Today, I've got a whole bunch of lenses and a piece of paper.
Let's get Undone.
[offbeat music]
♪ Gerald Undone ♪
♪ He's crazy ♪
What's happening, everybody? I'm Gerald Undone,
and there's always money in the banana stand.
Okay, so today's video is about the new lenses from Sony,
these little Compact Primes that they have,
but the video's gonna be a little different.
One, it's unscripted, and I'm also trying
a different format for this video.
I don't want to rant too much at the beginning 'cause I hate it
when other videos do that, but essentially,
I have videos like this that I could do all the time,
but maybe I'm working on something else,
I'm in between two other big videos, and then it's like,
"Oh, by the way, we've got these other lenses!"
And I think to myself, "I don't have time for that."
But then I also think, what about you guys,
if you're looking at maybe buying these things...
I want to chime in a little bit and maybe give you some advice
so that you're not waiting around or ordering something
if maybe I found something wrong with them,
I'd want to tell you, right?
So, basically I'm trying to see, can I just make quick videos
like this and still get 'em out, you know,
at embargo time so that the information is available
for you, even if I don't typically have time
to do a full in-depth Gerald Undone style review.
So, today I don't have time for that,
so I'm gonna give you
as much information as I can about these,
but I'd also like you guys to let me know--
as kindly as possible-- in the comments
if you're okay with the odd, you know, not-so-good
Gerald Undone video just to give you a little bit of information.
'Cause I could be doing these periodically,
and they might be valuable. Anyway, moving on.
These lenses-- so these three--
were lent to me from Sony.
As usual, you know, this is not a sponsored video.
No money changed hands.
I don't get to keep these lenses,
and Sony doesn't know what I'm gonna say
or get any input on this video,
and they don't get to preview it before it's posted.
And then I have two other lenses here.
One of these, this one, the 24, I borrowed from Camera Canada.
Thanks to Camera Canada, those guys are awesome,
you know I talk about them all the time.
And then this one was actually lent to me by Sigma themselves,
so thank you, Sigma, for that lens.
So, there's still two other lenses.
Now, the Sigma ones aren't new, only the Sony ones are,
but I figured since they're somewhat similar,
I would grab a couple Sigma lenses too
and give a bit of a comparison.
Sony's got three new lenses.
They got the 24, the 40, and the 50mm.
So, the 40 and 50mm, as you can see, are very similar,
and then the 24 is a bit smaller, so... looks like that.
But they're all very small.
And I think what Sony really wants me to do to show you
-is with their a7C-- -[rattling]
got the straps on there--
is just how compact this system could be.
These are full frame lenses,
and this is a full frame camera now,
so this is the idea of, like,
"Look how small this entire full frame system is!"
I think that's generally the idea,
similar to Sigma with their little lenses and the Sigma fp.
The apertures are 2.8 for the 24,
and then both the 40 and 50mm are 2.5s.
Now, price-wise, all three of these
are the same price, at $599 US.
Sigma has different lenses.
There's only one that's the same, and that's the 24,
but this 24 is a little bit slower.
It's an f/3.5 instead of the 2.8 over here,
but it's a little bit cheaper, it's $50 cheaper at $550.
And then they have three other lenses.
I only have one other one, which is the 35.
This is the 35 f/2, and it is $639,
so it's $40 more than the Sonys.
And then they have a 45mm f/2.8, which is also $549,
and the Sigma 65mm f/2 at $699.
So, they're all kind of in the same price point, but...
there's really no perfect comparison
between any of these lenses.
All the Sony filters are smaller.
These are both 49, 49.
The build is exactly the same,
the filter diameter is exactly the same at 49mm.
All three of the lenses have a declickable aperture ring
and a decent linear manual focus,
which is actually pretty good,
because the Sigmas are not linear.
They are nonlinear, so they're acceleration-based.
So, if you turn it fast, it focuses more
than if you turn it slowly.
That's not the case on the Sonys,
so these are better for video focusing.
They also are G Lenses, all three of them,
so they come with a function button,
the declickable aperture ring, and even have an AF/MF switch.
It's basically just like any other G Lens,
but everything is shrunken down.
It's just, like, tinier versions of everything,
tiny version of the "G" symbol,
the button, and everything.
So, it's kind of cool that they fit 'em in there,
and they're listed on their press release
as being weather-sealed for dust and moisture resistant,
and they do have the gaskets as well.
The Sigmas have the gasket at the mount,
but they're not listed as being weather-sealed.
The Sigmas are a little bit worse
in terms of features, if you care about that.
So, they also have an aperture ring,
but on the Sigma it's only click, you can't declick it,
and there's no function button.
The build quality on the Sonys is probably a little bit better.
The Sigmas are heavier, too, which is interesting.
Comparatively, these two 24s, this is even faster,
but the Sigmas are heavier.
And same with the 35, it's heavier than these ones,
just a little bit.
So, yeah, overall, it's a lighter, better build, but...
marginal, and the prices are close together.
As far as filter threads on the Sigmas, if you care,
this one is a 55mm for the 24. 58 for the 35.
So, again, I don't have the other two lenses,
but you might be looking at different filter sizes
where these are all uniform.
So, between the two 24mm from Sigma and Sony,
here's what I found: where the Sigma is better,
even though it's a bit slower, is that it can focus
a lot closer than the Sony can, significantly so.
The Sony's listed as having a close focus distance
of 0.24 meters, or 0.79 feet,
where the Sigma is 0.108 meters, or 0.354 feet.
Now, to actually show you, I have two images here
of how close you can get.
I even did a little pull-up on video--
I'm probably showing that right now while I'm talking--
and you can get significantly closer
on the Sigma than you can on the Sony.
So, if that's important to you, there's a big difference there.
This 24mm Sony has a couple issues
that the 40mm and 50mm don't have,
but again, I was comparing them directly.
For some reason, this 24 is extremely distorted
with lens corrections turned off.
Usually when I take these sample images,
lens corrections are turned off. Now, if I took JPEGs,
the in-camera corrections would be applied,
but in post, dealing with raw,
Lightroom doesn't have profiles, so they don't work.
So, if you compare a raw image to a JPEG image,
the 24mm uncorrected is just crazy distorted,
where the Sigma is a lot better.
Also, the Sigma 24mm very similarly frames up
the same as the 24-70 in 24mm,
as well as another 24mm I tested,
where this lens is always wider.
Even after correcting for the heavy distortion,
it's still wider.
I would actually say that this Sony 24mm
is more like a 22mm lens.
This is the 24mm from Sigma, and that's the Sony.
You can see just how distorted it is.
And then this is the 24-70 f/2.8.
So, if I switch back and forth between the 24-70
and the 24 from Sigma, you can see they're the same
field of view, but that one is wider and distorted.
Both of them perform about the same when it comes
to focus breathing, which is you know,
better than those G Masters I've been complaining about lately.
Not perfect, not cine lens-perfect.
There is a little bit of the frame creeping in,
but it's not too bad.
As far as autofocus, I'll put some tests up on the screen.
But basically, I found that both are reliable,
both are fast, and both would be great for photos.
However, if you're looking for video transitions,
or if you're trying to go for a bit of smoothness,
the Sony is smoother more often, and it's quieter.
The Sigma makes a little bit of, like,
-[imitating lens clicking] -you know, chipmunk sounds,
and is a bit jumpier in the autofocus.
The Sony was smooth and quiet all the way through.
Again, that's their linear motors at play.
So, overall, I mean, I would give the Sony
the win for autofocus, but if you're just looking
for something that is gonna acquire focus reliably,
both do it.
Flare, I found that they were pretty even again.
The Sigma might be a hair better with flare.
I just don't think anyone's gonna care about that.
It shouldn't be a purchase decision, in my opinion.
Both are... not amazing, but pretty good.
Like, decent.
The 35 is faster, it's an f/2 versus the f/2.5
of the 40 and the 50, but I would actually consider this--
if you were thinking of it as a purchase decision--
I would think of it more like an f/2.5 to 2.8,
and that's because it's very soft wide open at f/2.
In fact, the closer that you focus-- 'cause all the Sigmas
seem to be able to focus closer than all the Sonys--
but if you focus quite close and you shoot wide open,
it's soft enough that you'll start to think you missed focus.
Like, it's significantly soft.
But once you stop down to f/2.8, then it becomes more reasonable
and more closely matched to the other lenses.
So, I would treat it more like a 2.5, 2.8.
It's almost just like you have--
I would think of it more like you just have
a whole bunch of different focal lengths
rather than they're really competing with each other.
You can just kind of choose the focal length
that's right for you. They're very similar.
The 24mm are the only ones you have the battle for,
which is, do you want it a little bit slower,
but better close focusing
and a true 24mm without much distortion,
or do you want a faster, slightly wider lens
with better build quality, smaller,
but you have to always apply lens corrections
to deal with the distortion, and you can't focus quite as close?
And it is a little bit more money, actually.
So, maybe I'd take the Sigma 24mm, and then the rest
is kind of a fair bag, take whatever you want.
OK, but let's take a look at some samples over here.
So, the Sigma 24mm is on the left,
and the Sony 24mm is on the right.
You know, feel free to draw your own conclusions.
To me, they look really close.
Maybe the Sigma is a hair worse?
I don't know. I wouldn't really care.
Colour is pretty much the same, and...
Yeah...
We're, like, pixel peeping here. I don't really--
to me, this doesn't really make a difference at this point.
They're both close enough.
Alright, let's look at some bokeh.
So, here we've got the Sony 24mm wide open,
and there's definitely some oblong shapes happening,
even quite a bit into the centre.
The quality of the out-of-focus area-- they're not great.
None of these lenses, by the way, are gonna give you
excellent bokeh if that's important to you.
You know, there's a lot of texture inside.
Some have onion-ringing, they've got that membrane look,
like we're looking at cells here.
Now, if we stop down a little bit to try and round them out,
you can see the iris blades
on pretty much all of these, and it's kind of weird
in the corners too, but maybe you're into that!
Now, if we compare that to the 24 from Sigma at 3.5,
it too definitely, you know, has some weird shapes going on
over on the edge there, and again, busy bokeh.
There's a lot of, like, little grit in them.
But maybe a little bit more rounded sooner into the centre.
And then if we stop down... I would say that the blades
are less offensive on the Sigma than they are on the Sony,
but we're still getting that weirdness out to the edge.
I would give the bokeh quality to the Sigma 24 and these two.
This one is the 40mm.
So, we're getting a similar thing to what we saw on the 24,
where they get kind of, you know, cat's eye,
a little oblong lemon shapes over on the edge,
but this one rounds off a little bit sooner,
and it looks a little bit nicer,
but we're seeing some serious onion rings here.
So, again, kind of busy.
Stop down, and you can see the blades,
they're very pronounced. This is at 5.6.
They're always wide open on 5.6 when I stopped down.
Wide open at 50mm, same thing.
Out to the edges looks like that, then inside, onion rings.
So, pretty consistent, but not amazing.
And then stopped down, same thing.
Now, let's jump over to the-- this is the 30mm f/2 at f/2,
but if we punch in here, same thing. It's kind of busy.
Maybe, again, the Sigmas are a little bit nicer than the Sony,
but I wouldn't call any of these to be particularly pretty.
But they're decent. They're decent!
And these are, like, $600 lenses,
so, you know, they're not too bad.
Chromatic aberration, very similar results
from all of these.
So, if we punch in here, there you can see little bit
of lateral along this white line,
and also a little bit of longitudinal.
We're going to that sort of cyan area,
and then down to the orange over here.
It's moderate. It's not intense, but there's a little bit.
And different focal lengths are gonna get the same result.
Like, that last one was the...
That was the 50mm was doing that one.
This one here is the 40mm, and we're a little bit-- you know,
you got to punch a little bit more to see it--
maybe it's not as bad on the 40, but you can still see it.
It's coloured up here and a different colour down there,
and a little bit across. And on some of the wider lenses.
It doesn't look as bad because we're punched out,
but if you pull in and look here,
you can still see it there.
So, they all have a similar amount.
This one, by the way, was the Sony 24mm.
This one is the Sigma 24mm,
and it still has it too.
Maybe a hair less aggressively,
but I can still see it on both ends.
So, it's nothing to worry about if you're shooting like this,
like, you're shooting wide I don't think
it's gonna be a big deal, but it does exist.
But for the price,
I think that's a reasonable amount of fringing to accept.
And then over here did some sharpness tests.
Overall, this one is to show you a bit of the distortion.
This is what the 20mm looks like.
Actually, I have a really extreme version
of that that you might find entertaining.
Look at the distortion! It looks like it's 3D! It's crazy.
But all the other lenses you can see are much better.
And then here's something I got asked to do
in the previous video. They asked if I could,
when dealing with curvature of the field
or of optical elements, if I could focus
both in the centre and in the corner,
and make sure that they sharpen up
in case you wanted to put your subject on the corner.
And I'm gonna do it with the 24, 'cause it's really distorted
and I think it would be the best case for it,
but you should be fine.
So, here is the 24 focused in the centre
and focused on the corner.
As you can see, the one focused in the centre is very sharp,
and the one in the corner is not so much,
but then if we look in the corner for those same ones,
you can see that it does sharpen up pretty substantially
in the corner if you focus in the corner.
So, you know if you put your subject in the corner
and focus there, you should be fine.
But if you put your subject in the corner
and focus in the centre, you might experience some problems.
This next batch is kind of boring so I'm just
gonna flick through it, but basically,
these are the different lenses focused,
and I'm gonna jump through.
So, this one is the 24 f/2.8.
This one is the 24 f/3.5.
40mm.
This one is the 50mm.
And... that was me doing the corner/centre thing again.
Which on the 50mm, by the way, I had found was pretty good.
40 and 50 both had this characteristic
where if you focus in the centre...
so, see if you can tell the difference.
One of these is focused in the centre,
one is focused in the corner.
And then now let me look in the corner at both of them.
I mean, I can kind of-- I think I can kind of see it
a little bit, but the 50mm and the 40mm
both do well to not have that big of a disparity
between the centre and the corner, as you can see.
But also, as I flip through there--
again, I don't want to bore you with pixel peeping.
This video is probably longer than I want it to be anyway.
But this is me just ranting.
So, if you're still here, this is the kind of video
I could just, like, rant at you about my findings,
and I can make these videos pretty quick
if you want to see these.
But if these bore you, I don't know.
The 40 and 50mm are good across the whole frame,
but as you saw me flip through,
the sharpness is pretty consistent
amongst the majority of them.
But yeah, I'd probably pick the Sigma.
On the 24, I'd go with the Sigma.
The 40 and the 50 are fair game, I like them.
It would just come down to focal length at that point.
And I would feel comfortable mixing these.
The colours are the same...
yeah, the out-of-focus areas are similar enough.
There is a difference in the number of blades.
But as I showed you, you know, overall,
the lenses performed pretty similarly,
so I'd be OK with mixing and matching them, too.
The only difference is the build
is a little bit different between them,
and the filter threads.
If you want to go consistent, the Sony is the only one
that all three lenses are consistent
in pretty much every way.
I feel like this question might come up,
so I'm gonna answer it:
comparatively, to the 35 f/1.8 from Sony,
that lens is in a different class.
That lens is much better than it should be for the money.
It's also small. It's maybe--
it's not that much bigger than the Sigma f/2.
Beats the Sigma f/2. It's a better lens.
It's also linear focusing, it doesn't breathe.
Anyway, just in case you were wondering,
I still think the 35 f/1.8 is best,
but it does cost a little bit more.
So, considering all these lenses are within 50 to 100 dollars
of each other, you know, they're fair game.
But if you're really looking for a 35
and you got an extra few bucks, the 35 f/1.8
is definitely the better call of those.
But anyway, enough rambling... end the video!
But that's gonna be it for me. I hope you found
this video entertaining, or at least helpful.
And if you did, make sure you leave it the old thumbs-up,
and consider subscribing if you haven't already.
But if you did not find this video helpful or entertaining,
try setting the playback speed to 75%.
Alright... I'm done.