I use the same lens hood on my 35/2.8 and on my RX1RII. I'm sure it's not as "good" as the native lens hoods, but I really don't like longer than necessary lenses and I've had good success with these inverted ones. Makes inserting/retrieving the camera with the lens on easier too by kind of stream lining the front of the lens. Just need to get a 31mm (can't remember the exact size) lens cap for the domed hood.
So far my only handling complaints are the de-click switch - why does this need to be a switch on the barrel? I've already accidentally changed it to de-click when taking the lens on and off a couple of times because that's exactly where you grab it AND is has much more knurling on it than the AF/MF switch which is not nearly as easy to accidentally change. This should have been like other lenses where you need to use a tool or something like that. Don't know of any significant use case where you want to constantly switch back and forth between clicked and clickless aperture. I'll likely tap over it with gaffers tape.
I do like the sticky-ness of the aperture ring, especially in A mode as it seems. At least when brand new you won't be accidentally changing the aperture setting because it's too loose. We'll see if the aperture ring loosens up with age.
So far it's a keeper (checking on the centering still) and will probably go on the next vacation or outing in the mountains.
- J
EDIT: Added some quick conversions below. Surprisingly sharp at MFD. No major faults other than maybe ghosting and flare, which I will further test out.
p.4 #3 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
I have updated post 3 at the first page, here, with a "Resolution long distance section" and then compared the images (downsized to match size) to images taken with the 35GM.
p.4 #4 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Thanks for your testing of the lens, JonasB! That update to your test vs 35GM looks good!
Mark Alhadeff over at sonyalpha.blog has his 50/2.5G review out and it is a super positive review - hopefully he confirms your findings with his copy of the 40G he's testing. Mine arrives tomorrow and looks like it will meet my bar that it outperform the ZA 35/2.8.
p.4 #5 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Thank you darrelc.
Well, Mark is often positive (and I often manage to make people a bit pissed as I am the opposite). He also seem to know every nice looking girl in the town, all with make-up and mascara, making me a bit jealous. ;-)
In the case of the 40G I have very little of reservations despite all the minor flaws. To me, my needs and as a light weight but full featured lens it is a keeper. I hope you'll like it and also let us know how you find it compared to the small 35/2.8!
p.4 #7 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Well, all flaws aren't that minor. After some more use I have found that I more often than earlier (the RX1 has been my main camera for years) have to blur parts of the background. But, if accepting that the lens really works well.
It has taken me some time getting used to the 40mm FL compared to the 33-34mm something provided by the RX1 Sonnar lens.
Here is a handheld (not planned) vertical pano taken while out walking in a wood with mainly oak and beech trees. No blurring in this one, 5 images, f/4, saved as JPG quality 7 in Photoshop:
p.4 #8 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Background blur, now blurred, sort of compared
Here is a flowerbed, taken aiming for depth and creamy smooth transition zone and bokeh:
That isn't very succesful using the 40G.
To the left, at f/2.5, we have a busy transition zone (green stems for example) and in the background we can see bright and kind of harshly rendered poles.
To the right , at f/4 the overall impression is better but the busy transition zone has moved backwards and the image is still not anything I would call "nice bokeh".
The solution is to like structured bokeh, not see it or do something about it (except for switching to another lens). The quick fix is to apply some blur to the background:
OK, better and it took some 15 seconds in Phtotoshop. To the left we have the same image as in last picture, to the right it is the very same image but partly blurred.
For a more natural look I would have chosen to work with layers but the blur tool is often good enough.
Is this a big problem, a deal braker? I guess it is for many. To me it is annoying but in the great majority of images it is not a problem that can't be fixed with ease. But that's me: I shoot raw and get a handful or so of real keepers every year. I don't mind some processing (it's always needed anyway).
For anyone shooting JPG files only or very large number of images (payed for weddings and such) it is a real problem.
How bad is it? As I don't have the Sigma 35i (or Sigma 35 f/2.0 DG DN Contemporary) I grabbed two images from lenstip for a sort of comparison. I hope they are OK with that, fair use I guess!
Lenstip usually take an image of a red polish letter box in an alley. What does the background look like in the 40G and 35i images?
I downsized to 50% and cropped them. Here is a part of the images, crops located at the left border:
You might prefer one or the other.
Another image lenstip usually provides is one of a statue, this image:
Here are two sets of crops from that image:
Above: top right, tree with light coming throw the twigs.
Above: left part, stairs and metal structures.
To my eyes the 40G isn't that bad at all. The 35i is perhaps softer at some parts, especially in the center but the rendering and chromatic aberrations away from the center is, to my eyes, not better.
The comparison sucks a little as the light and time of day isn't the same in the lenstip samples. At the same time we are, however, able to get an idea about rendering.
Choices... The 40G will stay with me for some time, perhaps a long time. Time will tell.
p.4 #9 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
For me it's not Bokeh that's a deal breaker. My deal breakers are:
- Is it sharp from wide open and really sharp stopped down: The 40G is pretty good across the frame from wide open and modest improvement stopped down (on my A7RIII). So it's OK in this regard.
- Is it sharp when getting near MFD: Yes this lens doesn't seem to lose anything when focusing up close.
- Does it have terrible lens flare/ghosting: This lens appears to be acceptable to pretty good.
- Does it have decent sun stars: Supposedly yes, though I have not tested that myself.
- Is it light: Yes
- Is it compact: Yes if you use a 49mm inverted lens hood instead of the OEM hood.
Is this lens the sharpest 35/40/45mm lens? No. But I suspect this lens is geared towards the A7C crowd as a compact travel lens, and in this regard it's well worth the price. It's at least on par, if not a bit better then the 35/2.8 Zony which I've had for a long time.
I may send my copy back as I'm not convinced it's perfectly centered, but I've seen enough to want to have a copy in my bag and lens drawer.
p.4 #10 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
jhinkey wrote:
For me it's not Bokeh that's a deal breaker. My deal breakers are:
- Is it sharp from wide open and really sharp stopped down: The 40G is pretty good across the frame from wide open and modest improvement stopped down (on my A7RIII). So it's OK in this regard.
- Is it sharp when getting near MFD: Yes this lens doesn't seem to lose anything when focusing up close.
- Does it have terrible lens flare/ghosting: This lens appears to be acceptable to pretty good.
- Does it have decent sun stars: Supposedly yes, though I have not tested that myself.
- Is it light: Yes
- Is it compact: Yes if you use a 49mm inverted lens hood instead of the OEM hood.
Is this lens the sharpest 35/40/45mm lens? No. But I suspect this lens is geared towards the A7C crowd as a compact travel lens, and in this regard it's well worth the price. It's at least on par, if not a bit better then the 35/2.8 Zony which I've had for a long time.
I may send my copy back as I'm not convinced it's perfectly centered, but I've seen enough to want to have a copy in my bag and lens drawer....Show more →
What's your take on the bokeh vs. the Sony 35/2.8? Are they both pretty average, or anything else of note? I guess the 40G is capable of a bit more, being slightly longer and slightly faster, but I wonder how noticeable that is.
What about size, the 35/2.8 measures a bit smaller, but can you really tell in hand?
p.4 #12 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
grahamgibson wrote:
What's your take on the bokeh vs. the Sony 35/2.8? Are they both pretty average, or anything else of note? I guess the 40G is capable of a bit more, being slightly longer and slightly faster, but I wonder how noticeable that is.
What about size, the 35/2.8 measures a bit smaller, but can you really tell in hand?
I can only compare to the 28-60, which is the same size as the compact G's, the 35 is a good bit smaller, however, that only matters if you have a micro sized bag or if you like to stack lenses.
for instance, sony 35 + A7 fits in the lowepro dashpoint 30. 28-60 does not.
Sony 35 + samyang 18 fits in the Think tank DH5 with a divider. 28-60 + 18 does not.
I would still like to see IQ comparison between the 35 and 40, but at this point of me finding newer bags to work, along with upgrade being quite minor, I may pass on the idea personally. The 28-60 was kind of my experiment into the compact series, and it's a little unique based on being a zoom..... but the focal range combined with the slow aperture leave a bit to be desired. if it was 24-50 instead, it would have been a lot better. Sony already had a compact 16-50, a good bit wider, and sure it's not full frame, but a point and shoot with the right range is more usable for me. I like the electronic zoom as well, more suitable for video, which are my main reasons for a zoom.
p.4 #13 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Had mine for a few days, here are some snapshots. First impressions are favorable. Did quick tests today and mine is well centered, pretty sharp cross frame at f2.5, super sharp in center, seems flat field (unlike my Sigma 28-70 which has some wacky stuff going on). AF seems very good with first test of moving kids.
p.4 #14 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
darrellc wrote:
Had mine for a few days, here are some snapshots. First impressions are favorable. Did quick tests today and mine is well centered, pretty sharp cross frame at f2.5, super sharp in center, seems flat field (unlike my Sigma 28-70 which has some wacky stuff going on). AF seems very good with first test of moving kids.
Thanks for some more test shots, this thing looks great!
Anyone in this thread have this lens and an α7 III to do some low light AF tests on? Really wish we had something similar to LensRentals in Sweden
p.4 #15 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
JVan_02 wrote:
Thanks for some more test shots, this thing looks great!
Anyone in this thread have this lens and an α7 III to do some low light AF tests on? Really wish we had something similar to LensRentals in Sweden
Yes, Thank you darrenc!
A7C, 40G at f/4, one of random images before going in again and paying for the lens.
Sweden... Well, we even don't have many "A real camera shop" any more. A place like Lensrentals would be great but we live in a small country. I'm afraid it wouldn't work out.
JVan_02: If you are somewhere close to Gothenburg you can try my 40G.
Won't make you struggle with my imperfect Swedish for this next bit Low light AF is why I think the 35 GM is gonna be my next lens—don't wanna get the 40 G and find out that it doesn't completely solve the problems I already have with my Batis 40. I can barely use that lens between mid October till mid February. Would hate to buy another 2.5 lens and find out that despite Sony's better AF implementation my 7 III still hunts constantly in the Swedish winter.
p.4 #17 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
JVan_02 wrote:
@Jonas B@ kommer du på Norrköping snart?
Won't make you struggle with my imperfect Swedish for this next bit Low light AF is why I think the 35 GM is gonna be my next lens—don't wanna get the 40 G and find out that it doesn't completely solve the problems I already have with my Batis 40. I can barely use that lens between mid October till mid February. Would hate to buy another 2.5 lens and find out that despite Sony's better AF implementation my 7 III still hunts constantly in the Swedish winter.
As someone who is seriously considering the Batis 40 I find this worrying...
Is it really that bad? F2 (Id assumed at least here in London) would be OK, it is only one stop down from 1.8..
However I don't know just how far North you are so it could be alot worse and I at least have the artificial lighting of a city.
p.4 #18 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
JVan_02 wrote:
@Jonas B@ kommer du på Norrköping snart?
Won't make you struggle with my imperfect Swedish for this next bit Low light AF is why I think the 35 GM is gonna be my next lens—don't wanna get the 40 G and find out that it doesn't completely solve the problems I already have with my Batis 40. I can barely use that lens between mid October till mid February. Would hate to buy another 2.5 lens and find out that despite Sony's better AF implementation my 7 III still hunts constantly in the Swedish winter.
An f/2 lens really ought to work in Swedish and Norwegian winter. This must be some optical issue with the Batis 40/2 lens. Lenstip in Poland (English language site) has the new Sigma 35/2 DG DN ahead of both the Batis 40/2 and the Sony 35/1.8 in their tests.
I live across the border a four hour train ride from Gothenburg.
p.4 #19 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
wastedimages wrote:
As someone who is seriously considering the Batis 40 I find this worrying...
Is it really that bad? F2 (Id assumed at least here in London) would be OK, it is only one stop down from 1.8..
However I don't know just how far North you are so it could be alot worse and I at least have the artificial lighting of a city.
Well, this will depend a bit on the camera. Notably, the α7C has a full -EV stop of low light AF rating over the α7 III, so literally double the capability here. I'd expect the α9 line to be even better and the α1 is by all reports the strongest Sony has to offer in this regard.
Regarding the lens, I wouldn't call the 40 CF an f2 lens at distances under a meter due to issues with both spherical aberration and Zeiss' software AF interrupt putting strain on the phase detect AF system. Spherical aberration can cause focus shift, commonly seen as front or back focus—or a slight amount of missed focus from where the camera thinks the AF point is. If the camera thinks the AF is on an eye, it might actually be on the nose, etc. The software interrupt is literally this: Zeiss implemented an event listener into the AF protocol, where instead of devoting all processing power/motor function to AF the system inspects distance data and at a certain point either stops AF function or continues AF while simultaneously adjusting aperture at certain points between 0.65—.24m. Combine this with focus shift, and the lens struggles significantly more than other lenses in low light situations.
Of course, I live in an old, poorly lit apartment and I have a toddler who actively takes down lamps within reach. I've had lots of success with this lens in good lighting but when the lights go down it seems like the AF system takes a proverbial brick to the cranium.
bjornthun wrote:
An f/2 lens really ought to work in Swedish and Norwegian winter. This must be some optical issue with the Batis 40/2 lens. Lenstip in Poland (English language site) has the new Sigma 35/2 DG DN ahead of both the Batis 40/2 and the Sony 35/1.8 in their tests.
I live across the border a four hour train ride from Gothenburg.
See above. Largely, it is the issue with the lens I'm sure. However what I'm not sure of is if the 7 III has enough gas in the low light AF tank to work at 2.5 even with Sony's assuredly better AF implementation.
p.4 #20 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
JVan_02 wrote:
Well, this will depend a bit on the camera. Notably, the α7C has a full -EV stop of low light AF rating over the α7 III, so literally double the capability here. I'd expect the α9 line to be even better and the α1 is by all reports the strongest Sony has to offer in this regard.
Regarding the lens, I wouldn't call the 40 CF an f2 lens at distances under a meter due to issues with both spherical aberration and Zeiss' software AF interrupt putting strain on the phase detect AF system. Spherical aberration can cause focus shift, commonly seen as front or back focus—or a slight amount of missed focus from where the camera thinks the AF point is. If the camera thinks the AF is on an eye, it might actually be on the nose, etc. The software interrupt is literally this: Zeiss implemented an event listener into the AF protocol, where instead of devoting all processing power/motor function to AF the system inspects distance data and at a certain point either stops AF function or continues AF while simultaneously adjusting aperture at certain points between 0.65—.24m. Combine this with focus shift, and the lens struggles significantly more than other lenses in low light situations.
Of course, I live in an old, poorly lit apartment and I have a toddler who actively takes down lamps within reach. I've had lots of success with this lens in good lighting but when the lights go down it seems like the AF system takes a proverbial brick to the cranium.
See above. Largely, it is the issue with the lens I'm sure. However what I'm not sure of is if the 7 III has enough gas in the low light AF tank to work at 2.5 even with Sony's assuredly better AF implementation. ...Show more →
Lensrentals mentions something about Sony having an extensive use of lookup tables e.g. in the 24-105/4. Maybe Zeiss has attempted something of that sort but couldn’t quite cope. Sony may have an even better knowledge of the intricacies of their AF implementation. This could work in favour of the 40/2.5 G.
