IsabellaR wrote:
I expected a little less vignetting, a little better corner sharpness stopped down, a little more defined sunstars, a little better color reproduction (subjective, I expected that), a little more character/ 3D (subjetive, I expected that).
I thouhgt, a 24mm prime should be a specialist lens? And yeah it is - all together - a little better than the 3-5 competitors, which are older. But in some categories it is even worse.
But what would a neutral person think more of a hyping wording, my wording ("good, best of class, but that was to be expected, nothing to celebrate") as promoting a negative hype or your wording ("fantastic, decathlon champion,...") as promoting a positive hype?
Are you sure that I am inflating problems or promoting negative hype? Or is it difficult for you to accept another view?
Since I switched to Sony a few years ago, I notice that the Sony users can not bear any other opinions, it is not even allowed to even relativise praise. This is new for me....Show more →
It's all about expectations, of course.
I guess I'm lucky. I expected worse. I thought that given the size it came in at, it would be at most as good as the best of the competitors. And having used 1.4/24 mm lenses before, I had no expectation that the quality would be as good as it is at the wider apertures, or that it would be so close to the best in class slower lenses stopped down.
It's hard to know how realistic some of your and my expectations were realistic. That requires knowing a lot more about the economics of lens production and the current state of design than I suspect either of us really do, even if we have hunches.
But I do think one of your expectations might have been unrealistic give what we do know.
That's more defined sunstars. This is a tradeoff, always. A fast lens is likely a lens that prioritises bokeh. A wonderful feature of this lens is that, stopped down a little, the bokeh balls are very round indeed. That's down to 11 blades and curved blades.
But 11 curved blades is never going to give very defined or for that matter attractive (to my taste) sunstars - although they are a bit better than I thought. But I do think it's the right choice for this lens, even if it is one of the reasons that some perfectionists who can afford it without undue pain may think about keeping both this lens and the Loxia.
IsabellaR wrote:
I expected a little less vignetting, a little better corner sharpness stopped down, a little more defined sunstars, a little better color reproduction (subjective, I expected that), a little more character/ 3D (subjetive, I expected that).
I thouhgt, a 24mm prime should be a specialist lens? And yeah it is - all together - a little better than the 3-5 competitors, which are older. But in some categories it is even worse.
But what would a neutral person think more of a hyping wording, my wording ("good, best of class, but that was to be expected, nothing to celebrate") as promoting a negative hype or your wording ("fantastic, decathlon champion,...") as promoting a positive hype?
Are you sure that I am inflating problems or promoting negative hype? Or is it difficult for you to accept another view?
Since I switched to Sony a few years ago, I notice that the Sony users can not bear any other opinions, it is not even allowed to even relativise praise. This is new for me....Show more →
I tried to be general in my response (except for the first sentence), esp. regarding the "negative hype". With that I usually mean that people tend to exaggerate one aspect and use that to rave or destroy a lens, forgetting the positive things.
A lens is a bit more than that in my opinion. This lens is a perfect fit for event shooters in my opinion.
Disagreeing and arguing with you here doesn't mean that your opinion isn't accepted. However, stating it openly means others might disagree and debate with you over certain points they regard as being subjective. In my opinion subjective things are fine, as long as they aren't mistaken or conveyed as objective criteria.
Your expectations could have probably only been met by significantly increasing weight and size. I applaud Sony for not doing that, which lead to this compromise.
Having shot with many of the previous 24mm/1.4 lenses I see a big jump in IQ here. Where do you think it to be worse?
Sun stars? A subjective thing. I like not having too distinct sunstars most of the time, images look sometimes too artificial. I use the Loxia 21 if I want that.
3D? Subjective and requires a learning curve to find the parameters necessary producing the rendering you like.
Vignetting? The Nikon and Sigma have around 2 stops, Canon over 3 stops. GM doesn't look to be worse.
Flare control? So far I couldn't replicate the strong flare seen by some here. So quite good. I definitely had more problems in the past with the Sigma.
Coma? Def. better.
Sharpness? Better than the copies I had from the other manufacturers. Dxo, lensrentals will give additional data points.
Colors? Subjective.
If you prefer certain characteristics, the Batis 25 and 25 Loxia are there, too. The latter isn't that much better to be disappointed if the GM is not surpassing it, given the aperture, size and weight.
Something that gets lost is the competition. Canon's 24/1.4 is $150 and 50% more weight, no IS (!) and lacks the operational niceties you get with Sony's fast lenses. Sony have a rep for pricy lenses, unjustified here.
philip_pj wrote:
Something that gets lost is the competition. Canon's 24/1.4 is $150 and 50% more weight, no IS (!) and lacks the operational niceties you get with Sony's fast lenses. Sony have a rep for pricy lenses, unjustified here.
The price is definitely fair, at least in comparison, true. In this case, the Canon and Nikon are overpriced.
Regarding sunstars: The Canon 35mm 1.4 II is able to produce better sunstars (also the Sigma Art 24mm and 35mm) despite having a really good bokeh (my taste). You can also stop it down to f22, which is sometimes helpful.
And I forgot to mention the diffraction. From my experience it must not be the case, that the decrease of sharpness is that obviously even with f8.
So that Canon was the better milestone for me.
But of course, regarding size, Sony did a great job.
And also sharpness at f1.4, not only in the center, is exceptional.
IsabellaR wrote:
The price is definitely fair, at least in comparison, true. In this case, the Canon and Nikon are overpriced.
Regarding sunstars: The Canon 35mm 1.4 II is able to produce better sunstars (also the Sigma Art 24mm and 35mm) despite having a really good bokeh (my taste). You can also stop it down to f22, which is sometimes helpful.
And I forgot to mention the diffraction. From my experience it must not be the case, that the decrease of sharpness is that obviously even with f8.
So that Canon was the better milestone for me.
But of course, regarding size, Sony did a great job.
And also sharpness at f1.4, not only in the center, is exceptional. ...Show more →
No one here has done any personal attack against you, so no need to generalize that Sony users can't take criticisms, or that many here don't know what they need unlike you. Do you think if you expressed the same sentiment about the RF 50/1.2 that the Canon people will just sit there and accept? Right now it's the best 50 in the world for them.
Diffraction resolution drop is relative in the objective sense as well. If the drop still yields a sharper image compared to the likes of Canikon and Sigma, would that still be better? Many pointed out that you might have unrealistic expectations because the size and weight are precisely the points. If this Sony is as big and heavy as the Canikon 24 1.4, we would have less compromises in certain areas, but it's not so, and many here believe they made the right set of compromises, me included.
The GM 24 1.4 is not inferior to the slower lenses like the Batis or Loxia, it's just a different lens with different compromises and purposes. Same goes for comparing to lenses at different focal lengths, especially something like 24 vs. 35. You can't get a 24 perspective on a 35 most of the times. I'm quite sure the Canon 35 BR has better color correction as well, but being bigger, heavier, different focal length and not a Sony native, it's a moot point.
Now, if you compare this lens to the other 24 1.4 lenses, you might understand why people are excited about this lens. It's not just the new release syndrome. People bought this lens cause they have uses for a 24 at 1.4. There are lenses that are worth to switch over or to add a whole new camera system. For a 24 1.4 shooter, this is it. It clearly quenched my desire to add back a Leica system for the wider ends, though ideally, it would be better a 28.
Under test it starts to diffract at f8 but still completely usable file. Real world probably never pick up on it. I would maybe be more concerned at F11. Need to remember these tests are under very brutal conditions as test should be and its totally a pixel peepers level of testing. But F8 is totally a great file
A lens like this is designed more for being sharp at wide open apertures. These are lens designers decisions on what is most important for the end user. As I said in my testing i have yet to see a GM 85 or the Sony 50 1.4 this good AT 1.4 it usually needs 1.8 . Not the case with the GM 24 as it is outstanding at 1.4 on center and 1.8 is a much smaller improvement to the 50 and 85 at 1.8. One reason I said this might be the best GM yet at least the 1.4 versions. I never tested the GM 16-35 2.8 and honestly i have really no interest in it as it just does not fit me.
If this lens has a negative it would be sunstars compared to a Loxia or CV lens and flare but i have yet to see flare at a state that was beyond my expectations. I know its going to flare and I would still like to test that more as pmphoto had some weird looking shots. I do think a fast wide like this has more a home in a event or wedding shooters bag than maybe a landscaper bag but still able to nail those outdoor images with ease. Even though I sold my Loxia 25 and Batis 25 as well im just not shooting that much landscape any more and I did grab the CV 21 for that and travel with great sunstars. So i can go either way here but more my focus in AF is a work lens. The 24 fits that to a T and if your mainly a landscape shooter than you may not have interest in a fast wide and a bigger one than you Loxia 21 or 25 which is more that type of lens. Really comes down to what your needs are but this 24 can do a lot of things well too.
I returned my (preordered) 24GM and am keeping my Loxia 25. Could have been sample variation but my copy had astigmatism that I just could not un-see. Center sharpness was excellent, bokeh was generally fun and excellent, star shots were pretty nice too. Shooting towards strong light sources was weak.
I shoot landscape and the 24GM had too many compromises for me for that price and I won't keep both lenses.
The Loxia 25 just fits my needs better.
IsabellaR wrote:
The price is definitely fair, at least in comparison, true. In this case, the Canon and Nikon are overpriced.
Regarding sunstars: The Canon 35mm 1.4 II is able to produce better sunstars (also the Sigma Art 24mm and 35mm) despite having a really good bokeh (my taste). You can also stop it down to f22, which is sometimes helpful.
And I forgot to mention the diffraction. From my experience it must not be the case, that the decrease of sharpness is that obviously even with f8.
So that Canon was the better milestone for me.
But of course, regarding size, Sony did a great job.
And also sharpness at f1.4, not only in the center, is exceptional. ...Show more →
Diffraction is solely dependent on the lens aperture and with high resolution lenses, its softening effect starts to become more "visible" after f/5.6 (A7RIII). If you look at my 1:1 crops at infinity, you will see that at f/8, both Loxia and Sony GM show a decrease in resolution/contrast at f/8. All great lenses do.
Regarding sunstar rendering: Only lenses equipped with straight blades will render more defined sunstars. If having well defined sunstars is more important than round specular highlights stopped down, the new GM may not be the best choice for you.
I'd say the 24/1.4 GM is an all-round lens that does everything well without many flaws. In the future, we may see better corrected and bigger 24/1.4 lenses but that may come in expense of rendering. Right now, I see the new 24/1.4 GM as a smart and balanced optical design with the right compromises for most shooters.
For landscapes, the Loxia 25/2.4 is the better lens with slight higher contrast, better defined sunstars, better flare resistance and better corners although the difference is small and aside from sunstar rendering, perhaps irrelevant depending on the final output. On the other hand, the GM will be more versatile for most with its AF and 2 extra stops of light gathering and blur.
Much like anything else in our field, the GM 24 and its value to any particular shooter will be dependent on their list of wants/needs/priorities which will inherently be subjective every time.
As others have pointed out, this lens isn't the best at a bunch of categories. What it is though, is (either one of the or simply) the smallest/lightest lens in its class, offers features the others don't, is native to our system, and isn't far off in terms of performance in any of the optical qualities.
I for one was already very happy (optically) with my other two options in that focal range. However, I wanted something that was nimble/compact/light, performed well optically, full frame, and provides native function. The GM 24 is perfect for anyone looking for those qualities in a fast 24.
On another note, I personally have not been a huge fan of any of the semi-premium to premium Sony lenses I have had so far which is why I had been without them all (35/1.4, 55/1.8, GM 85 and 70-200) for a bit. So far, this 24 is more to my liking than any of those and may well end up being the only premium Sony lens I'll be keeping as it provides a package the others don't (albeit at a different FL but one that I love). I point this out as a response to the potential perceptions about some of us being hopped up on new Sony lens hype.
I suppose what I mean to say is that my thoughts about this new lens are not based in new-lens hype/mania, but in the actual presentation of a package that I place high value in for this particular system.
The thing that really sells me on the 24GM isn't even optics. It's having very nice manual focus functionality in a great performing autofocus 24 f/1.4 that isn't also a boat anchor. So for me, it's a very practical lens. For my use, once optics hit a certain point of acceptability, a lens is good enough. I don't really need the best of the best optically, and the 24GM is well beyond "good enough" for my needs.
My considerations are:
-Max aperture (obviously)
-Size/Weight is really nice
-Great AF Performance
-Very good MF functionality (for an AF lens)
-Sharpness wide open is very good
-OOF highlights and blur is good enough to not be distracting
-Price is not unreasonable
-Everything else is either "good enough" (CA, flare, etc) or "gravy" (coma, corner sharpness, etc.)
I wish there were many more imperfect lenses like the GM24 and VC 40/1.2. I’m also glad lenses like the Otus and Sigma lines exist for those who want no compromises. I don’t mind one or two lenses of such ilk at my go to focal lengths but I would generally prefer and buy and actually use lenses with an elegant set of trade offs vs size and volume (and cost) as represented by the GM24. Would be fascinating to see both volume and profitability of these various lens categories to understand what the bulk of consumers really buy. Canon 85/1.8 vs 85/1.2L. Or Fe 55 vs FE 50/1.4. Or Nikon 1.8G vs their 1.4 line.
In wide angle lenses, I prefer the combination of straight aperture blades for sunstars (rules out the new Sony GM), fast f/1.4 aperture (rules out the Loxia 25), and without exaggerated vignetting (Canon 24L II).
I retested my 24GM at infinity, focusing on the corner of the frame and got better results in the corner, while not seeing much difference in the center. Seems there is enough field curvature to affect corner performance when testing at infinity, at least on my copy.
IsabellaR wrote:
The price is definitely fair, at least in comparison, true. In this case, the Canon and Nikon are overpriced.
Regarding sunstars: The Canon 35mm 1.4 II is able to produce better sunstars (also the Sigma Art 24mm and 35mm) despite having a really good bokeh (my taste). You can also stop it down to f22, which is sometimes helpful.
And I forgot to mention the diffraction. From my experience it must not be the case, that the decrease of sharpness is that obviously even with f8.
So that Canon was the better milestone for me.
But of course, regarding size, Sony did a great job.
And also sharpness at f1.4, not only in the center, is exceptional. ...Show more →
A lens that gets worse due to diffraction at f8 is generally a better lens, often even at f8, that one that does not!
Why? Because the point at which a lens is diffraction limited is the point at which the other aberrations are so low that you can notice the efffects of diffraction (which are purely a function of aperture and are not affected by lens design).
So if a lens gets worse at f8 it means that it’s close to perfect at f5.6, so stopping down gives no improvement in abberations while it does give the inevitable increase in diffraction. But it will be as good or better at f8 than a lens which which gets better from f5.6 to f8.
A theoretically perfect F1.4 lens would be best at F1.4, and then get gradually worse as you stop down.
This is slightly complicated in some poorer tests you see online because some camera makers use diffraction compensation (deconvolution sharpening) in their JPEG engines or raw profiles, and those tests may not use a raw file rendered without the compensation. This profile varies from lens to lens and camera to camera so makes it hard to compare.The Canon you mention has such a profile ((Canon do good deconvokution profiles) but of course you can always add your own deconvolution in post.
GMPhotography wrote:
About time. See here it really works nicely
. It was not easy to find. Also, this is kind of a unique way of shooting this particular type of shot for me as I am never stopped down passed about f/2 with my other rigs around this FL. So I guess for my use-case, the artifacts will be a non-issue (since they will never show up) but I could see how it may be problematic for some shooters.
. It was not easy to find. Also, this is kind of a unique way of shooting this particular type of shot for me as I am never stopped down passed about f/2 with my other rigs around this FL. So I guess for my use-case, the artifacts will be a non-issue (since they will never show up) but I could see how it may be problematic for some shooters.