pdmphoto wrote: matt-to wrote: pdmphoto wrote: matt-to wrote: trstahly wrote: matt-to wrote:
Another review from Ken Rockwell:
I am not sure how biased he is but he sure seemed to give the lens superlative praise. I am taking this with a grain of salt I know its a very good lens I have read too many reviews already but he almost makes it out to be a GM other than the plastic filter threads and not so precise aperure ring.
Also wondering the same for every "review" I read/watch online. I doubt Ken Rockwell is affiliated with Sony (could be wrong) as he usually doesn't hesitate to point their products weaknesses on his blog - as opposed to other websites where all lenses reviewed are so fantastic.
The weaknesses seem to be flare/ghosting and corner sharpness at larger apertures. Anyone else notice how no one really addresses flare/ghosting in detail? KR does a decent job, across the aperture range, and doesn't give it high praise( as his sample images show). Corner sharpness is good, but a couple reviewers note its not as good as the 24GM at open apertures. My 24GM was excellent at f/1.4.
Well in the comments sections, he mentions "the Sony is pretty close to perfect". I would say that qualifies as a high praise!
He doesn't give any quantitative data or compare against the 24GM. Others do and it isn't as good as the 24GM according to them.
It sure looks like it is a heck of a lens especially for the money. Is it perfect now but its not $2,000 either and I would much rather have what Sony released than one that has slightly better flare resistance or coma and spend double of triple.
I think it is a better lens than most thought it was going to be and they could have made a GM for double or a cheapie for $450 I think they hit the sweet spot.
Curious to know how it stacks up to the 16-35 GM though
Feb 26, 2020 at 04:28 PM
Previous versions of trstahly's message #15155401 « Back On Sale: Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G lens for only $798 ($100 off) »
