Fred Miranda wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: tzhang4284 wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: tzhang4284 wrote: darrellc wrote:
Maybe Sony released these just to increase the perceived value of the GM lenses. I was really excited about the 40 as my fav focal length but maybe the extra few hundred grams and thousand plus dollars is worth it for the 35 GM rendering, speed and extra sharpness. I have the 24GM and it is a very manageable size and weight, with pleasing IQ making for a really optimal mix of attributes for me.
Lenstip reviews show that the 40mm is very close to the 35mm GM in image quality - comparable to the Sigma 35mm f2 but in a smaller package and better than the Sigma 45mm overall (especially factoring in AF and wide open performance) unless you're looking for "character" or an acceptable country of final assembly.
I wouldn't call what Lenstip reviews image quality. I would call it sharpness. Image quality for me captures a lot more than just sharpness and suppression of CA both lateral and axial are to me important parts of image quality as is bokeh. It is early but it looks to me like the Sony 40 f/2.5 is a very sharp lens but does not suppress axial CA well and does not have a very pleasing bokeh (typical for a smaller lens). The Sigma 45 f/2.8 in contrast isn't as sharp--especially at closer distances--but suppresses axial CA well and has wonderful bokeh. We know with the Sigma 45 f/2.8 this is because it doesn't suppress spherical aberrations (SA), but not suppressing SA means PDAF doesn't work as well, but there is less affect on CDAF. So there are tradeoffs between the lenses. I wouldn't say one has a better image quality. They emphasize different aspects of image quality.
I think we're in subjective rationalization territory here. I had the Sigma 45mm and I came away finding the bokeh unimpressive and the lens soft at 2.8. Great lens when stopped down to f5.6. I look at the Sony 40mm as better wide open and better stopped down with comparable bokeh quality. I also don't see this horrendous CA that you're referring to in any of the sample photos - we're splitting hairs here given the size of these lenses.
I think it isn't so much rationalization, which frankly is a suggestion bordering on being insulting, but rather a difference in preference. The lenses definitely have a different look and different strengths and weaknesses. You might well prefer the Sony 40 f/2.5G, but I prefer the Sigma 45 f/2.8 I series, and that ought to be ok without you suggesting that I am engaging in some sort of rationalization.
Edit: and for clear evidence of axial CA see these pictures posted earlier in the thread:
Here see the fairly strong axial CA in the bokeh, often referred to as bokeh fringing
and here:
Note the axial CA in the strong green fringing in the tree branches
It is of course earlier, however, perhaps the axial CA once more shots have come in from more settings won't be as bad as these samples look, but both these samples don't look very good for axial CA.
To me, unless choosing a landscape lens, ultimate sharpness (resolution) is no longer a concern with modern lenses. Aside from a few exceptions, generally they are all sharp enough even on the A7R IV. For sure some lenses will perform better than others but the differential today is rendering and this is just a matter of design compromise.
The Sigma 45/2.8 has rendering + CA correction as priority while the others in the I series have more balanced approach with high resolution/contrast, low CA and still pleasant rendering.
The new Sony G lenses look interesting but the image you posted above (Flickr) is perhaps evidence that Sony gave higher weight to resolution/contrast when designing them. That shows in the somewhat busy rendering in many samples and high resolution close-up performance. (which means well-corrected SA in a non-FLE design)
I consider these differences trade-offs. Some shooters prefer higher resolution/contrast in detriment of rendering and others prefer pleasant rendering or a more balanced approach. All this is subjective but it's undeniable that nowadays, the E-mount offers lenses for every taste and budget.
In terms of how you categorize lenses here, which makes sense to me, I tend to prefer either lenses that have a balance of resolution/contrast/pleasant rendering or lenses that have appealing rendering without overwhelming the subject with the suggestion of a special effect, e.g., like excessive glow or a Gaussian blur. That is, I want the lens to let the subject speak. The Sony 50/1.4 ZA is a great lens in these regards.
I recently got the Sigma 35/2.0 and I like it a lot--it has the balance you describe of excellent resolution/contrast and with very appealing rendering and colors. I have been drawn to the Sigma 45/2.8, but I have stayed away because of the widely reported AF problems, which would kill the lens for me.
These new lenses from Sony are not what I had been hoping for. Their rendering at this point seems very reminiscent of the 35/2.8, the look of whose images I have always disliked.
When these new lenses were rumored, I took my A7C off the buy-sell market because of the promise of a very compact, high quality full-frame kit. Now I am thinking that I'll put it up for sale again.
Sony still offers a very high quality medium sized kit. But I wish they had done more on the rendering side with these new lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: tzhang4284 wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: tzhang4284 wrote: darrellc wrote:
Maybe Sony released these just to increase the perceived value of the GM lenses. I was really excited about the 40 as my fav focal length but maybe the extra few hundred grams and thousand plus dollars is worth it for the 35 GM rendering, speed and extra sharpness. I have the 24GM and it is a very manageable size and weight, with pleasing IQ making for a really optimal mix of attributes for me.
Lenstip reviews show that the 40mm is very close to the 35mm GM in image quality - comparable to the Sigma 35mm f2 but in a smaller package and better than the Sigma 45mm overall (especially factoring in AF and wide open performance) unless you're looking for "character" or an acceptable country of final assembly.
I wouldn't call what Lenstip reviews image quality. I would call it sharpness. Image quality for me captures a lot more than just sharpness and suppression of CA both lateral and axial are to me important parts of image quality as is bokeh. It is early but it looks to me like the Sony 40 f/2.5 is a very sharp lens but does not suppress axial CA well and does not have a very pleasing bokeh (typical for a smaller lens). The Sigma 45 f/2.8 in contrast isn't as sharp--especially at closer distances--but suppresses axial CA well and has wonderful bokeh. We know with the Sigma 45 f/2.8 this is because it doesn't suppress spherical aberrations (SA), but not suppressing SA means PDAF doesn't work as well, but there is less affect on CDAF. So there are tradeoffs between the lenses. I wouldn't say one has a better image quality. They emphasize different aspects of image quality.
I think we're in subjective rationalization territory here. I had the Sigma 45mm and I came away finding the bokeh unimpressive and the lens soft at 2.8. Great lens when stopped down to f5.6. I look at the Sony 40mm as better wide open and better stopped down with comparable bokeh quality. I also don't see this horrendous CA that you're referring to in any of the sample photos - we're splitting hairs here given the size of these lenses.
I think it isn't so much rationalization, which frankly is a suggestion bordering on being insulting, but rather a difference in preference. The lenses definitely have a different look and different strengths and weaknesses. You might well prefer the Sony 40 f/2.5G, but I prefer the Sigma 45 f/2.8 I series, and that ought to be ok without you suggesting that I am engaging in some sort of rationalization.
Edit: and for clear evidence of axial CA see these pictures posted earlier in the thread:
Here see the fairly strong axial CA in the bokeh, often referred to as bokeh fringing
and here:
Note the axial CA in the strong green fringing in the tree branches
It is of course earlier, however, perhaps the axial CA once more shots have come in from more settings won't be as bad as these samples look, but both these samples don't look very good for axial CA.
To me, unless choosing a landscape lens, ultimate sharpness (resolution) is no longer a concern with modern lenses. Aside from a few exceptions, generally they are all sharp enough even on the A7R IV. For sure some lenses will perform better than others but the differential today is rendering and this is just a matter of design compromise.
The Sigma 45/2.8 has rendering + CA correction as priority while the others in the I series have more balanced approach with high resolution/contrast, low CA and still pleasant rendering.
The new Sony G lenses look interesting but the image you posted above (Flickr) is perhaps evidence that Sony gave higher weight to resolution/contrast when designing them. That shows in the somewhat busy rendering in many samples and high resolution close-up performance. (which means well-corrected SA in a non-FLE design)
I consider these differences trade-offs. Some shooters prefer higher resolution/contrast in detriment of rendering and others prefer pleasant rendering or a more balanced approach. All this is subjective but it's undeniable that nowadays, the E-mount offers lenses for every taste and budget.
In terms of how you categorizes lenses here, which makes sense to me, I tend to prefer either lenses that have a balance of resolution/contrast/pleasant rendering or lenses that have appealing rendering without overwhelming the subject with the suggestion of a special effect, e.g., like excessive glow or a Gaussian blur. That is, I want the lens to let the subject speak. The Sony 50/1.4 ZA is a great lens in these regards.
I recently got the Sigma 35/2.0 and I like it a lot--it has the balance you describe of excellent resolution/contrast and with very appealing rendering and colors. I have been drawn to the Sigma 45/2.8, but I have stayed away because of the widely reported AF problems, which would kill the lens for me.
These new lenses from Sony are not what I had been hoping for. Their rendering at this point seems very reminiscent of the 35/2.8, the look of whose images I have always disliked.
When these new lenses were rumored, I took my A7C off the buy-sell market because of the promise of a very compact, high quality full-frame kit. Now I am thinking that I'll put it up for sale again.
Sony still offers a very high quality medium sized kit. But I wish they had done more on the rendering side with these new lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: tzhang4284 wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: tzhang4284 wrote: darrellc wrote:
Maybe Sony released these just to increase the perceived value of the GM lenses. I was really excited about the 40 as my fav focal length but maybe the extra few hundred grams and thousand plus dollars is worth it for the 35 GM rendering, speed and extra sharpness. I have the 24GM and it is a very manageable size and weight, with pleasing IQ making for a really optimal mix of attributes for me.
Lenstip reviews show that the 40mm is very close to the 35mm GM in image quality - comparable to the Sigma 35mm f2 but in a smaller package and better than the Sigma 45mm overall (especially factoring in AF and wide open performance) unless you're looking for "character" or an acceptable country of final assembly.
I wouldn't call what Lenstip reviews image quality. I would call it sharpness. Image quality for me captures a lot more than just sharpness and suppression of CA both lateral and axial are to me important parts of image quality as is bokeh. It is early but it looks to me like the Sony 40 f/2.5 is a very sharp lens but does not suppress axial CA well and does not have a very pleasing bokeh (typical for a smaller lens). The Sigma 45 f/2.8 in contrast isn't as sharp--especially at closer distances--but suppresses axial CA well and has wonderful bokeh. We know with the Sigma 45 f/2.8 this is because it doesn't suppress spherical aberrations (SA), but not suppressing SA means PDAF doesn't work as well, but there is less affect on CDAF. So there are tradeoffs between the lenses. I wouldn't say one has a better image quality. They emphasize different aspects of image quality.
I think we're in subjective rationalization territory here. I had the Sigma 45mm and I came away finding the bokeh unimpressive and the lens soft at 2.8. Great lens when stopped down to f5.6. I look at the Sony 40mm as better wide open and better stopped down with comparable bokeh quality. I also don't see this horrendous CA that you're referring to in any of the sample photos - we're splitting hairs here given the size of these lenses.
I think it isn't so much rationalization, which frankly is a suggestion bordering on being insulting, but rather a difference in preference. The lenses definitely have a different look and different strengths and weaknesses. You might well prefer the Sony 40 f/2.5G, but I prefer the Sigma 45 f/2.8 I series, and that ought to be ok without you suggesting that I am engaging in some sort of rationalization.
Edit: and for clear evidence of axial CA see these pictures posted earlier in the thread:
Here see the fairly strong axial CA in the bokeh, often referred to as bokeh fringing
and here:
Note the axial CA in the strong green fringing in the tree branches
It is of course earlier, however, perhaps the axial CA once more shots have come in from more settings won't be as bad as these samples look, but both these samples don't look very good for axial CA.
To me, unless choosing a landscape lens, ultimate sharpness (resolution) is no longer a concern with modern lenses. Aside from a few exceptions, generally they are all sharp enough even on the A7R IV. For sure some lenses will perform better than others but the differential today is rendering and this is just a matter of design compromise.
The Sigma 45/2.8 has rendering + CA correction as priority while the others in the I series have more balanced approach with high resolution/contrast, low CA and still pleasant rendering.
The new Sony G lenses look interesting but the image you posted above (Flickr) is perhaps evidence that Sony gave higher weight to resolution/contrast when designing them. That shows in the somewhat busy rendering in many samples and high resolution close-up performance. (which means well-corrected SA in a non-FLE design)
I consider these differences trade-offs. Some shooters prefer higher resolution/contrast in detriment of rendering and others prefer pleasant rendering or a more balanced approach. All this is subjective but it's undeniable that nowadays, the E-mount offers lenses for every taste and budget.
In terms of how you categorizes lenses here, which makes sense to me, I tend to prefer either lenses that have a balance of resolution/contrast/pleasant rendering or lenses that have appealing rendering without overwhelming the subject with the suggestion of a special effect, e.g., like excessive glow or a Gaussian blur. That is, I want the lens to let the subject speak. The Sony 50/1.4 ZA is a great lens in these regards.
I recently got the Sigma 35/2.0 and I like it a lot--it has the balance you describe of excellent resolution/contrast and with very appealing rendering and colors. I have been drawn to the Sigma 45/2.8, but I have stayed away because of the widely reported AF problems, which would kill the lens for me.
These new lenses from Sony are not what I had been hoping for. Their rendering at this point seems very reminiscent of the 35/2.8, the look of whose images I have always disliked.
When these new lenses were rumored, I took my A7C off the buy-sell market because of the promise of a very compact, high quality full-frame kit. Now I am thinking that I'll put it up for sale again.
Sony still offers a very high quality medium sized kit. But I wish they had done more on the rendering side with these new lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: tzhang4284 wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: tzhang4284 wrote: darrellc wrote:
Maybe Sony released these just to increase the perceived value of the GM lenses. I was really excited about the 40 as my fav focal length but maybe the extra few hundred grams and thousand plus dollars is worth it for the 35 GM rendering, speed and extra sharpness. I have the 24GM and it is a very manageable size and weight, with pleasing IQ making for a really optimal mix of attributes for me.
Lenstip reviews show that the 40mm is very close to the 35mm GM in image quality - comparable to the Sigma 35mm f2 but in a smaller package and better than the Sigma 45mm overall (especially factoring in AF and wide open performance) unless you're looking for "character" or an acceptable country of final assembly.
I wouldn't call what Lenstip reviews image quality. I would call it sharpness. Image quality for me captures a lot more than just sharpness and suppression of CA both lateral and axial are to me important parts of image quality as is bokeh. It is early but it looks to me like the Sony 40 f/2.5 is a very sharp lens but does not suppress axial CA well and does not have a very pleasing bokeh (typical for a smaller lens). The Sigma 45 f/2.8 in contrast isn't as sharp--especially at closer distances--but suppresses axial CA well and has wonderful bokeh. We know with the Sigma 45 f/2.8 this is because it doesn't suppress spherical aberrations (SA), but not suppressing SA means PDAF doesn't work as well, but there is less affect on CDAF. So there are tradeoffs between the lenses. I wouldn't say one has a better image quality. They emphasize different aspects of image quality.
I think we're in subjective rationalization territory here. I had the Sigma 45mm and I came away finding the bokeh unimpressive and the lens soft at 2.8. Great lens when stopped down to f5.6. I look at the Sony 40mm as better wide open and better stopped down with comparable bokeh quality. I also don't see this horrendous CA that you're referring to in any of the sample photos - we're splitting hairs here given the size of these lenses.
I think it isn't so much rationalization, which frankly is a suggestion bordering on being insulting, but rather a difference in preference. The lenses definitely have a different look and different strengths and weaknesses. You might well prefer the Sony 40 f/2.5G, but I prefer the Sigma 45 f/2.8 I series, and that ought to be ok without you suggesting that I am engaging in some sort of rationalization.
Edit: and for clear evidence of axial CA see these pictures posted earlier in the thread:
Here see the fairly strong axial CA in the bokeh, often referred to as bokeh fringing
and here:
Note the axial CA in the strong green fringing in the tree branches
It is of course earlier, however, perhaps the axial CA once more shots have come in from more settings won't be as bad as these samples look, but both these samples don't look very good for axial CA.
To me, unless choosing a landscape lens, ultimate sharpness (resolution) is no longer a concern with modern lenses. Aside from a few exceptions, generally they are all sharp enough even on the A7R IV. For sure some lenses will perform better than others but the differential today is rendering and this is just a matter of design compromise.
The Sigma 45/2.8 has rendering + CA correction as priority while the others in the I series have more balanced approach with high resolution/contrast, low CA and still pleasant rendering.
The new Sony G lenses look interesting but the image you posted above (Flickr) is perhaps evidence that Sony gave higher weight to resolution/contrast when designing them. That shows in the somewhat busy rendering in many samples and high resolution close-up performance. (which means well-corrected SA in a non-FLE design)
I consider these differences trade-offs. Some shooters prefer higher resolution/contrast in detriment of rendering and others prefer pleasant rendering or a more balanced approach. All this is subjective but it's undeniable that nowadays, the E-mount offers lenses for every taste and budget.
In terms of how you categorizes lenses here, which makes sense to me, I tend to prefer either lenses that have a balance of resolution/contrast/pleasant rendering or lenses that have appealing rendering without overwhelming the subject with the suggestion of a special effect, e.g., Gaussian blur. That is, I want the lens to let the subject speak. The Sony 50/1.4 ZA is a great lens in these regards.
I recently got the Sigma 35/2.0 and I like it a lot--it has the balance you describe of excellent resolution/contrast and with very appealing rendering and colors. I have been drawn to the Sigma 45/2.8, but I have stayed away because of the widely reported AF problems, which would kill the lens for me.
These new lenses from Sony are not what I had been hoping for. Their rendering at this point seems very reminiscent of the 35/2.8, the look of whose images I have always disliked.
When these new lenses were rumored, I took my A7C off the buy-sell market because of the promise of a very compact, high quality full-frame kit. Now I am thinking that I'll put it up for sale again.
Sony still offers a very high quality medium sized kit. But I wish they had done more on the rendering side with these new lenses.
Mar 23, 2021 at 05:20 PM
Previous versions of chiron's message #15542176 « Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5 »
