p.1 #1 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Cobweb house-leek, near MFD, f/5.6, soft evening light
I caved in and bought the "Sony FE 40mm F2.5 G". That's what the box says the lens should be called. I abbr. that to 40G.
The reviews have been a mix (and the lens considered a bit so-so) but I couldn't resist the idea of having a full featured, small 40mm walk around lens to use together with the A7C. So, all this is about the 40G and the A7C. If you aren't interested in personal opinions, this camera-lens combo or the focal length in general, well, then this text may not be of much value.
Disclaimer:This is what happened when I tried the lens. Most of you will without a doubt get better results. I am of course not sponsored by Sony, I buy what I want to try for my own money earned from my day job in health care service.
Price:
Let's get this out of the way from start: the price is a problem. Here in Sweden the price is about USD 725 or EURO 600 (tax not included). That is Sony for Europe. At B&H it is USD 600 and still too expensive really.
p.1 #2 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Look:
The first impression comes from opening the box: This is one ugly lens. Perhaps Sony doesn't care what I think about lens design. Fair enough - it's a matter of taste.
Haptics:
Haptics however is only partly about taste and the lens is not without faults here.
In the image above we can see some good and some not very good parts: The aperture ring is easy to find and easy to grip. The button is good. The focusing ring is abit nervous: when in MF or DMF mode the camera reacts on slight touches to the ring and the throw is also a little short. It is not as bad as the 35GM (see https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695162/0#15561085) but it is also not ideal for manual focusing. I wish Sony allowed for personal adjustment, a firmware thing.
Above: the AF-MF switch. Try it with gloves on... I guess the designer of this switch doesn't go outside of the cosy lab. At least I can bet that he/she doesn't take any outdoor images in the winter.
Hood:
The lens hood is also not to my taste really. Sony decided to go for a 49mm filter thread. But the lens diameter at the front is close to 67mm. I usually immediately switch any propriate hood to a small standard metal screw-in hood:
Well, not in this case. The original hood stays on.
Size and weight:
184 grams is one good reason to buy this lens (my scale, hood but no caps). The size is OK, the camera and lens fits of course in any bag.
p.1 #3 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
OK, so now the lens is mounted to the camera...
Decentering test:
Passed. All is well with this copy. "Wide" open all corners are the same.
Resolution USAF Charts, short distance:
Passed. These days I just check for even sharpness from the left border to the right border. The corners are seldom of interest. I found good resolving power across the image:
The sagittal resolution drops a bit to the left, checked and checked again. This is with a small target (width 0.82m) and at a distance of 1.02m (giving us an "effective focal length of 44.5mm at this shootong distance). If interested, the method is described here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1686080/18#15577758.
The drop at the left is unfortunate but small and when critical fixed by stopping down. Checking the Sony specifications also tells me I'll have no luck if complaining about it.
Resolution at MFD:
... is covered in the next post.
Resolution at long distance:
Short version:
The lens is excellent and sharp from border to border. When compared (downsized images for the 40G) to the 35GM the result is still very good with the 40G having the resolution power as the 35GM. Let's remember that this is with the A7C.
Long version:
It took a while to get this section ready. I allready "knew" the result from regular use but as the weather hasn't been co-operating I haven't got anything to post until now. We haven't had a clear sky for a long time but yesterday I finally got some constant light at a part of the neighbourhood. Here goes.
My favourite target couldn't be used due to the light shifting so I picked a closer piece of the world. Here is the scene:
Above: red ring is the focus point, shooting distance is approximately 126 meters away.
For a 40mm lens that is a close neighbour to infinity. (Even if printed big, say 1x1.5 meters, having 20/20 vision and looking at that print from 1 meter the calculated DOF goes, easily, to infinity.)
Anyway, there was no tripod used but the exposure times were very short, I lean a little and didn't aim perfectly from one image to the another and so on. All that doesn't matter, we can safely evaluate these images.
I have no test charts of course so instead I used the 35GM as a reference. Not an exact method as the focal lengths are different. I downsized the 40G images to achieve the same magnification and the result was practically the same for the two lenses.
Here we have the two images with the 40G (downsized and rotated) on top of the 35GM. Just to show the difference in focal lengths and how much of the scene the lenses covered:
Here the 40G image is still downsized, the 35GM is original size and then I cropped them making it easier to compare:
It's a little stupid - you really can't compare things carefully when downsizing or fiddling around. However, to my eyes we have images from the two lenses where one of them is a miniscule bit better at one place, the other lens the same at another place. The differences are mainly due to shifting light/wind. My guess is that the 35GM would be sharper than the 40G at the borders if using a camera with higher resolution. As a "24MP and then downsize" sort of photographer this is of little interest.
A7C, handheld, IBIS on, 35GM and 40G, both at f/5.6, ISO100 and 1/80 sec.
PP: everything neutral or zero in ACR, cropped, compiled, turned, smart sharpened (41, 0.5, 0) and then converted to sRGB and 8-bit JPG-files. Exposure, contrast and so on are left un-touched.
I have looked at all the images, from f/2.5 to f/22 (f/16 for the 35GM) and the result is all the way the same as above: there are no meaningful or significant differences. Together with all the other "real life" images I think it is safe to say you can use the lens without hesitation for land- and cityscapes.
p.1 #4 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Breathing:
The focal length of 44mm at 1m raises the question about focus breathing. Or not really: the breathing immediately shows when focusing. Out of curiosity I decided to check this and got the following results:
I hope i got that right. Also see the part about distortion when taking close-ups in this post.
Focal length:
I'm a fan of 35 and 40mm lenses. 40mm lenses usually gives us a tad more details than the 30-35 mm ones. If you sometimes can't get the whole scene that's either part of life or you can stitch. The image below taken with a single image would have forced me to stand in the middle of a heavily loaded street. I tried a pano (I have done a few now), handheld, at the spot instead. The image is stitched and made up from five vertical images with decent overlap.
The entrance pupil is close to the camera so handheld panos of things not too close to the camera has worked fine this far.
Close up:
The lens is OK up close as well. It maintains contrast and resolution is fine (still with the A7C). Here is a sloppy sample. First the scene showing the suckulents as they are placed in the direct sunlight. Somebody placed a beer can next to them giving us an idea about the size of the small cuties. The image is cropped:
Now getting close:
Cobweb house-leek, near MFD, f/5.6, soft evening light
Ooops. Isn't that the same image as at the start? No - the images are taken minutes apart, one with the 40G and the other one with the 35GM. One of the images is a 100% crop, the other one is downsized to a 90% crop. If you like taking images like this one with a 35-40mm lens and find a meaningful difference between the images you'll find which image was taken with the 40G and 35GM respectively in EXIF.
OK, fun or not fun, the 35GM has been highly praised for good close-ups. The little darling 40G seems good enough. Both these lenses have a fair amount of distortion easy to see if very close and having a straight line near the edge somewhere.
Working distance and distortion at close-ups
Here is what a ruler look like when shooting it at MFD:
and compared to this one...
...we can see similar performance. And the 35GM image is more enlarged despite its nominal shorter focal length and the 40G being at a shorter distance. That is unless I screwed something up.
Tech stuff about the ruler shots:
40G:
distance: 235mm
working distance: 160mm (hood on)
35GM:
distance: approx 250mm
working distance: approx 140mm (no hood), with my made-up hood from three step-down rings: 125mm
A7C:
raw
ACR:
There is no profile for the 40GM given yet (May 11, 2021).
The profile for the 35GM was turned off.
Distortion at normal distances
Here is the scene:
and here is checking the distortion:
When needed the distortion is fixed by a +7 value in ACR. That's not too bad, a common value among non-perfect lenses.
The in-camera JPG-files are fixed by the profile provided by the lens. There is no profile for the lens in ACR yet.
Focus shift:
I checked carefully and at short distances I found no focus shift.
p.1 #5 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Autofocusing:
Fast, silent, no complaints here.
The image below is taken at f/2.5 with eye-AF activated. It works fine.
Lenstip mentions the AF sometimes fails. After several houndred images I still have to see this happen. I have some mis-focused images of course but when looking at them they all turned out to be suer error (focusing on a vertical line but having the camera in vertical position for example, or focusing on fast streaming water in a fountain - some things are better in DMF mode checking what happens).
100% crop, no make-up but I think the image is sharp enough:
p.1 #6 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Rippling water:
Always a torture test. People sometimes get upset when I post images like this one, telling me to use filter, change the angle, stop down, shut up or at least stop posting. There are however a "but" or two. I want to know my gear, I like to know what it can do and what it can't do. Then we also have three kind of images; good ones (I get some each year), bad ones (plenty) and images connected with memories (that happens every now and then). When it comes to the latter kind we can't always shoot as carefully as we want and we get what we get. Sometimes there is water involved.
In a scene like this one it causes trouble:
40G, f/2.5
In this case the CA went away at f/8, f/11 if a little more picky.
If, I don't know why right now, but if we went artsy and decided to shoot like this...:
40G, f/2.5
...then f/11 would help again but it would also make for another image. With the 40G we have to find a work around or deal with the problem in post:
40G, f/2.5
So, the lens is not an APO lens. That we knew already. Still, it did as well, or better, than the 35GM in the sample above.
p.1 #7 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Assorted twigs - transition zone (and some bokeh):
I have tried this shot, a similar one, with the 35GM. Then I compared the 35GM with the Samyang AF35mm F1.8 lens. (Here [url=https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1673762/79#15552707[/url]) This time I brought the 40G only so it's not a direct comparison. The images are around 700-800 kB each so I show one here only:
Above: f/2.8 at a distance of 1.5 meter (approximately for the 40G) and the aperture was set to 2.5
To my eyes the 35GM is "better". Not by much but there is a difference. That's no surprise considering what the 40G bokeh balls look like. The images aren't taken from the same spot and at different days. The light is similar but not the same. There is no PP except for adjustment of the white balance and, in the case of the 40G only, some darkening of the shadows to make the images look more similar.
p.1 #8 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Bokeh and LoCA:
In the Eye-AF test image we can see a kind of harsh rendering when looking at the background but it is at least from double lining. or, most of the times it is.
The background can easily be a bit softer with a few seconds in post if we want. But a bokeh king, no the 40G is not that (either).
For the most of the time the LoCA isn't that bothersome:
7C, G40, f/2.5 (Btw: this is one of the very few misfocused images I got: you can't AF with the camera held vertical aiming for the for the rim of the clock at position 3 o´clock. Duh. Here the camera front focused.)
We can see some green at AFTER WORK and FIRST and then also some fringe at the roof construction. It isn't that bad though.
I may post more samples later, that depends on the weather and how things are at work. We are loaded right now.
Samples:
Juha Kannisto has posted links to alot of samples, here https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1692312/27#15576860. Thanks again Juha!
Then I guess there are loads of samples out there. In this post I try to show other things. I may add some material later, as mentioned I need some more spare time for that.
p.1 #9 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
My conclusion
The lens is small, kind of ugly but the haptics are decent. Could have been better if Sony went out from the lab and took some images. The weight is great (of course, there are no big or advanced lens elements involved).
"Sharpness" is good with high resolution power and decent high contrast. Bokeh balls are ugly, bokeh is a bit so-so, LoCA is present but not very disturbing. AF is good and silent.
It's expensive. I guess that's what we have to pay for a metallic barrel and a button on the lens.
I bought and I'll keep it. That's not thanks to the image quality but for the feature set and low weight combined in a favorite focal length.
p.1 #10 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Thx Jonas B! Kind of reinforces my impressions from samples viewed to date. Wanted to love it but no “free lunch”. Images uninspiring so can’t lean on the lens to make my images sparkle but can get the job done. It does look like a better package than the ZA 35/2.8 across image quality and build/features so that’s progress.
p.1 #11 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
darrellc wrote:
(...) reinforces my impressions from samples viewed to date. Wanted to love it but no “free lunch”. Images uninspiring so can’t lean on the lens to make my images sparkle but can get the job done.(...)
Thank you.
You express it well - I think the same.
Maybe more inspiring - but on the other hand the rainbow could have been taken with about any lens. This is a stitch from three images. It was the 40G at work and that thanks to size and weight making me having it mounted if not looking for something in particular.
(I'll have to check the bottom image - this was a quick job right now.)
EDIT: The bottom image and the stitching are both fine. This is what it looked like and how the raw file(s) is (are).
p.1 #13 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
j4nu wrote:
Nice and concise .
If 40G handles CA better than 35GM @F2.5, that's a big win I'd say.
Thank you.
Hey... that was in that particular situation. The 35GM can't help itself when shooting water against the light. other kinds of CA I don't know about really, yet.
p.1 #14 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Looks like Sigma i35 is the king of compact 35 for the time being. I don't mind if Sony keeps the 40G at f2.5, but only if they can improve the rendering. The transition area looks really busy. It's an easy decision since they are basically the same cost.
p.1 #16 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Yes, thank you for review. 40mm is a focal length that I find inspiring once I start shooting with it. Don't know why but it takes a few shots before I get into it though.
p.1 #17 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
@Jonas B : are you sure those effective focal lengths are correct? If they are, I clearly don't understand something about lenses as despite having the same MFD in manual focus (0.25m) the 35 GM has greater magnification. I would assume the 35 is more tele towards MFD, but it looks like from your chart that this isn't the case as the effective FL of the 40 G increases towards MFD.
p.1 #19 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
JVan_02 wrote:
@Jonas B@ : are you sure those effective focal lengths are correct? If they are, I clearly don't understand something about lenses as despite having the same MFD in manual focus (0.25m) the 35 GM has greater magnification. I would assume the 35 is more tele towards MFD, but it looks like from your chart that this isn't the case as the effective FL of the 40 G increases towards MFD.
Unless the 35 GM goes all the way to 50 or 55mm
It's not magic, right?
According to this calculator: https://www.kielia.de/photography/calculator/
at 0.23x magnification and 0.27m focus distance (35GM AF) you get 41mm focal length.
I always thought that's all there is to it, or am I missing sth ?
.