Up next in 10
Viltrox AIR 9mm F2.8 (APS-C) Review | Boldly Going Wider...
0 views
Sep 4, 2025
Photographer Dustin Abbott takes a deep dive look at the Viltrox AIR 9mm F2.8 for Sony E, Fuji X, and Nikon Z APS-C cameras. Can you get an great wide angle prime for under $200? | This episode is sponsored by Fantom Tracker. Visit store.fantomwallet.com and use code DUSTIN20 for 20% off. | Read the Text Review: | Purchase the Viltrox AF 12mm F2.8 AIR @ Viltrox (use code DUSTINABBOTT for 5% off) | B&H Photo | Adorama | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Pergear 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
View Video Transcript
0:10
Hi, I'm Dustin Abbott and I'm here today
0:12
to give you my review of the new Viltrox
0:15
AF 9mm f/2.8 from their air series. I'm
0:19
filming on it right now and we'll be
0:21
doing so for all of these outdoor
0:22
segments. I came to you a week ago with
0:25
a review of the 14mimeter f4 which was
0:28
for full-frame and now we have what is
0:30
essentially the sister lens to that one
0:33
the 9mm f/2.8 for APS-C. Viltrox has
0:37
done something unique in that
0:38
essentially they have engineered a
0:41
wide-angle prime lens and then have
0:42
delivered both a full-frame and then an
0:45
APS-C variation of it. That's not to say
0:47
that these lenses are identical. They're
0:49
not quite the same angle of view. They
0:51
have slightly different strengths and
0:53
weaknesses, but you can d certainly tell
0:55
a commonality of design for them. And in
0:58
both cases, what we have is extremely
1:00
competent wide-angle prime lenses that
1:02
go very, very wide. In this case, 113.5
1:07
degrees of coverage and a lens that is
1:10
very, very compact and only weighs 175
1:13
g. That makes for a very intriguing
1:16
wide-angle option for both video and
1:18
stills. And today we're going to explore
1:20
whether or not this lens that you can
1:22
get for under 200 bucks should jump all
1:24
the way to the top of your list if
1:26
you're looking for a wide-angle prime
1:27
for your APS-C camera. We'll dive in.
1:30
Let's take a look together. Today's
1:32
episode is sponsored by the all-new
1:34
Phantom Tracker 2.0. Phantom has not
1:36
only seriously upgraded the visual look
1:38
of the card, but now we have a superior
1:40
build quality. Made with tempered glass
1:42
and metal alloys, this credit card size
1:45
tracker can be locally tracked via a 90
1:47
decel beeping noise, but also on a
1:49
global level via Apple's Find My Network
1:52
and its map. The addition of NFC means
1:54
that you can also use the card to
1:56
trigger an automation. Just tap it. The
1:58
tracker fits perfectly in any wallet or
2:00
bag and assures you won't lose your
2:02
valuables. It has a built-in
2:04
rechargeable battery that can be easily
2:05
charged via any wireless charger, and a
2:08
single charge can last up to 6 months.
2:10
The Phantom Tracker 2.0 makes for a
2:13
seriously cool gift. So visit
2:15
store.fanomwallet.com
2:17
and use code dustin20 at checkout for
2:19
20% off. That's store.fanomwallet.com
2:23
and use code dustin20 for 20% off. So in
2:26
disclosure, this lens was sent to me by
2:28
Viltrox for evaluation. As always,
2:31
however, this is a completely
2:32
independent review. Viltrox has had no
2:34
input on my findings, nor will they see
2:36
this video before you do. So, because
2:39
this is an APS-C lens, it is available
2:41
in one additional mount as compared to
2:43
the 14mm F4. So, I've uh reviewed it
2:47
here in Sony E-mount. However, it's also
2:49
available for Fuji Xmount as well as
2:52
Nikon Zmount. As you can see, and from
2:56
the specifications, these two lenses are
2:58
literally the exact same size. They are
3:00
both 65 mm in diameter, 2.55 in by 56.4
3:06
mm or 2.22 22 in in length. They both
3:10
have 58 millimeter front filter threads
3:12
and the APS-C lens is just a hair
3:15
heavier. The 100 or the 14mm f4 weighs
3:19
in at 170 g whereas the 9mm f2.8 weighs
3:23
in at 175 gram. That's for Sony E-mount
3:26
and Fuji Xmount. It's a little heavier
3:28
at 190 g in Nikon Zmount. And that of
3:32
course is due to the fact that Zmount is
3:34
considerably wider in diameter. And so
3:36
there's some extra lens uh near the lens
3:39
mount. If you look at the rear of the
3:41
lens, it does have Viltrox's signature
3:44
USBC port there, but what it doesn't
3:47
have is any kind of weather sealing
3:49
gasket. It does have an HD nano coating
3:52
on the front element to help to protect
3:54
that. However, uh that's the only nod to
3:56
weather sealing that we have got here.
3:58
It does include both the lens hood and a
4:01
pouch. And the lens hood, it is again,
4:04
it's identical to the one that's
4:05
included on the 14 millimeter F4. It
4:08
locks on into place nicely and clicks
4:12
into place with good tightness and
4:14
precision there. The Aperture Iris is
4:16
made up of seven blades. And as you can
4:19
see here, stop it down a bit and it does
4:21
produce a decent looking 14-pointed
4:23
sunstar. I think the 14mm f4 is just a
4:26
little bit cleaner because the blades
4:28
look just a little bit more defined, but
4:30
it's nice enough to add a little bit of
4:32
pizzazz to your images like this shot
4:34
with a bridge here. I think it adds a
4:36
little bit to that. Now, when it comes
4:38
to minimum focus distance on paper, both
4:40
lenses are capable of f focusing as
4:42
closely as 13 cm. So technically
4:46
according to the specifications the 9mm
4:49
has a 0.15 times magnification while the
4:53
14 mm has a 0.23 times magnification.
4:56
That comes again because of that
4:58
difference in focal length. And so in
5:01
this case 9 mm when you multiply that by
5:04
the 1.5 time crop factor of the various
5:06
cameras that's a 13 and 12 mm full-frame
5:10
equivalent. And so it's a, you know,
5:12
nicely wide lens, but because you have
5:15
to multiply that focal length figure by
5:18
that 0 point or excuse me, by that 1.5
5:20
times crop factor, you have to do the
5:22
same here when it comes to the maximum
5:24
magnification. So on paper, that would
5:26
mean that it's basically the equivalent
5:27
of the 14 millimeter lens. But to my
5:29
surprise, I was actually able to get a
5:31
higher level of magnification with the
5:34
lens. Now, when I test on my lens chart,
5:36
I actually use manual focus and make
5:39
sure to crank it to the furthest limit
5:40
that the lens will go. So, what that
5:42
means is that maybe I was able to get a
5:44
little bit closer than 13 cmters. Maybe
5:47
it only autofocuses down to 13 cmters,
5:49
but if you manually focus, you can get a
5:51
little bit higher magnification because
5:53
I would estimate the full-frame
5:54
equivalent magnification level of being
5:56
closer to 0.30 times. Bottom line is
6:00
that I could fill a good part of the
6:01
frame even with these AirPods for
6:03
example in a case. And so definitely
6:06
there's a very usable amount of
6:08
magnification there. And up close
6:10
performance is good. Not like macro
6:12
level good, but quite good. But you're
6:14
not going to get a completely flat plane
6:16
of focus either. Overall, however, as
6:19
with all of these Air series lenses,
6:20
which are very predictable in what
6:22
you're going to get, there's no bells
6:23
and whistles. There's no switches.
6:25
There's no aperture ring. The manual
6:28
focus ring moves nicely with good
6:29
damping, but that's pretty much it.
6:31
They're simple, but they are tough. They
6:34
can take drops and knocks without
6:36
showing any kind of marks, and they stay
6:38
centered. So, if you're just looking for
6:40
a lens that functions, the Air series
6:42
works great. So, let's talk autofocus.
6:45
As per usual with the Air series lenses,
6:47
we have an leadcrew type STM focus
6:50
motor. Now, in this case, it being a
6:53
very wide angle of view, it means that
6:55
focus doesn't have to work quite as hard
6:57
because with wide angles of view, that
6:59
means a lot tends to be in focus at a
7:01
time. That being said, however,
7:03
autofocus is nice and snappy with near
7:06
instantaneous transitions from close to
7:08
distant subjects and back. It also has
7:11
very good confidence in those
7:13
transitions, locking on without
7:14
hesitation. And in my test, it delivered
7:17
very good focus accuracy. In fact, I was
7:20
able to track with a fairly decent
7:22
success bees coming in and out of the
7:24
hive. And you can see from this shot,
7:26
for example, that there is plenty out of
7:28
focus in both the foreground and the
7:30
background. And so that tells you that
7:31
focus did have to be at the right place
7:33
to deliver this kind of result. And that
7:35
means also with these shots of Ferrari,
7:37
for example, that a more slowly moving
7:40
subject, no problems there. Autofocus
7:43
accuracy was excellent. and whatever I
7:45
was shooting I was able to lock on to
7:47
quickly and deliver well focused
7:50
results. That's pretty much all I can
7:52
ask for from any lens.
7:54
I would say that video autofocus is
7:56
equally important in a lens like this as
7:59
I see this as being a natural lens for a
8:02
lot of you to use for a variety of
8:04
different purposes. whether it be on a
8:06
gimbal where it's small and lightweight
8:08
and allows you more range of motion
8:11
because the lens is short enough, it's
8:12
not going to interfere with the limits
8:14
on the gimbal. It also means because it
8:16
is so lightweight, you might be able to
8:17
use it on a smaller, thus less expensive
8:20
motorized gimbal. It's also going to
8:22
work really well for those of you that
8:23
might do vlogging. And we'll pause here
8:25
for a moment and take a look at it from
8:27
that aspect. Like the 14mm f4, I think
8:30
that this 9mm f2.8 It is going to be a
8:33
great option for those that are looking
8:35
for a lens for vlogging for a couple of
8:37
reasons. First of all, focus is nice and
8:39
stable as you can see here. And then
8:41
obviously, of course, this is a really
8:43
fantastic focal length. It's also very
8:45
lightweight. And so, as a byproduct,
8:47
there's a lot of different things that
8:48
you could put the camera on and it not
8:50
be too heavy and thus become more
8:52
practical. I also would look at this as
8:54
being an excellent lens for gimbals for
8:56
the same reason. lightweight, wide angle
8:58
of view, good autofocus, and thus this
9:00
is a lens I think that for a lot of
9:02
people could be a very useful tool for
9:04
your APS-C camera for capturing video
9:07
content. So, as you can see, it has no
9:09
problem tracking my face and doing
9:11
everything that you would want from a
9:13
vlogging type lens. What's more, when I
9:15
did focus pulls back and forth, those
9:18
pulls are they're very confident.
9:20
They're accurate. There's no pulsing or
9:22
settling. It's able to lock on and just
9:24
do what it needs to do. And you can see
9:26
that there is only a minimal amount of
9:28
focus breathing there in the
9:29
transitions. That meant because focus
9:32
was relatively small in those
9:34
adjustments that when I did something
9:36
like my hand test that as it
9:38
transitioned back and forth, you know,
9:40
sometimes I couldn't even tell for sure
9:41
whether it was actually focusing moving
9:43
back and forth. However, when I tried to
9:46
scrutinize, it seemed like everything
9:47
was appropriately in focus on either end
9:50
of the spectrum. So, I was happy with
9:51
that. and other shots uh for video work
9:54
in general. I just got well focused
9:56
results without any kind of reservation.
9:59
So, I believe that this is going to be a
10:01
really solid lens for video work because
10:04
focus is confident. It's very quiet and
10:07
it's relatively well damped. It doesn't
10:09
do anything abruptly. That makes it a
10:11
very competent lens for use on either a
10:14
gimbal or for vlogging situations or
10:16
just in shooting video in general. So,
10:18
let's talk image quality. This optical
10:20
design is a little bit more complex than
10:22
the 14 millimeter. It is 13 elements in
10:25
11 groups rather than 12 elements in
10:27
nine groups with a full-frame lens. And
10:29
so it's also a little bit different in
10:31
the the optics that are there. Uh in
10:33
this case we have three extra low
10:35
dispersion elements, three uh high
10:37
refractive index elements and two
10:39
aspherical elements. So just a little
10:42
bit different of optical arrangement
10:43
there and the way that the elements are
10:45
used. But you can also see if you look
10:47
at the MTF that there is a similar
10:49
optical signature there with similar
10:51
strengths and weaknesses as you look
10:54
across it. One of the things that stood
10:56
out on both of these lenses which is
10:57
unique in my experience and that is that
11:00
they're actually sharper wide open than
11:03
what they are stopped down to f8. And so
11:05
in this case basically everywhere but
11:07
the extreme corners it is sharper at
11:09
f2.8 than what it is at f8. The good
11:13
news is that means you're getting lots
11:14
of performance from wide open. So
11:16
nothing to complain about there. And I
11:18
found in real world shots, this is a
11:20
very sharp wide angle lens that is going
11:22
to compete with frankly with the best
11:24
options that are out there for APS-C. In
11:27
some of the other metrics like the 14
11:30
millimeter again optically they have a
11:32
lot of similarities. uh the I found a
11:34
similar kind of distortion pattern here
11:36
and that distortion is low in total
11:38
quantity but it is a little bit complex
11:40
a little bit of a must dash pattern
11:42
there but on the positive side I only
11:45
needed a plus eight to correct here
11:47
whereas the closest similar lens that I
11:49
have viewed or reviewed in the last
11:52
maybe two years would be a Fujifilm's
11:54
8mm f3.5 a lens by the way that cost
11:58
like four times as much and that lens I
12:01
needed to use a plus 25 to correct the
12:03
barrel distortion compared to using just
12:05
a plus eight here. And I it's it's kind
12:09
of refreshing, frankly, to review a
12:11
compact lens that isn't relying on
12:14
software corrections to make it look
12:16
good. In this case, they've done most
12:18
the engineering there. And so, as a
12:19
byproduct, even without correcting, I I
12:21
felt pretty good about the results I was
12:23
able to get, whether it was shooting
12:24
interior spaces where lines don't look
12:26
distorted, whether it was shooting
12:28
something like this bridge. And you can
12:30
see here that it's not like stretching
12:32
or warping towards the edges. In
12:34
general, I was pretty impressed by how
12:36
low the distortion was and thus how low
12:39
an impact it had even without correcting
12:41
it. And of course, Viltrox gets pretty
12:44
decent profile correction support. And
12:46
so, you're going to have probably no
12:48
real world issues with that,
12:49
particularly when that correction
12:50
profile is available. Likewise, vignette
12:53
is moderate. It was right around the
12:56
plus 50 range to correct. So around two
12:58
stops of correction and again by
13:00
comparison with the Fuji 8mm f3.5
13:04
remember slightly smaller maximum
13:05
aperture. I had to use a plus 75 to
13:08
correct that lens. So again I'm
13:10
impressed by the job that Viltrox has
13:12
done here in keeping those factors low.
13:14
And so again even shooting at an
13:16
interior space with no corrections in
13:18
the corner at f2.8 the corners don't
13:20
look noticeably bad there. I'm sure they
13:22
would look a little bit brighter if I
13:23
were to brighten them up but it really
13:25
doesn't look bad overall. Likewise, I
13:28
saw no longitudinal style chromatic
13:30
aberrations before and after the plane
13:32
of focus, which is going to help you in
13:34
getting sharper performance up close as
13:37
well, where there is a little more
13:38
shallow depth of field. Likewise, and
13:41
really important for such a wide-angle
13:42
lens, the corners are quite clean as
13:45
well with very little levels of lateral
13:47
style chromatic aberrations there. Good
13:49
stuff all across the board. Now, when it
13:52
comes to resolution, I'm reviewing here
13:54
on 26 megapixels, which is the highest
13:56
available on Sony right now. If you are
13:58
shooting on uh Fuji in particular at 40
14:01
megapixels, you can expect the lens to
14:03
be a little bit more challenged, but I
14:05
do think that it is sufficient to the
14:06
task here. What I found here on Sony is
14:09
that the crops look great. Center looks
14:11
good. the mid-frame is really holding up
14:13
well. And as we move out towards even
14:16
the uh the far corners, it looks good
14:18
all the way till maybe like the last
14:20
percentage point of two. Uh and so it
14:22
looks really good overall in real world
14:25
shots. I I found the amount of of
14:27
sharpness available wide open to be
14:29
really good in a lot of situations. And
14:31
yes, like the extreme edges are going to
14:33
be a little bit softer than the center,
14:34
but still usable uh even at f2.8. As you
14:38
stop down a bit, it gets a little bit
14:40
better at f4. That's mostly noticeable
14:42
in those corners. And sharpness in terms
14:44
of consistency across the frame seems to
14:47
peak at about f5.6. And by f8, I felt
14:50
like there was a mild regression there.
14:52
And then by the time you get to f11,
14:55
defraction is starting to kick in. And
14:56
so it's a little bit softer yet. And
14:58
then by f-16, which is the minimum
15:00
aperture, defraction is making it the
15:02
softest that you're going to see at any
15:04
aperture value. At the same time, it's
15:06
no not so soft as to be unusable. And in
15:08
many situations, I think you could still
15:10
shoot at f16 and at just 100% level of
15:13
magnification. It's going to look okay
15:15
there. The corners, I would say, never
15:17
get as pin sharp as the center of the
15:19
frame, but the corners resolve better
15:21
than what most wide angle lenses ever
15:24
get to. And so, I think again, for this
15:26
amount of money, you're going to be
15:28
really delighted by how sharp and high
15:30
contrast the lens is. For landscapes, it
15:32
produced beautiful results. Great color,
15:34
great contrast, and great detail all
15:37
across the frame. Very, very good
15:39
result. When it comes to the bokeh side
15:41
of things, you don't buy a 9 millimeter
15:43
lens for producing bokeh, but because
15:46
you can focus so closely, there are
15:48
situations when you're doing that where
15:49
you can put the background out of focus.
15:52
And what I found is that to my eye, it
15:54
was the backgrounds were a little bit on
15:56
the busy side, more outlining and
15:58
busyiness than what I would like.
16:00
actually preferred the 14 millimeters
16:01
out of focus rendering. This is a the 9
16:04
millimeter is a really sharp high
16:06
contrast lens and unfortunately it can't
16:08
really turn that off in the defocused
16:10
area and so I mean bokeh is subjective
16:12
so you may like like the look of what
16:14
you see here for my eye however it was
16:16
on the busier side not my favorite
16:18
aspect when it comes to flare
16:20
resistance. flare resistance I would
16:21
call mostly good with just a little bit
16:24
more ghosting at smaller apertures that
16:26
will show up a little bit in images but
16:28
I wouldn't say to a destructive level
16:31
and uh and the ghosting artifacts are
16:33
small enough that in many situations you
16:35
might be able to remove them if they bug
16:37
you uh or they're not for those of you
16:40
that are maybe less turned off by that
16:42
it's not enough to really complain about
16:44
very much I certainly have used far more
16:46
expensive lenses than this that had much
16:48
more issues with flare I was also really
16:51
delighted to find that this lens is a
16:53
surprisingly strong performer for astro
16:56
work. And if you are looking for a value
16:58
lens for shooting astro, this is a
17:01
really tempting option. It's got such a
17:02
wide angle of view. It has relatively
17:04
low vignette in the corners and star
17:06
points are really crisp and there's only
17:08
a very mild amount of corn coma smear
17:11
towards the edges. And that adds up to a
17:13
really intriguing combination for under
17:15
200 bucks. And so I think that is a
17:17
great application along with this lens.
17:20
If you are a real estate photographer
17:21
and you shoot APS-C, this is a great
17:24
budget real estate lens or architecture
17:26
lens. Uh because you know native
17:28
distortion is relatively low. Uh
17:30
obviously for landscapes, it's got a lot
17:32
of different applications that it's
17:33
going to work quite effectively for. And
17:35
so my overall impression about the
17:37
optics, I walk away being impressed. I
17:39
would say that I don't love the boke,
17:41
but again outside of that, not much to
17:43
complain about. And as I said, who buys
17:45
a 9mm lens for bokecat anyway? The
17:48
Viltrox Air 9mimeter F2.8 is the kind of
17:52
lens that we should all want coming to
17:54
our own system of choice. The
17:56
combination of its small, compact size,
18:00
its lightweight, its very wide angle of
18:02
view, and then its competent autofocus
18:04
and excellent optical performance makes
18:07
it a lens that frankly would be tempting
18:09
even if its price point was considerably
18:11
higher. The fact that you can get this
18:13
lens for under $200 makes it even more
18:16
compelling. For those of you that are
18:18
shooting on APS-C, whether it be for
18:20
Sony E-mount, as I've tested here, Fuji
18:23
Xmount, or Nikon Zmount, this is a lens
18:26
that I see no reason why it shouldn't
18:29
jump to the very top of your list. If
18:31
you're looking for a wide-angle prime,
18:33
it's very easy to bring along. That
18:35
field of view is really, really useful.
18:37
And if you've never used an ultra wide
18:39
angle lens, you'll be pleasantly
18:41
surprised after you put in a little bit
18:43
of work into it at the kind of images
18:45
that you can produce that tend to be
18:47
more dynamic and exciting than what you
18:49
can produce with tamer focal lengths.
18:52
I'm really glad to see Viltrox push out
18:55
its horizons a bit when it comes to the
18:57
Air series because this really is a
18:59
sweet spot for a lot of photographers.
19:01
There's really not a whole lot of flaws
19:03
to point to here. This is a a really
19:06
wellexecuted package and while it's
19:08
simple and not featurerich in any way,
19:11
shape or form, it really kind of does
19:13
everything that you need. And most of
19:15
those controls, while I like to have
19:16
them on the lens itself, they're pretty
19:19
easy to do from within the camera also.
19:21
So, at the end of the day, I think that
19:23
if you are looking for a wide-angle
19:25
prime, there's not a lot of reasons to
19:27
spend more money than this because this
19:30
lens is just so competent. Now, if you
19:32
want more information, you have a couple
19:34
of options. You can either check out my
19:36
full text review that is linked in the
19:38
description down below on the newly
19:40
redesigned dustinbott.net. Go check that
19:43
out there and check out the website
19:45
while you're there. Also, I will dive
19:47
into the optics in a little bit more
19:49
detail in just a moment for those of you
19:51
that want a deeper dive. Let's take a
19:53
look at that together. So, first of all,
19:55
this is a nicely wide focal length as
19:58
you can see here. For such a compact
19:59
lens, you have a really wide angle of
20:01
view. And so looking down towards my
20:03
feet, they look a long ways away. You
20:05
can also see that the 9 mm on APS-C is
20:09
clearly wider than what the 14 mm is on
20:11
full frame. And so you can see that this
20:13
phone, for example, is almost clipped
20:15
off, whereas there's more space on this
20:17
side. We look down towards this arm of
20:19
the love seat. You can see that there's
20:21
more of it in view here on the APS-C
20:24
lens. And so uh gives you a really nice
20:27
nearly 114 degree angle of view. Now
20:31
also good news when it comes to the
20:33
quantity of the distortion here. You can
20:35
see the distortion is very mild to where
20:37
most of those lines look relatively
20:39
straight. There is a little bit of that
20:41
mustache pattern as you can see. So if I
20:43
try to correct the inner lines better,
20:46
it actually does create some pin cushion
20:48
distortion out at the edge
20:50
unfortunately. But the correction
20:52
profile will do a better job of that.
20:54
Right around plus 50 to correct for the
20:56
vignette in the corners. So, no big deal
20:58
on either one of those fronts. Perhaps
21:00
most importantly, in most real world
21:02
situations, I think you can get by
21:04
without having to correct distortion.
21:06
Uh, profile aside, you can see that in
21:09
all of these various lines, there's lots
21:11
of, you know, straight lines in this,
21:13
and they still look straight. They're
21:15
not really distorted. Likewise here with
21:17
this bridge, you can see that the lines
21:20
are staying straight on that without it
21:22
starting to squeeze or warp at any
21:24
point. And so for most, I would say
21:26
probably 99% of applications, the
21:29
distortion is low enough that you're
21:30
probably not going to see it in real
21:32
world images. Likewise, if we go back to
21:34
this image for a moment, the vignette is
21:36
not so severe as to really cause any
21:38
kind of noticeable issues. Not to say
21:40
that it's perfect, obviously, but you
21:42
can see here in these corners, there's
21:43
no corrections here. vignette really
21:45
isn't dominating this image. And so,
21:47
yes, you could lighten up those edges
21:49
and it would make a difference, but this
21:51
is a perfectly imaged or usable image
21:53
right out of camera. No issues with
21:55
longitudinal style chromatic
21:56
aberrations. You can see the contrast is
21:58
nice and high with no apparent fringing
22:00
before after the plane of focus.
22:02
Likewise, here in the edges, when it
22:04
comes to lateral style chromatic
22:05
aberrations, there is a tiny amount
22:07
there, but frankly, it's not enough that
22:10
you're going to actually see it in real
22:12
world applications. So when it comes to
22:14
overall contrast and resolution, again
22:16
this is a Sony, so it's 26 megapixels
22:19
for APS-C. This is 200% level of
22:22
magnification. Obviously the 40
22:24
megapixels on Fuji. It's going to be a
22:26
little bit more demanding, but as you're
22:27
going to see, it has no problems here on
22:29
Sony and it should do well on Fuji as
22:31
well. Here in the center of the frame,
22:33
it looks fantastic. Super sharp, very
22:36
high contrast. Mid-frame looks
22:38
excellent. As we pan down here, you
22:40
know, we can see that there's very
22:42
little drop off from this corner to this
22:44
corner. As we move towards the uh edge
22:46
of the frame, you can see that moving
22:48
right off to here, it's still looking
22:49
very good. Maybe just a little bit of
22:51
muddiness in that final bit of degree,
22:54
but overall it it is holding up in terms
22:56
of resolution really well. Really right
22:59
towards the corners. So that means even
23:01
wide open here in this shot, f2.8, eight
23:04
and this is at 100% magnification and
23:07
more typical kind of real world. You can
23:09
see that there's plenty of detail all
23:11
across the frame everywhere that we
23:13
look. Lots of information there.
23:15
Likewise in this shot, this is f2.8. You
23:17
know, it's dimmer lighting conditions
23:19
here under the trees, but you can see
23:21
detail is looking really nice in the
23:23
image. No problem. You can shoot f2.8
23:26
with very little penalty.
23:28
Even in this shot where I was able
23:30
because I was up higher on a bridge to
23:32
get a little bit flatter plan of focus,
23:33
which is always a challenge with a uh
23:36
lens like this with such a wide angle of
23:38
view here at f2.8. You can see right off
23:40
to the very edges of the frame that you
23:43
know it's a down here might be a tiny
23:45
bit affected by depth of field, but
23:46
overall I would say everywhere that I
23:48
look, even at f2.8, there is still a
23:51
very usable amount of detail and
23:53
contrast. And so this is an image or
23:56
this is a lens that holds up very well
23:58
at f2.8. Now, as is the case with a lot
24:01
of lenses that are very sharp wide open,
24:03
there's not a whole lot in addition to
24:05
be found as you stop the lens down.
24:07
There is very slightly more contrast
24:09
here at f4 in the center of the frame.
24:12
Here in the mid-frame, again, you can
24:14
see with the writing here and here there
24:16
is a little bit of progress there. And
24:18
as we pan down, we can see towards the
24:21
corners. The corners are very slightly
24:24
better. It's starting to resolve a
24:25
little bit more like in this area. The
24:27
contrast is a little bit better there.
24:29
We look up into the upper left corner.
24:31
You can see that there is a little bit
24:32
of improvement from here to here. And if
24:34
we look at this uh insignia here, it is
24:36
just a little bit more well delineated.
24:39
Uh as you stop the lens down, we can
24:41
also see that centering is very good. As
24:42
we pop over here to the upper right
24:44
corner, all the corners are looking
24:46
good. There's a bit more gain from f4 to
24:49
f5.6.
24:50
And I think here you're really kind of
24:52
getting the peak performance across the
24:54
frame. It's um looks very slightly
24:57
better. It's not a big improvement, but
24:58
if we move on to f8, we can see that the
25:01
f5.6 in my opinion looks just a little
25:04
bit better than what f8 does there. So
25:07
look at f5.6 is being your peak
25:09
performance like for landscapes with
25:10
this lens. Here's a shot at f5.6 six,
25:13
for example. And you can see that
25:15
everywhere you look in the frame, off in
25:16
the edge here, across the center of the
25:19
image, off to the left corner here,
25:21
everywhere you look, there's just great
25:23
detail and contrast throughout the
25:25
image. If we step back and look at the
25:26
image as a whole, it looks really good.
25:29
Likewise, at f8, I think this kind of
25:31
gives you a sense of the dynamic type of
25:33
images that you can produce with such a
25:35
wide angle of view. So great detail and
25:37
contrast in the image and just the whole
25:40
kind of vibe of it has a lot of power to
25:43
it. Defraction will start to cause some
25:45
softening by f11 and it's slightly more
25:47
pronounced by f-16 but as you can see
25:49
it's not radically different at 100%
25:52
magnification. This would still be very
25:54
usable. As you've probably been able to
25:56
see in these images, colors are also
25:58
really nice. Their optical glass is good
26:00
even in this inexpensive Air series. So
26:03
you can see detail and contrast looks
26:04
really good all across this marina right
26:07
off to the edge and nice levels of of
26:10
color saturation in the images um
26:12
without anything looking garish or
26:14
overblown as we've seen we're able to
26:17
get a higher level of magnification than
26:18
what the specs indicate. You can see
26:21
here that while the plane of focus isn't
26:23
perfectly flat in the area where it is
26:26
in focus, detail and contrast actually
26:28
look really nice, which is going to
26:29
allow you to get, you know, better up
26:32
close images. You can get, you know,
26:34
good enough detail here to see how dirty
26:36
the AirPods are here, but you can s
26:39
surprisingly fill a pretty good part of
26:41
the frame with this very small subject.
26:43
Now, as noted earlier, I think that the
26:45
bokeh, to my taste, is a little bit on
26:47
the busy side. This is kind of best case
26:49
scenario where you can get really close
26:50
to your subject and then your background
26:52
is some distance away, but you can see
26:55
there is some outlining there. This
26:57
image where it's a little bit less favor
26:59
ratio, this just it's busy to my eye.
27:02
There's just a lot of of hard edges
27:04
there and a little too more too much of
27:07
outlining there. And so, I mean,
27:10
obviously bokeh is a subjective thing,
27:12
but I certainly wouldn't buy this lens
27:13
for its bokeh rendering. Flare
27:16
resistance is kind of a mixed bag. It's
27:18
mostly good. Contrast holds up well, but
27:21
in certain images like this, I feel like
27:24
if the sun in certain conditions can be
27:26
a little bit dominant with these light
27:28
rays starting to come out, better
27:29
scenario is here where the sun is up at
27:32
a kind of a a higher arc. And so, as a
27:35
result, it's a little less dominant to
27:37
the image itself. Finally, when it comes
27:39
to coma, I was really pleasantly
27:41
surprised here. Uh the the uh star
27:44
points you as you can see they're really
27:45
really nice and crisp. So that's great.
27:47
There's no fringing on those. And really
27:50
the instance of coma is really quite
27:52
low. This is about as bad as what you're
27:54
going to find which isn't really bad at
27:56
all. And so star points still look
27:59
mostly um round here towards the edge of
28:02
the frame. Vignette is relatively low
28:05
and you can get lots of stars on frame
28:08
because of that wide angle of view. And
28:09
so I actually really like this as a
28:11
budget astro lens. All in all, it's
28:13
pretty sweet. And so as you can see from
28:15
the deep dive of the optical
28:17
performance, this is a lens that does a
28:19
lot of stuff well and it really doesn't
28:21
have many flaws. Hopefully the optical
28:23
deep dive has helped you to determine
28:25
whether or not this is the lens that
28:26
you've been looking for. As always,
28:28
thanks for watching. Have a great day
28:30
and let the light in.