Thanks for sharing. Indeed a great pair but a bit on the large side.

Large or not it’s still smaller than a 35mm camera + 50mm 1.2, 105mm 1.4 ART or Nikon 85mm 1.2 which is amazing. The 75mm 1.2 and 27mm 1.2 has a lot of image quality character too and it has an aperture ring and made from metal. That’s a real lens to me

Thanks. Yeah, this is made for low light😀

Thanks for watching!

It's worth the wait, definitely.

Awesome! Thank you! I hope you'll like the lens because it's awesome.

Thanks. Yeah, the build quality is awesome.

@@mattisulanto Your welcome Matti it sure is awesome 😊

Thanks for watching😀

Thank you for watching.

Awesome, thank you!

Thanks for sharing.

Sony will notice, but will they react?

Thanks. If you can deal with the size and weight the Viltrox is one very good lens and not expensive for what it is. However, I can't know whether you'd like or not😀

Thanks. However, I'm not in KL any more and have been to Melaka several times😀

Thanks. Sometimes I'm in KL but sometimes in other locations too😀

I have shot a few short clips on the Viltrox 27mm without problems but I have also done the same with the 75mm without problems.

@@mattisulanto I assume, that Viltrox makes improvements and may have the AF wobble already fixed. Still, I'm glad I didn't get one yet, since Viltrox now has an upcoming 27mm (35mm) version, that may become stuck for long periods on my camera ;-)

@@Pharesm I have not experienced any AF problems with the Sony versions, both 27mm and 75mm. However, when the 75mm came out first for Fuji the AF was not very good. They have since released a FW update for the Fuji version though.

Yeah, GAS😂

Thanks. That shutter speed is possible with the electronic shutter.

@@mattisulanto Just learned something new :)

Thanks so much for watching. I have not compared the Sigma 23mm and this Viltrox side by side but having used the Sigma previously I'd say the Viltrox is the better of the two. However, the Sigma is also a very nice lens and not quite as big and heavy as the Viltrox. My bag in the video is the Lowepro Format 160.

Thanks. If you are happy with the Sigma there is no reason to get the Viltrox.

Maybe - depending if one would prefer to be right on 35mm equivalent...

@@Pharesm What? Neither the 27mm or 30mm is 35mm equivalent on APS-C. That would be a 23mm. Sigma and Viltrox do both offer a 23mm f/1.4 though.

Thanks. What I prefer depends on what I want to shoot.

I had the A7C - for me it was a fallacy - Having the camera slightly smaller, when all the other stuff is full frame size and weight, I couldn't achieve my goals for reduced weight and bulk at all. The A6700 does the trick for me, I carry a lot less and don't really lose anything. Or maybe something is wrong with me, I was always really awed with the pictures of my RX100V

@@Pharesm Yeah, I feel the same. I upgraded from the a6500 last year to an A7 III, but after a couple months I switched back to APS-C by "downgrading" to an a6600. I missed the telephoto reach of APS-C, and I like how small some of the APS-C specific lenses are. And I also find the cost of an APS-C kit to generally be lower. I guess FF's not best for everyone.

@@indianapolisindiana7856 Thats funny, I did it without the benefit of more reach, as my longest apsc lens is 35mm equivalent... If I could get a RX100V with a 35mm prime lens, Id go for that. I was always blown away with the pictures from that tiny camera. Sometimes I watch the videos of Markus Pix - he's got the oddest little cameras, some with very unexpected capabilities. Best part is that he's really fun to listen to

@@Pharesm Reach is very important to me since I photograph a lot of sports and performing arts that my kids and nieces/nephews are involved in. In those cases I'm often using my Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 or Sony 70-350mm (had the 70-300mm when I went from a6500 to A7 III). I really felt the drop in reach when going to FF. Of course, going to one of the latest higher-MP FF cameras like the A7CR would have mitigated the loss of reach, but I'm not going to spend $3000 on a FF body when I can get a nice APS-C for $800, and by the time you crop on FF to equal the reach of APS-C, you're not really ahead anymore in image quality.

If you intend to take photos the a6700 is the way to go because it has a mechanical shutter. I'm sure you can find a comparison here on KZfaq.

I would pick the Viltrox because it’s the better of the two in pretty much every way except that it’s bigger and heavier.

Thanks. In my opinion it is at least as sharp as the Sigma 56mm, but then again it makes little sense to compare a wide angle and a tele.

@@mattisulanto Thank you. What's the reason it makes "little sense" to compare sharpness between these lenses?

@@zeropain9319 Because the other one is a wide angle and the other one is a telephoto. You would not swap one for the other even if the other one was sharper. If you need a wide angle a telephoto won't do even if it's sharper or vice versa.

@@mattisulanto I still don't understand how come I can't compare purely sharpness despite the fact that they are completely different focal lengths?

@@zeropain9319 By all means compare whatever you want if it makes you happy😀

It is for Sony E mount and is designed to work on Sony E mount cameras. Your camera has the E mount.

That's interesting. Judging by some comments I have received a few people have managed to buy it already.

This is for APS-C and does not cover a FF sensor.

I use the Viltrox 75mm 1.2 on my Sony A7RV which still gives me 26mp when I switch the camera to APSC mode.

@@WingMan1964You can also use them both on the A7CR or the A7RV which shares the 61 Mpixel sensor that crops to 26 Mpixels.

@@mattisulanto Ah yes, of course. Thank you

@@WingMan1964 with the R4 or R5 - 26 is still a decent amount of Mp 👍🏼

No.

What FF 40mm F2 autofocus offerings are there for Sony? Native mirrorless, that is. If you have a Sony APS-C system and no intention to go FF this lens makes sense, if you need one fast prime. With a FF lens you also need a FF body.

@@mattisulanto I believe Zeiss makes a 40mm f2 lens for Sony that weights about 360 grams. Not sure how it compares optically with the Viltrox 27mm for APS-C, but I find it interestiing that if you couple it with, say, an A7C or A7CII you have a substantially lighter package than the Sony 6700 with Viltrox lens. It seems to me that if full frame manufacturers chose to do so, they could compete with smaller format cameras across all lens categories in terms of size and weight. In order to do this, they way have to produce more slower and lighter weight alternatives to their current lens lineups. For example, in order to compete with an an MFT f4-f5.6 12mm-50mm zoom lens, they could offer a corresponding 24mm-100mm f8-f11 zoom. Certainly with the full frame lens you would have to shoot at higher ISO's than with the MFT lens in many situations. However but because it is full frame, you sacrifice nothing in terms of image quality vs. MFT when shooting at the higher ISO's because of the larger sensor. This would give full frame users the option of choosing slower lenses when they want the smallest possible size and weight or faster and heavier lenses when they prioritise image quality.

@@sl-rt5kv I had forgotten the Zeiss Batis. Thanks for reminding. The Batis is about the same size as the Viltrox but lighter in weight. However, that's the only 40mm F2 for Sony FF. It's not like there are many such offerings. Like I said, if you already have a Sony APS-C system, but you need one fast prime, then this Viltrox makes sense. If you are building a new system from scratch the situation is different, of course.

@@mattisulanto Your point about the value of the Viltrox if you have a Sony APS-C is, of course, well taken. My point is that FF manufacturers could produce lenses that compete with smaller format camera lenses in terrms of size and weight, across all lens categories, if they chose to do so. Moreover, there would be no sacrifice in image quality or bokeh compared to the smaller formats because of the larger FF sensor. The APS-C Viltrox vs FF Zeiss Batis weight comparison illustrates this point. If FF manufacturers went that route, I could see myself giving up MFT for full frame.

People don't buy APS-C cameras only for the smaller size. The a6700 has a killer top notch autofocus system for half of the price of the Sony a7RV that has the same autofocus system as the a6700 (the newest from Sony). Also, a 27mm F1.2 on a crop sensor is not the same as 40mm F2.0 on full frame. First of all, focal lenght and light transmissibility is the same no matter the sensor size, the difference is that on the crop sensor you see a cropped image of the full frame area. Regarding your statement that the full frame sensor's low light performance being the same at high iso with the smaller sensors at low iso's is another physics knowledge failure of yours. The low light performance of a sensor is given only by it's technology and pixel size. Generally, bigger sensors are better in low light just because of the fact that they have sometimes bigger pixel size. For example the Sony a6700 and A7RV have the same pixel size and the same low light performance. If you take an image at ISO 3200 on both the a6700 and a7RV and then crop the image of the A7RV to match the APSC area you will end up with absolutely identical noise level and low light performance.

Thanks and Happy Holidays to you too.

@@mattisulanto Thank you

I'm sure there are other channels that make better content for you.