DPRTV: Sony FE 24mm, 40mm and 50mm primes sample gallery

This is a hard place to sell lenses.

Not cheap enough to be ok with the optical quality and slow apertures, but fast AF, extra aperture ring and small size do count for something.

But do I need the aperture ring on a 2.8 lens that I actually just want because it's small and cheap? Do I need fast AF on a lens that isn't that great in IQ with that CA?

If I was paying $600 I think I'd go 85 1.8 style. Great IQ, fast af, no extra switches.

Mar 24, 2021permalink

That doesn't necessarily translate to wides tho, I'm not sure the 28/2 is any better optically than the 24/2.8 (even at matched apertures) even it's it's larger, sure it's a little cheaper but that's about all it's got going for it.

I'd argue even the 85/1.8 has cheaper counterparts with better IQ, everything is a compromise but it sure is nice to have so many options.

The 40/50 seem to be getting more love but I think that's the one instance where you can definitely find comparable IQ for less (SY 45/1.8, 50/1.8) or better IQ for just a bit more (eg 35/1.8), granted you still won't get those extra G features.

Mar 24, 2021*permalink

The question is not so much if there are other better options. It’s more of the compromises selected for this 3. I would take a 24 2.8 with better optical quality and no buttons or aperture rings over this one.

I would go for compact and great IQ over extra features. Probably would go for the tamron 24 over this.

Mar 24, 2021permalink

jackie semple

Lenses usually involve compromise but it's my sense from sight of the limited number of outputs and info available that these are three cracking lenses - sharp, smooth bokeh, fast AF, compact, lightweight and premium build quality. Loca? It has never been a concern for me but I'm not sure if there is a lens that has everything.
They are a bit pricy but if they are as good as I think then they are worth it.

Mar 24, 2021permalink

Wanna buy my Tamron 24/2.8? I'm actually thinking of swapping it for this one heh, I don't think IQ here comes at the cost of buttons and extra wheels but the price and G badge might be impacted by the addition of those...

IQ actually looks pretty comparable to my Tamron tbh, right down to the lateral CA and the bokeh shape/outlining. The Tamron is obviously cheaper but at the cost of slower AF (probably due to the 1:2 magnification too) and the larger size didn't net it better optics.

Mar 25, 2021permalink

The Sony 24 is $200 more than the Tamron. Sure, it's OEM, has better AF, is smaller and has the extra buttons. But still I would swap those extras for IQ. :)

Not saying the lenses are not worth it. Just that they're a hard sell, at least for me. Specially the 50, when you can get the 55 1.8 for the same money.

But choice is good.

Mar 25, 2021permalink

It's actually $300 more by MSRP and $400 more by current pricing... :s Where is the 55/1.8 only $600? Used?

Mar 25, 2021permalink

In the UK a new 55 1.8 costs exactly £679.00 and you can still get 10%off. And that's the normal street price. No grey imports or anything like that.

The 50 2.5 will cost £629.00.

Not a massive difference in price when you get 1.8 instead of 2.5, and the 55 is not a big lens to start with.

Mar 25, 2021permalink

Interesting, sounds like street pricing for the 55/1.8 has dropped by a couple hundred over there, which doesn't seem to happen lately in the US, it's currently $900 while on sale here but the price goes back up to $1K all the time... $800-something USD for it would be a lot more fair or in line with the 35/1.8 etc.

Whereas you guys got screwed pretty hard on the pricing of the new trio... It's $600 USD here but well over that in pounds? Yikes, translates to like $850+ here, even VAT doesn't explain that. I wasn't necessarily making the case for any of them, like I said in my original comment I find my SY 45/1.8 more attractive than the whole bunch.

I'm tempted by the 24/2.8 but I know it's definitely not the best value. Would be curious to check if Sigma pricing flip flops this much between USD/quid and new gear vs old gear or if they're more consistent. IIRC even the Sony 35/1.8 was somewhat anomalous in that it was always cheaper over there ($750 here).

Mar 25, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

Both 40 and 50 have lots of longitudinal CA (purple foreground, green background) wide open.

Lens prices just gone whacko. Sony, Canon, Nikon, Sigma - all delusional. No way I'll ever pay 600 € for a slow 40 or 50/2.5 lens. That used to be f/1.4 territory. IQ has not improved by all that much. Definitely nowhere near proportional to prices.

Looking forward to more small, good, cheap Samyang AF lenses and upcoming Chinese AF lenses in € 99 - 299 range.

Mar 24, 2021*permalink

IQ has improved that much.

That said the lenses you refer to like the Canon 50mm F1.4 USM (which was back then a midrange lens below the 50mm f1.0) was released in 1993. You had almost a 2x in price simply due to inflation since then. 600$ in 1993 is more like 1100$ today

Or in other words 2021 599$ would be a 330$ in 1993. Would have been hard to find your F1.4 for that amount of money back then

Mar 24, 2021permalink

tuliof

I paid around $100 dollars on my 50mm 1.8 STM from Canon last year... That would be around $100 dollars today. And I don't see 6x the quality here.

Mar 24, 2021permalink

@tuliof
The Canon RF 50mm STM is 199$, the DSLR version 125$

And surprise surprise Sony makes pretty much exactly the same nifty fifty:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1242613-REG/sony_sel50f18f_fe_50mm_f_1_8_lens.html?sts=pi&pim=Y

With pretty much the same performance. So it is not like anybody is forcing you to go for G lenses

Mar 24, 2021permalink

Photomonkey

And since I started shooting in 1970 we have had no shortage of whiners complaining about prices.
This is a luxury hobby. You won't have to eat your canary if you don't get a fancy lens for your fancy camera.

Mar 24, 2021permalink

Alam12

Err panther fan
Sorry to say but canon dslr nifty fifty reach almost peak sharpness at f2.8
Sony nifty fifty reach same level around f4, 1 stop of light is a lot for same amount of money

Mar 25, 2021*permalink

(unknown member)

i am quite happy with EF 50/1.8 STM (purchased for € 120 factory new) and EF 40/2.8 (purchased for € 125). I would be prepared to pay up to € 400 for f/1.8 prime lenses between 24 and 85mm. But no way € 800 a pop - for that i'd want f/1.4 glass. or i could buy an EF 85/1.4 IS for € 850 second-hand, hardly used, near mint. I don't believe any of the RF or Z f/1.8 have better IQ. Not to mention those slow Sony and Sigma lenses at € 600 each.

Mar 25, 2021*permalink

@Alam12
Uhm do you have a source for that?
Because if we look at this comparison:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1528&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1195&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
The Sony has more sharpness and contrast than the RF 50mm F1.8 at both F1.8 and F2.8
And while the results for the DSLR version are a little closer I wouldn't say the Canon DSLR STM outperforms the Sony at F2.8
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=989&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=1195&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

@xeppelin
If you don't want to pay a premium for extra small lenses just don't do it. It's not like Sony doesn't have a completely separate set of F1.8 lenses for that

Mar 25, 2021*permalink

tuliof

@panther fan But let's adress the elephant in the room... 600 bucks for that amount of longitudinal CA? That doesn't look like high quality glass for me.

Mar 25, 2021permalink

Priaptor

Nice attempt at small "cheap" lens, but, I think Sigma with their new DG DN lenses at similar price and focal lengths may be the way to go here. The Sigma 24 is a little slower but pretty outstanding lens

Mar 24, 2021permalink

But also just 50$ cheaper (549$ vs 599$)

And for that, you get the native lens, with a faster aperture and better focus. If anything Sigma has to lower their prices after this

Mar 24, 2021permalink

Priaptor

Until I can see a side by side and true comparison, I would hold off my ultimate opinion, but, based on what I am seeing here including build quality, I would opt for the Sigma.

Mar 24, 2021permalink

Comparison of the 40s:
https://www.lenstip.com/578.4-Lens_review-Sigma_C_45_mm_f_2.8_DG_DN_Image_resolution.html
Sony:
https://www.lenstip.com/602.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_40_mm_f_2.5_G_Image_resolution.html

No way the sigma is worth the 549$ in comparison

Mar 24, 2021permalink

Priaptor

@panther fan Thanks. Nice links with compelling evidence for the strength of the Sony variant. Hence why I never like to make judgement based on DPR samples.

Mar 24, 2021permalink

Dave Oddie

@Priaptor the test of the Sigma 35 F2 at Lens Tips shows it is a better competitor to the Sony 40 being a hair sharper in the centre at it's best aperture. Unfortunately the unique selling point of that lens (if you like) - the F2 max aperture is accompanied by a ridiculous amount of Vignetting on full frame. 3.64 EV at F2 and 2.44 EV at F2.8. The Sony is 2.32 EV at F2.5.

Mar 24, 2021permalink

The Sigma 45/2.8 was easily the weakest of their DN I-series or whatever they're calling it, some people love the rendering and I think one of the DPR writers even sang it's praises during one of those end of year gear choice articles (while noting it's drawbacks) but from what I saw the Samyang 45/1.8 looked better in every single review.

The comparison at 24mm is a little more interesting IMO... The Sigma is over half a stop slower but it has a shorter MFD for as much as 1:2 magnification (tho you'd have to pretty much park the front element in front of your subject to leverage that). From what I saw in Gerald Undone's video the Sigma has FAR less distortion before corrections and yet the Sony holds up remarkably well against it after corrections in Cameralabs' comparison of the two.

The Sigma has somewhat nicer bokeh but the Sony has better AF and is better sealed (Sigma is only sealed at the mount), it's also lighter and has a smaller hood and a Fn button...

Mar 24, 2021*permalink

(cont.).

Heavy vignetting plagues all the small wides as you'd expect, even the Tamron 24/2.8 despite it's 67mm thread. I'm inclined to go with the Sony over the Sigma 24mm but I'm not sure it's very clear cut in favor of one or the other, or vs any other small 24 or 28mm.

Slightly larger 35 & 50mm options with less optical compromises (tho not the same features) abound tho, course none of those are 40mm. I really dunno why Sony bothered with the 50mm... Now they've got even more people on their back about a larger f1.8 that's better than the 50/1.8, wondering if the 50/2.5 is it for now, etc.

Mar 24, 2021*permalink

Oh and the FoV of the 24/2.8 seems to get wider as it focuses closer (possibly useful indoors?), which seems to be why Gerald Undone pegged it as a 22mm in his studio, whereas I think the Sigma is the opposite and it gets tighter as it goes down to 1:2... Kinda curious, most reviews seem to gloss over this and just assume one is tighter or wider in general.

Mar 24, 2021*permalink

zakaria

Some photos have flare issues and nervous bokeh.

Mar 24, 2021permalink

Dave Oddie

Care to elaborate on which images in the gallery you mean? I have looked at all the 24mm shots and don't see any such issues.

Then again talk of Bokeh in 24mm lenses is always a bit of a head scratcher for me. There are only so many close-up shots of plants or rocks with a blurred background you can do before this gets tired. Most of my shots at 24mm are in-focus from close to far distance.

Mar 24, 2021permalink

Eh I think there's other instances where the bokeh of a 24/2.8 might matter, shoot I'd often use one for environmental portraits; but I'm not too bothered by what I'm seeing, doesn't look much worse than competing options... Lenstip tried pretty hard to get the 24/2.8 to flare to no avail, and shots #2 and #10 here look pretty damn clean in that regard.

Seriously, midday sun near the center of the frame and almost no artefacts. The 40mm and 50mm look worse by comparison in that regard in #11-12, keep in mind those were all shot at f16 tho. I think maybe DPR should've split this into one gallery per lens, but then somebody would complain about all the Sony coverage within two seconds...

Mar 24, 2021*permalink

JE River

Honestly, my super-cheap Sigma f2,8 primes produce better-looking images than these new ones from Sony. Just because it is f2.5 (2.6) doesn't mean it can't have excellent image quality. For the asking price, Sony has failed big time here, IMO. There just isn't that crisp contrast one would expect from a prime lens. The new Sony lenses here look more like mediocre zooms than decent primes. If these samples were posted without knowing the source lens of the images, I would have thought they came from one of the bargain-priced Chinese lenses one can get for less than $100.

Mar 24, 2021permalink

jay jay02

Lol

Mar 24, 2021permalink

"my super-cheap Sigma f2,8 primes"

Which super cheap F2.8 primes? The competing 24mm is F3.5 and the only 45mm F2.8 prime is 549$ (as is the Sigma 24mm), which is just 50$ cheaper than the Sonys

"The new Sony lenses here look more like mediocre zooms than decent primes"

Uhm the sharpness of the new Sonys embarrasses the Sigma F2.8 primes:
https://www.lenstip.com/578.4-Lens_review-Sigma_C_45_mm_f_2.8_DG_DN_Image_resolution.html
Sony:
https://www.lenstip.com/602.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_40_mm_f_2.5_G_Image_resolution.html

It is sharper at F2.8 than the Sigma ever gets even stopping all the way down

Mar 24, 2021permalink

Photomonkey

If the gallery reveals anything it is that choice of subject is crucially important to evaluating a lens.
While far too many images are of blurry water rushing over smooth rocks shot wide open, those images of more suitable subjects reveal none of the shortcomings you complain about.
Overall it seems Sony have done a great job with these new lenses and any lack of amazement on your part speaks to the general great quality of most lenses today irrespective of cost.

Mar 24, 2021permalink