's wet out here,
5:57
but I wanted to test a couple of things.
5:59
I'm filming on the Viltrox Pro 50mm
6:01
f1.4. So, take a look at the background
6:03
as I approach the camera, getting a
6:05
sense of the rendering, and then also,
6:07
of course, the tracking as I get close.
6:09
Now, we'll see the reactiveness here. If
6:11
I pop down out of the frame, and I pop
6:14
back in, off to the side, and then back
6:17
in, you can see it's picked me up
6:19
nicely. And as I progress away from the
6:21
camera, check out the background and how
6:23
the overall rendering is. Okay, now
6:26
running the same series of tests here on
6:28
the Sony 50mm f1.4G
6:31
Master lens. And so as I get nice and
6:34
close here, let's see how reactive we
6:35
are as I go out of frame and pop back in
6:39
out of frame and back in. And then as I
6:42
back up, take a look at the background
6:44
and the overall rendering here. as long
6:46
as well as the way that it tracks me as
6:48
I moved towards and away from the
6:50
camera. And beyond just the approaching
6:52
and the reactiveness on camera, I also
6:55
have found that when it comes to the
6:56
focus pulls back and forth that really
6:59
they're very similar and uh if if
7:02
there's any difference if if I think
7:04
that the damping on the Viltrox is very
7:06
slightly better in that regard and also
7:08
it exhibits less focused breathing. And
7:11
so if your priority is video work um and
7:13
you can handle the weight, the Viltrox
7:16
certainly has some advantages there on
7:18
that front. Mostly just because the fact
7:20
that it's cheaper and really gives you
7:22
the same type of performance. There are
7:24
some other reasons to choose the Viltrox
7:26
Pro lens, however. The most obvious of
7:28
those is going to be the price. The
7:30
price is currently $549 or less with the
7:33
discount code in the description versus
7:35
$1,448
7:37
for the GM. So that's a $900 plus
7:40
difference plus the tax difference and
7:42
anything else that you might encounter.
7:44
And so you're talking about a really
7:46
significant essentially the Viltrox is a
7:48
third of the price by the time you do
7:51
all of the the math there. Also, as
7:53
noted, it actually does win when it
7:55
comes to focus breathing. Now, to be
7:57
fair, the Sony has access to focus
7:59
breathing compensation in Sony cameras
8:02
that are so equipped and and so I mean
8:04
in that case that helps to balance out
8:06
that difference. But obviously if you
8:09
happen to be using a camera that doesn't
8:10
have that, the Viltrox actually gives
8:12
you less focus breathing and might be a
8:14
little bit better for focus or for video
8:16
focus work uh relative for you relative
8:19
to the GM lens itself. Now one of the
8:22
optical differences here is that uh
8:24
interestingly it is the Viltrox that has
8:26
less fringing than the G Master lens
8:29
particularly when it comes to the
8:30
longitudinal style fringing that you can
8:33
definitely see when they're shiny
8:34
objects. the the Viltrox is much more
8:37
neutral and cleaner when it comes to
8:39
that. And while the difference isn't
8:41
radical, there is less distortion on the
8:44
Viltrox lens. It has a barrel style
8:46
distortion, but it's very linear and
8:48
easy to correct. And then the the Sony
8:51
actually has a little bit of pin cushion
8:53
style distortion, but it is a little bit
8:55
more complex and it is a little bit
8:57
harder to correct for. At the same time,
8:59
however, I do have to acknowledge the
9:01
fact that the Sony is going to get
9:02
better profile support and so may not be
9:04
a real world issue for you when it comes
9:07
to that. One of the areas where I
9:10
definitely preferred the Viltrox lenses
9:12
when it came to the quality of specular
9:14
type highlights. For one thing, there is
9:16
a little bit smoother geometry up
9:18
towards the corner. A little bit less
9:20
clipping there. And what's more, if you
9:22
zoom in and you look at those specular
9:24
highlights, they're a little bit
9:25
smoother, a little less outlining, a
9:26
little less activity inside. And that
9:29
does play the factor into what is the
9:31
final point here. And to me, the most
9:34
important distinction. I've loved the
9:36
overall optical performance of the Sony
9:38
lens, but if there's any area where I
9:40
would have wanted improvement, it is
9:42
that I think that the the overall
9:44
quality of the bokeh is good, but not
9:46
great. The Viltrox edges closer to
9:49
greatness. And in transition areas, it's
9:51
smoother. As I look at images just side
9:54
by side without any kind of label, I
9:56
instinctively choose the Viltrox. Just
9:58
the overall rendering, the the kind of
10:01
color signature to it. It just appeals
10:03
to me a little bit more. Now, obviously,
10:05
all of these things are subjective, so
10:07
your mile mileage may vary, but I would
10:10
say that the Viltrox not only matches
10:13
the rendering from the GM lens, in my
10:15
opinion, it exceeds it to some degree.
10:17
So, that's a pretty compelling reason to
10:19
consider the Viltrox. However, there are
10:22
some really, really strong reasons to
10:23
consider the Sony as well. It is
10:27
smaller. It's 96 mm in length. So, that
10:30
is 15 mm shorter than what the Viltrox
10:33
lens. And the big difference is going to
10:35
be the weight. If you have these two
10:37
lenses in hand, there's a very obvious
10:40
difference between the Viltrox and the
10:41
Sony lens. at 516 grams. The there's a
10:45
284
10:47
gram difference between the Sony and the
10:50
Viltrox. And so that extra 284 grams,
10:53
you definitely feel it. This is a dense
10:55
feeling lens that actually feels very
10:57
much like a like a Zeiss Milvis type
11:00
lens. You have it in hand that metal
11:02
body and that heft to it. It feels very
11:05
Zeiss like in its overall performance.
11:07
The Sony wins for being able to focus a
11:10
little bit closer, 41 cm versus 45 cm,
11:14
and thus gets a higher level of
11:15
magnification, which is 0.16 times
11:18
versus 0.14 times. And so, if you want
11:21
to do a little bit of close-up work, not
11:23
only is the Sony going to give you
11:25
higher magnification, it also gives you
11:26
a little bit better performance, better
11:28
contrast and detail up close,
11:30
particularly at large apertures. And so,
11:32
that's certainly a reason to consider
11:34
the Sony lens. Now, while I've pointed
11:37
out that for video work, there's really
11:39
not any kind of meaningful difference in
11:41
the autofocus performance on the stills
11:44
side of things, you can definitely see
11:45
here that the dual XD linear motors of
11:48
the Sony allow it to be just a little
11:50
bit snappier in performance. It is
11:52
essentially instant and going from close
11:54
to distant subjects. Whereas you, while
11:56
it's fast, the Viltrox, you can see a
11:59
little bit of focus taking place. And so
12:01
in critical situations where you really
12:02
need that speed, uh maybe for shooting
12:05
sports or something highly reactive,
12:07
you're going to see a difference with
12:08
the GM lens. The GM has a couple of
12:11
extra features that we noted earlier on.
12:13
It's got the iris lock. It's got the
12:15
second uh function button there. And so
12:18
both of those could be beneficial to
12:20
your work as well. Sony is always going
12:23
to give some baked in advantages to a
12:25
first-party lens. It has access to that
12:27
breathing compensation, better in camera
12:29
profile support. You're going to get the
12:31
full burst speed. So, if you're wanting
12:32
to shoot action, for example, on my, you
12:35
know, Alpha 1 Mark II, I can shoot 30
12:37
frames per second with the Sony. I can
12:39
only shoot 15 frames per second on the
12:40
Viltrox. So, definitely some things to
12:42
bear in mind. What's more, you're
12:44
probably going to find that your after
12:47
sales support with the Sony is going to
12:49
be better. If you actually did have to
12:50
have it serviced, there's more likely to
12:52
be a service center in your area. your
12:54
response times are going to be faster.
12:56
All of that customer service type thing,
12:58
Viltrox isn't on the same level as a
13:00
company like Sony when it comes to that.
13:03
On the optical side of things, kind of
13:05
the biggest advantage for the Sony is
13:07
that it is slightly sharper in basically
13:09
all of my tested situations. And if you
13:11
want a deeper dive into that, if you'll
13:14
wait till the end of the video, I'll
13:15
really go deep into the headtohead and
13:17
so you can see all of these things. But
13:19
certainly, it is an extremely sharp
13:21
lens. It is one of the sharpest 50mm
13:23
lenses I've ever tested. And and so
13:26
while the Viltrox is good, it's not as
13:27
good as what the GM lens is. My
13:31
conclusion is is that if cost were no
13:33
object, I would still call the Sony the
13:35
better lens. It manages to be sharper
13:38
and faster focusing while also being
13:39
considerably smaller and lighter. But
13:43
what makes the Viltrox interesting is
13:45
how close it is in all of the tested
13:48
categories while also giving a nicer
13:51
smoother rendering and costing about a
13:54
third of the price of the Sony. And so
13:56
while I think that the GM lens is still
13:58
the gold master in this category, I
14:00
would say that the Viltrox is definitely
14:02
the best budget alternative that we have
14:05
ever seen uh come into this space. I
14:08
would personally I would take this over
14:10
the Sigma 50mm f1.4. for art any day of
14:13
the week. Uh I just feel like the the
14:15
look of the images coming out of it I
14:18
like a lot and the Sigma eh I wasn't
14:21
blown away by that. Now again it's all
14:23
subjective and your mileage may vary.
14:25
But if you are interested in having a
14:27
high performing 50mm f1.4, you got some
14:30
strong biceps and a thin wallet, well
14:33
the Viltrox might be the perfect option
14:35
for you. If you're someone that wants
14:37
the gold master and you want the best,
14:39
well the 50mm f1.4 4GM is a fabulous
14:42
lens that I use all the time and I love.
14:46
And if all of these things add up to
14:49
being worth nearly $1,500 for you, then
14:51
go for it and enjoy it. Now, if you want
14:54
more information on either one of these
14:55
lenses, I have linked in the description
14:57
down below my full video and text
15:00
review. So, check that out. And if you
15:02
want a deeper dive into the optical
15:03
performance, you're in the right place.
15:05
Let's jump in and let's take a look.
15:07
Okay, let's start off with looking at
15:09
vignette and distortion. Throughout
15:10
these series of comparisons, you'll have
15:12
the Viltrox on the left, you have the
15:13
Sony on the right. You can see that the
15:15
Viltrox has a milder amount of
15:17
distortion. It is a slight barrel style
15:19
distortion, but just like a plus three
15:21
to correct for that, whereas the
15:23
Pinkusha distortion here on the Sony is
15:25
more like a minus5 to correct. However,
15:28
the Viltrox has the heavier vignette as
15:30
you can see. So, a little bit of give
15:31
and take between the two. Now, when it
15:34
comes to longitudinal style chromatic
15:36
aberrations, you can see there is a bit
15:38
of green fringing showing up here on the
15:40
test chart for the Sony lens. Not a
15:43
whole lot here for the Viltrox, a tiny
15:44
bit of like a bluish uh fringing here
15:47
before the plan of focus. But if we pop
15:49
over to real world subjects, we can see
15:52
if we zoom in here to the shiny bits
15:54
that the Viltrox is pretty neutral here,
15:56
whereas you can definitely see some
15:58
fringing here, some green here in the
16:01
out of focus area. You can see something
16:02
there. There's a little bit of a like a
16:05
yellowish type fringing there, but it's
16:08
not very obvious. Likewise on this shot,
16:10
you can see that on the shiny bits,
16:12
there's definitely a lot of fringing
16:14
here on the GM lens. While there is
16:17
basically next to none on the Viltrox,
16:19
over on this side, you can again see
16:21
just fringing on some areas. There is a
16:23
little bit of that yellowish fringing,
16:24
but it's not nearly as obvious from the
16:27
Viltrox. Likewise up here in the
16:29
specular highlights, you can see a bit
16:31
of that green fringing. You can see a
16:33
little bit of the uh kind of yellow
16:35
orange on the Viltrox as well. What I
16:38
kind of stood out to me is also that
16:40
there is a little bit more of this
16:42
outlining type effect in the specular
16:44
highlights from the GM, whereas there's
16:46
kind of a pattern in the Viltrox, but
16:48
it's smoother. And you can also see a
16:50
little bit more defined inner line in
16:52
some areas that is just not as obvious
16:55
on the Viltrox, which does help in the
16:56
rendering that we'll get to in just a
16:58
moment. And as we get up towards the
16:59
corner, a little bit more of the limit
17:01
or cat eye shape, whereas it's just
17:03
slightly rounder on the Viltrox. So here
17:06
you have a look at a kind of a
17:09
threedimensional object before we jump
17:11
into the chart testing to kind of
17:13
compare the two in a couple of areas.
17:15
So, first of all, if we jump in here and
17:17
we look at a three-dimensional subject,
17:19
you can see that there is very slightly
17:21
more contrast for the G Master, but it's
17:24
not by any kind of significant margin.
17:26
It, you know, if I, as I track on down,
17:28
I see it throughout, but not any kind of
17:31
really pronounced kind of way. The
17:33
Viltrox does render a little bit warmer
17:35
than what the Sony does. And in my
17:38
opinion, the out of focus areas just
17:40
look a little bit softer and smoother
17:42
from the Viltrox lens. But we'll check
17:44
back in on that in just a moment. All
17:46
right, taking a look at raw resolution
17:48
and contrast. This is on a 61 megapixel
17:50
A7R Mark 5 and 200% magnification
17:54
levels. Both lenses look awesome, but
17:57
the GM looks awesomeer. It has better
17:59
contrast. Um, it just is a little bit
18:02
more precise and like the lettering here
18:04
looks better in the mid-frame. We see
18:07
that the uh the Viltrox looks good. The
18:09
GM looks great. and uh on down into the
18:12
corners. Not a radical difference maybe
18:15
in this area, but as we move off towards
18:16
the edge of the frame, you can see that
18:18
the GM just holds its detail uh longer
18:21
and better. And so it just looks really
18:24
strong. Both of them are nicely centered
18:27
as you can see here. But definitely the
18:29
GM's advantage is there. It's subtle,
18:33
but it's persistent throughout the whole
18:35
frame. By f2.8, eight. The gap has
18:38
narrowed a bit, but the GM is still
18:39
definitely the sharper of the two
18:41
lenses. Again, I look at this text and
18:43
it really just is popping on the GM. If
18:46
we move up here to the midframe, we can
18:48
see that both of them are delivering
18:50
just brilliant levels of performance.
18:52
Great contrast. All of the text is
18:54
really, really crisp. However, the GM is
18:57
just slightly better there. If we pop up
19:00
here into this corner, we can see that
19:02
the GM looks a little bit better here.
19:06
But, you know, it's it's definitely
19:07
better looking down in this area right
19:09
off towards the edge, the GM still has
19:11
better contrast just holding up there
19:14
right into the corners. Now, while I
19:16
could argue that both of them are just
19:18
sharp enough in all these circumstances,
19:21
let's take a look at some
19:22
three-dimensional. This is back to f1.4
19:25
here. And so, if we're looking at the
19:27
subject area here, the GM, you can see
19:30
it's just a little bit crisper near
19:31
those edges. But again, without them
19:33
side by side, it could be hard to see
19:36
that. For me, the general rendering here
19:38
favors the Viltrox. It just the blend of
19:41
the colors looks a little bit um more
19:43
appealing to my eye at least. And then
19:46
it's just a little bit softer in some of
19:47
the areas that matter in this image.
19:50
Likewise, here you can see that just the
19:52
out of focus area is a little bit
19:53
smoother and the image is it's a little
19:56
bit warmer, but in a pleasing kind of
19:58
way. in terms of the uh the contrast.
20:01
The contrast very slightly favors the
20:03
GM, but you can see once again that it's
20:05
kind of splitting hairs. Now, this
20:07
particular image I think is a little bit
20:09
more telling. And so, first of all, if
20:11
we jump into our area of focus, even
20:13
though it's off near the side of the
20:15
frame, both of these lenses look
20:17
amazingly sharp at f1.4. Now, what's
20:19
interesting, however, is we start to
20:21
look at this area towards the defocus.
20:24
So, in this area, we're heading into
20:26
that kind of transition zone, and you
20:28
can see that there's just there's more
20:31
that draws the eye. It's a little busier
20:33
looking here on the GM on the right,
20:35
whereas the Viltrox is smoother. It has
20:37
almost a little bit of that warm glow to
20:39
it that uh tends to be just really,
20:41
really pleasing to the eye. If we look
20:43
up into this zone, there's a little bit
20:45
less hard edges that catch the eye.
20:47
Everything just blends together a little
20:48
bit more, just producing a smoother end
20:51
result. And so definitely to my eye, the
20:53
transition to defocus is nicer here than
20:56
what it is on the GM. One final example
20:59
on this front. And so here I've
21:00
specifically chosen kind of a busier
21:02
type subject here and busier background.
21:05
So again looking at the detail and
21:07
contrast, I do think the GM is better,
21:09
but again the margins are close. And
21:12
likewise, as we look towards the
21:13
background, both of them look a little
21:15
bit busy here, but the um Viltrox is
21:19
just a little bit softer, a little bit
21:21
smoother in the way that it renders
21:23
these backgrounds. The hard edges are a
21:25
little less defined. And so the
21:28
byproduct is that this is still to my
21:30
eye just the smoother looking end
21:32
result. Now, when it comes to flare
21:34
resistance, they neither of them are
21:36
perfect, but they're imperfect in a
21:38
little bit different ways. And so here
21:40
with the Viltrox, you can see the image
21:42
gets kind of a warm glow. Again, I am
21:44
partial to that. We're also getting just
21:46
kind of some light rays that are coming
21:48
in. Whereas with the uh the GM, we see a
21:51
couple of these uh kind of prismatic
21:54
rings and a little bit more of a
21:56
ghosting artifact here. Uh to my eye,
21:58
it's a little bit less artistic than
22:00
what the Viltrox is. Likewise, in this
22:03
image here, if you can see, the sun's
22:05
coming through very bright into the
22:06
frame. Again, the Viltrox gives a little
22:08
bit more of a glow. In this case, I'm
22:10
not really seeing any ghosting on the
22:11
GM. And I would say that the contrast is
22:14
holding up a little bit better because
22:16
the Viltrox does veil a little bit. Now,
22:19
in the middle of the aperture range here
22:21
at f5.6, the two uh images to my eye
22:24
look really, really similar. It's the
22:26
only difference I could say is that
22:28
feels like the Vtrox is working towards
22:29
a sun star whereas the GM isn't yet. At
22:32
this point, we see that carry out a
22:34
little bit further here at f11 if you
22:37
look outside of the epicenter of the
22:39
sun. The images look almost identical,
22:41
but definitely some more of the aperture
22:43
blade showing here on the Viltrox,
22:46
whereas the GM is just more of kind of a
22:48
bright spot. And so, you're going to
22:50
have to look at that and determine which
22:52
one of those is more preferable to your
22:54
eye. I'll show you one final comparison
22:56
here. And this kind of shows off a few
22:58
things. Looking at the general
23:00
rendering, you can look at the
23:01
background and all the image itself.
23:03
Now, if we look in at the plane of focus
23:05
here in this shot, definitely the micro
23:08
contrast favors the GM lens, which is
23:11
really rendering those fine pedals and
23:13
all that detail very nicely. You know,
23:15
depth of field maybe isn't totally
23:17
identical, but I feel like it's just
23:18
crisper delineated on the teacup itself.
23:22
And really, the advantage for the
23:23
Viltrox is going to be the overall just
23:25
kind of warmth and defocus quality. But
23:28
definitely some while they're these two
23:31
lenses are very close, they have
23:33
slightly different strengths. All right,
23:35
so hopefully the deep dive into the
23:37
optical performance from these two bad
23:39
boys has helped you to determine which
23:41
one of these or neither is the lens for
23:43
you. As always, thanks for watching.
23:45
Have a great day and let the light in.
23:49
[Music]

Livestream Starting Soon

PRO vs GM 50mm F1.4 Showdown | Can Viltrox Give Sony a Scare?

Dustin Abbott

iPhone 12 mini Camera Test with iOS 26 Beta Update: Is It Still Any Good?

GOOGLE Pixel 7 Pro Camera Tricks & Tips | Advanced Camera Options

Samsung Galaxy A36 5G Camera Test

Nissan Rogue — “AWD Error / 4WD Error” Reset

PRIMA vs EVO | Compact 85mm Showdown

Everything Wrong with the Bambu H2D - Review

✅ The (NEW) Lodge Sportsman Pro Grill

Top 5 Kayak Paddles | PaddleTV Award Winners

The 2026 TV King! Micro RBG vs OLED

10 Plug-In Hybrid SUVs Under $50,000 That Actually Reduce Fuel Costs

The Best Headphones That Money Can Buy...

anthony venture: amex platinum: how to get it cheaper (annual fee savings)

Kayak or Standup Paddleboard? Full Review of Tahe 11'6 Beach SUP-YAK

This solves the OLED problem! MSI QD-OLED X36

TOP SECRET SMARTPHONE DELIVERY

Livestream Starting Soon

Up next in 10

PRO vs GM 50mm F1.4 Showdown | Can Viltrox Give Sony a Scare?

Dustin Abbott