p.25 #1 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Back in the DSLR days, Sigma used to be cheap alternative for first party lenses and nothing more majority of the time. From build quality to IQ to physical design, everything was inferior to comparable first party lenses (Nikon in my case). On the mirrorless side, Sigma has proven itself to be a strong alternative to Sony and with this release Sony has solidified Sigma's role as a key player even more. No longer you pick a Sigma lens only when you can't find or afford a native Sony lens, but you pick a Sigma lens because you prefer its qualities and compromises over equivalent Sony lenses.
I am a fan of Sigma's I-series lenses and my only issue with Art lenses is the size and weight. I prefer the IQ, design, build quality, and the price of I-series lenses over the FE, Zeiss and G lenses (only exception being 20G, which is more of a GM lens than a G lens). If it weren't for the Sony GM lenses, Sony would be behind Sigma in their own game IMO. Hopefully, the new GM series will send Sigma down the path of compact pro lenses.
Mar 24, 2021 at 07:42 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.25 #2 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Holger wrote:
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.
Well then, I think we are in agreement. I am not surprised these really fast lenses have axial CA at wider apertures. Axial CA is very dependent on the aperture (I believe this aberration increases by the power of 3 for each stop), so no surprises fast lenses at fast apertures show a lot more axial CA. What I was saying is I think these lenses show strong axial CA for their apertures. Yes, the Batis 25 f/2 could do a lot better with axial CA as well, but it is a stop faster (than the 24 f/2.8 G) as well so some axial CA is expected. Not two stops faster like the Sigma 35 f/1.2, where it is much harder to correct CA, but still quite a bit faster. I expect an f/1.2 lens even one well corrected to show some axial CA wide open, but I expect it to be mostly gone by f/2.8. In the same way I expect an f/2.8 lens if it were well correct to show almost no axial CA wide open. These lenses do not seem to be well corrected for axial CA. This appears to be a weakness of these lenses. They do have notable strengths, however, such as their small size, their sharpness, and their fast and accurate focus.
p.25 #3 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well then, I think we are in agreement. I am not surprised these really fast lenses have axial CA at wider apertures. Axial CA is very dependent on the aperture (I believe this aberration increases by the power of 3 for each stop), so no surprises fast lenses at fast apertures show a lot more axial CA. What I was saying is I think these lenses show strong axial CA for their apertures. Yes, the Batis 25 f/2 could do a lot better with axial CA as well, but it is a stop faster (than the 24 f/2.8 G) as well so some axial CA is expected. Not two stops faster like the Sigma 35 f/1.2, where it is much harder to correct CA, but still quite a bit faster. I expect an f/1.2 lens even one well corrected to show some axial CA wide open, but I expect it to be mostly gone by f/2.8. In the same way I expect an f/2.8 lens if it were well correct to show almost no axial CA wide open. These lenses do not seem to be well corrected for axial CA. This appears to be a weakness of these lenses. They do have notable strengths, however, such as their small size, their sharpness, and their fast and accurate focus....Show more →
Only to make it clear, I value your comments and am usually not in disagreement with the big majority of them ;-). My perspective is sometimes just a bit different. And being German, we often are a bit more direct, at least that is what I learned when doing research in the US.
p.25 #4 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Wonder if we'll see A7C kits with these. Say $2198 per kit, you choose the lens. That might just push me over the edge to buy a body new instead of used. Xmas 2021, $1999 deal on the A7C/40 and I'm in! Are you listening Sony.
p.25 #5 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
derKoekje wrote:
Implying the product is somehow inferior because it's made in China?
No not at all inferior, this has to do with China itself. we buy so much stuff from China and become dependent. whenever I can I try not to further support this country, also because of human rights and environmental concerns.
p.25 #6 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
As a non lens expert, can someone compare the new Sony G 40/2.5 with the Batis 40/2 and Tamron 35/2.8? What is better/worse in terms of performance (price/size/weight I have looked up)?
p.25 #7 · Pre-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...
Thanks tester_v for typing my rant for me.
I can't wait for the soon to be announced 37.5mm and 44mm as we clearly don't have this focal range covered yet, and nobody wants a 28mm or anything over 135mm.
I just hope the 200-600 actually works with the A1.
p.25 #9 · 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.
The Samyang 50mm f1.4 is kind of like that. It's a little less small and you have to deal with Samyang quality control but it renders very nicely.
p.25 #11 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
I’m looking at these lenses as travel companions on my R3.
But the longer I look, the more certain I am that I’d rather just take my Sigma 24-70/2.8 and pay the weight penalty. I never have to change lenses and I get superb image quality with seven f2.8 primes wrapped up in one lens (24, 28, 35, 40, 50, 60, and 70).
p.25 #14 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Fred Miranda wrote:
From the review. It's indeed high barrel distortion:
Yeah, that's massive. You can see it in the 'real world' (a studio) in Gerald's review and he's a little taken aback by it as well. It's really, noticeable. He also notes that it's wider, I guess Sony did that for the inevitable corruption.
p.25 #16 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Whoa indeed. We always want to quantify things, this is just extraordinary. The Lenstip review gives us the figure for full frame distortion - it's 8.62%! There is always a price to be paid when corners are cut - no pun intended.
'If it weren't for the Sony GM lenses, Sony would be behind Sigma'
Just the entree, literally. Just wait until the main course when Sigma brings the full force of their design expertise to bear on premium level optics for Sony, as they surely will. They have done the hard yards, the next releases will be something special.
p.25 #17 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
philip_pj wrote:
Whoa indeed. We always want to quantify things, this is just extraordinary. The Lenstip review gives us the figure for full frame distortion - it's 8.62%! There is always a price to be paid when corners are cut - no pun intended.
'If it weren't for the Sony GM lenses, Sony would be behind Sigma'
Just the entree, literally. Just wait until the main course when Sigma brings the full force of their design expertise to bear on premium level optics for Sony, as they surely will. They have done the hard yards, the next releases will be something special.
Have they not done that already with their superb ART lenses? Or are you referring to something else?
p.25 #18 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Fred Miranda wrote:
From the review. It's indeed high barrel distortion:
Hmmm, I wonder what the field curvature is going to be like if that's what the distortion is and how many other corners were cut. This distortion makes the Tamron's look ok in comparison, they're $200 and the focus speed is fine for AFC on my A7r4.
p.25 #19 · Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Beni wrote:
Hmmm, I wonder what the field curvature is going to be like if that's what the distortion is and how many other corners were cut. This distortion makes the Tamron's look ok in comparison, they're $200 and the focus speed is fine for AFC on my A7r4.
Field curvature is bad on the 24mm. It's not flat at all. Seems to be very good on the 40 and 50 though. You should watch Gerald Undone's video if you're interested.
