ZONY vs EVO | 55mm DA SHOWDOWN

0:10
Hi, I'm Dustin Abbott and I'm here to do
0:12
a another one of my showdown videos. One
0:15
that a lot of you requested and as soon
0:17
as you suggested it, it made a lot of
0:19
sense to me. I didn't know if I was
0:21
going to be able to get in a Sony Zeiss
0:23
55mm f1.8ZA 8ZA for this comparison, but
0:27
Sony did send me one as a part of doing
0:29
the new A7R Mark 6 review, A7R6 review.
0:34
And so, as a byproduct, I can put it up
0:36
against the new contender, which is the
0:39
Viltrox Evo 55mm F1.8.
0:43
So, comparing both of these on Sony here
0:46
today. Now, when I first reviewed the uh
0:48
55mm Sony, as I'm going to call it here
0:51
in this segment, it was a long time ago
0:54
because this is an old lens at this
0:56
point. And frankly, I walked away from
0:58
that review without a particularly high
1:01
opinion of the lens. I thought that it
1:03
was very competent in many ways, but I
1:04
didn't find it very exciting, somewhat
1:06
bland. And part of that was is that at
1:09
the same time I was reviewing the Sony's
1:10
ice plan 50mm f1.4, before and I felt
1:13
that that lens had a lot more special
1:15
optics to it. So, fast forward today, I
1:18
thought, you know what? A lot of people
1:19
really love this lens. Maybe I need to
1:21
give it another shot and see if my
1:23
impression of it has changed any. So,
1:26
we're going to dive in. We're going to
1:27
compare these across a lot of categories
1:29
and we will crown a winner here today.
1:32
So, let's dive in and first of all,
1:34
let's take a look at build and handling.
1:37
Now, the first and obvious advantage for
1:38
the Viltrox lens is the price is
1:41
radically lower than what the Zony's is.
1:43
You can get this lens for 370 USD, a
1:47
little bit less with discount codes like
1:48
one in the description down below.
1:50
Whereas the Zony lens cost about 1,100
1:53
in terms of its MSRP. Obviously, it's
1:56
been on the market for a while, so
1:57
there's lots of used copies out there.
1:59
There are sales, but however you slice
2:01
it, it's a lot more expensive. In terms
2:04
of MSRP, it's about three times as much.
2:06
And so huge difference when it comes to
2:08
the overall price. Now, one thing that
2:10
has held up really well about this lens
2:12
is how compact it is. It is just 64 1.5
2:15
mm in diameter and right over 70 mm in
2:19
overall length. Whereas the Evo lens,
2:21
while compact, it is 69 mm in diameter
2:25
and 78 mm in length, making it 7 millime
2:28
longer, 4.5 millime wider in diameter.
2:32
And so definitely a win for the Sony
2:35
lens there. That also plays out when it
2:37
comes to the weight of the lenses. The
2:40
Sony lens is just 281 grams versus 385 g
2:44
for the Viltrox. That is a whopping 100
2:48
g difference between the two. You're
2:49
definitely going to notice that. Now,
2:52
part of the extra weight for the Viltrox
2:54
is the fact that it's got a lot more
2:56
going on in terms of its feature set. It
2:58
has got an aperture ring that can be
3:00
clicked and decllicked. It has got a
3:02
custom or function button on the side.
3:04
It has got an AFMF switch and of course
3:07
a manual focus ring. Whereas the Sony
3:10
lens, well, if you count the Zeiss badge
3:13
on the side, well, that's its only
3:15
feature. It's got a manual focus ring
3:17
and outside of that, it's got natada.
3:20
So, a big win for the Viltrox on that
3:23
front. Likewise, the Viltrox is able to
3:25
focus much closer. just 43 centimeters
3:28
versus 50 centimeters for the zony lens
3:31
and the resulting magnification. 0.16
3:33
times for the Viltrox, 0.14 times for
3:37
the zony lens and you can definitely see
3:39
a difference between the two when you
3:41
are looking at magnification between
3:43
different objects. It definitely shows
3:44
up. Both of them on paper have weather
3:47
sealing. However, I have always wondered
3:50
about this lens and I'm still wondering
3:52
today how they can call it weather
3:53
sealing when it does not have a weather
3:56
sealing gasket at the lens mount. Now,
3:59
I'm assuming there has to be some kind
4:00
of seal somewhere, but the Viltrox has a
4:03
really obvious nice thick gasket here
4:06
and it has some internal seals as well.
4:09
And so, I'm going to not award any
4:11
points here, but call me a skeptic. I
4:13
don't know how you can claim weather
4:15
sealing when the number one point of
4:17
egress for a lens um there's no gasket
4:20
there. That's what we consider the most
4:22
basic of weather sealing when there's a
4:24
gasket in place. None here. So, you
4:26
know, no points, but kind of a win for
4:28
Viltrox here. Both of them have nine uh
4:31
rounded aperture blades. Now, the Sony
4:33
lens has a 49mm front filter thread. The
4:36
Viltrox lens has a 58mm front filter
4:39
thread. I'm not going to reward any
4:41
points there because that's either an
4:42
advantage depending on what filter size
4:44
you have. Neither one of them is really
4:46
any different in terms of price in terms
4:49
of buying them and so not really a
4:51
definite win. So at the end of this
4:54
round we have got three wins for the
4:56
EVO. So three points there, two points
4:58
for the Sony lens. So a mild win coming
5:01
out of this for the Viltrox. Moving on
5:04
to autofocus. And this is an area where
5:06
frankly I was surprised at how well this
5:09
older lens has held up. It had a linear
5:11
focus motor that doesn't have any of the
5:13
designation of what any of, you know,
5:15
Sony's current linear motors do, but it
5:18
still focuses really, really well.
5:20
Actually, there's an STM focus motor and
5:23
the EVO lens. As we're going to see,
5:25
both of them focus at about the same
5:27
speed. So, there's not really an
5:28
advantage for the Sony lens when it
5:30
comes to the focus, either indoors or
5:33
out outdoors. Both of them have a good
5:36
but not G Master level of focus speed.
5:39
And so both of them go back and forth
5:40
with a good pace, but it's not like
5:42
instant fast. But one notice thing that
5:45
I did notice is that there is the Sony
5:48
focus motor is quieter. There's a little
5:50
bit of a clicking sound you'll hear with
5:52
the uh SDM from the EVO lens. And so
5:55
both of them focused accurately. Both
5:56
both of them focus quickly, but the zony
5:58
lens focuses quieter. So I'm going to
6:00
give it a point there. So, we're now
6:02
tied three points each. Now, moving into
6:05
the video section, here's where some
6:07
focus, but some other feature things
6:09
come into play here. When it comes to my
6:12
touch to focus test, the results were
6:14
basically the same. And I say that
6:16
because both of them were just as
6:18
responsive when I touched the screen to
6:20
actually focus. They both focused in a
6:22
smooth uh sweep without any visible
6:24
steps. Neither of them did any pulsing
6:27
or settling. One win that I will give
6:30
for the EVO lens is that it exhibits
6:32
less focus breathing. And you can see as
6:34
they go back and forth, the Sony lens
6:36
actually breathes more, though it will
6:38
have access to focus breathing
6:41
compensation if your camera is so
6:42
equipped, whereas the Viltrox lens will
6:44
not. The same thing that I noticed
6:46
previously about the quietness of the
6:48
focus motor does apply here, however,
6:50
and I did notice slightly less noise for
6:53
the zoning. I didn't notice as much on
6:55
my own cameras, which I have the mic
6:57
onboard microphone tuned down a little
6:59
bit. But when testing the A7R6 and doing
7:01
some focus pull test, uh, because its
7:04
mic was up pretty hot, I could actually
7:06
hear some clicking sound for the Viltrox
7:08
lens, whereas it was completely quiet in
7:10
those same kind of pull situations for
7:12
the Sony lens. However, there's a couple
7:15
of other areas where the EVO does get
7:17
some wins. One of those is when it comes
7:19
to the manual focus uh, experience. And
7:22
so in this case, it not only has a
7:24
little bit more feel than what the zony
7:25
lens does, but the this uh zony lens is
7:29
it's really really sensitive in terms of
7:32
how quick it doesn't have much of a
7:33
focus throw. And so focus changes are
7:35
really fast. It's actually quite hard to
7:38
focus precisely. It was quite a
7:39
challenge when trying to test or focus
7:41
on my test chart at high levels of
7:43
magnification because I couldn't hardly
7:44
do little precise pulls whereas I could
7:46
do that much more easily with the EVO
7:49
lens. Likewise, the EVO lens, because it
7:51
has a declickable aperture ring and an
7:54
aperture ring, I could do aperture
7:56
racking with the EVO lens, which is
7:58
obviously just not an option on the Sony
8:01
lens. And so, at the end of the day,
8:03
when it comes to video, the EVO lens is
8:05
the better lens because it's got the
8:07
modern feature set and it's better
8:09
positioned for actually video work. So,
8:11
so coming out of that comparison set,
8:13
three points for the EVO lens, bringing
8:14
it up to six points, one point for the
8:17
Sony lens, bringing it up to four
8:19
points. Our final category is when it
8:21
comes to the optical performance. And
8:24
here is where I think the biggest
8:26
differences start to emerge. Now, first
8:28
of all, when it comes to distortion,
8:30
both of them have next to no distortion.
8:33
Uh, the EVO lens has basically zero. I
8:35
would say only like the tiniest amount
8:37
of correction for the Sony. The biggest
8:39
problem with the Sony is that it does
8:40
have a little bit of wave that is
8:42
present there. So, it's a little bit
8:44
more complex with what distortion it
8:45
does have. And so, I'm going to give a
8:47
faint point here for the EVO lens.
8:49
Things reverse for the vignette,
8:51
however, and even though it is very
8:53
compact, the Sony lens holds up well
8:55
there, needing just a plus 53 to correct
8:57
for the vignette, whereas I needed a
8:59
plus 71 for the EVO. So, almost a stop
9:01
further there. And so, a win there. Now,
9:04
in the sharpness categories, the EVO
9:06
wins all of them. I'll award a couple of
9:08
points here, but with wide openen
9:10
sharpness, and this is on that new 67
9:13
megapixel sensor, um, so it's pretty
9:15
obvious the EVO lens, it's sharper in
9:17
the center, it's sharper in the
9:18
mid-frame, it is sharper in the corners,
9:21
and it's not particularly close. When I
9:23
stopped down to f2.8, the same pattern
9:26
remained. It is sharper in the center.
9:28
It is sharper in the mid-frame, sharper
9:31
in the corners. I thought I would do a
9:33
test at closer to infinity and a real
9:36
world situation. And at f5.6, I found
9:39
that the Sony or zony lens was closer
9:42
but not quite there in the center of the
9:44
frame. But if you move off towards the
9:45
edge of the frame, the EVO is clearly
9:48
and obviously sharper there. And so part
9:50
of the, you know, disadvantage that's
9:53
here for this lens is that it just
9:54
doesn't really ever get particularly
9:55
sharp in the corners. Whereas the EVO
9:57
lens is pretty superlative in terms of
9:59
overall sharpness. Likewise, when you're
10:02
talking contrast, it didn't matter
10:05
whether I was focusing on a close focus
10:07
subject, um, a little bit further out,
10:10
medium distance, and definitely when I
10:12
got out towards infinity, uh, the
10:14
contrast was obviously superior on the
10:17
EVO lens. remember that it is an
10:19
apricatic style design and so that helps
10:22
contrast a lot and so it's a definite
10:24
win there. Another really obvious place
10:26
where the EVO wins is when it comes to
10:28
fringing, particularly longitudinal
10:30
style chromatic aberrations. You can see
10:33
on my test chart, there's an obvious
10:34
difference between the two. If I'm
10:36
shooting shiny or reflective surfaces,
10:39
there's an obvious difference between
10:41
the two. And if we're looking at bokeh
10:44
or specular highlights, there's green
10:46
fringing persistently on the Sony's
10:48
Zeiss lens that just isn't present on
10:50
the EVO lens. So, another big win there.
10:54
When it comes to flare and the coatings
10:56
on the lenses, there's not a big
10:57
difference between the two. But what I
10:59
did notice when I was doing some of my
11:01
various shots is that um when I was
11:04
shooting video and this for for example
11:06
in this this scene as the the sun is
11:08
kind of pulsing as the branches move and
11:10
allows it to pulse through um when it
11:12
does that on the zone lens there's loss
11:15
of contrast some veiling that takes
11:16
place whereas contrast holds up on the
11:18
Vtrox lens. So it gets a bit of a
11:21
category win there. Now in a more
11:24
neutral space there is a difference in
11:27
the way that these two the glass renders
11:29
from these two lenses. The zone lens
11:32
which is pretty typical of Zeiss glass
11:34
is a little bit on the cool side whereas
11:36
by comparison the Viltrox is a little
11:38
bit warmer. Now this is a taste thing
11:40
but even when I equalized white balance
11:42
between the two the glass felt warmer
11:45
from the Viltrox and so that's going to
11:47
be a taste related thing which you
11:50
actually prefer those. Finally, when we
11:52
talk about bokeh quality, I did a lot of
11:55
kind of blind tests in this. So, I
11:57
brought images into Lightroom. I didn't
11:59
look at, you know, what lens had shot it
12:02
on and I was just trying to, you know,
12:04
do a blind test, which I preferred. When
12:06
it comes to the overall bokeh rendering,
12:09
I picked more of the Sony lens images
12:12
than what I did the Viltrox lenses,
12:14
though it wasn't always the case, but I
12:16
would say more of like a 60/40 type
12:18
split. And so in terms of general
12:20
rendering, I'm going to give a point to
12:22
the zone lens on that front. When it
12:24
comes to actually looking at specular
12:26
highlights or what you call bokeh balls,
12:29
that strongly favors the EVO lens. If
12:31
you look up close, there is concentric
12:33
rings in the zony's rendering. And of
12:35
course, we've already mentioned there's
12:36
green fringing around those specular
12:38
highlights. And so I don't like them as
12:40
well as what I did with the Viltrox
12:42
lens. I would say too when it comes to
12:44
the edge of the frame, they're close,
12:46
but I would probably favor the rendering
12:48
just looking up close from the Viltrox
12:50
lens. It feels like it's a little bit
12:52
more optimized right off to the edge.
12:54
And that could have a little bit to do
12:55
even with the optical properties we saw
12:57
with sharpness towards the edges of the
13:00
frame.
13:01
And so that brings me to a total of
13:04
point awarding of uh a whopping eight
13:07
points were gained by the Viltrox lens
13:09
in this this section with only two being
13:12
gained by the Sony lens. So our final
13:14
point tally is 14 points for the Viltrox
13:17
and just six points for the Sony lens.
13:20
So that brings me to my conclusion.
13:22
First of all, I know that a lot of you
13:24
love this lens. And frankly, I came away
13:26
from this second review with a more
13:28
positive feeling about it than I did
13:30
from the first. I appreciate the fact
13:32
that it is compact and light, and I
13:34
actually do like the rendering from the
13:36
lens. I liked images that I looked at in
13:38
general, as long as I didn't need a lot
13:41
of contrast in those images. And so, I
13:44
think that it holds up fairly well
13:46
optically. It's still very light and the
13:48
focus is still very, very good on the
13:50
lens. It's accurate. It's quiet. It's
13:52
relatively quick. And so it I think it's
13:55
aged pretty well over the years. So if
13:57
you're someone that owns this lens, I
13:59
understand why you like it. Hang on to
14:01
it. But if you're buying new, it's hard
14:03
for me to recommend the Sony lens over
14:06
the Viltrox when the Viltrox is about a
14:08
third of the price. It has far more
14:11
features. It's much better optically.
14:13
It's very easy to recommend it. And
14:15
frankly to me, if I'm spending this kind
14:17
of money, I'd rather spend a few hundred
14:19
bucks and buy the lens that I'm filming
14:21
with at the moment, which is the Sony
14:24
50mimeter F1.4 G Master lens, which
14:27
frankly is pretty special. So, at the
14:29
end of the day, I think it's hard to
14:31
recommend buying this lens new,
14:33
particularly at about 1,100 bucks. The
14:35
Viltrox is an easy win there, but this
14:37
still is a really lovable lens. If you
14:40
want more information, you can check out
14:41
my full reviews of both lenses which are
14:44
linked in the description down below
14:45
along with some buying links there. As
14:47
always, thanks for watching. Have a
14:49
great day and let the light in.

ZONY vs EVO | 55mm DA SHOWDOWN

Dustin Abbott

Tamron 11-20mm F2.8 RXD for Canon RF Review | Better on Canon?

Nikkor Z 50mm F1.4 Review | A Great Value Mid Tier Option

Tamron 35-150mm VXD vs Sigma 28-105mm DN | Which Lens is Boss?

Tamron 35-100mm F2.8 VXD Review | Does the Oddball Zoom Excel?

EVO vs S-LINE | 50mm(ish) Z-MOUNT SHOWDOWN

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

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

7Artisans AF 135mm F1.8 Review | Can it Compete?

Neewer Q4 Pro 400Ws Flash Review | Overpowering the Sun

Nikkor Z F1.8 S-Line Trinity Buying Guide | DA

S-Line vs EVO | 35mm Z-Mount Showdown

Travel Backpack Showdown Peak Design or Black Voyage

Tamron G2 Zooms on Nikon Z mount | Suitable Nikkor Alternatives?

Sony a7V Review (ILCE-7M5) | The Best Midlevel Camera?

Megadap ETZ21 Pro+ Sony E-mount to Nikon Z-Mount Adapter Review

Up next in 10

ZONY vs EVO | 55mm DA SHOWDOWN

Dustin Abbott