p.1 #1 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
I just got from a fellow FMer a copy of Sony 40mm 2.5 and plan to try using it for day-time travel shooting when I want to go light. I also have Zony 35mm 2.8, which I franky have not used a lot, intended for the same purpose - walkaround small lens.
Maybe there are long-term owners of Zony who added/switched to tiny G series - what are your thoughts? What are your impressons of the new tiny Gs compared to grown-up glass?
p.1 #2 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
I have the Zony 35 and never had the urge to switch to something else. I find the 35 2.8 delivers way above its size and weight. What exactly do you find missing in the 35 2.8?
p.1 #3 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
On macro level Zony's images felt a bit different to the latest Sony lenses I'm already used to.
I enjoyed the form-factor of Zony and Sony 40mm succeeds to that (with a bit of size/weight increase).
Wanted more consistency between lenses, more sharpness and overall improvement in IQ, faster/snappier autofocus, and it is nice to have more controls on the lens.
Zony goes to my travel bag with 35GM. I considered, it would be good to have a bit tighter lens. And I always loved 40mm look. I expect 40mm to substitute Zony in my travel bag - but will see.
p.1 #4 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
chez wrote:
I have the Zony 35 and never had the urge to switch to something else. I find the 35 2.8 delivers way above its size and weight. What exactly do you find missing in the 35 2.8?
I like the 35 ZA a lot. It’s incredibly compact nature makes it perfect for street photography. The 40 is probably the better buy for people today, but I wouldn’t switch if I already owned the Zony.
It does scratch/scuff easily though like the 55. The painted aluminium doesn’t hold up as well as the Sony G lenses.
p.1 #5 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
I had both lenses on and off over the years - the 40mm f2.5 is clearly better when it comes to image quality. It's about 70% as good as the 35mm f1.4 GM imo when it comes to overall rendering, which I also had. The 35mm f2.8 is more like 40% as good in my books. I wish I kept the 40mm but really don't like the focal length all that much vs. 35mm.
p.1 #6 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
tzhang4284 wrote:
I had both lenses on and off over the years - the 40mm f2.5 is clearly better when it comes to image quality. It's about 70% as good as the 35mm f1.4 GM imo when it comes to overall rendering, which I also had. The 35mm f2.8 is more like 40% as good in my books. I wish I kept the 40mm but really don't like the focal length all that much vs. 35mm.
I’m not sure how you tie a percentage of goodness to a lens. You claim the Zony is 40% as good as the GM…this implies you can always tell what photo was taken with those lenses. And I guess you can always separate the images taken with the Zony from the 40mm. I have my doubts.
p.1 #7 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
chez wrote:
I’m not sure how you tie a percentage of goodness to a lens. You claim the Zony is 40% as good as the GM…this implies you can always tell what photo was taken with those lenses. And I guess you can always separate the images taken with the Zony from the 40mm. I have my doubts.
I've used the 35mm GM, 35mm f2.8 and 40mm f2.5 on a range of Sony bodies including the A7C, A7R V, A1 and various predecessors. After last using the 35mm f2.8 a few months ago, I can confirm it's clearly inferior to the other two lenses.
Telling the difference between the 40mm f2.5 and 35mm GM might be a little trickier but the 35mm f2.8 lacks center sharpness and subject separation compare to the two other lenses. Its main value prop is it's a small 35mm lens.
You can have your doubts but I'm pretty confident that the 35mm f2.8 isn't as good as the other two lenses today after trying it far more than times than I should (I think I've used 3 or 4 different copies of it over the years and have always come to the same conclusion).
Looks pretty damn sharp to me. Now don’t try zooming in to 100%…you might find a couple pixels not as sharp.
I’ve travelled with the 35 2.8 a lot and it has not disappointed one bit. I’ve made 16x20 prints as well as 11x14 photo books with images from the 35 2.8…all results are excellent.
Sure if one shoots test targets and zooms in to 100% or more, then you might find faults…but if one actually takes photos and views them as photos, the lens is spectacular given its size and weight.
p.1 #10 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
lensfan wrote:
I just got from a fellow FMer a copy of Sony 40mm 2.5 and plan to try using it for day-time travel shooting when I want to go light. I also have Zony 35mm 2.8, which I franky have not used a lot, intended for the same purpose - walkaround small lens.
Maybe there are long-term owners of Zony who added/switched to tiny G series - what are your thoughts? What are your impressons of the new tiny Gs compared to grown-up glass?
The Sony 40mm & 50mm 2.5 lenses are great lenses and perfectly sized for travel. They are very small and lightweight, they focus very quickly and accurately, and they have excellent colors, object separation, and fine contrast. I like both focal lengths for travel and other purposes, but I think many people would find the 40mm to be an ideal focal length. I've had the 35/2.8 three times and sold it each time. I was always tempted by the size, but I have always found the images to be a bit flat, same as I find the new Sony 20-70mm f/4. I think you have to see images from these lenses next to each other to appreciate the differences.
For an example of what you can see when you have images next to each other, @keepcoding@ did a review of another lens that I think is similar to the 35/2.8 (link below) in which he compared images from the 20-70 with images from the PZ16-35, Sony 28-60, and the Sigma 28-70/2.8. If you go to the link and look at the comparison images (in the lower part of the review), the images from the 20-70 have a flatter color rendering, and loss of contrast that results in less shaping of detail and less visual texture and interest. I think that that the 35/2.8 suffers from similar limitations. You can recover some of the limitations in post-processing, but they are there to begin with.
p.1 #11 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
chez wrote:
Looks pretty damn sharp to me. Now don’t try zooming in to 100%…you might find a couple pixels not as sharp.
I’ve travelled with the 35 2.8 a lot and it has not disappointed one bit. I’ve made 16x20 prints as well as 11x14 photo books with images from the 35 2.8…all results are excellent.
Sure if one shoots test targets and zooms in to 100% or more, then you might find faults…but if one actually takes photos and views them as photos, the lens is spectacular given its size and weight.
For the record, my observations are not assuming pixel peeping at 100%. If you're happy with the 35mm f2.8 great, but it's been widely observed across multiple reviews and by lots of users that the 35mm f2.8 is flat without having to pixel peep at 100%. If you have a high quality enough display (mine is 5k), you see it. The good enough argument is fine but that doesn't mean the 40mm f2.5 isn't better, which it is.
The photo with the photographer holding the Fuji camera is a good example of where I think this lens falls short. The photo he took is generally sharp but I think you can do a lot better with a 35mm f1.8, 40mm f2.5 or 35mm GM in terms of subject sharpness and separation. When I look at the photo, it feels both sharp and dull at the same time if that makes sense.
p.1 #12 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
tzhang4284 wrote:
]
For the record, my observations are not assuming pixel peeping at 100%. If you're happy with the 35mm f2.8 great, but it's been widely observed across multiple reviews and by lots of users that the 35mm f2.8 is flat without having to pixel peep at 100%. If you have a high quality enough display (mine is 5k), you see it. The good enough argument is fine but that doesn't mean the 40mm f2.5 isn't better, which it is.
The photo with the photographer holding the Fuji camera is a good example of where I think this lens falls short. The photo he took is generally sharp but I think you can do a lot better with a 35mm f1.8, 40mm f2.5 or 35mm GM in terms of subject sharpness and separation. When I look at the photo, it feels both sharp and dull at the same time if that makes sense. ...Show more →
Do you have images from the 40 you can post to highlight the differences you talk about? I don’t own it as I opted for the CV 35 APO instead. The 40mm focal length isn’t really my thing, but it does seem very popular.
p.1 #13 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
tzhang4284 wrote:
When I look at the photo, it feels both sharp and dull at the same time if that makes sense.
I have this feeling about any 35mm lens, incl. 35GM (which is my main travel lens). When I was shooting EF 40mm 2.8 something about it felt right.
35mm does not feel intimate or engaging enough compared to 24mm or 40mm... All 35mm feel flat to me.
p.1 #15 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
I have both the old 35 and the 40. Frankly never did compare. Really like the 35 but wanted different for travel. The 40mm was a revelation. Not the lens, it is quite good but I was expecting such. 40mm was just wow. The feel is jus right for focal length. It is light, fast on A1 and allow for my normal view. Super happy I’ve made the switch.
p.1 #16 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
darrenhaken wrote:
What do you all think about the Sony 35mm 1.8 vs the 40mm G? The Sony is a little bigger but you get that f1.8. I go back and forth…
Never tried 35 1.8, but IQ of this lens is older generation, similarly to Zony 35 2.8. Do you use it on a 61mp body?
p.1 #18 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
darrenhaken wrote:
What do you all think about the Sony 35mm 1.8 vs the 40mm G? The Sony is a little bigger but you get that f1.8. I go back and forth…
Both have some IQ issues. The 40mm is a better landscape lens. The 35mm F1.8 is pretty decent wide-open, but doesn't respond well to being stopped down. The 35mm has a strong use case for video with its lack of breathing and great AF.
p.1 #19 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
QuietOC wrote:
Both have some IQ issues. The 40mm is a better landscape lens. The 35mm F1.8 is pretty decent wide-open, but doesn't respond well to being stopped down. The 35mm has a strong use case for video with its lack of breathing and great AF.
I own the GM, I actually had the 35mm 1.8 before that but I used to find the bokeh a little harsh somehow. I love the GM but I always seem to seek an complementary lens that’s smaller and still fun to use.
p.1 #20 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
I had the 35 2.8 za maybe 7 times on and off cause I never felt satisfied but there was no true substitute for it. The Samyangs were okay when you got a decent copy but not as good against back light.
When I tried the 40 2.5 g it was satisfaction at first usage and in my mind, completely replaced the niche of the 35 2.8 because just everything was superior about it. Most specifically the more reliable bokeh rendering. The controls and extra button were more useful for me than I thought as well. Also the 49mm hood is great as you can just stick a achromat on there and get an easy semi macro function.
I swapped to the 35 GM for the time being but am leaning back towards selling it for the 40 2.5 again (not really about capital as is more about minimal possessions).
I guess the biggest difference is that I always considered the 35 2.8 to be an accessory or secondary lens, whereas I see the 40 2.5 to be a candidate for a main lens if you will. Speaking of which I even prefer it over the Batis 40.
