Re: Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5
Steve Spencer wrote: Holger 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.
Strong? Not really in my opinion. I see these CAs around leaves and branches in the 35/1.2 DN, 35/1.4 GM, 50/1.4ZE and many other lenses. Easy to correct. It would be great if there were none of it, the bokeh smoother, lens cheaper, ... Will it ever happen? Will people ever be happy?
Too many are obsessed with perfection. Too many are disappointed. Search for the holy grail.
In real life images, one often doesn't see an issue at all, like in your first image of the girl on the bank. Who cares about a tiny bit of green fringing around some tiny bokeh balls you only see when pixel peeping? Yes, it demonstrates the lens isn't perfect. None is. For me the lens is too slow, but it is another nice option many here seem to like.
Show me shots from those fast lenses that show axial CA like that at f/2.5? Many lenses have much less axial CA at that aperture. Sure it isn't as strong as a lot of lenses at wider apertures, but axial CA is of course aperture dependent and I maintain that I find the axial CA pretty strong for that aperture in those shots. Neither do I find it easy to correct, but you may have and probably do have a lot better post processing skills than me. I am not asking for perfection. As I have written I quite like the Sigma 45 f/2.8, which certainly isn't a perfect lens, but I do have different tolerances for different flaws and appreciate some aspects more than other aspects. All I am saying is that these Sony G lenses excel where I personally don't care much and they are weak exactly where I do care, so they are a poor fit for what I like in a lens. You can and likely do have different preferences and tolerance for flaws than I do so YMMV and likely does.
Here a quick upload before I started work, just to show you how the Sigma looks. Another one compared to the GM. It is a crop but you can see the magenta in the oof branches already. I don't have raws on my laptop. The Sigma shot shows strong CAs close to the central region already. https://uni-siegen.sciebo.de/s/egq68fn4DakDyj4
Mar 24, 2021 at 02:37 AM
Previous versions of Holger's message #15542548 « Pre-order Sony G lenses: FE 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, 50mm f/2.5 »
