Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #1 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
HelBen85 wrote:
I am quoting myself:
I always wonder which (expensive) new Sony camera thing in the last few years wasn't performing like a beast/ the best ever?
A1 - best ever, better than any other brand
24GM - best ever, better than any other brand
16-35GM - best ever, better than any other brand, better than the prime lenses
12-24GM - best ever, better than any other brand, better than the prime lenses
135GM - best ever, better than any other brand
35GM - best ever, better than any other brand
50GM - best ever, better than any other brand
I am pretty sure this 14mm GM will be pure perfection and the best of all time 😉...Show more →
These are all great products, but several of them (50GM, 35GM, 12-24GM, 16-35GM) have strong competition from other brands such that I would think a better description than better than any other brand might be different tradeoffs than other brands. A couple of others (A1 & 135GM) have competition from other brands that is announced and not yet available that may give Sony the best ever title for only a short duration (i.e., six months or so). Only the 24GM stands out as not really having competition now nor in the foreseeable future, but even there will the Leica SL 24 f/2 APO be clearly inferior to the 24 GM? I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong I think Sony products are great and these specific ones especially, but to declare all of these as the best ever and better than every other brand strikes me as less than an objective analysis.
p.4 #3 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
Steve Spencer wrote:
These are all great products, but several of them (50GM, 35GM, 12-24GM, 16-35GM) have strong competition from other brands such that I would think a better description than better than any other brand might be different tradeoffs than other brands. A couple of others (A1 & 135GM) have competition from other brands that is announced and not yet available that may give Sony the best ever title for only a short duration (i.e., six months or so). Only the 24GM stands out as not really having competition now nor in the foreseeable future, but even there will the Leica SL 24 f/2 APO be clearly inferior to the 24 GM? I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong I think Sony products are great and these specific ones especially, but to declare all of these as the best ever and better than every other brand strikes me as less than an objective analysis....Show more →
Every lens will be beat eventually, it's just a matter of when, Steve. It also doesn't make sense to compare an f/2 lens with a f/1.4 and there is no SL 24/2 APO atm. I have done enough testing myself to know there is no perfect lenses, even the likes of Nikon S 50/1.2, Noct-Nikkor 58/0.95, Leica SL Cron APO, etc. But Sony set out to be different than the others by sticking with smaller and lighter set-up and they have done such an overwhelmingly great job on all fronts to leapfrog the competitors. For me, there is nothing in Nikon land that I want over these GM primes (one Canon DS lens I want Sony to bring out). Effectively, these GM primes are the best choices for me and if I am being more overenthusiastic about it, I would say they're "best ever" .
p.4 #4 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
I think you all missed "😉" at the end of that post ...
but to be honest I also think there are system sellers (i.e. lenses that can convince someone to buy into their system) on that list.
Nikon's biggest strength right know to me seems to be the 1.8S lenses line, as from time to time I wonder if I really need f1.4 (and the extra $$$ that comes with it, size/weight difference Sony seems somehow to be diminishing).
p.4 #5 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
Minimum vignetting, sharp to the edges, low/no coma? That’s what F2./8 is for on an F1.8 lens.
Apr 20, 2021 at 07:09 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #6 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
hiepphotog wrote:
Every lens will be beat eventually, it's just a matter of when, Steve. It also doesn't make sense to compare an f/2 lens with a f/1.4 and there is no SL 24/2 APO atm. I have done enough testing myself to know there is no perfect lenses, even the likes of Nikon S 50/1.2, Noct-Nikkor 58/0.95, Leica SL Cron APO, etc. But Sony set out to be different than the others by sticking with smaller and lighter set-up and they have done such an overwhelmingly great job on all fronts to leapfrog the competitors. For me, there is nothing in Nikon land that I want over these GM primes (one Canon DS lens I want Sony to bring out). Effectively, these GM primes are the best choices for me and if I am being more overenthusiastic about it, I would say they're "best ever" ....Show more →
I think you missed my point. Every mount has some very good lenses these days and saying better than every other brand just isn't being objective or thoughtful, IMO. There are tradeoffs in lens design and different preferences for the tradeoffs is fine. Can you compare an f/2 lens to an f/1.4 lens? Sure you can. Max aperture is just another example of a tradeoff that is made in lens design. The Sony lenses mentioned are all very good, but most of them have competition from other lens makers and sometimes even on Sony E mount and which lens is the best depends on how the tradeoff that were made affect one's individual needs and style as a photographer. And yes one of the tradeoffs that Sony has made is making some really nice small fast primes (24 f/1.4 GM, 35 f/1.4 GM, 50 f/1.2 GM, although some on the list aren't no particularly small) but these lenses aren't without their tradeoffs. One flaw that Sony has allowed on all three of these lenses that may matter a lot to some and almost nothing to others is focus breathing and all three of these lenses have a lot of focus breathing. Personally, I don't care as I wouldn't use these lenses for video (I use manual focus lenses for video), but to some shooters this flaw is going to be a deal breaker. Does that make these lenses bad lenses; not at all, but it does mean saying they are the best ever/better than any other brand lacks a certain thoughtfulness that appreciates the lens' strengths *and* weaknesses and appreciates that no lens is going to be the best ever/ better than every other brand for everyone. I have no qualms with people who say a lens is the best ever/better than every other brand for them, but when they suggest it is true for everyone then I think the statement isn't accurate or objective.
p.4 #7 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think you missed my point. Every mount has some very good lenses these days and saying better than every other brand just isn't being objective or thoughtful, IMO. There are tradeoffs in lens design and different preferences for the tradeoffs is fine. Can you compare an f/2 lens to an f/1.4 lens? Sure you can. Max aperture is just another example of a tradeoff that is made in lens design. The Sony lenses mentioned are all very good, but most of them have competition from other lens makers and sometimes even on Sony E mount and which lens is the best depends on how the tradeoff that were made affect one's individual needs and style as a photographer. And yes one of the tradeoffs that Sony has made is making some really nice small fast primes (24 f/1.4 GM, 35 f/1.4 GM, 50 f/1.2 GM, although some on the list aren't no particularly small) but these lenses aren't without their tradeoffs. One flaw that Sony has allowed on all three of these lenses that may matter a lot to some and almost nothing to others is focus breathing and all three of these lenses have a lot of focus breathing. Personally, I don't care as I wouldn't use these lenses for video (I use manual focus lenses for video), but to some shooters this flaw is going to be a deal breaker. Does that make these lenses bad lenses; not at all, but it does mean saying they are the best ever/better than any other brand lacks a certain thoughtfulness that appreciates the lens' strengths *and* weaknesses and appreciates that no lens is going to be the best ever/ better than every other brand for everyone. I have no qualms with people who say a lens is the best ever/better than every other brand for them, but when they suggest it is true for everyone then I think the statement isn't accurate or objective....Show more →
We're saying essentially the same thing, though I have to disagree on just viewing max aperture as a tradeoff. If I set out to buy an f/1.4 lens, cause I want that f/1.4, not because I want to carry something bigger, heavier, more expensive, more compromised just to use that f/1.4 occasionally. That would rule out all the f/2 lenses for me too.
As for the appreciation of strengths and weaknesses, I say Sony users might have more of such quality than you realize. Fred and Guy have been doing a wonderful job of highlighting the differences among similar lenses with their careful testing. Now more than ever, Sony shooters (experienced or otherwise) are seeing the kind of compromises had been made to meet certain goals from different brands. Plenty here picked Sigma instead of the GMs not just cause of the monetary reason either. I do frequent the Canikon boards here as well, and I think the shooters there are more likely to put down/underestimate Sony quality.
p.4 #18 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
Gerald Undone just released a video, and I'll give a summary for those who don't like to sit through video reviews:
1. Obviously much smaller and lighter than Sigma DSLR design, costs the same (supposedly 1600 USD).
2. For once, Sony doesn't rely on distortion correction; it uses 3 aspherical elements (2 XA) to achieve really good rectilinear distortion rather than curvilinear.
3. Bokeh doesn't have onion rings, does distort at wide angles.
4. Close focus is same as Sigma, less distortion. Obviously doesn't get corner sharpness at MFD, I think that's just the physics of extreme ultrawide (IIRC, you'd get field curvature on landscape shots).
5. AF is lightning fast, even for video (which is Gerald's primary focus).
6. Renders sunstars at F8, but they didn't seem as defined as what you'd find in Voigtlander or Loxia lenses.
7. Vignetting is there but not terrible wide open, at 2.8 it's well controlled, at F4 it's gone.
8. Minimal focus breathing for you videographers out there. Gerald mentions that GM lenses aren't great at that typically, so this is a bit of a departure.
9. No longitudinal CA, some lateral. He wasn't able to test in sunlight, so the results seemed acceptable. Again, very correctable and it didn't seem as pronounced as stuff I've seen from my 35 1.8 FE or 85 1.8 FE.
Things that Gerald didn't actually cover:
1. Corner sharpness at landscape distances, oddly enough.
2. Astro/coma; it's not his specialty, plus it seemed weather was overcast/cloudy when he had the lens.
By all accounts it seems superb, but the question mark remains over coma; it seems like astro photographers are the real beneficiaries of a compact, 14mm 1.8 design (even if you have to stop down to 2.8, which many do to bump up ISO--I've read technical guides on shooting astro, have no interest in it myself). I'm tempted myself since it's great for interiors and architectural work, plus it's a reasonable size and the price isn't out of this world (looking at you 12-24 GM; then again, it's a one-of-a-kind design). The big 'screw' for me is actually the lack of a screw-in filters as a possibility. Besides the convenience, I'm a huge stickler for protecting the front element.
As far as price goes, I think it's within expectation since all lenses are getting more expensive, and compared to the Sigma E-Mountified DSLR design it seems like a no-brainer, contingent upon coma performance.
p.4 #19 · Pre-order: Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM ($1,598)
Lenstip tests coma on an LED, and I suspect they don't do it at infinity which could explain why their results don't always translate well into the real world.
One of the worst examples is the 35 Art which they claim at f/1.4 has "some distortions of the image of a diode but they are not so significant to provide a reason to complain", and the f/2.0 picture looks great. In reality the lens produces completely unusable images with severely winged stars at f/2.0. Not even f/2.8 looks as good as their example of f/1.4.
Some starry images with the 14GM have already been shown in the reviews, and they look usable wide open.
Coma is bad. Really bad. Full stop worse vignettinf than the sigma. I’ll pass and deal with the weight of the sigma for my Astro.
Chris
Yes, I'm disappointed with the coma. I could live with the extra vignetting over the Sigma, but not the coma. I'll wait to see more reviews, maybe the lenstip model is defective. They did mention that their model did not replicate the Sony marketing images at all in regard to coma.
OTOH, it just saved me selling my sigma!
.
...
zz wrote: