p.2 #1 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
ftllens wrote:
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.
When lights go down, every 1/3 stop can make a difference. I'm afraid, f2.5-2.8 would not serve me as a primary lens. Moreover, there is something about rendering of 24G 2.8 and 40G 2.5 that I still don't fall for.
p.2 #2 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
I liked the Zony when I got it back in 2015 with my first Sony body. I’m not a pixel peeper but I found it to be a solid enough performer.
I liked the 40mm even better since the focus seemed more accurate, the images seemed sharper, and the feel and functionality were better for me with the aperture ring and programable button.
Although I love small and sharp lenses, I’d trade some IQ (especially mid-frame and corner IQ) for a small and fast lens. A 50mm f/1.4 that’s sharp enough in the center but the same size as the 50 f/2.5 that’s sharp everywhere would be ideal for me.
p.2 #3 · Sony 35mm 2.8 vs Sony 40mm 2.5 G and other G tiny series
livefromphilly wrote:
Although I love small and sharp lenses, I’d trade some IQ (especially mid-frame and corner IQ) for a small and fast lens. A 50mm f/1.4 that’s sharp enough in the center but the same size as the 50 f/2.5 that’s sharp everywhere would be ideal for me.
The Sony A-mount 50mm F1.4 can be sharp enough in the center if you get a decently aligned copy--I've tried a few of them. It uses a Minolta optical design from 1979, but with a distance encoder so some amount of 5-axis stabilization when used with the Sony LA-EA adapters, and it get Lens Compensation in full-frame E-mount bodies. I wouldn't call it a tiny lens, but it is one of the smaller old 50mm F1.4's.
