JVan_02
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.7 #10 · Sony FE 40/2.5 G - A little darling. Samples and opinions welcome! | |
Okay, psuedo "rented" a lens when one of my American relatives came to visit, and I think I'm gonna keep it. Very impressed overall with this lens—haven't had any time to inspect images on a monitor but I'm pretty confident in judging the output from the back of the camera. Some thoughts from my time thus far:
- Pretty much perfect in terms of ergonomics and functionality from a casual documentary perspective. I really can't overstate this—been photographing my kiddo for over 3 years at this point, started with the 55 ZA, moved to the 40 CF, and this lens is a huge step up from both in terms of a primary optic in this regard. This opinion comes from a combination of weight (at 173g, I haven't had a camera this easy to port around since the original 7R + 55 ZA), construction (while not a step up from the 40 CF in this regard, it's certainly a huge improvement from the 55), AF (at least as good as my 20 G in good light—possibly better, and definitely competent in more challenging lighting which is a huge step up from the 40 CF), and MFD|reproduction ratio (admittedly, this is a step back from the 40 CF, but an improvement from any non-macro lens I've used).
- IQ is maybe half a step back from the 40 CF (when the Zeiss is @2.5 or narrower)—although I was surprised at how close the Sony 40 is. I haven't done a demanding resolution test, but in the quick portrait side by side I ran my copies of the lens were essentially identical to the point that focus and camera/subject movement would make a much bigger impact than what lens I had mounted. For those of you keeping score—that means this is historically excellent, but behind the current top standard exhibited in the 20 G, 35 GM, etc. I'm actually more impressed with the 40 G than the CF here, because the 40 G achieves this performance without any "fat" to trim off from f=2—2.5 like you have on the Zeiss. Color rendition is different, but not so different that it won't be ~95% identical with AWB enabled—the Sony is warmer than the Zeiss but this is something you can only spot on the same white balance settings. Color expression is mostly found in red and orange saturated highlights shifting toward yellow for the Sony, with red and orange shadows shifting toward blue for the Zeiss. While I can correct the Sony color expression more toward neutral, I actually really appreciate the Zeiss touch and it's difficult to replicate using my editing software. Both lenses are about equally corrected for LaCA, though the Zeiss is better corrected for LoCA (the Sony isn't bad, the Zeiss is just very good). As a result of LoCA performance, and perhaps a few other things I can't put a name to, I have a slight preference for bokeh on the Zeiss 40—but this preference is minor. Admittedly, I'm not the biggest bokeh snob as long as something isn't egregiously wrong—which isn't the case here.
- What surprised me was how much the SA the 40 G has at 2.5—and how different its expression is than the Zeiss' SA at 2 and 2.2. The quality of the SA on the 40 G is much better when expressed due to a much greater likelihood of detail retention. I don't know exactly why this is, but the "bloom" I commonly associate with SA only affects contrast and color expression in most cases, whereas in the Zeiss at 2 and 2.2 it almost always negatively effects resolution. I won't waste your time writing down what I think is going on—as I really have no idea. Just my observations. What I do know, however, is that SA can negatively effect close up performance when it flares up. This is much more easily elaborated on with examples to back it up, but as a broad general statement the Sony 40 is definitely not up to par with the Zeiss 40 in this respect—both in magnification and clarity. Again, the Sony 40 is never bad like one might remember from older lenses with disappointing close up performance—the Zeiss 40 is just simply the best close up performer that's not explicitly a macro lens for the E-mount.
If there was anything I'd ask for it would be... f2? I am very satisfied with every aspect of this lens, and I don't feel 2.5 is that limiting in terms of subject isolation. Higher ISO values just mean I need to segment my editing workflow to include DXO PureRAW—and while that program is amazing in terms of output, more time is more time and more storage is more storage. I'd really rather have to do neither. What this lens brings to the table, however, is just competence in everything that matters to me as a family photographer. It'll be a very hard act to follow, as it's been quite a while since I've enjoyed a shooting experience this much.
|
[my first post here]