p.22 #2 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Beni wrote:
I want a small and cheap 50mm 1.4, the sony version of the Canon EF 50mm 1.4, I don't care if it's softish wide open and only gets nicely sharp at f2.8, like the canon was. The Sony 50mm 1.8 sucked, or at least my friends copy does. It doesn't even sharpen up in the corners by f8. An updated version of the Sony would have been very welcome.
It sounds like a bad copy of the Sony. I had the Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM and the Sony A-mount version and neither was as sharp in the corners as the Sony FE 50mm F1.8.
Mar 23, 2021 at 02:24 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.22 #3 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
realVivek wrote:
As long as there an audience for this “objectivity”, of course, that is the alternate truth.
Perhaps. "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears, etc. etc." I don't think we want to have that debate here either
p.22 #5 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Sigmas are still looking strong in comparison owing to their under-corrected SA. I don’t think I’ll bite on any of the sigmas or Sony G trio though until a high megapixel a7c variant appears. By then there will be more definitive takes on all these options no doubt.
In the meantime, for me, the near optical perfection in the CV APO line for a few hundred more per lens is a better trade off in the small sized categories even without AF.
p.22 #9 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
chez wrote:
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.
I have been in the same conundrum for a long time too. I have been using the FD 80-200, or adapted that 70-300L...I’m going to bite the bullet and purchase a Tamron 70-180 and call it a day. I was hopeful when Sony released the LAEA5 with the Minolta 200/2.8, but compatibility is awful.
I have been hoping for a highly compact 200/4 or native 550-600g 70-200/4 for some time.
p.22 #10 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
j4nu wrote:
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).
Honestly, I think we're both saying the same thing so let's not talk in circles The 35mm GM is better - I have not canceled my pre-order yet but it needs to be better as a much bigger and more expensive lens. For the size of the 40mm f2.8, it is very very good overall and I don't think there's anything you'd really miss from an image quality perspective. I know smaller lenses come outside more for me even though the larger lenses are more perfect.
p.22 #11 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
little_solja wrote:
With the launch of these compact prime lenses and 50MM GM, is it still worth keeping the Batis 40mm?
Dunno. Prooooobably going to sell my Batis 40 for the 40 G. Image quality looks comparable (I might favor the 40 CF slightly for it's near APO levels of correction and colors, but the 40 G seems to be excellent in its own ways) but the 40 G seems 1-2 generations ahead in terms of practicality and functionality.
For me the biggest bee in my bonnet with the CF has always been low light focusing, which... while the effective aperture indoors is the same (due to RSA, I usually leave my 40 CF at 2.5 indoors) RSA and Zeiss' AF implementation are probably responsible for more of the CF's low light focusing capabilities than the actual amount of light gathered.
40 G will probably hold me over until Sony finally comes out with a standard 1.8 G series. Once I have that lens and a α7 C it'll be close to the ideal setup I've wanted since... 2012?
My alternative to the 40 G atm is the 35 GM, which while undeniably a more capable and vaunted optic feels like it'll be a bit rich for my blood. Of course, if Sony takes long enough releasing a 35/40 1.8 G I'll probably end up getting both the 40 G and the 35 GM
p.22 #12 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I have been in the same conundrum for a long time too. I have been using the FD 80-200, or adapted that 70-300L...I’m going to bite the bullet and purchase a Tamron 70-180 and call it a day. I was hopeful when Sony released the LAEA5 with the Minolta 200/2.8, but compatibility is awful.
I have been hoping for a highly compact 200/4 or native 550-600g 70-200/4 for some time.
Have you tried the VS 100-300? If AF is not a requirement, it's still a great lens and gives you 300mm when needed.
p.22 #13 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
JVan_02 wrote:
Dunno. Prooooobably going to sell my Batis 40 for the 40 G. Image quality looks comparable (I might favor the 40 CF slightly for it's near APO levels of correction and colors, but the 40 G seems to be excellent in its own ways) but the 40 G seems 1-2 generations ahead in terms of practicality and functionality.
For me the biggest bee in my bonnet with the CF has always been low light focusing, which... while the effective aperture indoors is the same (due to RSA, I usually leave my 40 CF at 2.5 indoors) RSA and Zeiss' AF implementation are probably responsible for more of the CF's low light focusing capabilities than the actual amount of light gathered.
40 G will probably hold me over until Sony finally comes out with a standard 1.8 G series. Once I have that lens and a α7 C it'll be close to the ideal setup I've wanted since... 2012?
My alternative to the 40 G atm is the 35 GM, which while undeniably a more capable and vaunted optic feels like it'll be a bit rich for my blood. Of course, if Sony takes long enough releasing a 35/40 1.8 G I'll probably end up getting both the 40 G and the 35 GM ...Show more →
haha yes, I am kind of on the same boat but eye on 50mm GM....but I do love Batis 40mm for its close focusing abilities, very handy and a great lens for everyday use
p.22 #14 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Fred Miranda wrote:
Have you tried the VS 100-300? If AF is not a requirement, it's still a great lens and gives you 300mm when needed.
Yes. I posted in the CY 100-300 back in the day when I had my first copy in 2015.
I would like something with AF, less finicky MF and modern ergonomics. I do love my 100-300 images though...that’s how I’ve owned 3 copies lol. It’s a special lens. Liked it much more than the Canon 70-300L. I found it as good as most of modern tales. Or still technically strong, which is really something given the age.
p.22 #15 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
These new a7c lenses will prove to be an instant success. The natural audience for them are not so discriminating and the price is set so they can assemble more over time. The same size/look/feel/price will be a big hit with buyers who see lenses more as different fields of view over the top of a same uniform way of working.
And the cine touch of near-identical appearance with the focal length marketed prominently just adds to the appeal. They look so like the new Sigmas, and it's a winning formula for light photography, both stills and video. Sony are great front runners and are proving it year after year, an agile company as the IT characters say.
p.22 #16 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Steve Spencer wrote:
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:
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....Show more →
Personally, I don't see an issue with the image you shared with respect to Chromatic Aberration. On the lenstip tests, the Sigma 45mm is measured to be better on CA wide open but at f5.6, they're about the same based on a quick look on their chart.
I think the rationalization is trying to make this argument that slightly better wide open CA makes up for the other underperforming elements of the Sigma lens compared to the Sony. If you want a "character" lens have fun with the Sigma but I think most people would agree that better wide open sharpness + slightly higher CA and better stopped down sharpness + comparable CA means the Sony does better on the image quality front. I also look at the bokeh in the following comparisons and I can say I preferred the Sigma in some and the Sony in others so it's a wash.
p.22 #17 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
I don't know, I think I'm with Steve here. I will probably buy the Sony 40G anyway, but I'm disappointed looking at all the sample images. The bokeh and rather harsh rendering reminds me of the FE 35/1.8 (which I currently own) than the Sigma 45 2.8 (which I used to own). The Sigma 45 had fantastic rendering, very smooth, no nervousness, which the FE 35 and the samples I've seen so far from the 40G readily exhibit. Every bokeh-centric image at the DPReview sample gallery for the 40G looks harsh. Look at similar shots in the 35GM gallery in contrast - not perfect, but almost.
The FE 35/1.8 is a great utility lens, with little focus breathing, superlative AF esp. in video and AF-C, great sharpness near MFD, very punchy/contrasty images and even nice bokeh with certain backgrounds. I expect the 40G will be similar. But I much prefer the images I got from the Sigma 45 within it's operating boundaries. Problem is, that's a utility focal length for (35-50) for shooting my kids so I needed a utility, general purpose lens, not a specialist IQ lens. Guess it depends on how you define IQ - I suppose the 40G will be better in terms of something like the product of real world performance x maximum achievable image quality.
p.22 #19 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Steve Spencer wrote:
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:
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....Show more →
To me, unless choosing a landscape lens, ultimate sharpness (resolution) is no longer a concern with modern lenses. Aside from a few exceptions, generally they are all sharp enough even on the A7R IV. For sure some lenses will perform better than others but the differential today is rendering and this is just a matter of design compromise.
The Sigma 45/2.8 has rendering + CA correction as priority while the others in the I series have more balanced approach with high resolution/contrast, low CA and still pleasant rendering.
The new Sony G lenses look interesting but the image you posted above (Flickr) is perhaps evidence that Sony gave higher weight to resolution/contrast when designing them. That shows in the somewhat busy rendering in many samples and high resolution close-up performance. (which means well-corrected SA in a non-FLE design)
I consider these differences trade-offs. Some shooters prefer higher resolution/contrast in detriment of rendering and others prefer pleasant rendering or a more balanced approach. All this is subjective but it's undeniable that nowadays, the E-mount offers lenses for every taste and budget.
p.22 #20 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
tzhang4284 wrote:
Personally, I don't see an issue with the image you shared with respect to Chromatic Aberration. On the lenstip tests, the Sigma 45mm is measured to be better on CA wide open but at f5.6, they're about the same based on a quick look on their chart.
I think the rationalization is trying to make this argument that slightly better wide open CA makes up for the other underperforming elements of the Sigma lens compared to the Sony. If you want a "character" lens have fun with the Sigma but I think most people would agree that better wide open sharpness + slightly higher CA and better stopped down sharpness + comparable CA means the Sony does better on the image quality front. I also look at the bokeh in the following comparisons and I can say I preferred the Sigma in some and the Sony in others so it's a wash.
Lenstip only measures LaCA which is a kind of CA that is easy to fix in post anyway, though they do show some images of LoCa but not measure it.
These nice new lenses do show rather more LaCA that I was expecting. Not just in backlit bright specular highlights like fountains or water reflections where most non APO lenses show it, but in green rims around bokeh generally.
Not saying it ought be a dealbreaker, but it’s a respect in which the Sigma I lenses are a little better. If I were choosing between the Sig 45 and the new 40 I think I’d choose the Sigma if I was shooting at medium to longer distances, where the rendering is better and the LoCA as well. If I wanted to shoot around 30cm to a meter or so I’d prefer the Sony for more resolution in that range, and at very close distances rendering is fine.
