Thypoch Voyager 24-50mm F2.8 Review | China's First AF Zoom Lens!

0:00
[music]
0:10
>> 2026 [music] is the year that I thought
0:12
we would see the first auto focusing
0:15
zoom lens from a Chinese manufacturer.
0:18
Except for I expected it to be someone
0:20
like Viltrox for example, or maybe
0:23
Sirui.
0:24
But instead, we do have the world's
0:26
first auto focusing zoom lens from a
0:29
Chinese lens maker, but it is from an
0:32
unexpected source. The TTArtisan Voyager
0:35
24-50mm f/2.8 is that first full frame
0:40
auto focus zoom lens from a company that
0:43
hasn't even made auto focus before. So,
0:45
it's a really curious jump for
0:47
TTArtisan, but I'm really glad to see
0:49
that they have had the courage and as
0:52
we're going to see the expertise to pull
0:54
off a zoom lens like this. There's a
0:56
reason why we see most new lens makers
0:59
focus on making prime lenses as opposed
1:01
to zoom lenses because the amount of
1:03
complexity of engineering involved with
1:05
making a zoom lens is well, challenging.
1:08
And it's typically best handled by those
1:10
that have some experience in doing so.
1:13
Outside of the first parties, basically
1:15
we see
1:16
third-party zooms coming from
1:18
well-established companies like Tamron
1:20
and Sigma who know very well how to make
1:23
effective zoom lenses. In this case, it
1:26
is an interesting lens and there is
1:27
really only one direct analog and that
1:30
is the 24-50mm f/2.8 G lens from Sony.
1:34
And when that lens came to market, there
1:35
was some question as to why when there
1:39
was existing lenses on the market
1:41
already that, you know, it covered that
1:43
focal length and more for not a whole
1:45
lot more money. In this case, however,
1:47
the math may add up because the
1:49
TTArtisan lens is an internally zooming
1:51
lens which the Sony was not and maybe
1:54
more importantly, it comes to market
1:56
with an MSRP of $649 US dollars while
1:59
the MSRP for the Sony lens is exactly
2:02
twice that at nearly $1,300.
2:05
And so, if this lens holds up in terms
2:08
of its auto focus and optical
2:10
performance, it's going to be a very
2:12
intriguing option for those of you that
2:14
are looking for a compact zoom,
2:16
particularly I think for video work. So,
2:18
we're going to explore all of that
2:19
today, but first I do want to say thank
2:21
you to TTArtisan for sending me a review
2:23
sample of this lens. They have had no
2:26
input in the review process or my
2:28
findings, however, and my thoughts are
2:30
my own. That aside, let's dive in and
2:32
let's take a look.
2:33
All right, let's take a quick look at
2:35
the build and handling of this new
2:37
TTArtisan lens. MSRP here is $649 US
2:42
dollars. That compares to the Sony
2:44
24-50mm f/2.8. Its MSRP is 1298 or
2:49
literally twice as much exactly. It
2:51
currently retails for right at 1200, so
2:54
it's a $100 off, but still a significant
2:57
difference. The Tamron 28-75
3:00
mm G2 lens cost $899 US dollars and then
3:04
the Sigma 28-70mm is 989.
3:08
Obviously, that puts the TTArtisan lens
3:11
in a really good position.
3:12
What also helps it to stand out against
3:14
these levels of competition is that it
3:16
is the only one here that is an
3:18
internally zooming lens. And as you can
3:21
see, it also has a nice short throw
3:24
there about 70 70° of rotation. And as
3:28
you can see, you're able to
3:30
zoom in and out with nice precision and
3:33
smoothness even while shooting video.
3:34
And so, I really really like that aspect
3:36
of the design.
3:38
Also, compared to the Tamron and the
3:40
Sigma,
3:41
there is obviously much more in terms of
3:44
a feature set, aperture ring, AF/MF
3:47
function button. It just has a more
3:49
thorough degree of control there. Now,
3:51
the Sony has all of this plus the
3:54
ability to de-click the aperture and so,
3:55
it wins on that front. But the TTArtisan
3:57
is doing a great job of delivering a
4:00
fully featured lens here for a minimal
4:02
amount of money. I also appreciate the
4:04
fact that while there are a few, I would
4:07
say Sigma cues here, they've made sure
4:10
to have a unique style. And so, rather
4:12
than Sigma's ribs, we've got a diamond
4:14
pattern here on the aperture ring. We've
4:16
got these this neat unique spiral
4:18
pattern and a rubberized surface here.
4:20
And these do have a nice tactile feel to
4:22
them both of the rings and so, I really
4:24
like that. The size here of the lens is
4:26
just 70 mm in diameter or 2.5 inches and
4:30
92.8
4:32
mm in length or 3.65 inches. Obviously,
4:36
its further advantage here is the fact
4:39
that even at all, you know, zoom
4:41
positions, it is going to be the same
4:43
overall length making this a really nice
4:45
lens for gimbal work not only because
4:47
it's lightweight, but also because it's
4:50
going to keep that maintain that
4:52
consistent balance point. It weighs only
4:54
450 g or 15.87
4:58
oz and that is despite having all metal
5:00
in its construction. Very very nicely
5:02
built. All of that is very very good. Up
5:05
front, we have 67 mm standard filter
5:08
threads that are shared across a lot of
5:10
different lenses. I love that. We also
5:12
have a weather sealing gasket here
5:15
along with some internal seals and when
5:17
I asked TTArtisan, they said that it
5:18
actually has an IP52 level of sealing.
5:22
You put a
5:24
filter on the front and that jumps up to
5:26
an IP53.
5:28
And so, that, you know, means that it's
5:30
dust and moisture sealed. Aperture ring
5:32
here has clicks at the 1/3 stop detents
5:35
and then a firmer detent between f/22
5:39
and automatic. It's I think well
5:41
calibrated there. I don't think you're
5:42
going to get there by accident. I would
5:44
appreciate the ability to de-click the
5:46
aperture because in so many ways this is
5:48
a great video lens and so, that would
5:50
have been a nice additional step there.
5:53
The aperture iris itself is 10 blades
5:56
and and so, that, you know, high blade
5:58
count allows you to maintain a circular
6:00
shape as you can see here as you stop
6:02
the lens down.
6:03
We have an AF/MF switch. We have a
6:05
custom button there
6:07
that you can program to whatever
6:09
function from within the camera. We have
6:11
a manual focus ring that has a nice
6:13
level of damping and it turns smoothly.
6:16
Minimum focus distance here is 30 cm and
6:20
the magnification level is right under
6:21
0.22 times. And so, a very useful level
6:25
of magnification, not quite as high as
6:27
the Sony's, but then that higher level
6:29
of magnification on the Sony is accessed
6:31
at the 24 mm end and you basically have
6:33
to be putting the lens right on top of
6:35
your subject to achieve it. And so, this
6:37
is a useful amount of magnification and
6:39
I like the fact that it is accessed at
6:42
the 50 mm end which is more useful.
6:44
There is no lens-based optical
6:46
stabilization. However, that's true for
6:49
all of the competing lenses here. And
6:51
so, overall a very nice, very compact
6:53
package and a very attractive lens, I
6:55
have to say. So, kudos to
6:57
TTArtisan on that. So, let's talk auto
7:00
focus. In many ways, that may be the
7:02
single biggest consideration considering
7:04
that TTArtisan is a company that hasn't
7:06
made auto focus lenses before and
7:08
they've dived right into the complexity
7:10
of making a zoom lens. While they
7:12
haven't specified the focus system, I'm
7:14
assuming that it's an STM type focus
7:16
motor from the behavior. And again,
7:18
because this is a relatively wide zoom
7:22
all throughout, it reaches a maximum
7:24
focal length of 50 mm, it means that
7:26
there isn't a tremendous amount of
7:28
stress on the focus motor. And focus
7:30
speed, as you can see here, is
7:32
relatively snappy going back and forth.
7:35
It's not that instantaneous that we see
7:37
from some of Sony's own zooms that have
7:40
multiple XD linear motors, but it's fast
7:43
enough to get the job done
7:45
in most situations.
7:47
That being said, I will say that like a
7:50
lot of third-party lenses, things start
7:52
to fall apart from me if the subject is
7:54
moving, particularly moving towards the
7:56
camera. And it seems like there's always
7:58
just a little bit of back focus in those
8:00
situations. Now, the good news is that
8:02
I've seen similar behavior, for example,
8:04
from some Viltrox lenses in the past and
8:06
I've also seen them able to largely
8:08
correct that through firmware. And
8:10
because this lens is equipped with the
8:12
ability to do quick and easy firmware
8:14
updates, I'm hoping we're going to see
8:16
the same from TTArtisan and maybe that
8:17
will become better. It seems to me like
8:19
there's plenty of thrust and basic focus
8:22
speed there to achieve that and so,
8:23
maybe it's just an algorithm/processing
8:26
issue that could be resolved via
8:28
firmware. I also felt like there were a
8:30
few situations where auto focus wasn't
8:33
perfectly calibrated to where I
8:35
questioned sharpness and contrast a bit
8:38
because maybe focus was just a tiny bit
8:40
off. Because in other situations where
8:42
things were more accurately focused, I
8:44
felt like sharpness and contrast were
8:46
better in those situations. And so, I do
8:48
think that there is a little room for
8:50
improvement here, but at the same time,
8:53
all of the eye detect seems to work well
8:55
and and so, I had no problem with, you
8:57
know, nabbing a subject whether it was
8:59
in a church setting, you know, shooting
9:01
group photos with it, you know, just
9:03
kind of using it in a general purpose
9:04
way, shots of animals, be it the, you
9:07
know, the cat or of of sheep when I went
9:10
out to visit a farmer who's got lamb
9:13
doing lambing right now.
9:14
But in all those situations, auto focus
9:16
generally was good and so, I didn't have
9:18
any kind of significant problem with
9:19
auto focus. I just feel like there's
9:21
still a little bit of room for
9:23
improvement just on the margins. But in
9:26
general, I would say that auto focus was
9:28
good and in terms of of quietness, even
9:30
when I put my ear next to the lens
9:32
barrel, I really couldn't hear the focus
9:33
motor at all. And so, it gets good marks
9:35
from me when it comes to focus
9:37
smoothness. So, in general for stills
9:39
work, I felt like that auto focus was
9:42
good, but there is room for improvement.
9:44
Now, on the video side of things, I
9:46
actually felt really positive about what
9:48
I found. You can see in my I focus pull
9:51
test where I'm doing touch to focus that
9:53
pulls back and forth happen with good
9:55
confidence. There's no visible steps.
9:57
There's no pulsing in the wrong
9:59
direction or settling when it arrives on
10:01
the subject. Good confidence in that
10:03
setting. Likewise, when I did my hand
10:05
test, it made those accurate transitions
10:07
from the hand to the eye and back and
10:10
forth.
10:11
Focus breathing isn't as bad as Sony's
10:13
own 24 to 50 mm f/2.8, but at the same
10:17
time, as a third-party lens, Viltrox
10:19
will not have the advantage of having
10:21
access to focus breathing compensation
10:23
that's available in some of Sony's
10:25
cameras. At the same time, however,
10:27
you're also not going to have to deal
10:29
with a crop factor to eliminate that
10:31
focus breathing. And in most situations,
10:33
it isn't bad, but at the same time,
10:35
there is just enough of it that in some
10:37
of those focus pulls, it takes me out of
10:39
the shot a little bit because focus
10:41
feels a little bit abrupt. Now,
10:43
obviously, that's exaggerated when I'm
10:44
just tapping back and forth, back and
10:46
forth. It's going to be a little bit
10:47
less obvious if you're not making quick
10:49
and sudden changes on that.
10:52
There is good focus accuracy as I
10:54
approached the camera, and if I ducked
10:56
in and out of frame. And as you've
10:58
probably noticed in these outdoor
11:00
settings,
11:01
I'm having no problems with it locking
11:03
on and focusing on my face. And when I'm
11:06
moving around in front of the camera, it
11:08
is staying accurately focused on me. In
11:10
fact, I've actually used this lens a
11:11
fair bit over the last month here on my
11:14
YouTube channel because I do consider it
11:15
to be a very, very handy lens for video
11:18
work. That is kind of doubled not only
11:21
by the basic focal range here, which is
11:23
obviously very useful for video, but
11:25
beyond that, that internally zooming
11:27
design is extremely useful. And
11:30
particularly so if you're considering
11:31
doing gimbal work because whatever focal
11:33
length that you choose, the balance is
11:35
going to be the same. And that internal
11:37
zoom also means that I have no problem
11:39
zooming in and out. It's a nice short
11:42
throw, about 70° or so of rotation to go
11:46
from 24 to 50 mm, and the zoom action is
11:49
smooth enough that I'm able to zoom
11:51
while recording, even handheld, without
11:53
any issue.
11:54
And to me, that's very, very useful. And
11:56
while I wouldn't call the lens parfocal,
11:59
it's not, it's it doesn't have major
12:01
focus changes. And the fact that
12:03
autofocus is reactive enough, you can
12:05
see when we zoom back and forth, there
12:07
isn't any obvious moments where things
12:09
are out of focus and focus has to be
12:11
regained. What's more, even when I'm
12:13
zooming like that, I don't really see
12:14
any issues with wobble or warping. And
12:17
so, all of that adds up to a really good
12:19
combination for video work. And in many
12:21
ways, to me, I feel like that is one of
12:24
the best applications for this lens
12:26
outside of maybe having a compact travel
12:28
zoom to bring along. All right, let's
12:30
start by taking a look at the optical
12:32
design here. We have a rather complex
12:34
design of 16 elements in 13 groups. And
12:37
as you can see looking at the MTF chart,
12:39
particularly the 30 lines per, which is
12:41
represented by the blue, we can see that
12:43
we start with a very, very sharp center
12:46
right up around 90%. We can see that
12:48
there is a little astigmatism separation
12:50
between the sagittal and meridial lines
12:53
here at the middle of the frame that
12:54
starts to grow out. And then we can see
12:56
kind of a steady decline into the
12:57
corners. And the corners are averaging
13:00
in the 51, 52% range. And so, not
13:03
fantastic. Moving on to the 50 mm range,
13:06
we can see that the center isn't as
13:08
sharp. And so, we're dropping down into
13:10
like an 83%. However,
13:12
got a nice bounce back here in the
13:14
mid-frame, and then a steadier drop down
13:16
to more like right over 40%. So, don't
13:19
expect a lot of sharpness in the
13:21
corners. So, just out of curiosity, if
13:23
we take a look at the Sony 24 to 50 mm,
13:26
at the 24 mm end, not quite as sharp in
13:29
the center of the frame, a little bit
13:30
stronger in the mid-frame and corners.
13:32
However, at 50 mm, a little bit sharper
13:35
in the, well, basically all across the
13:37
frame. At 50 mm, it has a stronger
13:39
performance. And you can also see taking
13:41
a look at the two different axes that
13:43
they stay a little bit closer together.
13:45
So, a little bit better contrast for the
13:47
Sony lens. Then again, it costs twice as
13:49
much. In some of the other metrics,
13:50
however, the Viltrox actually does
13:53
better. Like when it comes to
13:54
distortion, for example, even at 24 mm,
13:56
you can see that while there is barrel
13:58
distortion, it's relatively minor.
14:01
Unfortunately, it is a little bit
14:02
complex. And so, if I straighten out the
14:04
lines pretty much everywhere here
14:06
manually, you'll see that it stretches
14:08
out those corners into a bit of a
14:09
pincushion distortion look. So, to get
14:11
this result, I dialed in a +14, so about
14:13
half what the Sony has. And as far as
14:16
vignette, again, that's moderate. I
14:17
dialed in a +64, so that's fine other
14:20
than the fact it kind of left a little
14:21
bit of a discoloration after correction.
14:24
The middle of the zoom range is
14:25
basically neutral when it comes to
14:27
distortion. By the telephoto end, you
14:29
can see that it flips to a little bit of
14:31
a pincushion style distortion.
14:33
Fortunately, there's much less of it and
14:35
it's much easier to correct as far as
14:37
the linearity. And so, no problems
14:39
there. I used a -6 to correct the
14:42
distortion and just a +41 to correct the
14:44
vignette, and you see it doesn't have
14:46
that same issue with discoloration. And
14:49
when it comes to longitudinal style
14:50
chromatic aberrations, pretty good marks
14:52
on this front. You can see there's a
14:53
tiny bit of a green fringing after the
14:55
plane of focus, but, you know, you can
14:57
see in some of these results that it's
14:59
not terrible. There's a little bit
15:01
that's showing up there. If you look at
15:03
my dad's old SLR, you can see that
15:05
really on these shiny bits, it's not
15:07
doing too bad, just minor amounts of
15:09
fringing there. If we look up to the
15:11
specular highlights for a moment, you
15:12
can see there's a fairly
15:15
dominant inner line, which I don't love,
15:17
but very mild amounts of fringing around
15:20
them. As we stop down, you can see that
15:22
those 10 blades keep a nice circular
15:24
shape. Just gets more pronounced as you
15:26
stop the lens down here all the way to
15:28
f/5.6. Here's another object that shows
15:32
off a lot of fringing if a lens suffers
15:34
with that. And you can see it really
15:36
does quite good here. Good contrast and
15:38
detail here, and then we can see just
15:40
very mild amounts of fringing that pop
15:42
up. So, a strong performance there. And,
15:44
you know, at this close focus distance,
15:46
a pretty strong defocus of the
15:47
background as well. Here's one other
15:49
place where I often see a lot of
15:50
fringing, and this image really
15:52
impressed me. It did great in terms of
15:55
contrast and detail and minimal fringing
15:57
in that situation. So, nicely done. Now,
16:00
lateral style chromatic aberration,
16:02
there is a bit more of that. As you can
16:04
see here, you can see it on either side
16:06
of the black, you know, lines there. And
16:08
so, I would like to see a little bit
16:09
less of that. However, fortunately, this
16:11
is the one that corrects the most
16:13
easily. So, how about resolution and
16:15
contrast? Well, we're testing on a
16:16
61-megapixel a7R Mark V. I'm going to
16:19
show you these results at 200%. In the
16:21
center of the frame, even at 200%
16:23
magnification, top-notch. Great detail,
16:25
great contrast at 24 mm. Looks
16:27
fantastic. Mid-frame looked good here,
16:31
but you can see it's definitely
16:32
declining by this side. A lot of times,
16:35
I look at this bill here, and you can
16:36
see that it's good up in this corner,
16:39
starting to drop on this side. And then
16:41
as we get on into the actual corners, we
16:43
can see that by the time we get out to
16:44
here, there's not a lot of image quality
16:47
there. Now, while that's not like an
16:49
absolute terrible performance at f/2.8,
16:51
the problem is that it really doesn't
16:53
sharpen up a lot in those far corners,
16:56
even stopped down to f/5.6 and f/8. So,
16:59
you can see that out here, it's
17:00
improved. And if we pan up this way for
17:03
a moment, you can see it's definitely
17:04
improving in this zone. If we pop up and
17:07
take a look in the mid-frame once again,
17:09
you can see the mid-frame looks
17:10
fantastic. But, you know, those corners,
17:12
they only get so sharp. They're
17:14
improved, but there's still definitely
17:17
room for improvement. Here's a
17:19
real-world shot at a more typical 100%
17:21
magnification, and you can see that
17:23
center of the frame, fantastic. Looks
17:25
great. It's looking good out through
17:27
this zone, but as we start to get
17:29
towards the edge of the frame, the
17:31
corners, it's quite a bit mushier, just
17:33
not nearly as good right out towards the
17:35
edge of the frame. You go back in just a
17:37
little bit, starting to get in this
17:38
zone, looks fantastic. Minimum aperture
17:41
is f/22, which is on the right here. And
17:44
you can see at f/11 where diffraction
17:46
starts to set in, the thing still look
17:48
pretty good. By f/22, though, it's
17:50
really been softened by diffraction. And
17:53
so, you're going to want to avoid
17:54
probably f/16 and f/22 as much as
17:57
possible. Moving on in the zoom range,
17:59
the next mark position is 28 mm. I
18:01
almost got it. Um, but you can see that
18:04
the center of the frame looks fantastic.
18:05
Stopping down to f/5.6, more contrast,
18:08
and so just extra fantastic. The
18:10
mid-frame really kind of follows a
18:12
similar pattern. You can see over here
18:14
on at f/2.8, it's sharp on this side,
18:17
dropping on this side. By f/5.6, it's
18:19
nice and sharp there. Once again, we
18:22
find that while the corners do improve,
18:24
they don't get to ever to a pin sharp
18:27
type level, which is kind of the
18:28
weakness of this particular lens. Now,
18:31
at 35 mm, we can see that again, great
18:35
center, just maybe a little bit less
18:36
contrast, but by f/5.6, looking really
18:39
good. Mid-frame is looking good and then
18:43
great by f/5.6. And the corners here,
18:47
they're a little bit better. You can see
18:49
that it at f/5.6 at least, we're getting
18:52
a little bit sharper, but at f/2.8,
18:53
corners are looking really soft. Now,
18:55
near 40 mm, we can see that the corners
18:58
again, wide open, contrast is quite low.
19:02
It actually improves more when stopped
19:03
down to f/5.6. By f/5.6, looking pretty
19:07
decent in the corners. And if you look
19:08
even at a place like the mid-frame
19:10
level, you can see that by f/5.6, it
19:13
looks fantastic. For some real-world
19:14
perspective here at 40 mm, this is
19:17
f/2.8. You can see, I mean, I think
19:19
we're all going to be happy with that
19:21
degree of resolution and contrast.
19:23
Looking really good. Now, at 50 mm, I
19:26
didn't quite get that either, 49 mm, we
19:28
can see that it's a little bit lower
19:30
contrast in the center. And while
19:32
contrast improves when stopped down, I
19:34
didn't actually get a lot of extra
19:36
detail when stopping down in the center
19:38
of the frame. However, mid-frame, which
19:40
tends to be a strength for this lens,
19:42
and you could see that in the MTF curve
19:44
that mid-frame actually is really
19:45
strong. And by f/5.6, even at f/4, it's
19:48
looking really fantastic.
19:50
Often, the corners, again, really,
19:52
really soft at F2.8. By F5.6, it's
19:56
better, but again, never fantastic in
19:59
those corners. And so, I would say my
20:01
biggest kind of optical concern
20:02
resolution and contrast is that when you
20:04
stop the lens down, it doesn't always
20:06
sharpen up every like pin sharp across
20:09
the frame. I always like to supplement
20:11
that with some real world results
20:12
though. So, here if we look at F This is
20:15
50 mm F2.8. You can see that contrast
20:18
isn't off the charts, but you know,
20:20
you're getting a decent amount of detail
20:21
there and a nice transition towards
20:24
defocus. Here again, you can see
20:26
actually in this image, I think the
20:27
contrast and detail looks quite good and
20:30
you can see again a nice transition to
20:31
defocus. Likewise here. And so, here I
20:34
mean depth of field is really tiny
20:36
because I'm getting close to the minimum
20:38
focus distance and I would say at this
20:40
point, you know, contrast is just okay,
20:42
but again, defocus is pretty nice. Now,
20:45
going back to that minimum focus result
20:47
right under 0.22 times, you can see that
20:50
in the kind of area of focus, it looks
20:53
quite good, but it's not a very flat
20:55
plane of focus and so, it gets much
20:57
softer out here as you can see. So, that
20:59
doesn't matter as much with
21:00
three-dimensional objects here at very
21:02
close distances. You know, it's again,
21:04
contrast is not like macro level, but
21:06
that looks nice. I mean, no problems
21:08
with that and overall, the defocus looks
21:11
pretty good. Here, I think that contrast
21:13
actually and detail looks, you know,
21:15
very good. I'm very happy with that and
21:17
again, there's your transition to
21:18
defocus. Here's another image which
21:21
shows you again, contrast not being off
21:23
the charts, but I think perfectly usable
21:25
and nice defocus. Same result here where
21:29
you've got a got a kind of background
21:30
that's further away and you can see how
21:32
nicely to focus that is. And this, I
21:34
think, you know, shows off the lens
21:35
nicely. Again, at 50 mm, good, not
21:39
great, but very good detail there and a
21:41
nicely defocused background. Now, this
21:43
lens has one other flaw and that is that
21:46
on the wide end, flare resistance is
21:48
good, but as you get to the telephoto
21:50
end, you can see here that there is
21:51
places where it just kind of blooms. And
21:54
you can see in this composition here
21:56
that I compose a little bit differently.
21:58
I got good contrast here. It's starting
22:00
to wash out. It's getting that veiling
22:02
across the image. In fact, if you could
22:04
see if I zoom in and out here, you can
22:06
actually see where that side light, you
22:08
know, kind of blooming starts to happen.
22:11
Or in this shot, as I start to pull up,
22:13
you can see where flashing begins. So,
22:15
that's something to watch out for on the
22:17
50 mm end cuz it could produce images
22:20
like this, for example, where I've lost
22:22
contrast entirely because the light is
22:24
hitting it just at the wrong place. You
22:26
can see here but of that flashing effect
22:28
happening right there. On the wide end,
22:30
however, it's much better in terms of
22:32
flare resistance and so, you can see
22:33
here at 24 mm and F11, all you're
22:36
getting is just a little bit of
22:37
prismatic haze. And here at 33 mm, you
22:40
know, the same kind of thing. And
22:41
particularly at 24 mm, I think that that
22:44
sun star, which is 10 bladed, looks
22:46
quite nice, nicely defined and so, you
22:49
know, a nice addition to images. So,
22:50
overall, it's not a flawless optical
22:53
performance. There's some places where I
22:54
would like a little bit more contrast
22:56
and a little less flare, but not bad.
22:58
So, what's my conclusion? Well, first of
23:00
all, I am delighted to see this first of
23:03
the auto focusing zoom lenses come out
23:06
of China and I hope that this is the
23:08
first of many such lenses to come.
23:11
In many ways, I think that this Thypox
23:13
Voyager 24 to 50 mm F2.8 makes more
23:17
sense to me than what Sony's own 24 to
23:20
50 mm does. That lens has having, you
23:23
know, that constrained zoom range at
23:24
such a steep price, I personally would
23:27
be more inclined to reach for something
23:29
like Tamron's 28 to 75 mm F2.8. But in
23:33
the case of the the Thypox lens, it
23:35
gives you that opportunity to have a
23:36
unique zoom in that it's internally
23:39
zooming with more features than what
23:41
either Tamron or Sigma are offering and
23:43
for a a really affordable price point as
23:46
well. And I think when you add all of
23:48
those things up, it makes a lens that is
23:50
going to be an intriguing one for those
23:52
looking for a compact travel zoom. It
23:54
fits really nicely, for example, with
23:56
the Sony a7C series of cameras. I can
23:59
really see it being a nice fit there. I
24:01
can see it being an excellent video lens
24:03
for those that are looking for something
24:04
particularly to use on a gimbal that's
24:06
lightweight and has that easy balance
24:08
point. There's just a lot of factors
24:10
here that make it, I think, a
24:12
interesting proposition even though I
24:14
think all of us would like a little bit
24:16
more zoom range attached to this.
24:19
I also really want to applaud Thypox for
24:22
bringing something unique in terms of
24:24
the visual look of the lens.
24:26
It's not out there where it's going to
24:27
turn people off, but it has enough of
24:30
unique flavor to set it apart from other
24:32
lenses on the market. And so, I think
24:34
they've done a really good job with
24:35
that. And I just like the whole general
24:37
packaging that they have done here. Um,
24:40
you know, the dimensions of the lens and
24:42
it being internally zooming. I've I've
24:44
mentioned that a number of times because
24:45
that really does set the lens apart and
24:48
I do want to emphasize that.
24:50
The optics aren't flawless here. I would
24:52
like a little bit better corner
24:54
performance, maybe a little bit more
24:55
contrast and I wish we didn't have that
24:58
kind of blooming flare issue at 45 to 50
25:01
mm in that range, but at the same time,
25:03
I quite look like the look of images
25:06
coming off of this. And when Thypox
25:08
emphasizes that it's cine inspired
25:11
optics here, I can see kind of that
25:13
signature there. And if you're someone
25:15
that does hybrid work, photo and video,
25:18
you may really like the optical
25:19
performance of this lens. I think the
25:20
colors are nice and accurate and I think
25:22
in many situations, it gives you a nice
25:25
combination of sharpness where it
25:27
matters and then bokeh or rendering in
25:29
the background. And so, in that way, I
25:31
think that it's it's an interesting lens
25:33
and they've done a lot of things well
25:35
with it. I hope that they continue to
25:37
support it through firmware updates and
25:38
maybe make some minor tweaks to auto
25:41
focus stability and precision there, but
25:43
already it's a very effective lens as it
25:45
is and I think it's a very useful lens
25:47
for uh, people that do video work,
25:49
particularly on a gimbal or as I've
25:51
mentioned, those that are looking for a
25:53
compact zoom for travel or just
25:55
something that fits in your bag or on
25:57
your camera. And in that way, I think
25:59
that Thypox has done a really great job
26:02
and hopefully we'll see many more zoom
26:04
lenses out of China in the future. More
26:06
options for us as consumers, the better.
26:09
If you want more information, you can
26:10
check out my full text review, which is
26:12
linked in the description down below. As
26:14
always, thanks for watching. Have a
26:15
great day and let the light in.

Thypoch Voyager 24-50mm F2.8 Review | China's First AF Zoom Lens!

Dustin Abbott

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

Samsung 990 M.2 SSD Review | A "Budget" Alternative

Neewer Q4 Pro 400Ws Flash Review | Overpowering the Sun

Thypoch Eureka 28mm F2.8 X-Mount Review | Reviving an Analog Past

Tamron 12-20mm F2.8 Review | Bargain Alternative to G-Master & S-Line

A Look at New Zealand with Dustin Abbott

Up next in 10

Thypoch Voyager 24-50mm F2.8 Review | China's First AF Zoom Lens!

Dustin Abbott