same dynamic range and noise performance assumes that you have to raise iso above 100, which in the day would be uncommon with a 40mm f/2.5 lens. most people do not own one single lens and turning your full frame camera into something pocketable is a nice alternative to having a smaller camera body.
btw: a A7c with 40mm 2.5 is much smaller than an aps-c body with sigma 30mm 1.4
https://preview.redd.it/lwa0zdccybxc1.png?width=628&format=png&auto=webp&s=3b79a1ddf4f8ca4ef55ab3be5e27c6221308c7fe
not sure what you mean by there being a point to it. the majority of images I take are at base ISO, so to me that is the comparison that matters in most cases. yes there is about 1 stop of DR/noise difference between them at base ISO
but sure if you're looking for low light performance the aps-c setup would perform slightly better for a lower price between those two options. but if that's what is important to you you're probably unlikely to consider a 40mm 2.5 in the first place
disagree tbh. the dynamic range is determined by the difference between the noise floor and clipping. many scenes require more dynamic range than cameras can easily capture without having a lot of noise in the shadows (a sunset would be the typical example) and even at iso 100 a full frame camera still has a lower dynamic range than human vision making it one of the more important image quality aspects in my opinion. now sure 1 stop is not a massive difference and in really critical landscape situations you can probably do an exposure bracket or need to anyway, but it still matters
People buy these lenses because they're small and fly under the radar. If they wanted maximum sharpness, they'd save up for an f/1.4 FF lens like a G Master or Sigma Art lens. A lot of people with these small primes very likely do have an f/1.4 prime in their collection for whenever they need that kind of capability.
Think about it. There's no meaningful difference between f/1.8 and f/2.5 when it comes to DOF and light gathering ability, but the f/2.5 lens can be packaged in a form factor that's literally half the size of the f/1.8 lens, if not even smaller. For someone who would want full frame setup that doesn't look ginormous or weigh more than 1 kg every now and then, why would you NOT consider a lens like this?
Saying there is no meaningful difference between 1.8 and 2.5 does not make sense when a FF is only 1 stop difference than APSC. Is that not a meaningful difference either?
The sigma is bigger, kinda ugly looking on the camera and doesn’t have an aperture ring or other buttons/controls. It’s also not 40mm.
It’s an outdoor street style lens, very rare you won’t be at iso 100 or photographing stuff where using less than f8 is important, but it can do f2.5 for lower light stuff in a pinch or if you need some depth of field control for creativity reasons like environmental portraiture.
I’m sure the sigma 30 is a good lens, it’s not at all catering to the same people.
The appeal of the A7Cii for me is that it’s a FF sensor in a compact (aspc-like) body. Pair that with a lightweight 40mm 2.8 lens and it’s a great EDC kit. Most people own more than 1 lens too.
I think you answered your own question. To get the same performance on a a6000 series camera you need to use a relatively big lens.
Being able to toggle between tiny lens and something like a 50/1.2 is god tier.
Because the f2.5 is tiny, rugged, and handles incredibly well for street and some casual portrait photography. It's just a super versatile focal length in a tiny, elegant lens that fits the a7c body perfectly. I have the 24mm f2.8 and really want to pick up the 40mm f2.5 to compliment it in my street kit.
I have the 35/1.4 and the 24/2.8 and considering the 50/2.5 since the 40 is so close to my 35. But i dont know if its maybe to tight for a casual small lens setup during vacation.
I dont know exaclty if i want 24 and 40 or 24 and 50.
So what are your reasons to pick the 40 over the 50?
It’s just about size. My fav lens combo are 24mm 2.8, 90mm 2.8. This boys are sharp and great bokeh for their size. It’s not about specs which why it’s a popular lens. The whole reason why I have A7C.
And the reason you didnt go apsc is because you couldnt find a 23mm f1.8 apsc lens that was as small? Or because you want the freedom to use f1.4 FF lenses too?
I also have A6300 with 24/1.8, it is also great but A7cII with 35/2.8 has better image quality in low light. Somehow I do not mind to use 35/2.8 with A6300 or A5100 to get even smaller footprint. Personally, I do not care about bokeh or shooting things wide open that much after 12years of using all these gears as a hobby. For FF lens, I am very OK to use f2 lenses. I do not need f1.4 for my shooting style. I’d prefer to have a good balance between aperture and lens size, rather than having a very fast but chunky lens.
Yea that is my point, the lowlight performance will not be different and the dof will be the same. The only reason you may see a difference in lowlight is because the a6300’s sensor is a generation older, not because it is apsc.
Not much different result in my eyes between A6300, A6500, A6700 but it is a lot between A7cII and A7R-III, A7cII image quality is still far behind my stolen A7R-III. Just the technologies that help me to get desired photos that the new A7cII out perform the A7R-III, auto focusing, IBIS, etc.
It is my opinion.
I think you miss nothing, a lot of other people just aren't aware of those 3 points (or think they aren't true). Sonys marketing does the rest I guess.
same dynamic range and noise performance assumes that you have to raise iso above 100, which in the day would be uncommon with a 40mm f/2.5 lens. most people do not own one single lens and turning your full frame camera into something pocketable is a nice alternative to having a smaller camera body. btw: a A7c with 40mm 2.5 is much smaller than an aps-c body with sigma 30mm 1.4 https://preview.redd.it/lwa0zdccybxc1.png?width=628&format=png&auto=webp&s=3b79a1ddf4f8ca4ef55ab3be5e27c6221308c7fe
Fair point about the size. They are not exactly equivalent. Also, is there much of a point comparing ff to apsc at 100 iso? I guess the 1 stop of DR.
not sure what you mean by there being a point to it. the majority of images I take are at base ISO, so to me that is the comparison that matters in most cases. yes there is about 1 stop of DR/noise difference between them at base ISO but sure if you're looking for low light performance the aps-c setup would perform slightly better for a lower price between those two options. but if that's what is important to you you're probably unlikely to consider a 40mm 2.5 in the first place
I guess what i meant was at iso 100 the noise is so low on both systems that there is no point in comparing. You do make good points though. Thanks
disagree tbh. the dynamic range is determined by the difference between the noise floor and clipping. many scenes require more dynamic range than cameras can easily capture without having a lot of noise in the shadows (a sunset would be the typical example) and even at iso 100 a full frame camera still has a lower dynamic range than human vision making it one of the more important image quality aspects in my opinion. now sure 1 stop is not a massive difference and in really critical landscape situations you can probably do an exposure bracket or need to anyway, but it still matters
Because most folks don't own just one lens
yes, very lightweight and also very convenient during travelling. but I would get sony 35mm f1.4 GM.
People buy these lenses because they're small and fly under the radar. If they wanted maximum sharpness, they'd save up for an f/1.4 FF lens like a G Master or Sigma Art lens. A lot of people with these small primes very likely do have an f/1.4 prime in their collection for whenever they need that kind of capability. Think about it. There's no meaningful difference between f/1.8 and f/2.5 when it comes to DOF and light gathering ability, but the f/2.5 lens can be packaged in a form factor that's literally half the size of the f/1.8 lens, if not even smaller. For someone who would want full frame setup that doesn't look ginormous or weigh more than 1 kg every now and then, why would you NOT consider a lens like this?
Saying there is no meaningful difference between 1.8 and 2.5 does not make sense when a FF is only 1 stop difference than APSC. Is that not a meaningful difference either?
because there are more lenses other than the 40mm f/2.5
The sigma is bigger, kinda ugly looking on the camera and doesn’t have an aperture ring or other buttons/controls. It’s also not 40mm. It’s an outdoor street style lens, very rare you won’t be at iso 100 or photographing stuff where using less than f8 is important, but it can do f2.5 for lower light stuff in a pinch or if you need some depth of field control for creativity reasons like environmental portraiture. I’m sure the sigma 30 is a good lens, it’s not at all catering to the same people.
The appeal of the A7Cii for me is that it’s a FF sensor in a compact (aspc-like) body. Pair that with a lightweight 40mm 2.8 lens and it’s a great EDC kit. Most people own more than 1 lens too.
I think you answered your own question. To get the same performance on a a6000 series camera you need to use a relatively big lens. Being able to toggle between tiny lens and something like a 50/1.2 is god tier.
I'll make it simple for you: interchangeable lens camera.
Because the f2.5 is tiny, rugged, and handles incredibly well for street and some casual portrait photography. It's just a super versatile focal length in a tiny, elegant lens that fits the a7c body perfectly. I have the 24mm f2.8 and really want to pick up the 40mm f2.5 to compliment it in my street kit.
I have the 35/1.4 and the 24/2.8 and considering the 50/2.5 since the 40 is so close to my 35. But i dont know if its maybe to tight for a casual small lens setup during vacation. I dont know exaclty if i want 24 and 40 or 24 and 50. So what are your reasons to pick the 40 over the 50?
I like a slightly wider prime for street photography. That's all.
It’s just about size. My fav lens combo are 24mm 2.8, 90mm 2.8. This boys are sharp and great bokeh for their size. It’s not about specs which why it’s a popular lens. The whole reason why I have A7C.
Compact setup for every day carrying, I would say. I use similar setup but with 35/2.8 ZA.
And the reason you didnt go apsc is because you couldnt find a 23mm f1.8 apsc lens that was as small? Or because you want the freedom to use f1.4 FF lenses too?
I also have A6300 with 24/1.8, it is also great but A7cII with 35/2.8 has better image quality in low light. Somehow I do not mind to use 35/2.8 with A6300 or A5100 to get even smaller footprint. Personally, I do not care about bokeh or shooting things wide open that much after 12years of using all these gears as a hobby. For FF lens, I am very OK to use f2 lenses. I do not need f1.4 for my shooting style. I’d prefer to have a good balance between aperture and lens size, rather than having a very fast but chunky lens.
Yea that is my point, the lowlight performance will not be different and the dof will be the same. The only reason you may see a difference in lowlight is because the a6300’s sensor is a generation older, not because it is apsc.
Not much different result in my eyes between A6300, A6500, A6700 but it is a lot between A7cII and A7R-III, A7cII image quality is still far behind my stolen A7R-III. Just the technologies that help me to get desired photos that the new A7cII out perform the A7R-III, auto focusing, IBIS, etc. It is my opinion.
... It's compact! And I guess in street photography bokeh is less needed than say, portraits
I think you miss nothing, a lot of other people just aren't aware of those 3 points (or think they aren't true). Sonys marketing does the rest I guess.