Extreme corner rendering at narrow aperture: FE 24/1.4 GM @f/2.5 vs Loxis 25/2.5 @f/2.4
The Loxia 25/2.4 wide open renders sharper extreme corners compared to the GM stopped down to f/2.5 probably due to field curvature. Here is a comparison:
That's fugly flare, however, this lens is definitely easy to use to avoid flare.
Complaining about flare in this lens would only come from the most amateurish photographers.
This. This is why the lens is so good. Still overly hyped though, just a touch, imo.
The biggest bunch of characteristics this lens has that make it a winner versus the competition, imo, are related to video.
The de-clickable iris, the minimal focus breathing (almost none), the linear focus ring that doesn't stick or have zero feel, the ability to send it away on a drone or mount it to a gimbal without weight issues, the ability to use auto-focus continuously at f1.4 and capture usable footage etc. etc.
This is why it's a significantly better option (for Sony users) than a Canon or Sigma Art and the Nikon is, well, yeah (the Nikkor 1.8/20 though, that's nice).
This forum misses those things often because it's so stills focused and generally landscape focused to boot, the reviews are very narrow and this lens's abilities are very broad....Show more →
Most of those video features are great for stills as well. Minimal focus breathing and great MF feel are invaluable for me. I am probably going to get the Matrice 600 Pro + Ronin MX next year, can't wait to put this lens on that. So much more flexible to do drone shots at WO.
This bday party shot was one of the first to come out both this lens and this camera. Was really happy with the way it captures the fire. I was as mezmorized as the bday girl (god daughter).
The lens isn't without some noticeable chromatic aberration. I wasn't looking for it, but found it in the second shot. Pretty clear purple fringe. Maybe a correction profile will come out or is already out for RAW?
These things are sold out everywhere. Called the local camera store thinking there was no chance of them having one... just picked up the only one they had 😃
Fred Miranda wrote:
Extreme corner rendering at narrow aperture: FE 24/1.4 GM @f/2.5 vs Loxis 25/2.5 @f/2.4
The Loxia 25/2.4 wide open renders sharper extreme corners compared to the GM stopped down to f/2.5 probably due to field curvature. Here is a comparison:
Since most will be shooting at 5.6, how do they compare at that (optimal) aperture?
robsonj wrote:
These things are sold out everywhere. Called the local camera store thinking there was no chance of them having one... just picked up the only one they had 😃
Plenty available in Asia (inc. Australia). Cheaper down south too, but more expensive than anywhere else in Aus, as usual
zachary.a.p wrote:
This bday party shot was one of the first to come out both this lens and this camera. Was really happy with the way it captures the fire. I was as mezmorized as the bday girl (god daughter).
The lens isn't without some noticeable chromatic aberration. I wasn't looking for it, but found it in the second shot. Pretty clear purple fringe. Maybe a correction profile will come out or is already out for RAW?
Impressive results again.
The magenta fringing isn't too bad considering the contrasty scene and I'm guessing it's wide open?
Melindra wrote:
Since most will be shooting at 5.6, how do they compare at that (optimal) aperture?
I was just comparing "out of focus" rendering at f/2.4 towards the corners. (Loxia vs GM)
Optimal aperture for resolution/contrast across the field was tested here.
Melindra wrote:
Since most will be shooting at 5.6, how do they compare at that (optimal) aperture?
Wow, I usually buy fast lenses to shoot them wide open, or close to wide open. Ok, I don't usually shoot landscapes. So, 35mm f/1.4 ZM vs Loxia, 85mm GM vs Loxia. So all of those are fast and slow lens, but the relatively small 24mm GM has me thinking GM without the Loxia.
Gotcha, I meant 5.6 for landscapes, sorry for the confusion.
I too don't buy fast lenses to stop them down, however, if they are better at 5.6 then any else I have, that's what I'll bring.
The GM isn't super heavy, I'd bring and use it on days like today, I'm with the family at the holiday home and I'll shoot a fast wide for portraits of the kids and stop down for some shots of the scenery.
It's a special, very important holiday in Australia today, lots of people about with their kit.
Hi folks, do you know this flare already? I got something like this only wide open but this is much worse because it is at f5.6, in the center and at different angles. No question, the light is extreme but this screwed up a panorama of a very nice situation. I also looks quite uncommon, more like a light leak than ghostings.
I am wondering if this may be a kind of defect, that is why I am asking.
That was my experience with the lens too and one of the reasons I returned it. My Loxia 25 performs much better in these cases.
Still a great lens in many other respects.
Wondering if anyone has done a comparison of the 24GM in crop mode on an A7R3 vs the Zony 35 1.4 in non crop mode? Wondering if the 24 could be considered a “replacement” for the 35 1.4 (understanding the difference in pixel resolution between these two options). Is it realistic to think of the 24 GM as a “two in one” lens on a high res body?
lunar module wrote:
Wondering if anyone has done a comparison of the 24GM in crop mode on an A7R3 vs the Zony 35 1.4 in non crop mode? Wondering if the 24 could be considered a “replacement” for the 35 1.4 (understanding the difference in pixel resolution between these two options). Is it realistic to think of the 24 GM as a “two in one” lens on a high res body?
Cropping will only give you equivalent field of view as a 35mm even if the IQ is the same. The depth of field of the pic after cropping to 35mm FoV will be close to only what a 35mm f2 would give, so if you really wanted the depth of field from a 35mm f1.4, you will still need a 35mm f1.4 lens.
Jannik Peters wrote:
Hi folks, do you know this flare already? I got something like this only wide open but this is much worse because it is at f5.6, in the center and at different angles. No question, the light is extreme but this screwed up a panorama of a very nice situation. I also looks quite uncommon, more like a light leak than ghostings.
I am wondering if this may be a kind of defect, that is why I am asking.
I don't notice any issue like this with my copy. What UV filter used? I think flare resistance of this lens is more than acceptable, at least with my copy.
lunar module wrote:
Wondering if anyone has done a comparison of the 24GM in crop mode on an A7R3 vs the Zony 35 1.4 in non crop mode? Wondering if the 24 could be considered a “replacement” for the 35 1.4 (understanding the difference in pixel resolution between these two options). Is it realistic to think of the 24 GM as a “two in one” lens on a high res body?
You're throwing a lot of resolution and light away cropping a 7R to S35. It's a 16mpix file iirc.
Kinda of a waste of gorgeous lens to use it in crop mode UNLESS it's for use in video, then the S35 mode is worthwhile using as the resolution is maintained and the quality is actually increased.
Melindra wrote:
You're throwing a lot of resolution and light away cropping a 7R to S35. It's a 16mpix file iirc.
Kinda of a waste of gorgeous lens to use it in crop mode UNLESS it's for use in video, then the S35 mode is worthwhile using as the resolution is maintained and the quality is actually increased.
It's actually 18.6MP but I agree it's a considerable drop in resolution. (42/1.5/1.5)
However for images where resolution is not as critical like environment portraits, it could be a great alternative to a 35/2 lens in terms of FOV and DOF. (Perspective will not quite match a 35mm lens though)
I’ll be using the crop feature a lot for Event and PR work as 42mpx is overkill anyway. The 18mpx crop is quite good and you still get a decent size file but in my case no one is going to go above a 9x12 300 dpi print anyway. It’s beats using a zoom at F2.8
Melindra wrote:
You're throwing a lot of resolution and light away cropping a 7R to S35. It's a 16mpix file iirc.
Kinda of a waste of gorgeous lens to use it in crop mode UNLESS it's for use in video, then the S35 mode is worthwhile using as the resolution is maintained and the quality is actually increased.
Wouldn't it be 42MP/1.5 = 28MP after the crop? Still better than the A9 and A7iii. I know using aps-c mode is giving up a substantial amount of resolution, but it still would be a pretty substantial data set. (Edit: didn’t see Fred’s post when I made my comment. Didn’t realize that the MP need to be divided by 1.5 x 2 for the crop. 18 MP is a pretty big hit compared to 42, but it still isn’t horrible. Certainly might work for situations where resolution usnt critical.)
And you are still getting the 1.4 light transmission, so low light performance isn't compromised in any way. The effective DOF would be diminished somewhat (to around 2.0) but not too bad. Seems like a relatively modest tradeoff for such an increase in convenience. Not to mention that the 35 1.4 lens is substantially larger and heavier than the 24 1.4.
I think it would be kind of interesting to compare the performance of these two options in the manner that Fred does for other lenses just to see what kind of performance hit, if any, one might see using the 24 in aps-c mode compared to the FF 35 1.4. I don't know how to do this kind of comparo but I might take a stab at it just for fun.
