Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments?
Alan Parker wrote:
I'm personally also not sure how to feel about these. They are compact and beautifully made, but the specs and fall short in my opinion.
At least here in Europe I feel like you pay much more than the value I think you're getting. Not that the Sigma I series is any better in this regard.
They are however a compelling option for the A7C series, mostly aesthetically.
---------------------------------------------
StoneCrop wrote:
I can’t comment on the similarity to the other g series, but I have the 40g and what I’d say about its rendering is that I think it’s good enough, but doesn’t have what I’d consider special rendering like my Batis 40 or CV 40. I also have the Samyang 45, which also has a good enough rendering, but not particularly special. For some reason I haven’t been able to let go of any of them (well I let go of the CV but later bought it again). They work great on a gimbal! And they’re probably at least as good as a zoom that covers their focal length.
---------------------------------------------
Tarekith wrote:
The 40G is one of my favorite lenses, I love the way images look with it and it’s super sharp with decent control over any color fringing. I’ve tried two of the 24Gs at this point, but neither of them was as sharp as my 40mm, so I ended up selling or returning them.
They are great lenses when I had the A7C, and the 40mm continues to be a great lens with my A7IV.
---------------------------------------------
newdom wrote:
I've had the 40G first and I really didn't like it - I hated the small dials and buttons and thought it felt cheap, but most importantly the rendering/bokeh just wasn't very good, certainly not as good as the Samyang or Sigma 35s.
Then I had the 50G which I really liked - the rendering/bokeh is much nicer and I just didn't bother using the rings/buttons.
Then I got the A7C and it all made sense. I think these little lenses are actually a bit too small and lacking on the bigger bodies, but they make perfect sense for the smaller A7c. I wish they had made them just a little bit bigger and squeezed f2 and a bit better rendering and bigger buttons/rings. Maybe in a v2. They're also hugely overpriced in the UK at least.
Most of the reviews of these lenses find them to be optically very good and mechanically well made. They are surprisingly small and also very light. They go perfectly on an A7C and also fit my A9 very nicely. They wouldn't be disparate on any Sony body prior to the bigger bodies--was the A9II and the A7RIV the first of those?
As I read the reviews about rendering--and only going by those who seem sensitive to it and take it to mean more than how much blur there is--the rendering of the 50 gets real praise. For example, Dustin Abbott thinks it has strong appeal and is special. The 24's rendering seems to register as good but nothing to jump up and down about. And the 40 people seem to have different opinions about.
I love the Sigma i series 45/2.8, but I think the 50 might make a good lens to have with it to get excellent rendering with also excellent autofocus. I think that I am likely to prefer the rendering of the Sigma by a bit, but no one can say the Sigma is top level autofocus. It would be nice to have excellent rendering and excellent autofocus in a small and light lens that is easy to travel with or to take anywhere.
Apr 28, 2023 at 05:17 PM
Previous versions of chiron's message #16230477 « Two years of the Sony Small G Trio: User Experiences & Comments? »
