p.3 #1 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
chiron wrote:
Just for fun...
Here are three shots, SOOC jpegs resized to 1500X1000. Three different 50mm lenses were used, all shot at f2.5, handheld, 1/200th sec on an A1 body. The EXIF data has been removed. The three lenses were the Loxia 50mm, the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM, and the Sony 50mm 2.5 G (not necessarily in that order). Focus was on the top of the purple flowers. All three shots were taken within two minutes.
What do you think of the rendering of each of the three lenses? In terms of the overall effect on the viewer, are any more handsome to look at than any others? Do you like one more than the others? Are they all pleasing, or do you dislike some or at least like some less?...Show more →
I have these three 50mm lenses so I will have to try a similar comparison. Also have two RF 50mm lenses and two other E mount 50mm ( yes I’m obsessed with 50mm).
p.3 #2 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
That's a really good point, the rain does add a wildcard. It definitely is affecting the bokeh in these shots.
OscarF wrote:
It looks like with photo #2 you missed focus on the flowers. The slats on the seat of the chair to the left look a little more in focus than on the other two shots; and the background is more blurred. The weed growing in the lower-right-middle is out of focus on this shot, but more in focus on numbers 1 + 3. I'm guessing this photo was shot with the manual focus Loxia.
Photos #1 and #3 seem interchangeable. Their Bokeh isn't helped by the streaks of rain that are running through it. It gives a weird vertical choppiness.
p.3 #3 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
In a series of shots, I bet the order would change, but in 1, the background jumped out at me instead of the subject. A little busy, but I like the color intensity. I can't believe any of these lenses would have a problem in center field sharpness, so that was the immediate objection to 2. 3 just had a nice balance.
p.3 #4 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
OscarF wrote:
It looks like with photo #2 you missed focus on the flowers. The slats on the seat of the chair to the left look a little more in focus than on the other two shots; and the background is more blurred. The weed growing in the lower-right-middle is out of focus on this shot, but more in focus on numbers 1 + 3. I'm guessing this photo was shot with the manual focus Loxia.
Photos #1 and #3 seem interchangeable. Their Bokeh isn't helped by the streaks of rain that are running through it. It gives a weird vertical choppiness.
Hi Oscar.
You are absolutely right--there is something wrong with #2. I think I know what went wrong, but I'll wait to say more. Thank you for spotting it so well.
In any case, the first comparison set above is invalid, and I apologize for the error and the lost effort of those who commented. I am right that some of us learned something from hearing how other people see an image.
I'll try again. This time there are four 50mm lenses and the order has been changed. The rain has stopped for the moment. Shutter speed is 1/500th, aperture is f2.5, and ISO is 200. All images were made within two minutes and were handheld.
Comments and elaborated explanations of preferences are welcome.
p.3 #5 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
Very interesting, thanks. A few thoughts... The lens for nr 3 seems to let in more light at f2.5 than others. Looking strictly at bokeh, nr 1 is my favorite, and nr 2 is last or second to last favorite for me, but for overall rendering nr 2 is actually my favorite. I feel that nr 2 is allowing the oof areas to be a part of the scene more, where especially 3 and 4 give a clearer separation of the in focus plane to the oof areas (which for me reduce the "3d feel" and overall gives a less pleasing look).
The differences are pretty small though.
It's 2, 1, 4, 3 for me overall, by order of preference.
p.3 #6 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
IMO, all good enough, and any differences seen are subtle and could be independent of the lens itself (motion, change in lighting, bad mojo, etc.). This series makes me believe that we spend too much time splitting hairs. For general photography, I doubt that IQ would be the separating factor between these lenses. Other features (size, speed, AF accuracy, MF or AF, weather sealing, cost, etc.) would likely be more important.
p.3 #7 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
twelveish wrote:
Very interesting, thanks. A few thoughts... The lens for nr 3 seems to let in more light at f2.5 than others. Looking strictly at bokeh, nr 1 is my favorite, and nr 2 is last or second to last favorite for me, but for overall rendering nr 2 is actually my favorite. I feel that nr 2 is allowing the oof areas to be a part of the scene more, where especially 3 and 4 give a clearer separation of the in focus plane to the oof areas (which for me reduce the "3d feel" and overall gives a less pleasing look).
The differences are pretty small though.
It's 2, 1, 4, 3 for me overall, by order of preference. ...Show more →
I think the distinction that you make between bokeh and overall rendering is very useful to keep in mind. Ultimately, as you suggest, it is the overall effect of the rendering that is more important and that counts for the effect of the image. Rendering is more subtle and harder to judge, I think, than is bokeh. Rendering puts the emphasis on the picture itself and whether it works as an image.
p.3 #8 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
chiron wrote:
Hi Oscar.
You are absolutely right--there is something wrong with #2. I think I know what went wrong, but I'll wait to say more. Thank you for spotting it so well.
In any case, the first comparison set above is invalid, and I apologize for the error and the lost effort of those who commented. I am right that some of us learned something from hearing how other people see an image.
I'll try again. This time there are four 50mm lenses and the order has been changed. The rain has stopped for the moment. Shutter speed is 1/500th, aperture is f2.5, and ISO is 200. All images were made within two minutes and were handheld.
Comments and elaborated explanations of preferences are welcome.
Number 2 has a touch more color saturation and contrast (or is it just slightly underexposed?). Is this the fourth lens that you added? Is it the Apo Lanthar?
p.3 #9 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
smpetty wrote:
IMO, all good enough, and any differences seen are subtle and could be independent of the lens itself (motion, change in lighting, bad mojo, etc.). This series makes me believe that we spend too much time splitting hairs. For general photography, I doubt that IQ would be the separating factor between these lenses. Other features (size, speed, AF accuracy, MF or AF, weather sealing, cost, etc.) would likely be more important.
Hi Scott.
I am also struck by how good they all are, really, and how close they are to each other. The lenses are very different in size, weight, cost, year of design, maximum aperture, brand, and whether they have autofocus. But they all yield very acceptable good images (at least of this scene). Any of them can be used to create excellent pictures. And you are right that to the extent this is true, we should pay more attention to other variables like size, weight, and cost.
There are still differences among the lenses, and some would be better than others for particular types of pictures. Two of the lenses would struggle with getting to a max ap of f1.2 if such were desired for a particular photo.
I guess one question to consider might be this: What are the characteristics of this scene in terms of their effect on rendering that might vary if a different scene had been chosen? For example, there are no bokeh balls in this image and no flare. Would a very different scene have shown stronger differences among the lenses, and what types of scenes might show more striking differences?
(So what, I say under my breath, there are very few bokeh balls or flares in any of my photographs.)
p.3 #10 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
I also prefer the overall look of #2, but I'd be content to choose among the other three based primarily on size and weight. If I happen to own one of those lenses, well, I'd be fine with that.
p.3 #11 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
Interesting discussion about rendering.
I would say that the pic 1 is thr sony GM. It's also the one I prefer; out of the focus area has lesser contrast then the focused part of the picture, which emphasis the subject in a nice way.
I would say the pic 3 is the ZEISS Loxia. Bokeh gets worse at the edges because of field curvature.
The other ones I don't know. But all in all the differences are pretty small and I'm not sure if the whole rendering discussion is beneficial for photography at all..
On a side note, even the difference of maximum aperture isn't that meaningful. One would think that the GM with its 1.2 aperture would give out of the world bokeh, but really doesn't. Here's couple of test pictures of GM against the Loxia. Even though the GM is better, the difference is quite small and in many cases it doesn't save or break the photo itself. For me at least, this sort of comparison gave me a bit of realism against the Sony hype..
p.3 #12 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
I look at the two recent sets of photos and can't pick one photo of the set I like more. It make me think there were some slight changes in lighting in the first set. Thanks for the discussion.
p.3 #13 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
jay w wrote:
I look at the two recent sets of photos and can't pick one photo of the set I like more. It make me think there were some slight changes in lighting in the first set. Thanks for the discussion.
I agree with you that the photos look very similar. However, the lighting was I think very homogenous within each shoot. We have had heavy cloud cover and heavy rain for two days! Also, each set were made in a very short time frame. In each set, I checked that the auto-iso had not varied its setting for any of the images.
However, the lighting was different between the first shoot and the second. The first shoot was late in the afternoon with some rain falling and some mist, almost light fog, in the air. The second was late morning, rain stopped (temporarily), more light and a higher shutter speed and lower ISO. ISO in first set was 800, in second was 200. With the change in shutter speed, there were three stops more light in the second set and no rain or mist or fog.
p.3 #14 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
Kalainen wrote:
Interesting discussion about rendering.
I would say that the pic 1 is thr sony GM. It's also the one I prefer; out of the focus area has lesser contrast then the focused part of the picture, which emphasis the subject in a nice way.
I would say the pic 3 is the ZEISS Loxia. Bokeh gets worse at the edges because of field curvature.
The other ones I don't know. But all in all the differences are pretty small and I'm not sure if the whole rendering discussion is beneficial for photography at all..
On a side note, even the difference of maximum aperture isn't that meaningful. One would think that the GM with its 1.2 aperture would give out of the world bokeh, but really doesn't. Here's couple of test pictures of GM against the Loxia. Even though the GM is better, the difference is quite small and in many cases it doesn't save or break the photo itself. For me at least, this sort of comparison gave me a bit of realism against the Sony hype..
p.3 #16 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
The main issue with all these comparisons is at the resolution limitations of this site, it's hard to meaningfully compare vs a full resolution file on a 4k or 5k monitor. The main thing you can judge is color differences in the baseline and differences in the bokeh structure. However, sharpness and pop doesn't always come through at this resolution - if that's not important then not sure there's a reason to buy any of these lenses vs an APS-C camera kit where the lenses can be smaller and/or cheaper.
p.3 #19 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
chiron wrote:
I'll try again. This time there are four 50mm lenses and the order has been changed. The rain has stopped for the moment. Shutter speed is 1/500th, aperture is f2.5, and ISO is 200. All images were made within two minutes and were handheld.
Comments and elaborated explanations of preferences are welcome.
These are quite close, but here are my guesses:
#1 looks the best to me for having even and diffused bokeh across the frame with sharp contrast on the subject. Probably the 50GM.
#2 is fine, a bit more outlining in the bokeh, but not too harsh/distracting in this example. Highest contrast background with a warmer tone, a Zeiss T* coating perhaps, so maybe the Loxia 50?
#3 looks a bit soft on the subject, but the background seems as blurred as #1. It's brighter. A CV50? Dunno.
#4 is fine also, but there is noticeable field curvature towards the edges. Guessing the 50G.
p.3 #20 · Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
The fact that we are guessing and not knowing is a testament to older and less pricey lenses vs the best of lenses. You want to prove good is good enough just compare sensor sizes or lenses.
