p.20 #1 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Perhaps it's a sign of maturity that Sony can bring out a trio like this, very obviously targeted at the A7c, despite there being plenty other similar options available. Like Canon who can bring out lenses just for fun (40mm pancake is a great example) because their lens line up is so mature and robust. Not because they need to, simply because they can.
p.20 #2 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
tzhang4284 wrote:
Stopped down sharpness it's very close at f5.6. At f2.8, it's well within the margin of error for me in terms of actual usable resolution based on my experiences with various Loxia primes, GM zooms, Batis 40mm, and the Sigma 45mm.
The 35mm f1.4 is better for sure but if the Sigma 45mm is a contender, then the 40mm blows that out of the water and is close to the 35mm f1.4 and probably on par with the Batis and Sigma 35mm f2.
It's not close at all... I mean if you say that 40G is close to 35GM, so is Sigma 45 to 40G...
Take another look at the graph, basically @f5.6 the GM has APS-C level edge sharpness nearly at 40G center level and similarly for FF edge to APS-C edge (and the GM is actually sharper at f4 than at f5.6, so that would be a better comparison).
p.20 #3 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
twelveish wrote:
Hey, I'm all for lower prices too, but that lens was launched in 2012. Camera gear prices have gone way up since then, in general. Also, the 40/2.8 wasn't built to any "G", "L" or similar/equivalent, standard.
Maybe I'm just resigned to it. Sonys camera and lens prices have always been extra expensive in the Nordic region for some reason. I remember the same was true when I was shopping around for the recently released A77. I only had to travel to anywhere south of Denmark to shave, from memory, 2-300€.
True, but I'm not saying this new 40mm should've costed around 200 euro too. That would've been completely unrealistic.
Taking everything into account I just expected a price of around 450-500 euro max.
p.20 #4 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Steve Spencer wrote:
I wouldn't call what Lenstip reviews image quality. I would call it sharpness. Image quality for me captures a lot more than just sharpness and suppression of CA both lateral and axial are to me important parts of image quality as is bokeh. It is early but it looks to me like the Sony 40 f/2.5 is a very sharp lens but does not suppress axial CA well and does not have a very pleasing bokeh (typical for a smaller lens). The Sigma 45 f/2.8 in contrast isn't as sharp--especially at closer distances--but suppresses axial CA well and has wonderful bokeh. We know with the Sigma 45 f/2.8 this is because it doesn't suppress spherical aberrations (SA), but not suppressing SA means PDAF doesn't work as well, but there is less affect on CDAF. So there are tradeoffs between the lenses. I wouldn't say one has a better image quality. They emphasize different aspects of image quality....Show more →
I think we're in subjective rationalization territory here. I had the Sigma 45mm and I came away finding the bokeh unimpressive and the lens soft at 2.8. Great lens when stopped down to f5.6. I look at the Sony 40mm as better wide open and better stopped down with comparable bokeh quality. I also don't see this horrendous CA that you're referring to in any of the sample photos - we're splitting hairs here given the size of these lenses.
p.20 #5 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Let me add that poor AF also affects image quality. If the focus isn’t spot on within a reasonable time (as is the case with the Sigma 45/2.8), one ends up with more “character”.
tzhang4284 wrote:
I think we're in subjective rationalization territory here. I had the Sigma 45mm and I came away finding the bokeh unimpressive and the lens soft at 2.8. Great lens when stopped down to f5.6. I look at the Sony 40mm as better wide open and better stopped down with comparable bokeh quality. I also don't see this horrendous CA that you're referring to in any of the sample photos - we're splitting hairs here given the size of these lenses.
p.20 #6 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
I am not surprised by the design prerogatives of Sony here, but personally no interests in small, moderate-aperture lenses with harsh renderings WO. The 40 looks a bit rough from a quick glance at some of the samples.
Sony has come along way though— look at how well built these are compared to their first gen lenses like the 28 FE. Prices seem a bit high for what they are to me, but I don’t follow this segment that carefully.
I’d easily prefer the Sigma 24/35/45i to these. I am sure most will want resolution not rendering in the classic trade-off though.
p.20 #7 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am not surprised by the design prerogatives of Sony here, but personally no interests in small, moderate-aperture lenses with harsh renderings WO. The 40 looks a bit rough from a quick glance at some of the samples.
Sony has come along way though— look at how well built these are compared to their first gen lenses like the 28 FE. Prices seem a bit high for what they are to me, but I don’t follow this segment that carefully.
I’d easily prefer the Sigma 24/35/45i to these. I am sure most will want resolution not rendering in the classic trade-off though.
Exactly! Most will prefer more accurate AF and better sharpness to the enigmatic "rendering"... Especially since you mostly always benefit from better AF, but unimpressive rendering can be sometimes hidden by putting more effort into composition (and some will not even notice bad rendering even if it's impossible to compose around it) ...
p.20 #8 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Jochenb wrote:
I still own the Canon 40/2.8 pancake. A good lens optically. It only costs around 200 euro.
Seeing the price of this Sony 40mm makes me laugh in disbelief.
I agree! I had been thinking of selling my EF 40/2.8 pancake. But I tried it on the a7R4 with MC-11 and was amazed at its details and color. Even wide open, discounting the vignetting, imaging is excellent.
So, no interest in these new "bargain" Sony lenses.
p.20 #9 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
The whole package seem very attractive as a compact setup, but Sigma 35i is significantly better than the 40/2.5 in terms of rendering from the preliminary pictures. Probably going to pass on at least the 40. I enjoy the 35i on my a7c closest thing to a RX1R.
Mar 23, 2021 at 12:37 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.20 #10 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
tzhang4284 wrote:
I think we're in subjective rationalization territory here. I had the Sigma 45mm and I came away finding the bokeh unimpressive and the lens soft at 2.8. Great lens when stopped down to f5.6. I look at the Sony 40mm as better wide open and better stopped down with comparable bokeh quality. I also don't see this horrendous CA that you're referring to in any of the sample photos - we're splitting hairs here given the size of these lenses.
I think it isn't so much rationalization, which frankly is a suggestion bordering on being insulting, but rather a difference in preference. The lenses definitely have a different look and different strengths and weaknesses. You might well prefer the Sony 40 f/2.5G, but I prefer the Sigma 45 f/2.8 I series, and that ought to be ok without you suggesting that I am engaging in some sort of rationalization.
Edit: and for clear evidence of axial CA see these pictures posted earlier in the thread:
Here see the fairly strong axial CA in the bokeh, often referred to as bokeh fringing
and here:
Note the axial CA in the strong green fringing in the tree branches
It is of course earlier, however, perhaps the axial CA once more shots have come in from more settings won't be as bad as these samples look, but both these samples don't look very good for axial CA.
p.20 #11 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
tzhang4284 wrote:
I think we're in subjective rationalization territory here. I had the Sigma 45mm and I came away finding the bokeh unimpressive and the lens soft at 2.8. Great lens when stopped down to f5.6. I look at the Sony 40mm as better wide open and better stopped down with comparable bokeh quality. I also don't see this horrendous CA that you're referring to in any of the sample photos - we're splitting hairs here given the size of these lenses.
Bokeh can be quite objectively measured. The bokeh quality of the Sigma 45 is objectively better. Less outlining, cleaner disks, less texture, etc. You may not like the smoothness as much, but for how the term is traditionally applied, the quality of the bokeh is better on the Sigma.
p.20 #12 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Beni wrote:
Perhaps it's a sign of maturity that Sony can bring out a trio like this, very obviously targeted at the A7c, despite there being plenty other similar options available. Like Canon who can bring out lenses just for fun (40mm pancake is a great example) because their lens line up is so mature and robust. Not because they need to, simply because they can.
Sony still lacks on the long end. We are being thrown everything but the kitchen sink at the 24-55mm range, but not much at the 150-300 range.
p.20 #13 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am not surprised by the design prerogatives of Sony here, but personally no interests in small, moderate-aperture lenses with harsh renderings WO. The 40 looks a bit rough from a quick glance at some of the samples.
Sony has come along way though— look at how well built these are compared to their first gen lenses like the 28 FE. Prices seem a bit high for what they are to me, but I don’t follow this segment that carefully.
I’d easily prefer the Sigma 24/35/45i to these. I am sure most will want resolution not rendering in the classic trade-off though.
I want both resolution and rendering! Haha. But it does't have to be in the same lens...this is how I justify multiple lenses in the same focal length. The 50/2.5 still appeals to me, somewhat. But my Sigma 45 likely does all I need at that focal length and, to be honest, the Sony 35/1.4 GM and the Sigma 65/2 are the lenses that are really calling to me right now.
On the 'resolution' side, if I'm honest with myself, I'm usually shooting landscapes and I prefer MF. I just need to add the CV 50 APO to my Loxia 25 and 85 and I'm good there. When it comes to AF, rendering has more pull for me. But truth be told, I just love having different lenses to play around with, it's fun
p.20 #14 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
chez wrote:
Sony still lacks on the long end. We are being thrown everything but the kitchen sink at the 24-55mm range, but not much at the 150-300 range.
I'm wondering, now that the A1 has landed, if we'll see more in this range...a 200/2.8, 300/2.8, 300/4, a 100-300 GM, new versions of the 70-200s. Sign me up for a slower, compact, sharp telephoto zoom.
p.20 #15 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
I have a sharp Sony 35 2.8, but will be open to moving to this new 40 if it's better, we'll see. Just need one lens in the 24-40 focal range that's this small for how I use it. The new 24 looks interesting, but with a 24 GM and CV 21 3.5 already in the bag, and no motivation to sell either, I think I'll pass for now on that one.
p.20 #17 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Bokeh and objectivity. Nah.
Can you put some numbers if it is “obejective”?
Dave Sanders wrote:
Bokeh can be quite objectively measured. The bokeh quality of the Sigma 45 is objectively better. Less outlining, cleaner disks, less texture, etc. You may not like the smoothness as much, but for how the term is traditionally applied, the quality of the bokeh is better on the Sigma.
p.20 #19 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Dave Sanders wrote:
I'm wondering, now that the A1 has landed, if we'll see more in this range...a 200/2.8, 300/2.8, 300/4, a 100-300 GM, new versions of the 70-200s. Sign me up for a slower, compact, sharp telephoto zoom.
I just sold my Canon 70-200 f4 IS and about to sell my 300 f4 that I used for my landscape telephoto options. Would love to pick up a nice small Sony 200 2.8 and 300 f4...but in the mean time I'm looking at the Sigma 100-400.
p.20 #20 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
gocolts wrote:
I have a sharp Sony 35 2.8, but will be open to moving to this new 40 if it's better, we'll see. Just need one lens in the 24-40 focal range that's this small for how I use it. The new 24 looks interesting, but with a 24 GM and CV 21 3.5 already in the bag, and no motivation to sell either, I think I'll pass for now on that one.
I'm the same as you. I just need one compact slow lens for times when I go out with photography not my primary goal. I have the Sony 35 2.8 and it is perfect for this application. These Sony lenses needed to be faster 1.8 or at the most F2 to get my interest.
...
