Sony's G Master lenses are the cream of their crop, akin to Canon's L series lenses, and they're known for their sharpness, bokeh quality, and well, their prices. What makes them so expensive, though? This great video aims to answer that question.
Coming to you from ZY Productions, this fun video takes a look at the Sony G Master line of lenses and tries to figure out just what it is that makes them so pricey. The G Master lens line is Sony's top-shelf glass, and they're particularly well known for being very sharp, even when they're shot wide open, allowing them to stand up to discerning sensors like the one in the a7R III. In the past, with extreme aperture lenses, it was generally understood that most of the time, image quality was decent at the widest apertures, but improved substantially when stopped down. You bought such a lens for the special look it had at those wide apertures, not for its high optical quality there. An example of such a lens is the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. It's not particularly sharp at f/1.2, but the rendering is so interesting at that aperture that most photographers don't care. It's only been in recent years that we've seen a real uptick in wide-open sharpness in a lot of these lenses. The G Masters also offer great bokeh and fast focusing speeds. Even so, they still sit a little above their counterparts from other brands in terms of price, generally. Why is that? Check out the video above for more.
I really like this guy’s videos.
New lenses are always going to be more expensive than older lenses that have had time to recoup R&D and refine the building process.
And often known for a significant difference of sharpness between centre and corners .... and we can say even edges are often much softer than centre (due to an APSC mount) ..
Once Tamron made a lens with Sony mount for crop sensor cameras, and it was rebranded as Sony lens to. Only difference was labeling and price. Sony version was double the price of Tamron version. That’s why GM lenses are so expensive. Sony have a long tradition of making the best products, but with a premium.
Switched to Sony A9 late last year after 20 years with Nikon. The Sony has already paid for itself. It just delivers and eight months later I am still in awe of the A9 and lenses every time I download images to my computer. The 50/1.4 Zeiss is stunning as is the 35/1.4, 24-70/2.8 and 100-400. Using the A9 felt like taking the red pill in the Matrix as it set me free from crappy Nikon backfocus bondage.
Hmm I also own both, actually all 3 CaNikSon. Sounds like you had a bum Nikon body.
I also have Canon and Panasonic bodies and had no complaints. Always loved using the Canon 1dx but the Sony is way lighter. I started using Nikon digital back in 1999 with the D1. Backfocus was always a running joke with these cameras.
I would have switched to Canon but the mirrorless options were not comparable at the time. The new RF lenses look amazing and I hope Sony matches their incredible variable ND filter option.
Not sure how you managed not to find the AF of recent Nikon DSLR amazing... I agree that the a9 is great too though.
Oh how original, Jan. Did I hurt your feelings?
What up with the egos of photographers who shoot Olan Mills type images of women? You and Eric Salas sound the same with your comical tough guy tactics.
Last time I checked Fstoppers doesn't have a rule that you have to have a plethora of these type of banal images on your galleries or your "opinion means nothing".
Stick to the topic or your "opinion means nothing".
BTW, do you even shoot Nikon?
Sorry you feel that people’s opinions are only valid if they post copyrighted images on a third-party website. Perhaps you can contact Lee Morris and have him enforce your worldview. I have used all major brands and the Sony mirrorless is currently ahead of the competition especially with the impending announcement of the a9mk2. I’m sure that will change in the future.
you're comparing a kiwi fruit to a cantaloupe. doesn't take a genius to think the fuji is better than the 5d4. With the larger sensor I would hope the dynamic range and "look" would be better than the 5d.
but when it comes to "better" vs full frame mirrorless you pay the penalty with fuji:
https://petapixel.com/2018/09/18/was-the-fujifilm-gfx-a-mistake-should-f...
"Focusing is one area in which the GFX will not be able to compete with many current full-frame cameras. This is not to say the focusing system in the GFX is poor or unusable — it’s simply that full frame cameras are significantly better at it."
to me in focus images are important.
regarding the image quality difference:
"the image quality differences aren’t as significant in real-world use.The differences are only really noticeable at the extremes. If you need to recover your images by 5 stops then sure, you’ll notice a difference. If you’re zooming right into the pixels to see the details, then sure, you’ll notice a difference. Most photographers, however, do not shoot at the extremes and most images aren’t viewed at pixel level. In my use, I found the difference to be about a stop at the extremes when comparing it to the Sony a7R II. For that extra stop, you’re losing a huge list of very valuable features."
that's compared to the ancient a7rii.
another comparison between 50 and a7riii:
"A7r mark III’s performance comes close and retains a few advantages such as the better high ISO output. So if you add in the additional versatility (fast AF, 4K video, 5-axis stabilisation etc.) as well as the lens choice and price, it is hard not to see the A7r III as the best option on the table.
"i know what i’m talking about and people can see whoi am and what i do."
This kind of statement is exactly why Proverbs 17:28 was written.
Sony's G Master lenses have optics builds that simply weren't possible even 5 years ago. Sony's optical design and manufacturing capabilities are commonly VERY under-appreciated. The test results on LensRentals provide examples the high optical quality of all of the Sony lenses (inexpensive to very expensive). The high optical quality of components of the G Master line generate the difference in price. The Canon L-Series stuff is well-made, but the optical components wide-open don't match the precision of the Sony lenses. As Canon releases new stuff, it will probably match or surpass the Sony lenses (out of necessity). Sony's ever increasing market share cannot be ignored.
I am continually impressed by Sony/Zeiss lenses. I've noticed in certain situations where loss and contrast plus flare/ghosing would be an issue with other lenses and the such lenses as 35mm/1.4 held up with no issues wide open. The 50/1.4 is incredible wide open.
You're entirely right, but I don't think we focus on the basics in Business 101. These premium lenses have a giant markup because websites like Fstoppers are rewarded for pushing high commission products. All the hype is "published" because companies like Sony won't even commission a lens that cost's below a certain amount.
There's no industry secret about this and we need to realize what we are paying for. Hype to have the best
I would love to get my hands on that 85 1.4 G master and compare it to my vintage Carl Zeiss 85 1.4. See how the new optics compare to the older.
The Sony G Master lenses are certainly excellent and will make Sony alpha users very happy. But comparing the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 S to the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 G Master the Nikon is clearly superior.