p.10 #2 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Ben DDS wrote:
I appreciate the reply, and I've actually since purchased the Loxia 21! I've only gotten out with it once so far, but I am thrilled with it.
Thank you for answering and congratulations with the lens. You will not regret it. Some complains about it's difficult to mount and unmount but it's not a problem in my view it's just a matter of getting a hold of it.
p.10 #3 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Good choice I think! The GM 24 files are special (FOV aside). The 20mm is super sharp (which for most people equates to "better"), but I don't find the images special beyond that.
What don't you find special about the 20/1.8 GM images. Color?
p.10 #4 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
What don't you find special about the 20/1.8 GM images. Color?
Colors and contrast, bokeh and transitions (making for a harsher rendering), and flare resistance. I'd have liked no bat wings in the corners as well for astro, like my GM 24.
I dislike the color palate on the G20. While files high clarity, they didn't feel too nuanced. Just extremely sharp and kind of flat IMO.
I know your infinite distance flare test with the light source in the frame made the G20 look pretty good, but in my experience which I showed with multiple photos the G20 thread at first (and I noticed multiple others), people weren't too happy with the flare resistance. I could induce ghosting artifacts easily.
I disliked the bokeh and transitions, even at comparable apertures to several other wides like the Loxia 21 and Contax G 21, Tamron 17-28 @ 21mm and the GM 24 (though I realize there's a FL difference). Too harsh. I generally don't like rough renderings, even at the expensive of marginally more sharpness.
Reminded me a lot of the FE 28 which resolves quite well stopped down, and images can't really be faulted, but I quickly found myself looking to my other lenses. I was excited after being high on the GM24 too, was planning on selling the GM 24 and Tarmon 17-28 as 21mm is easily my preferred FL in this range.
I was hoping for GM 24 color, coma correction and smoothness for the special rendering. I already knew I wasn't getting Zeiss colors/contrast.
p.10 #5 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Colors and contrast, bokeh and transitions (making for a harsher rendering), and flare resistance. I'd have liked no bat wings in the corners as well for astro, like my GM 24.
I dislike the color palate on the G20. While files high clarity, they didn't feel too nuanced. Just extremely sharp and kind of flat IMO.
I know your infinite distance flare test with the light source in the frame made the G20 look pretty good, but in my experience which I showed with multiple photos the G20 thread at first (and I noticed multiple others), people weren't too happy with the flare resistance. I could induce ghosting artifacts easily.
I disliked the bokeh and transitions, even at comparable apertures to several other wides like the Loxia 21 and Contax G 21, Tamron 17-28 @ 21mm and the GM 24 (though I realize there's a FL difference). Too harsh. I generally don't like rough renderings, even at the expensive of marginally more sharpness.
Reminded me a lot of the FE 28 which resolves quite well stopped down, and images can't really be faulted, but I quickly found myself looking to my other lenses. I was excited after being high on the GM24 too, was planning on selling the GM 24 and Tarmon 17-28 as 21mm is easily my preferred FL in this range.
I was hoping for GM 24 color, coma correction and smoothness for the special rendering. I already knew I wasn't getting Zeiss colors/contrast....Show more →
All the G lenses I've tested, I've never been fully satisfied with the colors. The optical performance usually is there, but somehow the colors are never as good as with Zeiss for example. The 'last 5% of brilliance' is missing which sometimes shows as a very light green cast or a little bit muted fashion. Somewhere in this thread (or some other) was an example of 20G and Loxia 21 with a lot sky in the picture, someone was testing flareing and such, but there was also a house or something in the picture and it showed exactly the same 'lack of brilliance in colors' as I've observed myself - kind of happy to see others noted it too. Also, with some lenses greens tend to show a bit 'radio-active' hue in them, so it's not about the level of saturation, and definitely not about raising saturation in the post. It's more about having a good brilliance of colors and still feeling natural.
On the other hand, with all the GM lenses I've tested they all have this brilliance in their colors. Not quite the same as with Zeiss lenses, but still definitely as good as Zeiss (I just prefer Zeiss colors myself).
There's probably a reason why G lenses are G and not GM. Part of the reason is that they don't utilize the special XA elements and they don't have the latest and greatest of AF tech (the new 18-55 2.8 G being an exception), but the other part of the reason is that Sony needs to build different product categories for different user segments - not all they know is put the G lenses, because they need to differentiate the GM from the G. So it might be that they use, for example, slightly better coatings or glass elements with the GM lenses. Zeiss on the other hand doesn't have different product categories for different users - everything they make is premium (which of course shows in price as well and can be argued are the differences always worth of asking more). Even the ended Touit line-up is premium with no cut corners. In fact, regarding colors one of my all time favourite lens is the Touit 2.8/50 Macro (and I still have it) - which fits perfectly for photographing nature at close range.
p.10 #6 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Kalainen wrote:
All the G lenses I've tested, I've never been fully satisfied with the colors. The optical performance usually is there, but somehow the colors are never as good as with Zeiss for example. The 'last 5% of brilliance' is missing which sometimes shows as a very light green cast or a little bit muted fashion. Somewhere in this thread (or some other) was an example of 20G and Loxia 21 with a lot sky in the picture, someone was testing flareing and such, but there was also a house or something in the picture and it showed exactly the same 'lack of brilliance in colors' as I've observed myself - kind of happy to see others noted it too. Also, with some lenses greens tend to show a bit 'radio-active' hue in them, so it's not about the level of saturation, and definitely not about raising saturation in the post. It's more about having a good brilliance of colors and still feeling natural.
On the other hand, with all the GM lenses I've tested they all have this brilliance in their colors. Not quite the same as with Zeiss lenses, but still definitely as good as Zeiss (I just prefer Zeiss colors myself).
There's probably a reason why G lenses are G and not GM. Part of the reason is that they don't utilize the special XA elements and they don't have the latest and greatest of AF tech (the new 18-55 2.8 G being an exception), but the other part of the reason is that Sony needs to build different product categories for different user segments - not all they know is put the G lenses, because they need to differentiate the GM from the G. So it might be that they use, for example, slightly better coatings or glass elements with the GM lenses. Zeiss on the other hand doesn't have different product categories for different users - everything they make is premium (which of course shows in price as well and can be argued are the differences always worth of asking more). Even the ended Touit line-up is premium with no cut corners. In fact, regarding colors one of my all time favourite lens is the Touit 2.8/50 Macro (and I still have it) - which fits perfectly for photographing nature at close range. ...Show more →
I have very similar conclusions after shooting and owning several GM lenses and FE/G lenses. I've posted my comments on colors and contrast several times. I think some shooters just don't mind it or don't care (either if fine). If they are happy to boost/adjust colors in post that is good.
Also agree on this is a purposeful decision by Sony to differentiate lines, which I actually think works well though it annoys me. I would have happily paid another $500 the GM look though.
p.10 #7 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
I agree with Sony G color rendering. IMO, it's not as pleasant as with GM lenses. Don't know the reason but it's there. The worse offender is the FE 12-24 G. I am not sure about flare, contrast and rendering though as my impressions were positive.
Jun 15, 2020 at 10:38 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.10 #8 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree with Sony G color rendering. IMO, it's not as pleasant as with GM lenses. Don't know the reason but it's there. The worse offender is the FE 12-24 G. I am not sure about flare, contrast and rendering though as my impressions were positive.
I'm not sure it is all G lenses, however. Many people seem to like the color from the 90 f/2.8G Macro. I have never used the lens, but I do like a number of people's shots with that lens and find the colors to be pleasing across a number of different post-processing styles. Perhaps it just that a lot of talented people both in their shooting and post-processing that use that lens. For me I wouldn't want an AF macro, but it does seem like a good lens with nice color to me. Perhaps someone who has used the lens can chime in about the color.
p.10 #9 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Steve Spencer wrote:
I'm not sure it is all G lenses, however. Many people seem to like the color from the 90 f/2.8G Macro. I have never used the lens, but I do like a number of people's shots with that lens and find the colors to be pleasing across a number of different post-processing styles. Perhaps it just that a lot of talented people both in their shooting and post-processing that use that lens. For me I wouldn't want an AF macro, but it does seem like a good lens with nice color to me. Perhaps someone who has used the lens can chime in about the color....Show more →
I'm actually surprised I've never tried the 90/2.8G either. The initial high copy variation reports was perhaps the main reason.
I do not consider color rendering a big handicap since most of us shoot RAW, but I was referring to images out of the camera without any color changes in post. There is a distinctive difference between the GM, G, Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses I've tried.
Going back to the FE 20/1.8 G, it's incredible how flat-field it is and resolution pretty much equals the Loxia across the field starting at f/4. Lateral CA is actually lower than the Loxia. No easy task!
p.10 #10 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree with Sony G color rendering. IMO, it's not as pleasant as with GM lenses. Don't know the reason but it's there. The worse offender is the FE 12-24 G. I am not sure about flare, contrast and rendering though as my impressions were positive.
I haven't shot the 12-24, but I'll take your word on it. I have several other people mention that as well. Interestingly, people have been complaining about Sony colors since the the a900 days. I always preferred Minolta or ZA lenses in a-mount. Even lenses that Sony just rebranded but kept in production, like the Sony/Minolta G 35 1.4 or 50 1.4 you'll read had lost something in the transition.
Here is a bokeh comp. It's not as important at 20mm as other FL's, but given the large aperture and excellent MFD performance I noticed so tested it.
Below are flare samples that were very easy to get and are worse than what I would expect out of the Tamron 17-28 or Loxia 21. No contrast added. The ghosting becomes more pronounced with editing.
@SteveSpencer -- I have seen some really lovely files from the G90 as well. I noticed the lens has particularly nice colors, even with different shooting and processing styles.
p.10 #11 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm actually surprised I've never tried the 90/2.8G either. The initial high copy variation reports was perhaps the main reason.
I do not consider color rendering a big handicap since most of us shoot RAW, but I was referring to images out of the camera without any color changes in post. There is a distinctive difference between the GM, G, Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses I've tried.
Going back to the FE 20/1.8 G, it's incredible how flat-field it is and resolution pretty much equals the Loxia across the field starting at f/4. Lateral CA is actually lower than the Loxia. No easy task!...Show more →
What do you do to process your colors/contrast to your satisfaction? I find I can't get my CV to look like Zeiss, Sony to look like CV, Canon to like Leica except rough approximations.
p.10 #12 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I haven't shot the 12-24, but I'll take your word on it. I have several other people mention that as well. Interestingly, people have been complaining about Sony colors since the the a900 days. I always preferred Minolta or ZA lenses in a-mount. Even lenses that Sony just rebranded but kept in production, like the Sony/Minolta G 35 1.4 or 50 1.4 you'll read had lost something in the transition.
Here is a bokeh comp. It's not as important at 20mm as other FL's, but given the large aperture and excellent MFD performance I noticed so tested it.
Below are flare samples that were very easy to get and are worse than what I would expect out of the Tamron 17-28 or Loxia 21. No contrast added. The ghosting becomes more pronounced with editing.
@SteveSpencer -- I have seen some really lovely files from the G90 as well. I noticed the lens has particularly nice colors, even with different shooting and processing styles....Show more →
I knew you were going to post these flare samples! I've seen them before but without a side by side with another lens you think has great flare resistance, it's hard to tell.
I've posted side by sides with the Loxia and I found them comparable regarding veiling and ghosting. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1639619/2#15174181
p.10 #13 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
I knew you were going to post these flare samples! I've seen them before but without a side by side with another lens you think has great flare resistance, it's hard to tell.
I've posted side by sides with the Loxia and I found them comparable regarding veiling and ghosting.
lol--sorry to be repetitive! Here are some Tamron 17-28 vs. G20 1.8@ 2.8. Tripod, exact same everything. You can see the 20 has more artifacts diagnoally, at about 4/5 o'clock. The G20 has this nasty ghosting starting at about 11 o'clock, which the Tamron doesn't have. As you stop down it gets more pronounced as well.
Interesting, my CV 35/2 versus 35/1.7 shares a very similar characteristic. While I like the CV 35/2, the way it flares it shoots ghost more broadly it seems a bit wild and distracting even at f8 like below. For that reason, I continue to use my CV 35/1.7 over the 35/2 for hiking. This moon would have been so much tamer with my CV 35/1.7
p.10 #14 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Man you really need to clean your sensor.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
<snip>
Below are flare samples that were very easy to get and are worse than what I would expect out of the Tamron 17-28 or Loxia 21. No contrast added. The ghosting becomes more pronounced with editing.
p.10 #16 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
nandadevieast wrote:
When i see this lens kept next to 24 GM...it appears that Sony set out to make a GM...they couldn’t for some reason so they removed the M.
And why did they make this when they had 24...? They should have made 18 or 28 i think (want to say 35, but never mind
For better or worse, 18mm is not a classic Sony/Canon/Nikon FL, at least not in FF (more of a "German" FL, offered by both Zeiss and Leica). In Minolta/Sony land, it's been 16mm (does anybody still remember that a-mount 16mm f2.8 fisheye? I never got around trying one) or 20mm (like that old rebadged a-mount 20 2.8, which I used when I first got my a7r back in 2013).
p.10 #18 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Personal opinions on Tamron 17-28 vs Sony 20 f1.8? Both are 67 mm filter threads.
Looking for another wide angle lens to compliment my Voigtlander 21mm f3.5 and the rest of my kit (Nokton 40mm f1.2 + Tamron 28-200). I was thinking the Tamron provides the most flexability since I can do some astrophotography and the ability to go wider than my Voigtlander 21mm.
p.10 #19 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Chris_88 wrote:
For better or worse, 18mm is not a classic Sony/Canon/Nikon FL, at least not in FF (more of a "German" FL, offered by both Zeiss and Leica). In Minolta/Sony land, it's been 16mm (does anybody still remember that a-mount 16mm f2.8 fisheye? I never got around trying one) or 20mm (like that old rebadged a-mount 20 2.8, which I used when I first got my a7r back in 2013).
Nikon has made 18/2.8 AF-D, 18/4 Ai, 18/3.5 Ai-S, so 18mm is a classic Nikon focal length. It is true however that these lenses are not made anymore.
It seems Vignetting will be much lower on the Sony wide open. (1.7 stops vs. 2.6 stops). I found in my testing the Tokina wide open has the same coma as the Batis 18 so that is pretty good. I'd love to see the Sony coma.If it's better or equal at f2, then that's a win - less light fall off and probably sharper.
I love my Tokina though so I'm curious to see.
In terms of lens kit, for me, if I am doing astro and landscape, I'll probably take sigma 14 1.8, Sony or Tokina, and Sony GM. I have Fred's FE 16-35 f4 and Contax 35-70 which are good enough for me. I know the sigma zoom is great and it's only a stop or stop 1/2 difference on those lenses, but the difference in noise on a 20 sec 3200 shot and a 20 sec iso 1200 shot is huge.
Chris
I've seen them before but without a side by side with another lens you think has great flare resistance, it's hard to tell.
