I haven't tried the 50 G. The Sigma 45 generally produces better images than the 40 G for me. The Sigma is much better put together. The Sony reminds me of cheap imitation of the Sigma. From a distance the Sony seems pretty nice, just don't look too closely or touch it. I do prefer the odd Sony hood. It makes the controls much easier to use.
That's interesting - is the 50G/40G built a bit more like the 28-60?
The Sigmas are a bit heavy but super nice build quality.
I've never handled the 28-60 but I don't mind the build of my 24/2.8 G at all, subjectively it still feels more solid than my Samyangs, practically speaking I just don't care that much about how they feel vs how they work. YMMV
Totally agree - I love the Samyangs even though they do feel cheap (at least partly a design decision to make them light).
I'm looking for a small walkabout lens and I've been stalking the 40G and 50G for a while but just haven't been convinced enough to pull the trigger. Nobody seems to love these lenses, they just seem to be ok-ish. Whereas lots of people love the Samyangs (and a fair few people don't, but that's OK too!). IMHO I think they made a mistake making them Gs - they're too slow and too expensive for what they offer to the end user. I think they should have made them non-G and cheaper, and then made slightly larger/heavier/more expensive lenses at say 1.7/1.8/2, something around there and made them the Gs. The non-Gs would have sold by the bucketload, and the A7c would have the option of a higher quality lens to match the form factor as well. Presumably that's coming anyway, but they'll have to price them way too high because of the existing G pricing.
For now it's hard to justify the cost of these G lenses when you've got Samyang tiny range, Sigma contemporary range and several 2.8s that offer competitive IQ and size for much less money.
Yes, these are overpriced by about $200. Either that or put out a non-G for $250-300 (fyi, Nikon just released a 40mm f2 for $300). Do either of those and these lenses would be flying off the shelves, they'd sell more cameras, attract a wider customer bse, and more customer reviews would be piling up on online stores.
I wouldn't say they're
that overpriced, if they were $200 cheaper (ie $400) they would essentially be close to price parity with stuff like Samyang's primes, and AFAIK those don't have declickable aperture wheels (granted the custom switch that lets you use the focus wheel for it is handy), or linear AF motors, or linearly mapped MF, or the same short MFDs, and some of them lack sealing.
Those G-class features are worth
something even if they aren't your priority, so size and speed trade-offs aside I think $600 isn't that bad for the Sony trio. I'm sure they'll eventually be on sale for $50 or $100 off and they're pretty popular as is, the Sigma 24/3.5 & 45/2.8 aren't much cheaper either. I think if size isn't a big priority there's absolutely better values tho.
IMO the 50 G and the 40G in particular face a bit stiffer competition from the SY 45/1.8 (only 10mm longer) and the bevy of 35s available, whereas the 24G is mainly competing with the Sigma 24/3.5 & SY 24/2.8 (if it's size is a priority). YMMV I think Sony knows what they're doing tho, they're not trying to race to the bottom against 3rd parties.
That $300 Nikon is like a 1st party lens built like a 3rd party one IMO, no sealing, slower AF motors, etc. Nothing wrong with that as it's still adding to Z mount's appeal, but E mount isn't lacking in $200-300 primes.
