Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
p.24 #1Pre-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.
Hmmm . . I consider myself an advanced still user that has many situations where a f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens is too big and/or heavy to have in the bag and f/2.5 is plenty fast enough and LoCA is irrelevant.
To me they are "G" lenses because they appear to have high overall image IQ/unit size and appear to have very good mechanical quality.
They will integrate equally well on an A7RIV or A1 as an A7C.
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.
Hmmm . . I consider myself an advanced still user that has many situations where a f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens is too big and/or heavy to have in the bag and f/2.5 is plenty fast enough and LoCA is irrelevant.
To me they are "G" lenses because they appear to have high overall image IQ/unit size and appear to have very good mechanical quality.
They will integrate equally well on an A7RIV or A1 as an A7C.
Mar 23, 2021 at 10:01 PM
p.24 #2Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
I'll stick with my lowly adapted 40mm 1.4 MC Voigtlander when I need that 40mm feel. It's small as well and has wacky rendering. I'm all about that...
Mar 23, 2021 at 10:12 PM
p.24 #3Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
It's interesting that the awareness of the serious and difficult to remove aberration of axial CA is rising fast in the list of issues addressed by reviewers these days. For many it's a deal ending issue, they can't stand it. And it is true that once seen, never forgotten, unfortunately.
The new lenses, as a group, are so good wide open that you see it much more. For stopped down, just fine. It's extremely doubtful that Sony is pitching these tiny lenses at any high end 660 gram camera of theirs, but if it works for you, why not, they are E mount after all.
The new lenses, as a group, are so good wide open that you see it much more. For stopped down, just fine. It's extremely doubtful that Sony is pitching these tiny lenses at any high end 660 gram camera of theirs, but if it works for you, why not, they are E mount after all.
Mar 23, 2021 at 10:46 PM
p.24 #4Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Thank God we have these lenses! I do not know how I lived without them.
We still do not have 200mm F2.8 or 300mm F4/2.8 or 400 F4/5.6 or 500 F4/5.6...
Thank you, Sony for understanding what is important, apparently it is 3 very slow lenses.
Still, no bird AF for anything but the $6500 camera, even Olympus has it now.
I guess I have to buy a new camera to get that...
We still do not have 200mm F2.8 or 300mm F4/2.8 or 400 F4/5.6 or 500 F4/5.6...
Thank you, Sony for understanding what is important, apparently it is 3 very slow lenses.
Still, no bird AF for anything but the $6500 camera, even Olympus has it now.
I guess I have to buy a new camera to get that...
Mar 23, 2021 at 11:53 PM
p.24 #5Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
These lenses seem to have some solid reviews (eg. 40G on Lenstip, solid with one main weakness - vignetting - which was expected) and these are certainly appealing for A7C users who want a small, light and relatively fast (vs 28-60 zoom) prime.
For other use cases (IMHO), right now, the price (700€ in Europe) is a little too steep in comparison with light & convenient zooms almost as fast like Sigma 28-70 (810€) or Tamron 28-75 (710€).
As one of those "light standard zooms" owners myself, I think I would either prefer to save a little bit more money (300 to 400€) and invest in a fully manual top glass like CV 35 or 50 f2 APO or wait longer for potential 35mm and 50mm f1.4 Art lenses (though probably a little bit more expensive).
For other use cases (IMHO), right now, the price (700€ in Europe) is a little too steep in comparison with light & convenient zooms almost as fast like Sigma 28-70 (810€) or Tamron 28-75 (710€).
As one of those "light standard zooms" owners myself, I think I would either prefer to save a little bit more money (300 to 400€) and invest in a fully manual top glass like CV 35 or 50 f2 APO or wait longer for potential 35mm and 50mm f1.4 Art lenses (though probably a little bit more expensive).
Mar 24, 2021 at 12:49 AM
p.24 #6Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
tester_V wrote:
Thank God we have these lenses! I do not know how I lived without them.
We still do not have 200mm F2.8 or 300mm F4/2.8 or 400 F4/5.6 or 500 F4/5.6...
Thank you, Sony for understanding what is important, apparently it is 3 very slow lenses.
Still, no bird AF for anything but the $6500 camera, even Olympus has it now.
I guess I have to buy a new camera to get that...
The lack of those lenses does seem puzzling in light of the release of the A1 as a serious contender for breaking the Canon/Nikon hold on pro sports photography. Especially with upcoming Olympics. The camera is just part of the equation.
Thank God we have these lenses! I do not know how I lived without them.
We still do not have 200mm F2.8 or 300mm F4/2.8 or 400 F4/5.6 or 500 F4/5.6...
Thank you, Sony for understanding what is important, apparently it is 3 very slow lenses.
Still, no bird AF for anything but the $6500 camera, even Olympus has it now.
I guess I have to buy a new camera to get that...
The lack of those lenses does seem puzzling in light of the release of the A1 as a serious contender for breaking the Canon/Nikon hold on pro sports photography. Especially with upcoming Olympics. The camera is just part of the equation.
Mar 24, 2021 at 01:13 AM
p.24 #7Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Steve Spencer wrote:
https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=602I 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.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:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/51048071483/in/album-72157718693527132/
Here see the fairly strong axial CA in the bokeh, often referred to as bokeh fringing
and here:
https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/sample_galleries/7940563998/4314571308.jpg
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.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 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...Show more →
Here a quick upload before I started work, just to show you how the Sigma looks. Another one compared to the GM. It is a crop but you can see the magenta in the oof branches already. I don't have raws on my laptop. The Sigma shot shows CAs close to the central region already.
https://uni-siegen.sciebo.de/s/egq68fn4DakDyj4
Edited on Mar 24, 2021 at 03:32 AM · View previous versions
Holger wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
tzhang4284 wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
tzhang4284 wrote
Lenstip reviews show that the 40mm is very close to the 35mm GM in image quality - comparable to the Sigma 35mm f2 but in a smaller package and better than the Sigma 45mm overall (especially factoring in AF and wide open performance) unless you're looking for "character" or an acceptable country of final assembly.https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=602
Edit: and for clear evidence of axial CA see these pictures posted earlier in the thread:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/51048071483/in/album-72157718693527132/
Here see the fairly strong axial CA in the bokeh, often referred to as bokeh fringing
and here:
https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/sample_galleries/7940563998/4314571308.jpg
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.
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.
Here a quick upload before I started work, just to show you how the Sigma looks. Another one compared to the GM. It is a crop but you can see the magenta in the oof branches already. I don't have raws on my laptop. The Sigma shot shows CAs close to the central region already.
https://uni-siegen.sciebo.de/s/egq68fn4DakDyj4
Edited on Mar 24, 2021 at 03:32 AM · View previous versions
Mar 24, 2021 at 01:37 AM
p.24 #8Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
I find the 40 here attractive. Like many others, I am sad we didn't see a 28/2.5 of similar size.
Mar 24, 2021 at 02:44 AM
p.24 #9Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
At £629 in the UK these are a definite pass, Sony 
Mar 24, 2021 at 03:40 AM
p.24 #10Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
tester_V wrote:
Thank God we have these lenses! I do not know how I lived without them.
We still do not have 200mm F2.8 or 300mm F4/2.8 or 400 F4/5.6 or 500 F4/5.6...
Thank you, Sony for understanding what is important, apparently it is 3 very slow lenses.
Still, no bird AF for anything but the $6500 camera, even Olympus has it now.
I guess I have to buy a new camera to get that...
Yes, let’s put their newest machine learning algorithm in the A7C via firmware update. That’ll work wonders.
Thank God we have these lenses! I do not know how I lived without them.
We still do not have 200mm F2.8 or 300mm F4/2.8 or 400 F4/5.6 or 500 F4/5.6...
Thank you, Sony for understanding what is important, apparently it is 3 very slow lenses.
Still, no bird AF for anything but the $6500 camera, even Olympus has it now.
I guess I have to buy a new camera to get that...
Yes, let’s put their newest machine learning algorithm in the A7C via firmware update. That’ll work wonders.
Mar 24, 2021 at 03:48 AM
|
p.24 #11Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
I'll be getting the 40 at some point. I'm very excited about this lens and don't have an A7C, nor do I shoot video. I agree that EU and UK prices seem out of step, but $589 for a tiny, light, moderately fast and close focusing lens with an aperture ring and a button? Doesn't seem crazy. The new Sigma 35 is an F2, but is also considerable bigger and cost more and I guarantee you its AF won't run with the Sony, especially not the eye AF. I know that the only thing that matters to some users is axial CA, but it appears to be green behind the plane of focus and I'm not worried about it.
Also, no doubt that the a7C was a target for these lenses, but as an A7RIII user, I love it. The 28-60 makes the camera feel so portable, and I assume this will only be better.
Congrats Sony for these 3 lenses!!! Yes, a 28 F2.5 now please, but small and light and sharp and aperture ring? Keep them coming.
Also, no doubt that the a7C was a target for these lenses, but as an A7RIII user, I love it. The 28-60 makes the camera feel so portable, and I assume this will only be better.
Congrats Sony for these 3 lenses!!! Yes, a 28 F2.5 now please, but small and light and sharp and aperture ring? Keep them coming.
Mar 24, 2021 at 04:03 AM
p.24 #12Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
tester_V wrote:
Thank God we have these lenses! I do not know how I lived without them.
We still do not have 200mm F2.8 or 300mm F4/2.8 or 400 F4/5.6 or 500 F4/5.6...
Thank you, Sony for understanding what is important, apparently it is 3 very slow lenses.
Still, no bird AF for anything but the $6500 camera, even Olympus has it now.
I guess I have to buy a new camera to get that...
So you know what is important? At what position in lens sales would a 200mm F2.8 lens be located?
We can argue about other lenses, but I bet Sony did make polls to find out demand. It may not be to the liking to some of us.
Yes, an update for BIF AF would be nice for some (although I don't know what percentage of shooters this would effect in reality). The forum here is often heavily skewed towards BIF, in my opinion.
Thank God we have these lenses! I do not know how I lived without them.
We still do not have 200mm F2.8 or 300mm F4/2.8 or 400 F4/5.6 or 500 F4/5.6...
Thank you, Sony for understanding what is important, apparently it is 3 very slow lenses.
Still, no bird AF for anything but the $6500 camera, even Olympus has it now.
I guess I have to buy a new camera to get that...
So you know what is important? At what position in lens sales would a 200mm F2.8 lens be located?
We can argue about other lenses, but I bet Sony did make polls to find out demand. It may not be to the liking to some of us.
Yes, an update for BIF AF would be nice for some (although I don't know what percentage of shooters this would effect in reality). The forum here is often heavily skewed towards BIF, in my opinion.
Mar 24, 2021 at 04:04 AM
p.24 #13Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
825$ in Europe..., ridiculous difference in price!
Mar 24, 2021 at 04:33 AM
p.24 #14Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Holger wrote:
We still do not have 200mm F2.8 or 300mm F4/2.8 or 400 F4/5.6 or 500 F4/5.6...
Thank you, Sony for understanding what is important, apparently it is 3 very slow lenses.
Still, no bird AF for anything but the $6500 camera, even Olympus has it now.
I guess I have to buy a new camera to get that...So you know what is important? At what position in lens sales would a 200mm F2.8 lens be located?
We can argue about other lenses, but I bet Sony did make polls to find out demand. It may not be to the liking to some of us.
Yes, an update for BIF AF would be nice for some (although I don't know what percentage of shooters this would effect in reality). The forum here is often heavily skewed towards BIF, in my opinion.
I wonder how many with a9/a9ii/a1 might have an a7c in the pocket for lightweight backup that can carry the 'environmental' lens like the new 24mm. I know I'd certainly like that arrangement. If the a7c is really an a7iii in mind/spirit then it can already do BIF if pressed into service. Personally I can see $6500 for the a1 but I can't see $1800 for the a7c...I just hate rangefinder style.
tester_V wrote
Thank God we have these lenses! I do not know how I lived without them.We still do not have 200mm F2.8 or 300mm F4/2.8 or 400 F4/5.6 or 500 F4/5.6...
Thank you, Sony for understanding what is important, apparently it is 3 very slow lenses.
Still, no bird AF for anything but the $6500 camera, even Olympus has it now.
I guess I have to buy a new camera to get that...
We can argue about other lenses, but I bet Sony did make polls to find out demand. It may not be to the liking to some of us.
Yes, an update for BIF AF would be nice for some (although I don't know what percentage of shooters this would effect in reality). The forum here is often heavily skewed towards BIF, in my opinion.
I wonder how many with a9/a9ii/a1 might have an a7c in the pocket for lightweight backup that can carry the 'environmental' lens like the new 24mm. I know I'd certainly like that arrangement. If the a7c is really an a7iii in mind/spirit then it can already do BIF if pressed into service. Personally I can see $6500 for the a1 but I can't see $1800 for the a7c...I just hate rangefinder style.
Mar 24, 2021 at 04:45 AM
p.24 #15Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
timerickson wrote:
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...Show more →
Well, I think like usual people here tend to over think things. Saying these are "reactive" I think is silly. I get why people would jump to that conclusion sort of, but the A7c didn't happen over night. It was a thought out process that I'm fairly sure included lenses just like this on Sony's internal roadmap long before Sigma's came out. These were designed around that camera I have no doubt. If anything Sigma has been the one that is reactionary in my opinion because everyone was sick of monster sized lenses. Sony has been consistent throughout about making smaller gear. I personally am not interested in any of these until an A7cii might come out. But I think it is still encouraging Sony is thinking small and they exist. As for different labeling I see no reason for it what so ever. I really like the "GM" look and features of the lenses and I like Sony is finally offering some consistency in that respect. I think they have found a look that is their own along with that feature set and it works. As others have mentioned. It especially is welcome on the A7c since there is a lack of dials and custom buttons.
Edited on Mar 24, 2021 at 05:10 AM · View previous versions
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...Show more →
Well, I think like usual people here tend to over think things. Saying these are "reactive" I think is silly. I get why people would jump to that conclusion sort of, but the A7c didn't happen over night. It was a thought out process that I'm fairly sure included lenses just like this on Sony's internal roadmap long before Sigma's came out. These were designed around that camera I have no doubt. If anything Sigma has been the one that is reactionary in my opinion because everyone was sick of monster sized lenses. Sony has been consistent throughout about making smaller gear. I personally am not interested in any of these until an A7cii might come out. But I think it is still encouraging Sony is thinking small and they exist. As for different labeling I see no reason for it what so ever. I really like the "GM" look and features of the lenses and I like Sony is finally offering some consistency in that respect. I think they have found a look that is their own along with that feature set and it works. As others have mentioned. It especially is welcome on the A7c since there is a lack of dials and custom buttons.
Edited on Mar 24, 2021 at 05:10 AM · View previous versions
Mar 24, 2021 at 05:09 AM
p.24 #16Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Why both a 40 and a 50?
Bizarre IMO.
Bizarre IMO.
Mar 24, 2021 at 05:10 AM
p.24 #17Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
ReleaseDrive wrote:
I'll stick with my lowly adapted 40mm 1.4 MC Voigtlander when I need that 40mm feel. It's small as well and has wacky rendering. I'm all about that...
I love mine.
I'll stick with my lowly adapted 40mm 1.4 MC Voigtlander when I need that 40mm feel. It's small as well and has wacky rendering. I'm all about that...
I love mine.
Mar 24, 2021 at 05:14 AM
p.24 #18Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Holger 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:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/51048071483/in/album-72157718693527132/
Here see the fairly strong axial CA in the bokeh, often referred to as bokeh fringing
and here:
https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/sample_galleries/7940563998/4314571308.jpg
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.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 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.Here a quick upload before I started work, just to show you how the Sigma looks. Another one compared to the GM. It is a crop but you can see the magenta in the oof branches already. I don't have raws on my laptop. The Sigma shot shows CAs close to the central region already.
https://uni-siegen.sciebo.de/apps/files/?dir=/Test&fileid=275862910#/files_mediaviewer/Sigma%2035%201.2%20Art%20CA.png">
What aperture are these shots? With the screen shots I don't know how to see the EXIF data. I would not be surprised at these results at all with wider apertures, but stopped down 2 stops I would be.
Steve Spencer wrote
Holger wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
tzhang4284 wrote
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.Edit: and for clear evidence of axial CA see these pictures posted earlier in the thread:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/51048071483/in/album-72157718693527132/
Here see the fairly strong axial CA in the bokeh, often referred to as bokeh fringing
and here:
https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/sample_galleries/7940563998/4314571308.jpg
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.
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.
What aperture are these shots? With the screen shots I don't know how to see the EXIF data. I would not be surprised at these results at all with wider apertures, but stopped down 2 stops I would be.
Mar 24, 2021 at 05:27 AM
p.24 #19Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Personally, I am not really interested in any of these three, I just got the Sigma 35 f2. If Sony makes something like this size at 16-18mm, I would be interested.
Mar 24, 2021 at 05:59 AM
p.24 #20Pre-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:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/51048071483/in/album-72157718693527132/
Here see the fairly strong axial CA in the bokeh, often referred to as bokeh fringing
and here:
https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/sample_galleries/7940563998/4314571308.jpg
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.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 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.Here a quick upload before I started work, just to show you how the Sigma looks. Another one compared to the GM. It is a crop but you can see the magenta in the oof branches already. I don't have raws on my laptop. The Sigma shot shows CAs close to the central region already.
https://uni-siegen.sciebo.de/apps/files/?dir=/Test&fileid=275862910#/files_mediaviewer/Sigma%2035%201.2%20Art%20CA.png">
What aperture are these shots? With the screen shots I don't know how to see the EXIF data. I would not be surprised at these results at all with wider apertures, but stopped down 2 stops I would be.
Not at 2.5 when I remember correctly. However, fast lenses usually behave clearly better when stopped down and have special elements to suppress CAs stronger/faster, after all they are much heavier and expensive.
Zeiss has slower lenses, too, but those are much more expensive and sometimes prone to CAs, too. My 25/2 Batis, for example, is not a glorious contender when it comes to CAs.
Holger wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Holger wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
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.Edit: and for clear evidence of axial CA see these pictures posted earlier in the thread:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/51048071483/in/album-72157718693527132/
Here see the fairly strong axial CA in the bokeh, often referred to as bokeh fringing
and here:
https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/sample_galleries/7940563998/4314571308.jpg
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.
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.
Not at 2.5 when I remember correctly. However, fast lenses usually behave clearly better when stopped down and have special elements to suppress CAs stronger/faster, after all they are much heavier and expensive.
Zeiss has slower lenses, too, but those are much more expensive and sometimes prone to CAs, too. My 25/2 Batis, for example, is not a glorious contender when it comes to CAs.
Mar 24, 2021 at 06:31 AM