Nice review, thanks. Did you manage to see if the lens hoods are compatible with the older lenses like the 35 2.8 or the 55 1.8 and vice versa?

@@NickNightingaleYT I'm afraid I don't have either of those old lenses so can't check, sorry!

Thanks, i'd not used it like that yet so good to know!

Exactly, I really enjoyed shooting with it.

Thanks, it was really hard work doing separate reviews and comparisons of all three.

Thanks!

You're very welcome!

Thanks!

You're welcome!

It's a great walkaround focal length!

You're welcome!

Ha ha, thanks!

Thanks!

28mm on aps-c is great! (Just saying.)

Thanks, yes, more compact lenses please! Sigma now has a semi budget 20 as well

@@cameralabs I prefer the Sony style the sigma I series looks a bit over engineered and heavy for what they are but I suppose that's a matter of taste and the sonies are always more confident at focusing

I'm in the same boat. I don't like 35mm or 50mm... preferring 40mm... We need some modern faster 40mm lenses instead of these pancakes... make something that is 1.4 or 1.8 and not humongous...I have similar problem with fuji 27mm 2.8. What's weird is, at longer focal lengths... I'm fine...b/c they actually make them! I can have a fast 24 and a fast 85... I like those.... 35/50 def are awkard to me though...always have been, and always struggled with picking between them. Right now I don't have either, but, could use them for low light. I'd rather have a fast 1.4 40mm, and a 40mm 2.8 pancake... without having a 35 or 50 whatsoever.

As a user of MFT too, Lumix G9, im gonna say the worst AF lens from sony still doing better than AF lens lumix.

I have a review of the 35 at cameralabs.com

You're very welcome! Hope you enjoy some of my other reviews too!

It is a pretty sharp lens, with performance just slightly worse than a typical GM lens. Most importantly it pretty sharp across a wide range, eve at F2.5 it is fairly good, but starts to get great at F2.8, and excellent from F4.0 to F8.0

Glad it was useful!

Thanks! 👍

With the wrong subject they can also exhibit some colour, but I didn't notice one being worse than another. Check out my sample images at cameralabs.com as a couple trigger the effect.

I've not tested them side by side so it's hard to say. Co check out some of my written lens reviews at cameralabs.com for more comparisons . The 40 here doesn't have particularly attractive rendering of blurred areas but otherwise is really sharp and compact. It'd be my choice unless I wanted lovely bokeh

The 24 1.4 GM, 35 1.4 GM and 50 1.2 GM are arguably the three best primes Sony has made to date and I'd love ALL of them. It boils down to size, weight and price though. These small G lenses are really designed to be as good as they can for their size and price. Different class but better than expected.

Thanks! No room for adapters I'm afraid, mirrorless lenses will only work on the mounts they're designed for.

Yes, that would be interesting!

Thankyou! Much appreciated!

That's a good question. Sony's latest lenses have been very sharp at close range AND have also exhibited a lot of focus breathing, so I wonder if they're related?

It's really hard to say as I like all three. The 40 is the dimmest if that's an issue for you, but also the smallest and I'm fond of the focal length.

Weeeell, I make similar tests and take similar sample images with all the lenses I review, so I'd suggest comparing those from my 40mm review with those from my 35 f2 review - remember bigger samples at cameralabs.com - let me know what you think.

Yes, I could be very happy with those lengths too!

Yes I currently own the 28 f2 and the 85 1.8 and was also thinking that this might be a perfect in betweener all arounder. Ofcourse the 28mm in super 35 becomes a 42mm roughly. Which is the perfect cinematic focal length so I dunno lol

I need to retest that lens!

A1 you mean?

You have an A1 and a tight budget?

Do you mean the little Zeiss 35 2.8? That's one of the earliest lenses in the system, but I remember it being nice. A nice Zeiss! I've not tested it recently though, so can't say how it compares to one of these newer G models, I suspect the G's will be sharper, but maybe less attractive bokeh, but you'd need to search for some samples on flickr to get an idea.

@@cameralabs I’m embarrassed to admit I meant the 35mm GM. I suspect that it is sharper, but was wondering if it was *significantly* sharper. I know that it will have significantly better qualities and almost every other category. But my primary concern is sharpness and detail. I love how small and compact the 40 is, but if I can get a significant increase in sharpness, then I will probably sell it and get the 35 GM.

@@geekcommentator8567 the 35 GM is one of their best lenses, way better in every respect. It's one of my favourites. BTW, if you're ordering one from, say, B&H online, please do consider going via my links!

@@cameralabs thank you!

I'm not 100% sure, sorry!

@@cameralabs I bought the lens and can confirm that it works fine with both a filter and the lens hood attached. Although I ran into a problem: when used on a Sony Alpha 7 IV, it won't let me change the aperture on the camera body, only on the ring of the lens. Can I change that somewhere in the settings?

@@s.k.6899 excellent, thanks for the update. As for the aperture ring, that's odd as it should work especially with newer bodies like yours. Is the camera in aperture priority / manual? You might want to check the dial configuration menus too.

@@cameralabs Sony support says it's meant to be that way, but in daily handling I find it inconvenient. Could you please check whether it's the case for your camera and lens too - can you change the aperture on the body or on the lenses aperture ring only? Would be a great help for me, as I'm thinking about returning the lens and get the Zeiss 35 mm instead.

@@s.k.6899 sadly I can't check it as these are all review samples that are loaned to me for a couple of weeks and then returned afterwards, so that one is long gone! I'm pretty sure I remember the aperture ring working fine though. Do you need to update any firmware?

Yes and it's still a solid lens

They're so close, it's really like choosing a baggy jumper over a slightly tighter one. Go for whatever works for you!

You mean the Sony 40mm f2.5? I'd say they're actually quite close in style, but the Sony is smaller. I've reviewed both here and at cameralabs.com so have a look at my sample images from each and see if there's one you prefer the style of. They are similar.

@@cameralabs My apologies, the 40mm. Right now with my discount, the sony 40mm is 480 USD to Sigmas 700 USD. But I love the rendering on Sigma glass. Such a tough choice!

both

But lack in colour and micro contrast. The bokeh is alright though

Yes it has its own thread in the hood.

Thanks!

I would say probably not the 40, but you may enjoy the 24 or 50

@@cameralabscompré el 50 y tengo el zeiss 35 2.8. Venderé el zeiss y el 50 ha sido devuelto. Compré el 40 2.5. Un solo objetivo entre 35 y 50. Aparte tengo el Sony 85 1.8 y 20 G 1.8

I'd get the 40 2.5 as it's a much newer design.

@@cameralabs purchased it a few days ago, surprisingly sharp and resolving lens for the rIV even compared to my GM 24-70 f2.8 at 40 f2.8, definitely notice a huge difference towards the edges. Definitely a worth while travel lens and fast/accurate focusing.

@@viajay works well, like it as a walk around lens. Quick focus and sharp, good color contrast, for its size it’s very good.

Ya thats a pretty awesome little lens the samyang, but i have a feeling the overall quality, sharpness, and rendering/focus falloff is much nicer on the Sony like any ssmyang vs. Sony comparison. And supposedly this new Sony lens is pretty weather sealed but def not proof from what I've read

@@akyerit "like any samyang vs Sony comparison" So for you, its a foregone conclusion... that is just silly. There are benefits and drawbacks, that have nothing to do with the brand, but with the price point and the size. And Sony does not always have the best compromise. All lenses are compromises, or else, you could go to a store and buy a 16mm-450mm pancake zoom with a constant 1.4 aperture, that weighs 30 grams. Since you can't - if you want a Samyang 35mm pancake prime, because your camera is pocketable with that, it will be less sharp at the edges than a Sony that is not a pancake. It may still have nicer bokeh as a number of reviewers say. And unless you spend on a G-Master, many Sony lenses are not weather sealed, and the days of affordable OSS lenses are long over. If you want to be a Sony fanboy, suit yourself. Most people do buy a mix of Sony lenses, Samyang, Tamron, Sigma etcetera - and for good reason: Sony is good, but not the best for every purpose. One last thing: Don't rely too much on KZfaq reviews - people get sent cream-pie lenses by manufacturers to get good reviews. What you get in the store can be as good, or the glass could be less well aligned. And of course, there's DXO to look at. If for your photos, all attributes need to be maxed, your bag will be very heavy and costly... You'd never make it far beyond your garden. Better to know how to use imperfect lenses to advantage.

@@Pharesm lol definitely not a sony fanboy. If I had to pick a preference it would probably be sigma actually. I prefer their rendering. But I have a feeling I might like the 40mm over the 45 a little more (because I'm more used to that focal length), And that tiny bit of extra light. But to me the Sony is almost as nice so I am fine living with the "compromise' lol What I do prefer from Sony is its nativity. More confident auto focus and these tiny lenses are pretty tiny lol. These lenses aren't meant to be the best mind you, just some great options in a much smaller package. I also think it was a mistake to choose a 40 combined with a 50mm. I don't see why anyone would want both, therefore making the desire to own the whole set almost null and void. I also have owned samyang. And while they're fine for most applications. I just don't prefer their rendering to the Sony or the sigma, never mind Zeiss glass or anything similar. That's all. And they're not as confident in lowlight autofocusing either. AND you need a friggen lens station to keep them updated which is another extra hassle and cost. So I'd personally rather spend a tiny bit more and get the more confident and better rendering Sony glass. Which to me, is a perfect "compromise"

@@akyerit You can't reasonably blanket-judge "AF confidence" Some Samyang models tested by Dustin Abbott actually did better than Sony's AF. Its more like your personal confidence, that you don't need to check if a specific Sony lens has ok, good or great AF. But they are not all at the same level. There are some that simply miss a lot of shots with fast movement. Anyway... your preference for your money.

@@Pharesm lmao my personal confidence? Wth does that have to do with anything? Lol! Ok anyways. If you wanna talk about judging, you've been doing nothing but judging me in all of your replies. Telling me I'm a sony fanboy and I haven't tried other lenses and that I lack personal confidence. Wow really? I've simply talked about my preference and what I think is better from mostly my experience actually, and what I prefer. And when I was speaking of AF confidence, it was more to do with lowlight more than anything. Which i find myself shooting in a ton. So every little bit of af confidence, if you dont mind me using that word without personally attacking me, is the difference between a wasted and a non wasted shot. Or more like a a wasted moment or not. And you just got done saying how you shouldn't always rely on KZfaq videos for your info and then go and quote Dustin Abbot for yours. So I don't know how much your arguments are making much sense or carrying much weight at this point.

Good question and I agree the 40 and 50 hoods aren't very attractive, although they are small. I didn't try swapping them, but I think they should fit. It may not be that effective though.

I think most of them are priced correctly, but Sigma has some great options that can be more affordable

I made this at the same time as the other compact Sonys, so you have loads of results to compare.

@@cameralabs I know, I watched all your videos about these three compact Sony lenses, but I couldn't find the answer to my question, which is; "Should I keep the 50mm or 40mm of the trio?" I have all three lenses (24, 40 and 50mm) and I will definitely keep the 24mm, but I'm not sure if I should keep the 40mm or the 50mm? I also have Sony FE 85mm f1.8 and 20mm f1.8 and a RX1RMK2 with Zeiss Sonnar 35mm F2. - For me 50mm f2.5 is better for portraits and it's bokeh looks a little smoother, but I can't really get used to 50mm focal length, especially when I also have 85mm f1.8, which is not much bigger or heavier as a portrait prime. There is no direct comparison video about Sony 40 and 50mm G lenses on youtube and I'm sure there are more people who has the similar dilemma as I have. I don't really think that it make sense to own both 40mm and 50mm in the kit, I have to sell one of them, but which one? 🤔

@@UfukSahinDenmark ah I see what you mean. In all seriousness, you could open two windows and play my 40 and 50 videos to make your own comparison, as I seem to recall I took all the test photos at the same time.

It's para-phrasing the expression when fashion describes a colour as being 'the new black'. Just having a bit of fun. PS - the Tamron zoom is bigger, these Sony's are for people who want small lenses.

@@cameralabs Yeah but they could have been smaller, they aren’t really all that small. Certainly better carrying the Tammy than 3 of those.

bit of a size difference though