p.23 #2 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Fred Miranda wrote:
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....Show more →
In terms of how you categorize lenses here, which makes sense to me, I tend to prefer either lenses that have a balance of resolution/contrast/pleasant rendering or lenses that have appealing rendering without overwhelming the subject with the suggestion of a special effect, e.g., like excessive glow or the appearance of a slight Gaussian blur. That is, I want the lens to let the subject speak. The Sony 50/1.4 ZA is a great lens in these regards.
I recently got the Sigma 35/2.0 and I like it a lot--it has the balance you describe of excellent resolution/contrast and with very appealing rendering and colors. I have been drawn to the Sigma 45/2.8, but I have stayed away because of the widely reported AF problems, which would kill the lens for me.
These new lenses from Sony are not what I had been hoping for. Their rendering at this point seems very reminiscent of the 35/2.8, the look of whose images I have always disliked.
When these new lenses were rumored, I took my A7C off the buy-sell market because of the promise of a very compact, high quality full-frame kit. Now I am thinking that I'll put it up for sale again.
Sony still offers a very high quality medium sized kit. But I wish they had done more on the rendering side with these new lenses.
p.23 #3 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Personally pretty disappointed by these lenses. They feel very reactionary to the small prime releases from Tamron and Sigma. I get that they needed something to fit with the a7C, but these lenses should have used a new C designation instead of G. The G designation, aperture ring, and price point all seems like a reaction to Sigma. The 35mm 1.8 is more deserving of the G designation (though, needing weather sealing and aperture ring) than these, in my opinion.
Likely the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 is cheaper, lighter, and comparable or better in IQ than owning two or more of these primes.
Mar 23, 2021 at 05:21 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.23 #4 · 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.
Well you need to learn that the Lenstip test is for lateral CA and not axial CA. Lateral CA is controlled well in both lenses, but axial CA is controlled quite poorly as the examples demonstrate. If you can't see the green fringing around the branches in the 40 G shot I posted you need to look more carefully. It is there and it is super easy to see. If you can't see the green and magenta fringing around the bokeh balls in the 50 G I linked then you need to look a lot more carefully because it is there and pretty obvious to see.
Perhaps you don't realize it but it isn't really ok to call other people's preferences rationalizations. It is ok that people have different preferences and those preferences may well be just that preferences and not rationalizations. I prefer lenses that have nice softness in the background and a gradual transition from sharp to unsharp. I don't value absolute sharpness much in my photos as I find modern lenses almost all sharp enough. I highly dislike axial CA that creates color fringing. Those are my preferences. I don't care if they are popular just like I don't care if my taste in music or art is popular. I know what I like to see and I don't like someone who doesn't know me at all calling my preferences rationalizations. That really has no place on this forum.
So to summarize, I like the Sigma 45 f/2.8 because it is sharp enough for my tastes, has very low axial CA, and has lovely bokeh, YMMV, but please don't call my preferences rationalizations. I acknowledge that the Sony 40 and 50 G lenses are sharper and likely focusses. better, but those aren't characteristics I value as much as the reduced CA and the better bokeh and background render of the Sigma 45 f/2.8, and again YMMV and evidently does. I won't judge you for valuing different things than I do, but don't judge me as rationalizing either.
p.23 #5 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Interestingly, I would prefer the FE50/2.5 over the Sigma precisely for 3-5m use. Simple reason would be the reliable AF of Sony over the dodgy one offered by Sigma. For statics subjects to demonstrate bokeh, fringing, etc, Sigma may make a better choice. Then there are other manual focus lenses for that as well.
DavidBM wrote:
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. ...Show more →
p.23 #6 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Is there a through-FM link to B&H or Amazon to (pre) order the 40mm?
I for one value size, weight, w/o sharpness and low flare/ghosting and usually don't care too much about CA of any sort. Fast AF is a bonus as is the aperture ring.
p.23 #7 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
These new lenses look fantastic. It's great to have these high quality small lens options. My impression is that Sony hit a home run with each of them.
p.23 #8 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Options are always good and I’ll reserve final judgement for tests from reputable members here but the DPR 40 gallery pretty well killed any interest in these. Still, fast and accurate AF has a place for many, and I respect that. But I’ll take Sigmas rendering.
p.23 #9 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
realVivek wrote:
Interestingly, I would prefer the FE50/2.5 over the Sigma precisely for 3-5m use. Simple reason would be the reliable AF of Sony over the dodgy one offered by Sigma. For statics subjects to demonstrate bokeh, fringing, etc, Sigma may make a better choice. Then there are other manual focus lenses for that as well.
My Sigma can focus perfectly in that range in AF-S, which is what I use. I took photographs of people, even ones who moved, quite easily before the advent of lock on AF-C. I do like the button on the 50 G to trigger eye AF, but that's because I'm but a lowly A7RII shooter. I imagine I'll upgrade soon enough. But the Sigma excels at people.
p.23 #10 · 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 →
Strong? Not really in my opinion. I see these CAs around leaves and branches in the 35/1.2 DN, 35/1.4 GM, 50/1.4ZE and many other lenses. Easy to correct. It would be great if there were none of it, the bokeh smoother, lens cheaper, ... Will it ever happen? Will people ever be happy?
Too many are obsessed with perfection. Too many are disappointed. Search for the holy grail.
In real life images, one often doesn't see an issue at all, like in your first image of the girl on the bank. Who cares about a tiny bit of green fringing around some tiny bokeh balls you only see when pixel peeping? Yes, it demonstrates the lens isn't perfect. None is. For me the lens is too slow, but it is another nice option many here seem to like.
p.23 #11 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
keepcoding wrote:
Does anyone know where these are made? I bet its made in China.
So there's at least one reason to prefer Sigma over these clones by Sony.
Implying the product is somehow inferior because it's made in China?
Mar 23, 2021 at 06:42 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.23 #12 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Holger wrote:
Strong? Not really in my opinion. I see these CAs around leaves and branches in the 35/1.2 DN, 35/1.4 GM, 50/1.4ZE and many other lenses. Easy to correct. It would be great if there were none of it, the bokeh smoother, lens cheaper, ... Will it ever happen? Will people ever be happy?
Too many are obsessed with perfection. Too many are disappointed. Search for the holy grail.
In real life images, one often doesn't see an issue at all, like in your first image of the girl on the bank. Who cares about a tiny bit of green fringing around some tiny bokeh balls you only see when pixel peeping? Yes, it demonstrates the lens isn't perfect. None is. For me the lens is too slow, but it is another nice option many here seem to like....Show more →
Show me shots from those fast lenses that show axial CA like that at f/2.5? Many lenses have much less axial CA at that aperture. Sure it isn't as strong as a lot of lenses at wider apertures, but axial CA is of course aperture dependent and I maintain that I find the axial CA pretty strong for that aperture in those shots. Neither do I find it easy to correct, but you may have and probably do have a lot better post processing skills than me. I am not asking for perfection. As I have written I quite like the Sigma 45 f/2.8, which certainly isn't a perfect lens, but I do have different tolerances for different flaws and appreciate some aspects more than other aspects. All I am saying is that these Sony G lenses excel where I personally don't care much and they are weak exactly where I do care, so they are a poor fit for what I like in a lens. You can and likely do have different preferences and tolerance for flaws than I do so YMMV and likely does.
p.23 #13 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
They are not intended for advanced stills users, but for the vlogger series that started with the a7c. Most won't notice LoCA in their efforts and breathing is something you do every 4-5 seconds. It was a little tricky of them to assign them as 'G' lenses.
But ultralight, they integrate really well with the a7c, standard filters hoods, aperture rings, cine style font lettering for ID. A little over-priced, to start with at least.
p.23 #14 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
philip_pj wrote:
They are not intended for advanced stills users, but for the vlogger series that started with the a7c. Most won't notice LoCA in their efforts and breathing is something you do every 4-5 seconds. It was a little tricky of them to assign them as 'G' lenses.
But ultralight, they integrate really well with the a7c, standard filters hoods, aperture rings, cine style font lettering for ID. A little over-priced, to start with at least.
This seems about right. Definitely tricky of them to call these G lenses. The A7C seems to accommodate vloggers, but I don't think it was aimed at them. It is quite a good stills camera. Too bad Sony won't make properly sized lenses whose qualities match the excellence of the A7C's sensor. The Sony 1.8 lenses, the Sigma i lenses, and the Samyang tiny lenses are the best sized fit for image payoffs at the moment. Or some MF lenses.
p.23 #15 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Not that I am expecting miracles, but there might be some cleanup when these brand new Sony G lens profiles are added to the various raw photo editors.
p.23 #16 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
realVivek wrote:
Interestingly, I would prefer the FE50/2.5 over the Sigma precisely for 3-5m use. Simple reason would be the reliable AF of Sony over the dodgy one offered by Sigma. For statics subjects to demonstrate bokeh, fringing, etc, Sigma may make a better choice. Then there are other manual focus lenses for that as well.
Ah, I haven't used the Sigma 45: my impression from others was that the AF is fine by the time you get to 3m, and the PDAF issues arise closer. If that's not right, and they are an issue at 3-5m I agree I would personably also prefer the Sony for the kind of use that I'd put a compact AF lens to. Of course others might differ.
Mar 23, 2021 at 09:20 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.23 #17 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
DavidBM wrote:
Ah, I haven't used the Sigma 45: my impression from others was that the AF is fine by the time you get to 3m, and the PDAF issues arise closer. If that's not right, and they are an issue at 3-5m I agree I would personably also prefer the Sony for the kind of use that I'd put a compact AF lens to. Of course others might differ.
I have the lens and it is one of my wife's favorite lenses and she doesn't have any trouble with AF. She uses AF-S with this lens. I think the lens does less well with AF-C, so if you use this lens you might have to learn to use AF differently. For my wife she has no problems taking portraits of our very active 8 year old, but I don't doubt that a different lens that allows better use of AF-C might be easier to use.
p.23 #19 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have the lens and it is one of my wife's favorite lenses and she doesn't have any trouble with AF. She uses AF-S with this lens. I think the lens does less well with AF-C, so if you use this lens you might have to learn to use AF differently. For my wife she has no problems taking portraits of our very active 8 year old, but I don't doubt that a different lens that allows better use of AF-C might be easier to use.
If you rely on AF-C and eye AF with the Sigma 45, it will definitely be softer than other lenses like the 35/1.8, 28-70/2.8, 50ZA, especially within 2-3 meters. I haven't tried AF-S with mine as much, but it's on my list to try. The 28-70 has been glued to my camera since it came in though. The AF issues with the Sigma to my mind make it a no-go on a camera like the A7C, where the lack of a focus joystick means I'd be more likely to rely on AF-C and tracking than I do on my A7R4. I'd much rather have the Sigma 35/2 or one of these new G lenses on that camera.
