p.6 #1 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
gordec wrote:
Love the size and look of the lens. IQ wise, Sigma i35 is the direct competitor. I think i35 wins in every department if you are indifferent about 35mm vs 40mm.
JVan_02 wrote:
Not if you wanted to use the 35i at distances under a meter wide open. Indoors, this can be a rather significant location—but I'd say this is probably a fair judgement otherwise based on preference.
I agree. The 40G will probably (I only got the 24MP A7C when trying these lenses) be as "sharp" at long distances and sharper, just as JVan_02 said, at short distances. The 40G AF is also faster and silent and you get the lens button and clickless aperture ring possibility with the 40G.
That said, I would probably own the Sigma 35i if it hadn't been for getting three faulty copies in a row. I had to return them all. At that point I decided to look elsewhere. Later I got information about good working 35i lenses but they all had serial numbers far from the three I got hold of here in Sweden. Maybe I just had bad luck but there is a limit for everything.
Now bad quality control is not something Sigma only is guilty of. When reading the reports of faulty Sony lenses (thinking of the 35GM and 50GM as current expensive lenses) turning out to be decentered and/or having tilted elements its obvious QC isn't prioritized by Sony either.
p.6 #2 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
gordec wrote:
Love the size and look of the lens. IQ wise, Sigma i35 is the direct competitor. I think i35 wins in every department if you are indifferent about 35mm vs 40mm. In the case where you are trying to go as small as possible, the 40G's size is significant.
The Sony and Sigma seem pretty comparable based on the lenstip reviews - don't think it's a win in eery department.
The transition area and bokeh are quite better on the Sigma. They are both sharp, but many of use are looking for that RX1R Sonnar look. 40G is not really close.
p.6 #4 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
gordec wrote:
The transition area and bokeh are quite better on the Sigma. They are both sharp, but many of use are looking for that RX1R Sonnar look. 40G is not really close.
I don't see a world of difference in rendering and I think I actually prefer the Sony version for the better colors but they were taken on different days so hard to say.
However, since we've entered the world of "look," and subjective emotions, I think there's no point in discussing further but it's not a blow out by any means and might even be a small win for the Sony depending on your use case and preferences.
I was mainly talking about which lens has smoother transition area. It's not really that subjective unless you like harsh transition. 35i is just better in that regard and that's why we compare a7c with 35i as an RX1R alternative. 40G is great in many aspects, and I'm not trying to start some argument.
I don't see a world of difference in rendering and I think I actually prefer the Sony version for the better colors but they were taken on different days so hard to say.
However, since we've entered the world of "look," and subjective emotions, I think there's no point in discussing further but it's not a blow out by any means and might even be a small win for the Sony depending on your use case and preferences. ...Show more →
p.6 #6 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
jhinkey wrote:
Just got mine yesterday, threw a 49mm inverted screw in hood on it and it looks pretty darned good.
Took some walk-about pics last night that I'll post later. Hood does not vignette and makes the lens much less lengthy than the included hood.
Nice lens hood solution. Would you be willing to share a few more pictures? Would love to order a similar one for my 50 F2.5 G..
p.6 #8 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
smpetty wrote:
Does the old RX1 trick of using a 49mm to 37mm step-down ring for a hood work with the 40 G?
I assume that would work fine. The Canon ES-52 hood for the EF 40mm F2.8 STM is similar in shape to a step down ring with an even smaller central opening. I am using a step-up ring on the 28-60 as a hood. I've come to accept the stock hood on the 40 G.
p.6 #9 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
gordec wrote:
The transition area and bokeh are quite better on the Sigma. They are both sharp, but many of use are looking for that RX1R Sonnar look. 40G is not really close.
Looking on my phone I honestly could not tell them apart, thought the Sony was sigma and Vice versa until I read the file names. I’m surprised they’re that close, both wide open I’m assuming.
p.6 #10 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
smpetty wrote:
Does the old RX1 trick of using a 49mm to 37mm step-down ring for a hood work with the 40 G?
It does. I have two empty 49mm filter rings plus the 49 to 37mm step-down ring mounted on my RX1. I tried that solution with the 40G and yes, works. So it should work just fine without the two filter rings as well.
Like QuietOC I have however settled for the original hood. It's OK, not very nice looking, the opening could have been smaller but it works fine and you can mount a standard filter "inside" the hood. The hood is mainly there acting as mechanical protection - the lens is not the best but, again, good enough, when it comes to flair.
p.6 #11 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
gordec wrote:
The transition area and bokeh are quite better on the Sigma. They are both sharp, but many of use are looking for that RX1R Sonnar look. 40G is not really close.
I agree, there isn't much to argue about when looking at the transition zones.
However, as showed at page 6, post #8, the 40G does better than the 35i when comparing the non-central parts of the image.
I would prefer the Sigma rendering in most of the cases but it is not as a clear win for the Sigma as one would expect judging from the good reviews.
In some situations the 40G produces too harsh outlines to my taste but this far it has been easy to adjust those in post (an example shown in the same reply, at the top).
To conclude: the 40G is a lens that gets the job done, efficiently and with no hassles. It's not a world class lens for nice rendering. Neither the 40G, nor the 35i, compares that well to the RX1 Sonnar 35/2. Well, that's my opinion and I guess everyone has to decide.
p.6 #13 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
The Sonnar 35/2 does seem to have a bit of magic to it—but at this point its such an undercooked offering functionality wise that it'd be hard recommending it over more sensible options... which at this point it feels a little odd to say include the Leica Q2.
I don't think we're ever getting that outside of a fixed lens compact, and while maaaaaaaybe we'll see a standalone offering from Sony one day I think the Sonnar 35/2 is explicitly off the table after the advent of the ZX1. Even if it weren't... I'm not sure I'd want to go back to it, tbh. Unit focus lenses are few and far between for a reason, and the compact G series trio from Sony has just proved that they can cram dual motors & achieve impressive MFDs (a requirement, I think, for a fixed lens compact) into an impressive form factor. If we could get a lens that has the chops of the 35 GM into a package as small as/slightly bigger than the RX1 rii... well, I'd probably start saving .
On that note, I'm actually really surprised that everyone is so critical of these lenses when Sony managed to pack so much in here at a relatively affordable cost. Like, I understand that the Tamron 35 f2.8 has a more flawless image at a lower cost—but who is going to pick that lens over the 40 G for anything other than sedentary, if not stationary, subjects now that this lens exists.
p.6 #14 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
Sonyalpha.blog posted their review of the 40mm 2.5. Seems the Tamron 35mm 2.8 is a better performer. However, if I didn't have multiple primes and just wanted one smallish prime in the 35-45mm range, I think the 40mm 2.5 is a pretty solid performer. I mean, the AF alone is worth quite a bit of the premium and while not pancake, still fairly small.
I went with the Tamron and Sigma 45mm 2.8 so I think I'm covered. I think.....
p.6 #16 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
A few days ago I added 50G to my lineup as well so I have both 40G & 50G now, as well as the whole Sigma I-series. I'm enjoying both lens families with my A7C, along with my CV lineup. Not planning to add the 24G though as Sigma 24i already covers that territory.
Just missing a nice small native 28mm prime in all these lineups.
p.6 #17 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
JVan_02 wrote:
...it also doesn't look to have the overly harsh rendering of the 35 1.8 FE.....
I am not sure if you amended this statement later in this thread. The 40 G seems a bit harsher than the FE 35 F1.8. This bit of testing had me reconsidering the FE 35 F1.8. The DT SAM is the Canon EF STM lens.
p.6 #18 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
QuietOC wrote:
I am not sure if you amended this statement later in this thread. The 40 G seems a bit harsher than the FE 35 F1.8. This bit of testing had me reconsidering the FE 35 F1.8. The DT SAM is the Canon EF STM lens.
Honestly, your test seems like an outlier to me. I've read almost every review in English of each lens and have looked at thousands of samples. I'd still stand by that statement.
p.6 #20 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome!
QuietOC wrote:
I am not sure if you amended this statement later in this thread. The 40 G seems a bit harsher than the FE 35 F1.8. This bit of testing had me reconsidering the FE 35 F1.8. The DT SAM is the Canon EF STM lens.
Rendering depends very much on the distance to the subject and the portion of the frame that is looked at. Ideally you would compare off-center / edge crops. The shallow depth of field in the samples also suggest that the focus distance was quite short (< 1m).
. 