![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/DSC04838-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a>Sigma 24mm f\/3.5 DG DN<\/p><\/div>\n
As for the 40mm, I initially liked the idea but then I figured out I like it mostly because I\u2019ve had my brain flooded with all sorts of reviews that are hyping it to an incredible degree, almost as if Sony was paying them to do it\u2026 Oh wait. \ud83d\ude42 Also, I was narrowing my choice of a light walkaround prime between the Sigma 65mm f\/2 DG DN, and the Sony 50mm f\/2.5 G, because both were at bargain prices used. The 40mm G, however, was kind of overpriced used, likely because of the hype, and the fact that I was looking at the longer focal length alternative meant that a 40mm would be a step in the wrong direction. After all, if I want a wider walkaround lens, the FE 28-60mm f\/4-5.6 zoom is actually preferable, and when I actually want everything sharp and wide, the Sigma 24mm is much more to my liking.<\/p>\n
<\/a>FE 28-60mm f\/4-5.6<\/p><\/div>\n
The 40mm is hyped as the best of both 35mm and 50mm, but I already see the 35mm as the middle ground between a 24mm and a 50mm, so I kind of don\u2019t see the point. I use the 24mm for things people would use a 35mm for, and 35mm for what people would use a 50mm for, and I\u2019m actually trying to learn 50mm properly since it\u2019s been neglected in my arsenal for\u2026 well, since I started doing photography. I would always go either wider or narrower. So, going with the 40mm doesn\u2019t actually fit the nature of the exercise. Likewise for the 65mm Sigma; it tries to be a 85mm while pretending to still be a 50mm. The closeup shots made with it look much smoother than the 40mm and 50mm Sony, but guess what \u2013 so do the shots with all the other lenses that I already own, so it would be merely fitting into a focal length gap between the 50mm f\/1.2 GM and the Sigma 85mm f\/1.4 DG DN Art, and that\u2019s a gap that I don\u2019t actually need to be filled, since the 85mm is already something that fills a gap between the 135mm and 50mm. If I wanted every transitional focal length filled, I would have bought a 70-200mm zoom. What I want are distinct perspectives from \u201cprimary\u201d focal lengths \u2013 ultrawide, wide, mid-range, light telephoto and telephoto.<\/p>\n
<\/a>Sigma 85mm f\/1.4 DG DN Art<\/p><\/div>\n
So, I basically wanted a replacement for the 50mm f\/1.8 \u201cnifty fifty\u201d that annoys me with its hazy closeup performance when I want crispness, and with a deluge of CA whenever I point it toward anything contrasty. Also, I wanted something with the aperture ring and AF\/MF switch on the lens. Also, I wanted something that is very small and light, so that I can put the camera with it in the beach backpack with the towels and it would fit. I scratched the Sigma 45mm from the list because it had unsharp closeup performance even worse than the lens I was trying to replace, and I scratched the Sony 40mm G off the list because I don\u2019t like riding hype trains. It\u2019s probably a great lens, but the 50mm was optically very similar and I got it used for a pittance, because all the hype followers went for the 40mm.<\/p>\n
<\/a>FE 50mm f\/2.5 G<\/p><\/div>\n
What do I think about it, now that I went out with it three times? I like when something does exactly what I expected and bought it for. There are zero surprises; the reviews were accurate. It\u2019s crisp, the colours are clean and great, there are no optical defects worth talking about, and it creates pictures that very much resemble the \u201cFour Thirds\u201d look \u2013 you can blur out the background, but not completely, so there\u2019s a structure and texture to it, rather than the sea of toffee that I get with the wide aperture glass.<\/p>\n
<\/a>FE 50mm f\/2.5 G<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/a>Minolta MD 35-70mm f\/3.5<\/p><\/div>\n
It also reminds me of the old Minolta glass, because those lenses had similar bokeh; somewhat textured and gritty, but guess what: sometimes texture is what actually works for a picture, and sometimes smoothness fails. For me, a walkaround lens must be able to blur out the background well enough, and this one does; most shots I see when walking to the beach or similar places where I would take this lens are details that caught the ray of light, or a piece of dry wood in the tall grass, or something of that sort. This is what I tested the lens on, and I\u2019m very happy with the results.<\/p>\n
<\/a>FE 50mm f\/2.5 G<\/p><\/div>\n
Does it have any drawbacks? Not really. Ergonomically, it\u2019s tiny so everything is kind of crowded together, so I have to get used to it; the Sigma 24mm has better ergonomics, such as manual focus ring not competing for space with the aperture ring, but the complaint is minor. Also, the de-click switch is a waste of space and I could do without it; sure, the video people would want that. The lens shade is ugly and I took it off, to no ill effect because the lens is very flare resistant as it is.<\/p>\n
I like it when things just work.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The fact that I bought the FE 50mm f\/2.5 G is kind of surprising even to me, because I originally contemplated the 40mm; in fact, Sony made the set of 24mm, 40mm and 50mm with almost the same look and … Continue reading