JVan_02
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Just had some prints made from this lens & the a7iii. This above image stood out: even at 20 x 30 cm from just 24 megapixels it was suuuuuper crispy, and the subject being so completely goofy helped too! f4 3200 ISO
I'll put some more thoughts on this lens in case someone looks at this thread thinking about buying the optic. In good light, this probably produces my favorite images of any standard full stop. Before cries of heresy are made: yes, I know on a technical basis only in the 35-50 range we have the Sigma 35 1.2, Sigma 40 1.4, Sony ZA FE 50 1.4, and the Voigtlander 50 APO Lanthar which all perform better. But again... printing at 20 x 30 in a photobook (as to why large photobooks are particularly demanding, check out Nigel Danson's video How BIG can you PRINT your PHOTOS? discussing landscape prints; note his commentary on how often errors he finds won't be seen because of the normal viewing distance) I rarely notice the technical shortcomings of this lens wide open—by which I mean to say that I don't think our printing process is advanced enough to effectively differentiate lenses that surpass this on a technical merit. What I think we have in this lens is relatively rare: a lens that has modern error correction for things commonly held to be distracting or universally negative such as prominent CA, distortion, resolution falloff, etc... while at the same time containing strong "character" traits that can be put to good use. Not going to flood this reply with examples, but for an example observe the prominent glow on the left side of my subject's face here:
Earlier examples of this lens' character can be found throughout this thread, but this reply comes to mind. While I'm sure the 40 CF isn't completely alone in the simultaneous occurrence of modern corrections and strong character, I can't think of any other lens off the top of my head. For example while the 40 Nokton probably has stronger character than the 40 CF, we can see from Dustin Abbott's Voigtländer Nokton 40mm F1.2 Definitive Review @ 11:33 and many others that the lens' strongest display of character comes with an accompanying, ever present haze.
The other strong positive here is build quality. This lens has been kicked by a 1 year old, slapped by a 2 year old, been out in multiple downpours, banged into doors and gates, and had ice cream dropped on it (and then water frantically streamed over the lens to clean it off) and it still works like new. I've used G and GM lenses, and I now own the 20mm G but I doubt anything on the Sony platform is as sturdily constructed save perhaps the Loxia line (which having an all metal + sealed construction with no pesky electronics to break down should be among the best built, longest lasting lenses ever produced). I bought it knowing that it was going to be abused, and it certainly has lived up to my expectations on that front.
Where the lens lets me down is low light performance. The aperture behavior has an obvious effect on IQ via ISO ramping, but also an effect on AF as your sensor starts to get deprived of light. Though N4865G assured me that performance is good on the A9, I can say that as an a7iii owner my hit rate on moving subjects at distances less than a meter goes from a very useful 75-85% to a kind of abysmal 40-55%. On static or posing subjects I don't think I ever hit below 90% accuracy (unless said subjects happen to be wearing glasses haha) but it's definitely a significant difference from my 20 1.8 G (and I imagine the 35 1.8 FE, the 40 CF's closest competitor). Additionally, something doesn't seem to communicate very well between the lens and the camera body. While the lens is plenty sharp (see: all the images in this thread) the camera has a much harder time detecting the presence of an eye in the frame than with my 20 G, which to my mind shouldn't be the case as the 20 is an even wider angle lens than the 40 CF. I'm sure these issues will be mitigated by future generations of Sony camera bodies inheriting more advanced AF tech & algorithms, but at the moment this is the one significant shortcoming that always comes to mind when using this lens.
As long as you understand & work around the AF problems, it's an easy lens to recommend. Personally, as I live in Sweden where we have 3-5 hours of daylight about half the year I might replace this with a more reliable 35-40 G/GM if they ever come out & I never get an a9—but if I ever do I will probably always miss the images this lens produces. They're unique in the best way.
EDIT: replaced video links with youtube video titles. can't seem to post a discrete link instead of an embedded video
|
