By on ( 234 Comments )

Which Lenses to maximise the potential of your Sony A7RIV/ A7RV / A1 / A7IV…?

in Blue English / en noir en Français

This article is split in 7 parts as it cover around 200 full Frame lenses tested on Sony A7RIV – Last updated in January 2024

L’article est considéré de cette sections couvrant près de 200 optiques testés sur A7RIV – dernière mise a jour Janvier 2024

Sony+A7RIV+Press+Shot

1 Introduction

1.1 Getting the most of the sensor of the A7RIV / RV

The Sony A7RIV & A7RV with their 61Mpix will not give you better results than the 42Mpix of the A7RIII or the 33Mpix of the A7IV or the 24Mpix of the A7III if your lenses can not resolve such a high pixel density

The resolving power of a lens is measured by its ability to differentiate two lines or points in an object. The greater the resolving power, the more details will be visible on your final image up to the number of Mpix of you sensor

This is summarized in the “Sharpness of the lens” with in general reach its max at Aperture around F5.6-F8 for any lens

Most lens have enough resolving power for the density of a 24Mpix full frame sensor but the A7RIV with is crazy high pixel density is torturing the lenses and there are very few that can reveal the full potential of the sensor

Also this full potential will only be achieved in ideal conditions with speed of min 1/250 handled and low ISO < 800 ISO

You can still take great photos at 1/60sec and 6400 ISO but this won’t be better than on a 24 Mpix camera

So before buying/upgrading to an A7RIV check the lenses you have or should buy , for many people a A7IV, A7III or A7RIII could be a better option

1563273968_1494679.jpg

1.1 Obtenir la quintessence du capteur de 61Mpix

Le Sony A7RIV et A7RV avec ses 61Mpix ne vous donnera pas de meilleur résultat que les 42Mpix du A7RIII ou les 24Mpix du A7III si vos optiques ne peuvent résoudre une telle densité de pixel

Le pouvoir de résolution d’une optique est mesurée par sa capacité de différentier deux lignes ou points d’un objet. Plus le pouvoir de résolution est élevé , plus on pourra voir de détail sur l’image finale jusqu’à atteindre le nombre de Mpix du capteur

On résume souvent cela à la notion de piqué de l’objectif qui atteint son maximum à des ouvertures de F5.6-F8 pour la plupart des optiques

La plupart des objectifs ont assez de pouvoir de résolution pour la densité de pixels d’un capteur plein format de 24Mpix mais le A7RIV avec son extraordinaire densité de pixels toute littéralement la plupart des objectifs et très peu arrivent à révéler le plein potentiel de ce capteur de 61Mpix

De plus on atteindra le niveau de détail maximum que dans des situations idéales par ex min 1/250s à mainlevée et ISO <800

On pourra toujours faire de très bonnes photos à 1/60 et 6400 ISO mais alors elles ne seront pas meilleures que sur un A7III de 24Mpix

Donc avant d’investir dans un A7RIV , vérifiez votre parc optique qui aura sans doute besoin d’une sérieuse mise à jour , pour beaucoup rester sur le A7III ou A7RIII sera un meilleur choix

1.2 The lenses / Les Optiques

Putting aside the right choice of parameters and your skills of photographier

The lenses is the key element that will determine if you are able to get the full details of the 61Mpix of the camera

Sharpness of a lens is certainly one of the key element of choice for the usage on a A7RIV & A7RV, but if you look at my reviews other criteria are as well very important : AF accuracy and speed, Bokeh, background blur, color rendition , CA , resistance to flare, distorsion ….

In this article I will concentrate on the pure sharpness of lenses. You can consult my lenses reviews for info on all the other criteria as evaluation stay mostly the same (except AF) whether you use a A7RII, A7RIII or A9

Alpha-Universe-48-E-Mount-Lenses-1.f1cb27a519bdb5b6ed34049a5b86e317

Mis à part votre maitrise de la prise de vue photo sur votre boitier, les objectifs sont ce qui détermineront le plus la quantité de détails que vous pourrez tirer des 61Mpix du A7RIV & A7RV

Le Piqué de l’optique est certainement le facteur clé dans le choix d’un objectif pour le A7RIV & A7RV mais si vous lisez régulièrement mes tests ce n’est qu’un facteur parmi d’autres qui sont tout aussi important : précision et vitesse de l’AF , rendu du flou d’arrière plan et du bokeh , rendu des couleurs, AC, résistance au flare, distorsion ….

Dans cet article je me concentrerai uniquement sur l’aspect piqué de chaque objectif les autres critères étant indépendant de la densité de pixel de votre boitier, vous pouvez consultez mes test existant la conclusion est la même quelque soit le boitier sur ces critères

Buy me a Coffee – Donation

Help me to run this site and continue testing new lenses and products with a small donation

$3.00

1.3 The shortlist / La selection

Here is the list of lenses re tested

Voici la liste des optiques testées

In next section I start with the recap of the sharpness results and I will illustrate most significant results in some crop comparison

Dans le prochain chapitre je commencerai avec le résumé des tests puis j’illustrerai les performances de chaque optique avec des photos d’exemples et des crops.

2 Sharpness Tests summary / Résumé des tests de piqué

2.1 Rating explanation

  • Outstanding
    • At this grade you exploit the full potential of the 61Mpix sensor
    • Everything is tack sharp even on a 100% Crop with excellent contrast
    • Very few lenses will achieve this grade on the entire frame
  • Excellent
    • At this grade you reach excellent results , it is only by comparing to an outstanding lens that you can see that you can do a little bit better
    • This is the grade that will exploit the full potential of 50Mpix of the A1 or the 42Mpix of the Sony A7RIII
    • Lenses at the grade are perfectly OK on the Sony A7RIV
  • Very Good
    • At this grade you still get very good result but expect the start of some softness when viewing a 100% crop of 61Mpix
    • This is the grade that will exploit the full potential of 33Mpix of the A7IV or 24Mpix of the Sony A7III
    • Lenses at that grade are not enough to exploit the A7RIV at any aperture but still give good results if you don’t crop heavily in the pictures
    • Typically some Excellent prime will fall in this category when used Wide open
  • Good
    • At this grade the image is still good when viewed globally but lack sharpness when viewed at 100%
    • Those lenses are still recommended for A7III but are not recommended on the A7RIII
    • Those lenses are not adequate for A7RIV
  • Average
    • Those lenses can barely achieve very good results when aperture is closed down and in general they are not even on the entire frame
    • Those lenses are not adequate for A7RIII, A7RIV
    • Those lenses are acceptable on a A7III but do not exploit the potential of the 24Mpix
  • Bad
    • Those give bad results when viewed at 100% on the all bodies (A7III, A7RIII, A7RIV)
    • Only Ok for TV viewing , computer if not zoom in

2.1 Explication de l’échelle de cotation

  • Outstanding / Exceptionnel
    • Permet d’explorer pleinement le potentiel de 61Mpix
    • Toute l’image sera ultra nette même observée à 100% , les moindres détails seront visibles
    • Très peu d’optiques atteignent ce niveau sur l’entièreté du champ
  • Excellent
    • Résultats excellent , la difference avec l’exceptionnel ne s’obtenant que par comparison à 100%
    • C’est le niveau requis pour exploiter tout le potentiel des 42Mpix du A7RIII ou 50Mpix du A1
    • Les optiques qui atteignent ce niveau seront très à l’aise avec le A7RIV
  • Very Good / Très bon
    • A ce niveau on obtains encore de Très Bon résultats mais on commence à avoir un manque de netteté en regardant les photos à 100%
    • C’est le niveau requis pour exploiter tout le potentiel des 24Mpix du Sony A7III et des 33Mpix du A7IV
    • Certaines focales fixes tomberont dans cette catégorie à pleine ouverture il faudra fermer le diaphragme pour atteindre l’excellence
  • Good / Bon
    • A ce niveau les images sont bonnes vue dans leur ensemble mais manque de  netteté à 100%
    • Ces optiques sont encore recommandé sur un A7III mais plus sur un A7RIII
    • Ces optiques sont à éviter sur A7RIV
  • Average / Moyen
    • Ces optiques atteignent au mieux le niveau très bon quand fermé vers F8.
    • Les résultats sont en général bien moins bons dans les coins
    • Ces optiques sont à éviter sur les A7RIII et A7RIV
    • Ces optiques sont encore passable sur A7III mais n’exploitent pas les 24Mpix
  • Bad / Mauvais
    • Ces optiques donnent de mauvais résultats quelques soit le boitier ( A7III, A7RIII, A7RIV) quand vu à 100%
    • Seulement acceptable pour de la publication web/réseau sociaux ou sur écran d’ordi/TV

2.2 Summary / Résumé

Note :

  • This cover only the resolving power of the lens , many other criteria are important to determine wha tis a good lens: Bokeh, AF, Color rendition, size, price, build quality … You can find those in each lens test I made (click on link given in each lens section).
  • The order in each category does not matter in term of performances
  • Some lenses do not have yet a specific section as I did not had the time to fully update the article yet, they will come in coming weeks
  • Le résumé ne couvre que l’aspect piqué , bien d’autres critères sont importants pour déterminer la qualité d’un objectif : bokeh, AF, rendu des couleurs, prix, taille, qualité de construction… (voir les articles dédiés pour chaque objectif – lien dans la suite de l’article)
  • L’ordre à l’intérieur d’une catégorie n’a pas d’importance , il ne reflète en rien un classement
  • L’article est mis à jour régulièrement et certaines optiques n’ont pas encore de section dédiée car je n’ai pas encore eu le temps de tout mettre à jour

Buy me a Coffee – Donation

Help me to run this site and continue testing new lenses and products with a small donation

$3.00

Offrez moi un café – Donation

Une petite donation de votre part m’aidera à maintenir ce site et à continuer à vous proposez des tests d’objectifs

€3.00

Some thoughts on these first results of the Sony lenses

Quelques remarques sur les premiers résultats des objectifs Sony

Buy me a Coffee – Donation

Help me to run this site and continue testing new lenses and products with a small donation

$3.00

2.3 Detailed test results / Résultats détaillés

Offrez moi un café – Donation

Une petite donation de votre part m’aidera à maintenir ce site et à continuer à vous proposez des tests d’objectifs

€3.00

Next article : Part 2 – Ultra-Wide Angle : from 9mm up to 24mm

Jump to conclusion : Part 7 – Conclusion

Table of contents / Table des matières

Categories: Cameras, Lenses, Sony

Tagged as: , , , ,

234 replies ›

    • emmm,SIGMA70-200DG DN’s result isn’t really good,but for some vedio ‘s test this lens is very sharp and high quality.

      Reply
  5. Pingback: 6100万画素のα7R IVに最適な交換レンズは非常に限定的【海外の評価】 | とるなら～写真道楽道中記～

  6. Un grand Merci Marc pour le fabuleux travail que tu fais !
    Ton aide m’est précieuse dans le choix d’un nouvel objectif.
    J’ai apprécié la petite phrase sur la crise de GAS.

    Reply

  8. Bravo. Voilà un travail colossal. Mais certaines conclusions me laissent perplexe ! Si un objectif est bon avec un capteur de 40-45Mpx il ne va devenir tout à coup moyen avec un capteur de 61Mpx.

    Il ne faut pas se laisser impressionner par le nombre de pixels ! Logiquement, la hiérarchie des objectifs demeure inchangée.
    Il est possible de tomber sur un objectif qui souffre d’un problème de ” contrôle de qualité” et qui ne donne pas les résultats escomptés.

    Un 7R iv produira ( avec le même objectif) des photos plus détaillées qu’un 7R iii . Sans l’ombre d’un doute.

    Ainsi le 24-70 GM est considéré comme moins bon que le 24-105 G. Alors que, monté sur un 7R iii, le premier faisait légèrement mieux. Comment est-il possible que la tendance s’inverse avec le 7R iv ?

    Il faut comparer ce qui est comparable mais d’après mon expérience, avec le couple R7 iv / 24-70 GM, on obtient des photos avec un excellent piqué. Remarquez qu’ avec le 7R iv une mise au point parfaite, parfois, n’est peut être pas aussi facile qu’avec d’autres boitiers et parfois l’autofocus a un comportement inattendu. Si on a des doutes, pour avoir le coeur net, il faut passer par une mise au point manuelle. Il sera dommage de tirer des conclusions erronées à cause d’une mise au point approximative.

    Un Nikon D850 (45 mpx ) équipé d’un Nikkor 24-70 f2.8E VR ne fait pas mieux. Le canon 24-70 f2.8L ii couplé à un 7Riv, ne fait pas mieux non plus. Et comme chacun sait, si on veut le meilleur piqué possible il faut oublier les zooms et leur polyvalence.

    Evidemment mon expérience avec le 7R iv reste limitée et je n’ai pu tester que quelques objectifs.

    Bonne journée à tous.

    Reply

    • Le 24-105 etait deja plus pique que le 24-70Gm sur a7Riii mais la difference etait infime et les autres qualites du Gm l’emportait largement comme le meilleur bokeh, moins de distorsion etc…
      Il faut aussi tenir compte de legere variation d’un objectif a l’autre sur plusieurs 24-105 teste les resultats n’etaient pas tous les memes , il ya des variations equivalentes a une demi note

      Pour le tests ils sont tous effectues sur gros trepied, Commande filaire pour ne pas provoquer de vibration , avec la loupe, mise au point manuelle avec plusieurs essais pour voir si la map est optimale à pleine ouverture puis réalisation des autres ouvertures
      La mise au point pour le coin est evidement refaite pour eviter les problemes de courbure de champ

      Sur capteur 61. plutôt que 42 on obtient logiquement toujours un peu plus de detail mais pour certains objectifs ce gain est peu perceptible car ils sont a leur limite , d’autres delivrent un gain beaucoup plus net

      Tu peux telecharger sur les liens fournis les photos pleine resolution du 24-105 et du 2470 et faire une comparaison à l’aveugle avec les photos côte à côte
      Le 24-70 reste tres bon et peut delivrer d’excellentes photos mais d’autres zoom font mieux en terme de piqué sur le 61mpix comme ce 24-105

      Reply

      • Je te remercie pour ta réponse. Est-il possible que ton exemplaire de 24-70 GM ait un problème ? Malheureusement on n’est jamais à l’abri de tomber sur un “moins bon” exemplaire. A 24mm et ouvert à 2.8 les coins devraient être bons sans hésitation. A 70mm ouvert à 2.8 le centre devrait être très bon et es coins un peu moins bons. Le tout s’améliore à f4. C’est à dire des résultats un peu plus détaillés et similaires à ce qu’on obtient avec un 7R iii ni pires ni meilleurs.

        Et pour moi, d’après ce que j’ai vu dans le passé ( mais je peux me tromper comme tout le monde et si c’est le cas on me pardonnera puisque je n’avais pas de boitier Sony dans le passé), en examinant les photos à 1:1, monté sur un A7R iii le 24-70 GM avait un piqué meilleur que le 24-105. Même si cette différence était minime, elle était tout de même constatable. Il est évidemment possible que cette différence soit générée par une ” variation d’un objectif à l’autre” comme tu le dis.

        Je vais télécharger les photos.

        Merci et bonne soirée.

    • in the past yes but not on A7RIV, see my blog on Zeiss lenses section , but those were not super/super sharp on A7RIII so I suppose they will end up in the very good category

      Reply

      • Hello – I just read your Batis85 review and you mentioned the following..?

        “Excellent sharpness wide open and consistent centre to border”

        “The sharpness difference between the three available 85mm are negligible in practice, unless you spend your time looking A0 print at 30cm. (Equals)”

      • Yes A7RIV is for large print or significant crop for a A3, A2 ,A1 you won’t see much difference at normal viewing distance

  10. I am curious how the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 DG HSM Art will fit the r4, in your review with the r3 it seems working fine.

    Reply

  12. I usualy do my own lens tests, which are evaluative like yours. My target is the view from my bedroom window toward neighbour buildings and I do it just when the air is clear, which emulates my main focus on landscape and cityscapes.
    As I received the A7R4 I tested all fitting lenses I own. Soon I noticed that the new swnsor raises the hurdle, as you demonstrate so well now. So I decided to make a chart, which is amazingly similar to the ones that you present now. I even used similar colors and stars to visualy represent the “notes” atributed.To simplify things, I considered both center and corner resolution, as I give so much importance to the full frame grafism. That is the only difference from my chart to yours, which also covers many more lenses. My tests included some old Mamiya 645 manual focus, which I may use with a Mirex TS adapter.
    The usable range is so tight that I printed my table on stickers and have it now atatched on each lens, so that I may quickly decide any compromise.
    I wish I could send you my chart for your comparison and delight. Unfortunately this space does not accept uploading photos or PDF and I cannot find your contact in your blog.

    Reply

  13. I guess this took a little time!
    While DXOmark and Roger at Lens Rentals have a grade which accounts for sample variation your data presumably ranks with a sample set of one.
    But your data shows granularity surpassing those sites.
    Very interesting and very G.A.S. inspiring.
    Sony should thank you!

    Reply

  14. Bonjour Marc,
    j’en profite ici pour te demander si tu vas tester la série de focale fixes de chez TAMRON (20-24-35mm) ?
    Au vu des tests très bons (par rapport à leur prix) des deux zooms, je suis plus qu’intéressé par ces focales fixes.
    Le 20mm vas sortir l’année prochaine mais apparemment, le 24 et 35mm sont déjà disponibles.
    Un grand merci à toi pour le travail formidable que tu fais !!

    Reply

  15. Wow man, I usually like your articles but this one … that is some effort, well done !!

    Reply

  16. Nous sommes tous bouche bée ! Grand merci, Marc

    La lecture des tableaux est super rapide. Il suffit d’accrocher de l’oeil les cases bleu foncé et bleu clair. Le paysagiste qui veut se servir des 61 Mpix vers f8 a un donc un vaste choix : le 24 f1,4 Sony/Zeiss, les derniers Tamron 24 et 35 f2,8 (merci de ces derniers tests), les 50 f1,4 et 55 f1,8 Sony, un peu de 85 f1,4 Samyang, le Sigma 105 f1,4, le 135 f1,8 Sony. Après, terminus, tout le monde descend !
    0 zoom. Voilà qui est, finalement, définitivement économique. Et très éclectique.
    Retour à il y a 60 ans, avec une besace faite de triplette (24, très rares) 28 – 50 – 135, sinon, rien (la génération zoom balbutiait).
    A nouvelle “barrière optique”, nouvelle génération. Il est donc urgent d’attendre, donc, pour le moment, beaucoup de nouveautés de la bonne hauteur. En attendant, vive le A7 R III !

    Sinon, à quoi bon ???

    Reply

  17. Oui, d’accord, à partir de 85mm, on est plutôt dans le portraitisme, que dans le paysagisme. J’espère que le nouveau 20mm Tamron…

    Mais j’ajoute : pas de f11 utilisable, nulle part ! Quant au f13, pouah, ça existe encore, ce diaph ?????

    Alors, cher REDOUTABLE Marc, je vous pose la question : 61 Mpix, le MF disponible en 24 x 36, à quoi ça sert ?
    61 Mpix, what’s the use ? What the point ?

    Reply

    • a faire des crop de malade en animalier, a faire des tirages de 2M en paysage ou portrait en galerie ou pour expo , mais dans 95% des ca son est mieux servi avec un 42Mpix

      Reply

  18. Merci Marc pour cette réponse et votre totale sincérité, bien vu pour l’animalier, et pour quelques tirages spectaculaires en galerie.
    Mais c’est aussi exactement celle que je me suis faite comme vieux photographe paysagiste sauf que je pense qu’on sera plus à l’aise avec le Mk III dans 99% des cas, c’est à mon avis plus réaliste ; et je suis ravi que l’A7R IV plombe le prix de son aîné le Mk III – ll me faut évoluer après un A7R Mk I, c’est ça de pris financièrement. Et comme Mk III et IV ont pratiquement la même dynamique capteur en paysage, d’après Dxomark (respectivement 14,7 et 14, 8 Evs)…
    Pour ce domaine d’application, il est urgent d’attendre entre 2 et 3 ans le développement d’optiques génération 61 Mpix. En effet, + 40% de capteurs, ça fait effectivement table rase !

    Par ailleurs, je confirme, Marc, vous êtes extrêmement redoutable, avec votre étude exhaustive. Attendez-vous à quelques belles inimitiés !

    Avec toute mon estime, et ma gratitude.

    Reply

  19. Un grand merci Marc pour cette revue exhaustive ! bravo pour ce superbe travail.

    Je suis arrivé au cours du temps et des évolutions de la série A7 pratiquement aux mêmes conclusions que vous.
    En matière de portrait, j’utilisais le Voigtlander 110 et le sony 85 GM. J’ai revendu ce dernier pour acheter le 135 GM qui en effet se comporte très bien avec le A7RIV. J’ai gardé le Voigtlander dont je confirme que c’est une optique formidable avec sa propre personnalité.
    En matière de paysage, j’ai possédé le 24-70 GM mais qui, outre son poids, m’a un peu déçu et que j’ai revendu. J’ai aussi eu la série des Zeiss Loxia (21, 35 et 50) que je trouve dépassée avec le A7RIV (peut-être les Batis sont-ils mieux adaptés ?) et que j’ai aussi revendue.J’utilise désormais les Sony 24 GM et 35 1.8, ce dernier n’étant pas en effet exceptionnel mais si léger et pratique que je l’ai néanmoins adopté.
    Il me reste à choisir un 50mm sachant que je ne souhaite pas une trop grosse et lourde optique : si Sony n’en propose pas de nouvelle d’ici peu, il est possible que je me porte sur le nouveau Voigtlander Apo Lanthar 50 F2 qui arrive : s’il est aussi bon que le 110mm, je n’hésiterai pas même si la mise au point n’est que manuelle. J’attends avec impatience votre revue sur ce nouveau venu !

    Enfin, je confirme que le 100-400 GM, que j’utilise depuis sa sortie pour du paysage et de l’action, et même occasionnellement du portrait (autour de 300mm), se comporte très décemment avec l’A7RIV.

    A suivre donc les mises à jour de cette belle étude !

    Reply

    • Le sony planar 50mm f1.4 tient parfaitement la route sur a7rIV
      C’est celui que j’ai choisi
      J’ai aussi investi dans le Voigtlander 65 f2 qui est exceptionnel tout comme le 110

      Reply

  20. Merci, Messieurs, mais le massacre continue : exint les Loxia…

    + 45% de pixels a vraiment mis la barre en altitude stratosphérique pour les optiques génération 42 Mpix, il est étonnant que Sony n’annonce pas des versions Mk II de son catalogue de fixes et zooms. En effet, les pros et amateurs (au sens de : passionnés) vont vite s’apercevoir de l’actuelle quasi impasse.

    Reply
  21. Pingback: My picks for a travel camera kit in the post-Xmas 2019 sales | Gary Ayton photography
  22. Pingback: Happy New Year – my picks for Best cameras of 2019 | Gary Ayton photography

  23. Hello Marc, excellent job. Do you plan to do similar charts also for APSC lenses? It would be highly appreciated.

    Reply

  24. Bonjour Marc,

    Bravo et merci pour ton blog en général et pour ce travail exceptionnel en particulier !

    Cet article répond à tellement de questions… je ne sais comment te remercier !!!

    En effet, même si je compte rester sur le 7rIII encore un moment je suis rassuré d’avoir pris le 24-105 plutôt que le 24-70GM (en complément du “divin” 16-35GM qui, à ce que je vois, restera performant sur le RIV, youpie)… et comme un zoom standard à 2.8 c’est quand même utile ;-), j’opterai donc pour le Sigma 24-70 dans quelques temps.

    Je vais donc également revendre le Zeiss 35mm f2.8 et le remplacer par le Samayang 45mm en guise d’objectif “passe partout” / “bouchon” (il me restera à décider si je me sépare alors du Batis 40mm…tellement plaisant mais trop volumineux).

    La question que m’inspire tes tests, c’est de savoir si Sony va introduire un intermédiaire entre sa gamme N et sa gamme rN… une autre façon de poser la question c’est de savoir si le IV sera un 24MP ou un 42MP. A terme on pourrait imaginer que Sony propose trois gammes : 24MP, 42MP, max MP… qu’en penses-tu ?

    Question subsidiaire : j’ai acquis récemment le Batis 18mm en guise d’alternative au 16-35GM pour certains cas (terrain difficile / longue randonné, genre raquettes en hivers), une idée de ce que le Batis 18mm donne sur le rIV ? En lisant les commentaires, j’ai le sentiment que les résultats de tes tests sur la gamme Batis sont très attendus ;-).

    Meilleurs Voeux à toi pour cette nouvelle année et merci encore !

    G¨

    Reply

    • J’espere aussi qu’il y aura un 42Mpix de 4eme generation l’cart est trop grand entre 24 et 61
      Le Zeiss Batis 18 se débrouille plutôt pas mal mais (voir mon article mis a jour) mais il ne donne pas le plein potentiel du 7RIV non plus

      Reply

  25. Hello Marc,
    how would you place the Batis Lenses (especially interested in the Batis 40mm/F2 CF) in your ranking for A7R4 “readiness”?

    Thank you,
    Stefan

    Reply

  26. Many Thanks, Marc. Great! Your website already made it into my Favorites in Safari and I visit it regularly.

    Do you have an opinion between Batis 40 and Samyang 45? I saw you also have the Samyang 45. Are there nevertheless cases where you would recommend Batis 40 more?

    I currently have both for test and it’s very hard to decide between both and still searching for the last small spark for one of them.

    Reply

    • I prefer the samyang 45 smaller , really usable at f1.8, efficient af , cheap
      Bâtis 40 has eye af issue and is a no go for me for portrait

      Reply

  27. Hi Marc, I have a question in regards to the lens sharpness ranking image near the top of the article: In the categories such as “outstanding” are the lenses within that category ordered by sharpness? e.g. is the Sony 135mm sharper than all of the other lenses? or to put it another way, is the Sony 24mm sharper than the Voigtlander 65mm for example?

    Reply

    • No they aren’t , please refer to the detailed table per lens to see more details
      It is rather hard to compare a 24 and a 135 , they are completely different and those are number one in each of their category

      The sharpest lens on the a7riv among all lenses is the voigtlander 65mm f2

      Reply

  28. Hi Marc,
    Did you consider coma and astigmatism when ranking the lenses (which is very important for night / cityscape / star / astro photography where you might need or really need a fast aperture) ?
    Thanks!

    Reply

    • no they aren’t : this classifications for sharpness on 61 Mpix only , you need to consider plenty of other parameters for choosing a lens depending on your style of photos : Bokeh, AF, size, price, color rendition , coma….

      Reply

      • Let me give a little help. Marc’s List deals with just one parameter: sharpness results. This may sound simple, “just sharpness”, but that is an indicator of what you may expect from other optical performance tests, because it is affected by the interaction of many properties like astigmatism, coma, chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, field curvature and else. You can measure all those individually, but then you should give subjective scores that would sum up in arguable ranking lists, as many others do.
        Straightforwardly, once you get great resolution scores from a lens, you can infer that it will do quite well on the other parameters. But the opposite is more important: don’t expect that a lens with average sharpness will be outstanding in one particular feature. An if it ever may happen, it might be seriously affected by other problems that are degrading its sharpness.
        Marc’s List is the result of the subjective (visual) assessment of a experienced professional. The sharpness ranking cover the most important features that affect image quality (transmission / reproduction / translation). Yes, other features still may be important: for me, distortion; for others, bokeh, flare. But then we can have a good indication of all this from the extensive and excellent image examples that Marc posts along with every individual lens review.
        I read reviews from many other sources and couldn’t find any that could better match with my experience as photographer. What else could I expect? Basically nothing more than test a lens myself: buy the one that looks good for me, test it, use it, explore its qualities and limitations, and if the last are bothering me, geet rid of it an go after a new dream tool.

  29. Great work! Ordered the Tamron 24/2.8 right after reading (for my APS-C camreas, though 🙂 ). When I look at the Tamron 24/2.8 and Sony 24 sharpness results in the table, why did you put the Tamron in the “Excellent” group and the Sony into the “Outstanding”?

    Reply

  30. Bonjour, avez-vous déjà essayé les Zeiss Otus 28 ou 55mm ou encore l’APO sonnar 135 F2 avec une bague ? Votre avis par rapport au Sony 24GM ou 135GM par exemple ?
    Je vais passé de l’A7r iii au IV et suis curieux de savoir comment mes objectifs peuvent tirer le meilleur de ce capteur et comment ils se comportent par rapport aux meilleurs objectifs en natif Sony.
    PS : J’ai aussi un Loxia 21mm. Déjà testé sur le IV ?
    Merci d’ avance

    Reply

    • je ne teste que les objectifs natifs en monture E , sinon c’est sans fin et je peux tester plus de 1000 objectifs ! donc non pour ceux là
      la seule exception que j’ai faite est pour un Canon Tilt Shift que j’avais acheté
      Le Loxia a été testé et est dans la catégorie excellente , je n’ai pas encoure eu le temps de remettre a jour l’article après les derniers tests. seul le tableau récapitulatif est déjà à jour. d’ici deux semaines les détails des derniers tests seront dans l’article

      Reply

      • Hi, Marc! Thank you a lot for your effort and work to make this massive test. It helped me a lot! Thanks, thanks! … Let me ask you about the Canon 24mm TS-e: are you keeping it after these not so good results showed up in your tests? It doesn’t go beyond “very good” which means the lens is more suitable to a A7R-3 body, and not much for a A7R-4. I’m considering to loose TS-e capabilities to achieve better optics in a Sony 24mm GM. Lots of thanks again! Cheers from Brazil!
        PS: I’m switching from Canon to Sony now, looking forward to buy the 24mm GM + 55mm ZA + 85mm DG DN from Sigma.

      • in term of pure 24 , the 24 GM is way above the canon TS-e , but if you need the tilt the canon will still provide very good result up to 60×90 cm print

  31. Merci bcp pour votre réponse. Je comprends, c’est un vrai travail de titan si l’on ajoute les autres montures mais 2-3 objectifs d’exception comme les Otus peuvent être sympas à tester sur ce type de boîtier. Si vous souhaitez faire un essai un jour, n’hésitez pas à me faire signe.
    Et encore bravo pour ce classement, très intéressant !

    Reply

  32. I’m really curious how the highly rated Samyang 135mm f2.0 performs on the A7RIV. Any chance we might also see the Voigtlander 21mm Color-Skopar?

    Reply

    • I won’t retest all Samyang manual lenses
      The Voigtländer color skopar was retested : the summary graph is already up to date but I still need to update the article

      Reply

      • Thank you for pointing out the Color Skopar is on the summary graph! Great work!

  33. Hi Marc

    Really shocked for Loawa 15mm. Any chance you had a bad copy?

    Reply
  34. Pingback: The Best Lenses For The Sony a7RIV - Sony Addict

  35. Quel travail colossal Marc, merci encore…

    je possède un Sony 24mm f/1.4 GM et un Sony FE 90 f/2.8 Macro G OSS et en croppant à 100% sur mes photos prises avec un A7R3, j’aurai plus parié sur le piqué du 90 (en mode macro du moins)… comme quoi !!! 😉

    Je me demande si les multiplicateurs de focales arrivent encore à suivre avec cette avalanche de pixels (à tester sur les nouveaux 400 et 600 de Sony)???

    Je renouvelle ma proposition de prêt de mon Bigma 60-600 (qui m’impressionne à 600mm) pour faire un comparatif avec le récent Sony 200-600… mais ce n’est pas un natif en monture E et Sigma m’a malheureusement informé qu’il n’avait pas l’intention de le décliner prochainement…

    Souhaitons que 2020 nous réserve de belles surprises !!!

    Reply

  37. Dear Marc, thank you for the review. You must have spend HOURS and DAYS on this project. This is fantastic.

    I have a question about your ranking of the Sony Zeiss Sonnar 55mm. It has more outstanding corner and center performance than several lenses ranked in the top 8 for sony native lenses. Can you please comment on why it is not in the top 8 lenses?

    PS: I do not own this lens, strongly interested in purchasing it but want to understand your ranking. thank you.

    Reply

    • With which ones do you compare specifically?
      If you compare lenses , it only make fully sense for similar focal length
      Eg sony planar 50 f1.4 is above the sony 50 f1.8 sonnar on a7riv

      Reply

      • I’m trying to understand why the Sonnar 55, which is rated as outstanding across more apertures than the tamron 35, is ranked lower than it. Can you please explain that?

      • Beacause 55 is not outstanding wide open and corners are begind while open
        Whereas 35 is outstanding from the start
        And because the sony 50 f1.4 sonar is providing better perf

  38. Pingback: Which Lenses are the sharpest for a A6xxx for Sony E mount test/review on Sony Alpha Blog

  39. Hi Marc, thanks again for your responses. Recognizing that the primary focus of this article is sharpness, I have another question as you have tested many lenses on the A7R4.

    You write that the auto focus is outdated on the Plannar 50. How does the AF speed and AF-C compare with the Sony 50mm F1.8?

    Thank you!

    Reply

  40. Hello Marc, I’m living around Antwerp and love your detailed site devoted so sony alpha system… I’m hesitating in buying a A7r iv (or wait for the much rumoured canon eos R5)
    – do you think sony’s GM lenses can match the new developed eos RF lenses ?
    – do you have buffer problems with the A7r iv
    – do you have dust issues with your sony camera’s when using outside and changing lenses ?

    Reply

    • New gm lenses like 135mm , 24mm can match easily the 61mpix also the new sigma 35f1.2 14-24 or 24-70f2.8 can use full potential of the 61mpix
      Choice of lenses is much better on E mount

      No buffer issue (using 300mo/s write speed card)

      I change very frequently and if you have a good techniques (body down , prepare lens before… ) I don’t have any dust

      Reply

    • Marc is one of the few reviewers to highlight an essential topic for potential A7R4 purchasers – the need for expensive accessories – to maximize the camera, need recent expensive lenses. To process large mega pixel photos, need a fast CPU/CPU – more expenses, to handle large files camera needs fast expensive memory card like Sony G. To take advantage of autofocus and maximize eye AF – again, need recent expensive lenses.

      Be aware that the camera is just the start of your expenses. Marc’s reviews are very accurate for describing rationale for buying newer lenses with this camera. Marc is spot on about 24GM maximizing both megapixels and AF.

      Reply

  41. Thank you for such an incredible work! Is there any chance for test of Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 ?? It’s quite strange that you omit this one while still showing CV 10mm and CV 12mm.

    Reply

    • That is one of the very few I could not find for retest on Sony A7RIV , but you can find the test of it on the A7RII on my blog

      Reply
  42. Pingback: Eマウントレンズの能力ランキングを見ながら、次に購入するレンズを検討中。 | KOBEBOY

  43. Thank you for such an informative article! How about including the Tamron 70-180 here?

    Reply

  44. Your website is an extremely valuable source of information! Keep up the good work, stay safe and healthy!

    Reply

  45. How do you think Zeiss DSLR offerings as some of the Zeiss Milvus and Otus lenses would do? The Otus lenses will probably be right at the top, but how do you think the Milvus 15mm, Milvus 35mm and Milvus 135mm would do? I’m not too much of a fan of the wide angle lenses on Sony. I’m considering the Milvus 15mm to fulfil my prime setup. If not, I might get the Sigma 14-24mm or GM 16-35mm.

    Also, how are the cheap Tamron 24mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2.8 outperforming a lot of Art and Zeiss lenses, even stopped down? Is this also true for subjects at a distance, such as landscape photography, whereas the Loxia and some Voigtländer lenses (Loxia 35mm, 50mm, Voigtländer 40mm) previously were known to pretty much have the highest contrast on the Sony platform. Some of their lenses still seem to be nearly perfect, though, as the Loxia 85mm and APO Voigtländers.

    Reply

    • I meant the Milvus 35mm f/1.4. Also, the Loxia lenses I mentioned where the ones that got worse ratings, and not the ones I think are the best. Obviously, the Loxia 85mm and APO Voigtländers seem to be in another league.

      Reply

    • For Milvius I can’t say never had them
      Otus would not be higher than best ones in the ranking

      The best are now the Sony 20, 24mm or Sigma 14-24 or Sony 12-24
      Tamron 24 and 35 are excellent but not if you need faster aperture

      Reply

      • I will mostly use primes for my Sony a7R IV and mostly stop down. I think my set will be Sigma 14-24mm, Loxia 21mm, a 35mm (not sure if I should get the Tamron 35mm f/2.8, Sony 35mm f/1.8 or Kipon 35mm), Voigtländer 50mm and Voigtländer 110mm or Laowa 100mm (the Voigtländer is a bit better in the corners, but that will mostly be blurred anyway when doing macro photography, and it’s nice to get the extra magnification). Not sure what I should get between 50mm and 110mm. I would love the Voigtländer 65mm, but the gap between 35mm and 65mm can maybe be a bit too much for streets, not so sure. The 50mm is also cheaper, lighter and I heard that it’s slightly better in some situations but with a few more aberrations. There are many impressive options, but it’s hard to fit a set of primes together properly when there are some specific optics you have feelings towards, but also some specific focal lengths that just suit your work more. I would want more, but it’s going to be too expensive to buy all at once, so I will probably go for the above and maybe get some extras later on. The Tamron 24mm, Kipon 75mm, Loxia 85mm, Kipon 90mm and some others are also very impressive. Which ones would you recommend? I mainly do landscapes, architecture and streets. I rarely do portraits and so on, so I don’t need that fast lenses. I would want the Voigtländer 65mm as well, but I can’t justify 50mm and 65mm, and if I were to get a 65mm, I would probably get a 40mm, but I only like the Voigtländer 40mm f/1.2, and that isn’t all that great in the corners. I think a set of 21mm – 35mm – 50mm. maybe something in the 75-85mm range and 100-110mm would cover most of my needs. I would also want a 14-15mm prime but there are not really any good options. Maybe the Milvus 15mm, but I’m not so sure, so I’m getting the Sigma 14-24mm in this case.

  46. Not sure if I want to go for the Voigtländer 110mm or Laowa 100mm. I don’t think I will use the 2x magnification too often, but it’s nice to have, and when stopping there and keeping the subject in the center, they will be equally as good. But sometimes I like to just take pictures of different natural patterns wide open at medium distances and sometimes use it for landscapes as well, so maybe the Voigtländer is the best option for me. It is a lot more expensive, though, but I will get there with all of those primes. So I need to decide what 35mm lens I want and something between 50mm and 110mm.

    Reply

    • I won’t take the loxia 21 , the sony 20 f1.8 is much better or the voigt 21 f1.4 Also it overlap with the sigma
      The best 35 is the sigma 35 f1.2 The only one that resolves the 61mpix , the sony 35,f1.8 has harsch bokeh
      I have the sony zeiss 50f14 but otherwise i would have taken the voigt 50f2,a pure jewel
      I also have the voigt 65 and 110 , i prefer by far the voigt over the laowa
      Best 24 is the sony gm
      Kipon 75 has excellent colors
      Samyang 85 F1.4 af is the best 85 for now

      Reply

      • Will the Sony 20mm f/1.8 also be outstanding in the corners when stopped down? If it’s just excellent as the Loxia, I rather go for the Loxia, as I just like the images and the design. I know the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 is phenomenal and I considered it many times, but combining all of those lenses will be too expensive for me for now. When I want to blur out backgrounds, it’s usually want I want to get close to my subject, so I rather use a semi macro lens instead of a really fast lens that can’t get that close. The weight of it can also be bothersome. I’m just a student after all. I just purchased the Voigtländer 50mm, but I’m not so sure if I regret it or not. I can still cancel, of course. The Voigtländer 65mm might actually be more useful for my work, as I mostly shoot from the other side of the street, so I need a bit of range. 85mm is too tight, and I think 50mm is a bit too wide. In other situations, 50mm is too tight, so I would use a 35mm here. I’m actually not too sure. The streets vary a lot. The 65mm is also nice for close-ups of different scenes in streets and nature. The Voigtländer 110mm can of course get closer, but 1/2 magnification might just be enough for most of my use, and I will need faster shutter speeds which can be tougher to get in a country like Denmark. I will bring my tripod for landscapes, but not so much in the middle of the streets. Not sure if I should go for the Voigtländer 50mm + 110mm compo or some sort of 35-40mm + 65mm, as I might not need the long end so often. If I then need a longer lens, I would consider the 110mm again once I have saved up more money. 50mm is sometimes too tight and sometimes too wide, so 35mm and 65mm would be a nice fit, I think. And then the 20mm or 21mm and 14mm of the Sigma. It’s a tough choice with a pretty consistent budget. I also need to sell some of my previous lenses first to get the full set.

      • I think I can work with the Voigtländer 50mm + 110mm, though, and it’s always nice to have the ability to get closer to your subject. Both lenses are really the best you can get on this platform for absolute sharpness and contrast. Either way, there are really no perfect focal lengths for streets, nor landscapes. There are no perfect focal lengths for anything, really, but it’s especially very different for streets, in my opinion. You can move a bit more around here compared to landscapes as well. I don’t need as many primes for streets as to landscapes, but now that I plan to get many, I may as well use them for both. But a 20mm + 28mm + 40mm + 65mm + 135mm would also be a nice set, and the Sigma 14-24mm to compliment them at the wide end. I do however not really want the 28mm, 40mm and 135mm options for my use. I don’t need the GM 135mm, the Sigma 135mm isn’t all that expensive, but I don’t need such a lens for my use. I just want the focal length, and I will be fine with 110mm. I just had the Batis 40mm and sold it. I am very disappointed that the Voigtländer 40mm f/1.2 only is “good” in the corners. The copy Dustin Abbott had was extremely sharp all the way out to the corners at f/5.6 – f/8, but that was also tested on a Sony a7R III. I would otherwise have loved to combine that lens, the 65mm and 110mm. But let’s see how the 50mm + 110mm compo is. Still not sure what 35mm to go for, though. There are no 35mm lenses like the Voigtländers. I don’t want the Sigma, and the Tamron and Sony are great, but I wish there was a 35mm like the Voigtländer offerings. The Loxia 35mm seemed nice, and I was about to get it before reading your very helpful review, but apparently it isn’t all that great, even though the Loxias have a reputation of being some of the best stopped down. I think I will go for the Tamron for now and swap it out later on. I will then also be able to get both of the Voigtländers and wait a bit for the Sigma 14-24mm and potentially a 20-21mm lens once I have sold some of my previous lenses.

  47. How do the Voigtländer 65mm and 110mm compare? How close are they wide open, at f/2.8 and f/4?

    Reply
  48. Pingback: DXOのソニーFEレンズの評価番付が、こないだのSony Alpha Blog版とかなり違うんだが、、、 | KOBEBOY

  49. You mentioned you had issues with the sigma 35mm art lens (The 1.4) AF……If you were missing focus with this lens because of firmware af issues, how could you objectively rank it? Almost everywhere else people rave about how sharp it is, even sharper than the sony 35mm 1.8.

    Reply

  50. Samyang has a 75/1.8 FE available, I heard it’s a light yet solid performer, but the edge is a bit soft. Would you review this lens any time soon?

    Reply

  51. This whole website is a fantastic resource. Thank you very much, Marc, for the vast amount of useful information provided.

    One question, however: When you test sharpness at the corners, do you re-focus the lens at the corner? It would be nice to know. If the lens has field curvature it will not show itself at its best if not re-focused.

    Reply

      • Many thanks for your reply, and it is good to know that you do re-focus — many reviewers do not do this but don’t say so.
        Best,
        Gavin

  52. I would like to purchase a new wide angle lens. Currently, I use the Zeiss Batis 18mm f/2.8. I find it to be an excellent performer on the Sony a7R IV, but I do observe that it doesn’t resolve all of the sensor. I find the 18mm focal length a bit bothersome, as I sometimes went go for around 24mm and sometimes extremely wide (around 14mm). I mostly tend to go inbetween 18mm and 24mm, though. Therefore, I’m considering the Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4 or Zeiss Loxia 21mm f/2.8. The price tag isn’t all that different, but I prefer the Loxia in terms of size and compactness. I also just love Zeiss, but I already got 2 Voigtländer lenses (50mm APO and 110mm APO). I mostly stop down, but even so, you stated that the Voigtländer still is better in the corners, which leads me to that over the Loxia. But sometimes, I would also want to go extremely wide. I would want a 14-15mm prime, but are there even any options that are at least very good in the corners and excellent to exceptional in the center? If not, I might get the Sigma 14-24mm just for the 14mm. I considered the Zeiss Distagon 15mm f/2.8 and Voigtländer 15mm f/4.5, but I don’t think they are any good in the corners on the Sony a7R IV. Maybe the Samyang XP / Rokinon SP 14mm f/2.4. Not so sure, but it sure is expensive to fulfil your needs if you also want to make sure to resolve most of the sensor. If I just went for the Sigma, I would probably regret that. I mostly use around 21mm, and it’s “only” very good there. So, I’m thinking of just going for the Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4 for now and save up for the Sigma 14-24mm later on. Sure, the Sony 24mm f/1.4 GM and Sony 20mm f/1.8 are maybe a bit sharper in the corners, but I generally just prefer Voigtländer and Zeiss options due to their build, focusing and the look right out of the camera. I don’t edit my images that much, so I find them useful for my use. I don’t need AF. I only need AF for some use when photographing people or wildlife, but I got other lenses for that. Excellent corners are also good enough for me, and when handled properly, you won’t spot much of a difference. I also stack images from time to time, so it can be worked around with. I sometimes do this for architecture photography. Maybe I could consider the Sony 20mm f/1.8 anyway, as I like their recent G lenses. Will you review it soon? What do you think?

    Reply

    • The review of the 20mm was posted: it is excellent very close the the Voigt 21mm F1.4 with AF on top
      the only other lens I could recommend for wide angle is the sony 12-24mm F4G very good wide open to excellent if you close down by one stop on A7RIV

      Reply

      • Thank you.

        I meant when will you add it to the index above? I still think the Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4 is my best bet. Not really satisfied with any wider options, so I will walt for now. A Loxia 15mm or an update to the Voigtländer 15mm f/4.5 III would be nice, but I doubt it. Might just get the Voigtländer 15mm anyway and just ignore not taking advantage of the full sensor. It’s not always necessary anyway.

  53. Salut,

    Merci pour ce job et plus globalement pour les infos très qualitatives que tu délivres avec ton expérience de l’écosystème Sony.

    En revanche, en raison des biais qui existent dans ta méthodologie, je prends tes résultats avec beaucoup de pincettes dont la principale raison est la suivante:tu mesures uniquement le couple A7RIV-optique-dématriçage Abobe.

    Or, l’importance du choix du logiciel de traitement des corrections optiques est essentiel. Avec le traitement Adobe LR / PS (même dématriceur), tu enfonces des optiques comme le 24-240mm. Photolab en traitement standard par défaut me donne clairement les meilleurs résultat avec les fichiers Sony en terme de ciselé et de son homogenéité sur l’ensemble l’image (absence de point chaud), de coma et de distortion. Avec mes Sony 20mm et 135mmF1.8 pourtant exceptionnels à bien des égards par exemple, Photolab évite les points chaud qui existent avec LR entre F1,8 et F4 car il homogenise mieux le ciselé sur toute l’image. Et à F11-F16-22, la diffraction est bien mieux traitée avec Photolab (hors stacking).

    Bref, même si tous mes cailloux sont dans le très haut de ton panier, à l’exception notable du 24-240mm, je pense que ta méthodologie enfonce le bas de ton panier, d’abord parce que tu utilises un dématriceur qui n’est franchement pas le plus efficace pour le traitement des corrections optiques… Le même test avec Photolab et mon petit doigt me dit que tout le milieu et le bas de ton panier monte d’au moins un voire deux crans -:)

    Hi,

    Thank you for this job and more globally for the very qualitative information you deliver with your experience of the Sony ecosystem.

    On the other hand, because of the biases that exist in your methodology, I take your results with a lot of tweezers whose main reason is the following: you only measure the couple A7RIV-optic-Adobe software.

    However, the importance of the choice of software for processing optical corrections is essential. With the Adobe LR / PS processing (same dematrix), you destroy optics like the 24-240mm. Photolab in standard processing by default clearly gives me the best results with Sony files in terms of chiselling and its homogeneity over the whole image (no hot spots), coma and distortion. With my Sony 20mm and 135mmF1.8 which are exceptional in many ways for example, Photolab avoids the hot spots that exist with LR between F1.8 and F4 because it homogenizes better the chasing over the whole image. And at F11-F16-22, diffraction is much better treated with Photolab (excluding stacking).

    In short, even if all my pebbles are in the very top of your basket, with the notable exception of the 24-240mm, I think that your methodology pushes the bottom of your basket, firstly because you use a dismantler which is frankly not the most efficient for the processing of optical corrections … The same test with Photolab and my little finger tells me that the whole middle and bottom of your basket goes up at least one or two notches 🙂

    Reply

    • Le problème de DXO photo lab que j’ai aussi et qui est meilleur pour les corrections optiques est qu’il manque plus de 50% des modules optiques nécessaires, alors que Lightroom couvre 90% des optiques avec une mise a jour très régulière
      Il ya aussi Capture One pro qui est meilleur pour les portraits

      Lightroom étant le plus répandu parmi les photographe et le plus complet , c’est le choix que j’ai fait comme base de référence

      Reply

  54. How is the Sigma 14-24mm in the 16-20mm range compared to its both of its ends? Will you test the Voigtländer 15mm f/4.5 III as well?

    Reply

  55. bravo pour cet énorme travail , (on aimerait pouvoir comparer la qualité d’image avec les moyens formats)

    Reply

  56. Hello Marc,

    Thanks for such a detailed analysis and comparison of lenses for Sony A7R IV camera. Currently I own the A7R IV camera with Sony 24-70mm GM lens but I am planning to replace it with one 85mm prime and one wide-angle lens. I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes and it would be helpful if you could suggest me a good option that is not too costly.

    Reply

    • For 85mm take the new sigma 85 f1.4 dg dn : light compact and better overall than the Sony GM
      For wide angle the Sony 24 f1.4 GM is superb or the Sony 20 f1.8g if you need wider
      Alternatively the tamron 24 f2.8 is excellent and much cheaper

      Reply

  57. I think there’s some noticeable sample variation with quite a few lenses. I have seen people get excellent corner to corner sharpness with the Voigtländer 12mn f/5.6 III. And pretty good results with the f/1.2 lenses wide open and even excellent in the corners stopped down. I think there is some with the Sigma 14-24mm as well. I have seen people get excellent corners at most settings, and Fred Miranda even had a copy that is equal in the center and sharper than the Sony 20mm f/1.8 G @20mm when stopped down to f/4 – f/5.6 on the Sony a7R IV. But then again, there’s also some variation with the smaller fast primes. I would love the Sony 20mm, but I can’t justify that and the Sigma, as I think that there are better options for landscapes in the same range when it comes to the Sony. If I were to have two wide lenses, I think I would pair the Sigma with the Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4. The Sigma mostly for architecture and the Voigtländer mostly for landscapes. If I didn’t need something that wide, I would probably only go for the Sony. I just think that sample variation is greater in very compact lenses and zoom lenses. I keep seeing people get different results from different reviewers using the same sensors, so there must be some sort of variation. But they also have different expectations and test the equipment differently, so those are of course factors as well. I mostly observe this variation between very compact but fast lenses (like f/1.8 Sony and Samyang lenses), lenses with a lot of field curvature (for example the Loxia 21mm, where some have gotten just very good corners and some excellent) and zoom lenses (like some of the Sigma DN lenses). What I also don’t get is how some of the lenses that you tested were better on the 42,4 megapixels sensor over the 61,2 megapixels sensor. If the lens is limited on the 42,4 or resolves all of it, shouldn’t it result just the same on the 61,2 as its limit on the 42,4 or more if it resolves all of it? An example is the GM 16-35mm. You once tested a copy on the Sony a7R II and got excellent results from corner to corner at any focal length at f/5.6 beside 28mm. Why is it only ‘very good’ now on the Sony a7R IV? Did you test another copy, or was the copy maybe damaged over time? I have also seen reviews get excellent results with the Sigma 100-400mm DN.

    Reply

    • A lens that fully resolves 42mpix may not be able to resolve fully 61 mpix
      Hence an excellent on 42 will be only very good on 61
      The opposite is true
      As i test now only on 61 Moix a good on 61 will be very good on 42 and excellent on 24

      Reply
  58. Pingback: Sony a7R4の性能を最大限発揮できるレンズ | たｇふぁっちの森

  59. There is NO Sigma 135 f1.4! Is it just a careless error??? Is your rating genuine? I thought your review and rating to be serious, until I start looking for a best prime for my A7r4.

    Reply

    • you should look better at the text it is mentioned everywhere sigma 135 f1.8, so yes a spelling mistake in the table (who never made one ?) and thanks for noticing it but if you consider this spelling mistake is making the whole blog not serious , feel free to consult other blog without any spelling mistakes

      Reply

  61. Bonjour Marc,
    pour information, il manque qauelques “notes” pour certains objectifs.
    Par exemple, pour le Sony 100mm, il manque F2.8 et F4. (j’ai vu que tu as déjà corrigé pour le Petzval 😉 )
    et dans le dernier tableau tu as noté Sigma 105 f1.8 (au lieu de F1.4) et Sigma 135 F1.4 (on peut toujours rêver mais pour l’instant il est à F1.8).
    Bien à toi,
    David

    Reply

    • corrigé pour les F1.4 et F1.8
      pour le Sony 100 c’est normal c’est un F2.8 mais seulement T5.6 en luminosité et la bague de diaphragme commence à T5.6

      Reply

      • Bonjour Marc,
        je ne vois pas la correction dans le tableau sous le chapitre 3.5 The Telephoto lenses above 100mm
        il y a toujours l’inversion entre F1.4 et F1.8
        Bien à toi,
        David

  62. Bonjour
    et merci pour tout ce travail de synthèse très bien fait et utile pour choisir ses optiques.
    Pour essayer de quantifier ce test de piqué, est-ce qu’on peut considérer, quand toutes les conditions sont réunies, que :
    – outstanding permet une résolution 60 MPix (A7-R4)
    – excellent permet une résolution 40 MPix (A7-R3)
    – very good permet une résolution 20+ MPix (A7-3)
    – good permet une résolution 10 MPix (A7-3 dégradé)
    – average permet une résolution 5 MPix (encore acceptable sans crop)
    – bad c’est prendre le risque d’avoir 2 MPix (full HD) ou moins ?

    Ceci afin d’avoir une idée plus précise des limites d’utilisation.
    Merci de corriger les chiffres si l’inteprétation de votre travail n’est pas la bonne.

    Reply

    • c’est correct pour les 3 premiers outstanding (61) / excellent (42)/very good (24)
      mais je n’extrapolerai pas au niveau en dessous
      en dessous on n’exploite pas effectivement tous les pixels du capteur

      Reply

  64. Hi, Marc! Jester77 is right. I just tried to reach your article “Which Lenses…” today to check new information and the link in your main blog page takes us just to the discussion.
    Cheers!

    Reply

  65. Bonjour Marc,
    pour information, il manque le Laowa 10-18, tu le cites pourtant au début.
    Bien à toi,
    David

    Reply

  66. Thank you so much for these thorough reviews! It wasn’t surprising that all of the lenses rated as “outstanding” are primes. What is somewhat surprising and especially disappointing is that the only “excellent” lenses 18mm and wider (ignoring fisheye) are expensive Sony zooms. Hopefully, Sony and/or Tamron will follow their recent string of great 20mm and narrower primes with something wider. I’m anxious to replace my Laowa 15mm with something much better.

    Reply

    • I was mistaken in my comment about the Laowa 15mm. I haven’t traveled since obtaining it, because of the pandemic; so I haven’t used my copy very much and was judging based on your review. After testing on a block wall and a wide vista, I judge the sharpness of my copy as excellent on my 7RIII, both center and corners, from f/4 to f/11. The center is also excellent at f/2 and f/2.8, but the corners are not sharp. I hope you are eventually able to test another copy of this lens. My results have energized me to get out and find nearby vistas while still “isolating.” The lens is fun for someone who remembers when twin-lens reflex was the choice of many, autofocus didn’t exist, and ISO400 was a fast film.

      Reply

  67. This is literally the magnum opus for E-Mount lens reviews. It will become my go to guide for purchases now and in the future. Well done sir!

    Reply

  68. Heel goede informatie om tot een keuze te komen voor de SonyRIV

    Reply

  69. Will be interested to see the inclusion of the Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses. They all look excellent

    Reply

  71. Hi!!! could you please test the zeiss 135mm 1.8 a-mount with the a7riv… i would like to know if the lens is excellent… 🙂

    Reply

  72. Hi Marc, have you already been able to test the Sony 35 1.4 GM? Very curious what your outcome is.

    Reply
  73. Pingback: Sony α Eマウント E/FEレンズ Part164│カメラ趣味まとめ

  74. Bonjour Marc,

    je viens de remarquer qu’il manque des objectifs déjà testé dans ton tableau avec les “notes”…
    par exemple Laowa 10-18 ou encore le 15 macro

    Reply

    • Normal
      Pour le 10-18 je n’ai pas pu le retester donc il n’apparaît pas
      Et pour les nouveaux je ne fais la mise à jour du tableau que une fois par trimestre sinon je devrais faire des mises à jour toutes les semaines ce qui est trop lourd

      Reply

  75. Mark, please fill the table info about lenses: sony 35 gm, sony 50 gm, sony 14 gm. Thank you in advance!

    Reply

  76. Bonjour Marc,
    pour info, dans ton tableau récapitulatif, il y a le Sony 50mm F2.5 G entre les 40mm et 45mm
    et
    au chapitre 2.2, tu as noté en Anglais et Français Sony 50mm F1.4 GM au lieu de F1.2
    “Some thoughts on these first results of the Sony lenses

    Only some recents lenses Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM , Sony 20mm F1.8 G, Sony 24mm F1.4 GM, Sony 35mm F1.4 GM, Sony 50mm F1.4GM, Sony 14mm F1.8 GM, Sony 400mm F2.8 GM OSS, Sony 600mm F4 GM OSS”

    Reply
  77. Pingback: Which lenses for A7RIV – Part 3 – Wide Angle : from 24mm for Sony E mount test/review on Sony Alpha Blog
  78. Pingback: Which lenses for A7RIV – Part 4 – Standard from 30 to 65mm for Sony E mount test/review on Sony Alpha Blog

  79. Hello Marc,

    Thank you for your hard work here. This is a truly excellent resource for comparing a variety of lenses on the demanding A7R IV sensor. Bravo!

    A couple of questions:

    1) Is the corner performance at shorter focal lengths what pushes the Tamron 70-300 into the “Good” category versus the Tamron 28-200 which is in the “Very Good” category? It appears that the 70-300 is superior at 200mm (and of course has longer reach) but the 28-200 is more consistent around 100mm.

    2) If I am shooting an A7R III, I am curious if you think this paring of lenses:

    – Sony 20 f/1.8
    – Sony 24-105 f/4
    – Tamron 70-300 f/4.5-6.3

    would be a good deal sharper than these lenses:

    – Sony 20 f/1.8
    – Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6

    Thank you!

    Reply

    • It is the average of the performances taken at short + deism and Long end

      I would go for the Tamron. 28-200 instead of 24-405 + 70-300 unless you need more than 200mm

      Reply

  80. Bonjour Marc,

    Pourquoi le sigma 100-400 dg dn est classé dans les « excellent » alors qu’il a 3 étoiles dans le tableau des résultats ?

    Reply
  81. Pingback: Which are the best lenses for the Sony A1 for Sony E mount test/review on Sony Alpha Blog

  82. Salut Marc,
    merci pour ton travail remarquable, qui m’a bien servi à moi pour le choix de mes optiques sur A7RIV (17-28 et 70-180 f/2.8 Tamron, 35 f/2 C et 85 f/1.4 A Sigma et 35 f/1.4 GM Sony, peut-être à l’avenir le 20 f/1.6 G Sony et le 105 f/2.8 A macro Sigma), ainsi que pour un ami qui souhaite un A7III et des optiques relativement abordables à qui j’ai conseillé le 17-28 Tamron et les 35 et 75 f/1.8 Samyang.
    Je suis conscient que certaines de mes optiques seront plus en “phase” avec l’A7RIV que d’autres mais selon l’usage je vais souvent redimensionner mes images à 20MP, en particulier les photos de voyages, où là elles seront toutes largement au niveau.
    Effectivement DxO PL a tendance à mettre beaucoup de temps à mettre les profils de corrections optiques à disposition, pour le moment seuls mes 2 zooms Tamron sont supportés, mais il est vrai que comme l’a dit XYZ une fois que les modules sont disponibles les résultats sont sans commune mesure.

    Reply

    • Re Marc,
      j’aurais une question, est-ce qu’il serait possible de compléter un peu plus les évaluations de certains zooms car j’ai l’impression que le 14-24 f/2.8 de Sigma semble moins inférieur par exemple, ou encore le 70-200 de Sony vu que là il n’est noté que “bon” et en voyant les évaluations dans le tableau ça semble justifié mais il parait bien mieux dans les focales intermédiaires.

      Reply

      • dans le tableau récapitulatif non , ce serai trop chargé mais dans les tests individuels je teste aussi en general les focales intermédiaires

      • Mais est-ce que c’est pris en compte dans les notations ici? Parce qu’en voyant le 70-200 f/4 G on ne voit que du moyen ou juste bon sur les bords à 70 et 200mm mais il est noté excellent à 100 et 135, du coup 2 “étoiles” parait juste en voyant les perfs ici aux extrêmes mais quand on voit le test individuel ça me semble un peu sous-côté (je précise que je ne le possède pas, je ne cherche pas à remonter ses notes pour lui faire de la pub lol). J’évoquais aussi le 14-24, malheureusement dans le test individuel il n’y a pas non plus les focales intermédiaires, mais merci néanmoins de ton travail titanesque 😉 .

      • pour un zoom pour atteindre le très bon ou excellent je consider qu’il doit être homogène sur toutes les plages focales
        d’où les notes
        le sigma 24-70 y F2.8 arrive par exemple

      • Pas à 50mm, apparemment ^^. Allez, je chipote, vivement les tests du 28-75 II et 35-150 de Tamron, ils ont l’air sympa et je suis curieux de voir si Tamron va repasser devant le 28-70 Sigma ;).

  83. Bonjour Marc,

    Merci pour ton travail, cela crée une référence extrêmement utile pour tous les utilisateurs de produit Sony α.
    Je suis content de voir les prouesses réalisées par Sony avec sa gamme d’objectif GM, c’est vraiment une réussite pour conforter des produits comme le α7RIV et le α1. J’en ai déjà acquis plusieurs et c’est un plaisir à utiliser, netteté, précision, rapidité, contraste.
    Bravo Marc et bravo Sony.

    Reply

  84. Bonjour Marc, followed your posts for quite long time. Wonder how you would rate the Sonnar 2/35? It was quoted as the “best 35mm for SONY” even one year ago.

    Reply

  85. Bonjour Marc,

    Thanks for your professional reviews, have followed your posts for quite a while and bought a few lens based on your reviews, all did perfect jobs.

    Now that I am wondering how do you see the Sonnar 2/35 from the RX1 series, some commented it as (one of) the best 35mm before the release of 35GM (and maybe the Voigtlander 35 APO) for SONY cameras. Cheers!

    Reply

    • it wa excellent on RX1 as it was 24Mpix , but I think more limited on 42 RXI II , so on new 50 or 61Mpix better option exist nowadays

      Reply

      • Thanks Marc, can’t wait to see how the Voigtlander 35 APO behaves.

  86. Thanks so much for your charts that make some aspects of lens selection more obvious. As a longtime landscape photographer, I had the practice of closing the f/stop to f/11, f/16, or even f/22, when I needed more depth of field. No more. The difference of lenses at f/8 and slower is obvious in the charts. I recently paid $200 for a Tamron 35mm f/2.8 because it is “excellent” at f/8 and “very good” at f/11. The only wide-angle lens significantly better at these openings is the Sony 24mm f/1.4 GM at 7 times the cost. How does Sony achieve that? I’m hoping a 2nd party will produce wide-angle lenses that are aimed at landscapers — manual focus, modest f/stop wide open, and excellent sharpness when stepped down. Going to medium or large format (longer focal length) is too expensive an option. Focus stacking is often an option, but it is quite a hassle with my Sony A7RIII. Hope the manufacturers are listening. Thanks again for a great set of articles.

    Reply
  87. Pingback: Which are the best lenses for Sony A7C for Sony E mount test/review on Sony Alpha Blog
  88. Pingback: Which lenses for A7RIV – Part 2 – Ultra-Wide Angle : from 9mm up to 24mm for Sony E mount test/review on Sony Alpha Blog

  89. Hi!! Do you think the 135mm 1.8 Zeiss with la-ea5 will get what grade with a7riv? it will be excellent? Please make this test :)))))

    Reply

    • send me your lens then to make the test…
      I don’t think it will reach excellent but very good well
      it is dated from a time where sensor where max 24Mpix

      Reply

    • Adriano, Marc
      Maybe I can help. I do test all my lenses before working them, although not so extensively as Marc’s, which I appreciate so much and always recommend. In common with Marc, I atribute scores from 1 to 5 (bad, weak, usable, good. excellent) and use similar colors since before reading his blog. I unify center and corner performance in just one score, because edge to edge resolution is important in my work. The scores are also related to resolution. The other properties like flare, vignetting, bokeh, I check in practice and would be hard to mesure objectively.
      I still keep a full set of A-mount glasses and got the LA-EA5, so I recently tested them on the A7R4. The ZA 135/1.8 is a very good lens, but the GM is clearly superior. However, if you already own the ZA, you may expect better performance than any Zoom lens at this FL. As a disclaimer, this is a personal test, but I hope the information is useful for you. Here are the scores, including my evaluation of the GM 135/1.8:
      F-Stop…………. 2 -2.8- 4 -5.6- 8 – 11 – 16
      GM 135/1.8 …. 4 – 5 – 5 – 5 – 5 – 5 – 3
      ZA 135/1.8 …… 3 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 5 – 4 – 3
      ZA 85/1.4 …….. 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 4 – 4 – 3
      Sony 50/1.4 ….. 1 – 3 – 4 – 4 – 5 – 4 – 3 (@1.4 = 0!)
      Minolta 200/2.8 ..X – 3 – 5 – 5 – 5 – 4 – 3 (great lens now at bargain prices, much better than my zooms)
      Additionally, the ZA 24/2 and the Sigma Art 35/1.4 had similar results as the ZA 85mm.

      Reply
  90. Pingback: Which lenses for A7RIV – Part 5 – Telephoto 70 to 100mm for Sony E mount test/review on Sony Alpha Blog

  91. Hello Marc,

    Fantastic review! I’m considering one of the following combination of lens. Your input might help as you have more experience. I currently have the Sony 20mm F1.8. I’m thinking of paring that up with one of the following:

    1) Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 + Tamron 70-180mm F2.8
    2) Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG DN + Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG DN
    3) Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 + Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG DN

    If I had the budget, I would obviously get all 4 lens, but for now I’m only considering 2. I shoot a lot of portraits, street and landscapes and from time to time, I do casual wedding & event photography. The 85mm F1.4 DG DN seems like an amazing lens, but I would be sacrificing the reach on the 70-180mm. (I tend to shoot on the extreme ends based off past experience, so meaning if I get the 70-180mm, I would probably be shooting mainly 70 or 180mm with few shots in between).

    I know the 20-35-85 combination would work great for my use cases, but I’m not sure about the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG DN. The F1.4 costs a lot more than something like the Samyang 35mm F1.8, but if 35mm is going to be my main go to lens then I want to invest in something of decent quality. Also, at wide open, it’s a bit soft compared to the F1.2 or the GM. The F1.2 is massive and the GM is 500USD more expensive.

    I’ve read great things about the 24-70mm as well but the two stops of light on the 35mm F1.4 DG DN seems quite appealing for low light, not to mention the dust issue on the 24-70mm. After looking at recent B&H reviews as of October 2021, some people who recently purchased it still experience dust issues.

    Please let me know what your thoughts are. If you have better ideas, please feel free to add them.

    Thank you,
    Kevin

    Reply

    • I would go for the 35 f1.4 dg dn and 85 dg dn
      Those are truly excellent lenses
      I personally own the sigma 35 f1.2 but the f1.4 do as good and is very similar to the sony 35 GM
      I also own the sigma 85 that is my go to lens for portraits

      When I need to travel
      Light I have my sigma 24-70 f2.8 on a7rIV

      Or my sigma 28-70 f2.8 on my a7c for super light
      Or even my sigma 18-50 f2.8 on my a6600 for ultra light

      Reply

  92. Thank you for this post, very useful. Le Sony A7RIV aves ses 61 Mpix great camera ,This model camera I am also using this model. It’s great to feature and a good feature. I have got this model another website

    Reply

  93. How often do you update your list ranking lenses? (outstanding, excellent, etc.).

    Seems like given all the effort you put into your excellent reviews, it would make sense to spend a few minutes more at the end of the review to update your overall lens ranking.

    Moreover, make the ranking a separate menu option so we can retrieve it easily.

    I understand that the ranking can vary with the mp of the sensor so just ensure that you continue explaining that “outstanding” is worthy of 61mp, etc.

    Thanks for your great work!
    Art

    Reply

    • I update it every 3 months last updated 2 weeks ago (mid December)
      The ranking is available in the rollover article Articles at the top and it the first entry in the top menu

      Reply

  94. Thank you Marc thank you,
    Recently switching from Fuji & now owning the AR7IVa with in your test scale 3 Very good to Excellent Sony’s.. I can now feel confident
    in purchasing the less expensive Sigma’s…
    Cheerz ;^D. AU

    Reply

  95. Thank you Marc! I have a question. Why Tamron 35mm F2.8 changed from outstanding to excellent?

    Reply

    • When reviewing compared to its peers I realised I put it a bit too high vs the others performing as well (ranked as excellent) and others performing even better (in outstanding category)

      Reply
  97. Pingback: Why Prime Lenses Take Better Pictures | Furoore
  98. Pingback: Why a Prime Lense Takes Better Pictures | Furoore

  99. High-end prime lenses at 1.2 or 1.4 with enough sharpness for 42/61 MP but also great colors and character mean a lot of weight and money! My idea is to replace my heaviest lenses and configure 2 different set of very compact and capable lenses for different needs:

    – for landscape & static scenes: I already have the Sony 14 GM and the Loxia 21 which are a good compromise + Zeiss Otus 28mm, Otus 55mm, APO 135mm (1.5 / 1.2 / 1.0 kg with an adaptor) which are amazing in all aspects but very painful in travel/hiking/every day use… I’m considering to replace the 28 and 55 by 2 Voigtlander among the 35, 50, and 65 F2. The 50 seems quite close to the 35 and the 65 is bigger (without being too heavy) and I’m not a macro guy. The 40 1.2 looks also attractive to me despite lower quality, but certainly a unique rendering and character at 1.2 or 1.4.
    In order to have 2 different and a useful kit, what would be your personal recommendation: 35 + 50, 35 + 40 or 35 + 65?

    – Street photography, family… where AF is required: less expectation for me, the main aspect remains the subject and the right moment, to not miss the shot due to manual focusing. For this, I’m just considering as a backup 2 cheap Samyang, the 35mm 1.8 and the 75mm 1.8 which are very light and for me a good compromise for this usage. What do you think?

    PS: I have two A7R ii and one A7R iv so I can decide between 42 or 61MP sensor.

    Thank you in advance for your advice. Your work is a true inspiration for us and very helpful.

    Reply

    • I have personal the Voigtlander 50mm F2 a pure gem
      so would go for Voigtlander app lander 35 + 50, they are different enough

      with AF I would go more for Sigma 35 F2 DG DN and Sigma 65mm F2 DG DN if you want to stay compact

      so why not a Sigma 35 F2 DG DN + Voigltnader 50mm F2 + Sigma 65 F2
      the Samyang 75 is also very good and light but will not support the 61Mpix but well the 42
      both Sigma 35 , 65 supports well the 61Mpix
      the Voigt 50mm f2 is maybe the sharpest lens I have tested

      Reply

      • Thank you for the very fast and intereting
        reply! I have some doubt on the sigma 35mm for ultimate landscape on A7r iv.
        I would rather go for the Voigtlander 35 and as a back up for AF the light and cheap Samyang 35mm 1.8 + Voigtlander 50 F2 + Sigma 65 instead of Samyang 75 to use it on a7r iv. What do you think ? Maybe it’s stupid to have the two 35 mm instead of the sigma 35mm but 35mm is very important for me.

  100. Hello Marc, it’s funny because the 24 GM was my initial thought as it is well balanced and very consistent with my 14 GM. I had excluded it because it’s almost the same focal length than my Loxia 21 but you are right and I can keep the Loxia as a very small backup for long exposure as it works incredibly well with the very tiny Nisi filter system 70mm which is also compatible with Voigtlander 35 and 50, the perfect combination!

    Final kit: 14, 21, 24, 35, 50, 65, 135 with no overlap and with different purposes.

    Sony 24 GM and Voigtlander 35 will replace the Otus 28 whereas Voigtlander 50 F2 and Sigma 65 F2 will replace the Otus 55. They will miss me for sure but 770 g in total Vs 2.5 Kg will make the difference for travel, hiking, street, family…

    Furthermore, these 4 new lenses are in stock in your favorite store PCH (I’m from Lille so not too far).

    Many thanks again for your help and amazing work!

    Reply

  101. I am comparing the detailed test results of Samyang 45 f/1.8 and Sony 40 f/2.5 and they are mostly identical. The only big difference is that the Samyang is just good at f/1.8 while the Sony… simply can’t do that 🙂
    By the way in the final rank the Samyang is classified only as “good” while the Sony is classified as “excellent”! This makes not sense to me: with both lenses you can reach excellent results at almost all apertures, except at f/1.8, so why should we get this huge gap in the final rank? Thank you

    Reply

  102. In the picture, the Sony 35mm f/1.8 is listed as Excellent. I think you meant to write f/1.4 there?
    Also the Tamron 24mm f/2.8 is listed as Outstanding, is that correct?

    Reply

  103. Bonjour Marc et merci pour tous ces tests !
    Je recherche actuellement un 35mm pour mon A7IV pour des photos en intérieur principalement de ma fille 🙂
    Je suis surpris du classement du Sigma 35mm 1.4 DG DN Art que je pensais supérieur en terme de piqué au Sony 35mm 1.8 ? C’est d’ailleurs ce que je comprends dans son test, mais il semble moins bien placé dans ce tableau récapitulatif.. 🙂
    En terme d’autofocus, pensez-vous que le Sigma 35mm 1.4 est aussi meilleur que le Sony 35 1.8 ? (Je n’ai pas le budget pour le 35mm GM sinon le choix aurait été vite fait ^^)
    Merci d’avance de votre réponse

    Reply

    • le Sigma 35 F1.4 est supérieur au Sony 35 F1.8 sans l’ombre d’un doute , ils sont tous les deux dans la catégorie excellent.
      l’ordre dans le graphique à l’intérieur d’une categories est par regroupement de marque plus ou moins et non par qualité

      Reply

      • Merci beaucoup de votre réponse
        Ca marche je comprends mieux maintenant 😉 je pensais qu’il fallait interpréter les flèches comme “supérieur à” ! 🙂
        Le Sigma est aussi supérieur au niveau de l’autofocus ? car c’est un critère non négligeable pour photographier les enfants ! ^^

  105. If you look the 85 batis… is excellent on center in all F. And you grade a very good… but look at the 100-400gm, its the same excellent on center and very good on corners… and you gave the excellent grade to this. You need to change the 85 batis to excellent or change the 100-400 to very good… its just logic.

    Reply

  107. Very informative! I find it really hard to find “the” lens that would suit family photography. Thank you for this!

    Reply

  108. Bonjour Marc
    Tout d’abord merci pour votre travail. Votre blog est vraiment une mine d’or….
    Allez vous continuer d’enrichir ce tableau?
    Il est tellement pratique.

    Reply

    • When adding test of new lenses I realise sometimes some where ranked too much versus others so some rating have been corrected for consistency

      Reply

    • When adding test of new lenses I realise sometimes some where ranked too much versus others so some rating have been corrected for consistency

      Reply

  111. Can’t find Sigma 14-24 F2.8 DG DN, Only find the old lens Sigma 14-24 F2.8 Art

    Reply
  112. Pingback: When to Use a Zoom Lens and a Fixed Focal Length for Food Photography? | Furoore

  113. Bonjour Mark,

    Il semble que mon message n’ait pas été publié donc je retente.

    Merci beaucoup pour le travail méthodique et exhaustif de tests que tu réalises. Great work !

    J’ai actuellement un Sony 20mm 1.8, un Tamron 28-200 2.8-5.6 et un Sony 85mm 1.8. J’utilise surtout le Tamron pour son côté extrêmement versatile, sa compacité et son faible poids dans le sac à dos, notamment en randonnée. Je suis toutefois parfois frustré par son manque de piqué, ses perf moyennes en basse lumière, ses AC assez marquées et ses sunstars franchement pas très bons. A contrario, j’adore mon Sony 20mm absolument magnifique en tout point sauf le fait qu’un 20mm est un peu trop court pour la plupart des usages.

    Je cherche une lentille plus qualitative sur des focales de ~30 à 70 mm, idéalement plus compact que le Tamron pour un usage plus fréquent et j’ai identifié le sigma 28-70 mm. A terme je pense compléter cette lentille avec un 70-180 (Tamron par ex.). Je préfère cette option au 35-150 de Tamron car j’aime bien l’idée d’avoir 2 lentilles moins lourdes et de pouvoir choisir celle qui m’accompagnera en fonction des situations.

    A la lecture de tes tests je vois que le sigma 28-70 se comporte mieux que le Tamron 28-200 mais cela n’a pas l’air d’être très différent et je crains d’être un peu déçu. Y a-t-il selon toi un vrai gap entre les deux ? A défaut vois-tu des alternatives dans le même budget et un encombrement équivalent à regarder (y compris en focale fixe autour de 35 ou 50 mm) ?

    Merci par avance !

    Reply

    • Tout dépend du boîtier 24,33,42,50,61mpix?
      Perso j’utilise en permanence le sigma 28-70 sur les 24-33mpix
      Et le 24-70 GMII sur les 50-61mpix

      Reply

  114. Reviewing I noticed that Very Good as will exploit the full potential of A7IV 33mp or A7III 24mp, and Good can be recommended for the A7III 24mp.

    That got me thinking, how do Very Good and Good lenses perform on the A7CR when set to MRAW or SRAW? Is anyone familiar with the downsizing process?

    There are more than a couple of lenses that be handy when I don’t need 61mp.

    Reply

  116. The Sigma 40mm 1.4 DN HSM deserves to be in the Outstanding category on this list. Even though it’s an outdated design, nobody can argue the fact that it is one of the sharpest lenses available for the E-Mount as well as being able to fully resolve the high megapixel sensors

    Reply

  117. Hi, Sigma 24mm F/1.4 DG HSM Art and Sigma 20mm F/1.4 DG HSM Art was Excellent in your evaluation, but there are many outstanding in the summary list. Which one is correct? Thank you

    Reply

    • Sigma 24mm F1.4 DG HSM is Very good = 3*
      Sigma 200 F1.4 DF HSM is Excellent = 4*
      there are not in outstanding category

      individual article maybe different as previously tested on 42MPix , now in this summary article all have been retested on 61Mpix

      Reply

  118. Hello Marc, is it possible you tested a bad copy of the Batis 25? I’m asking because right now I have the Batis 25, the Sony 24 2.8 and the Sony 16-35 PZ, I am trying to test them on 33Mpx (A7C II) and they are very similar to my eyes zooming at 100%, but if I zoom at 200% I can see the Batis is clearly better in the corners, and far better if I zoom at 300%. Is it possible that moving from 33 to 61 Mpx it gets so worse?!? Also, sharpness on the Batis at f/2 and f/4 is pretty similar to me, so I can’t believe that it is so poor (Average) on 61 Mpx. What do you think?

    Reply

    • both are possible. But it is not the first time that I see a lens that was very good on 42Mpix and deteriorate a lot on 61Mpix whereas some that seems to have equal quality at 42Mpix keep same performance for even further improve on 61MPIX. 61Mpix is really a torure for the lenses. On top there is copy to copy variation that are really visible on 61MPIX but not really on 33/42 Mpix

      Reply

  119. This is a great site. I sent in a cup of coffee, and I’ll send another. Enjoy because you did GREAT WORK!!

    Reply

  120. Hi Marc, Please test the Laowa 10mm f/2.8 Zero-D FF as soon as you can. It’s getting some rave reviews but some are also incomplete. We need YOUR thoughts. This can possibly be the BEST EVER for churches, cathedrals in inside small museums. I’ll wait for you. Not incidentally, your site is tremendous. Another cup of coffee on the way. MJ.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Marc AlhadeffCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.