What's new
L-MOUNT Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

News LUMIX S Series Camera Lens - 40mm F2 Compact Prime L-Mount Lens - S-S40

dirk said:
@xaviergut

Does the Lumix 40/2.0 beat the Sigma 45/2.8 in image quality or is on par with the Sigma 35/2.0 or 50/2.0?

I would love to have a small 40mm FFL, but I need an image quality on par with the Sigma i-series 50/2.0 or 35/2.0.
Click to expand...

The TTA 40/2 certainly doesn't come up that standard, though it's not bad.

Maybe Sigma should make a 40mm f/2 I-series lens, then we could choose from 35, 40, 45 and 50mm :)
 
dirk said:
@xaviergut

Does the Lumix 40/2.0 beat the Sigma 45/2.8 in image quality or is on par with the Sigma 35/2.0 or 50/2.0?

I would love to have a small 40mm FFL, but I need an image quality on par with the Sigma i-series 50/2.0 or 35/2.0.
Click to expand...
It's very difficult for me to judge whether the new Lumix 40mm is better than the Sigma 45mm f/2.8, because I had the Sigma for a couple of months and my copy of the lens didn't impress me much. In fact I sold it. But of course, to make a serious judgment I would need to test at least five copies of the Sigma 45mm...

Regarding the Sigma 35mm f/2, the truth is that I haven't used that lens, nor have I been able to use the 50mm f/2. But if this lens is as good as the Sigma 65mm f/2, which I do own and is my favorite prime lens I've used on an L-mount, then the new Lumix 40mm f/2 would be below the Sigma 50mm (and the 65mm) but above the 45mm f/2.8.

For example, this YouTuber wasn't very impressed with the new Lumix 40mm, because he said that when he uses it at f/2, that is, wide open, it sometimes doesn't focus properly. I asked him in the comments if he had the same problem with video, and he replied that no, it focuses perfectly wide open for video.



I haven't had that experience of focus failures with my copy of the 40mm f/2, and the photos in your video seem very good to me.
 
I like Pav's reviews and I think we can all have a lens which is reputed to be very good, can give us great results and yet we still fail to feel that we really like it. In the samples in that video I didn't see the fringing or poor colours he was referring to, I didn't see any technical problems with the results at all. Yes, I think we do expect first-party lenses to be virtually perfect these days but if this one doesn't fit the bill is that why he doesn't like it?
 
I saw that video too and because of his image quality comments, I decided not to buy it.

The Sigma 45/2.8 is definitely worde than the 35/2.0 and 50/2.0. The 65/2.0 is kind of sharper than the other two, but kind of clinical sharper. I do not like that lens that much because of size and weight. The 35 & 50 are kind of inbetween, but are a lot closer to the 65 than to the 45. I love the 50 and prefer it to the 65.

But in general, I like 40mm and 28mm focal lenght a lot. 35mm is not my "type".
 
dirk said:
I saw that video too and because of his image quality comments, I decided not to buy it.

The Sigma 45/2.8 is definitely worde than the 35/2.0 and 50/2.0. The 65/2.0 is kind of sharper than the other two, but kind of clinical sharper. I do not like that lens that much because of size and weight. The 35 & 50 are kind of inbetween, but are a lot closer to the 65 than to the 45. I love the 50 and prefer it to the 65.

But in general, I like 40mm and 28mm focal lenght a lot. 35mm is not my "type".
Click to expand...

I also love the Sigma 50mm f/2, it's a really great lens, though I wish it was sealed, but you can't have everything.

I have grown to like the 35mm focal length over the last eight years or so, especially since I changed to FF. Equivalent focal length on APS-C didn't do it for me for some reason.
 
I had the GR3x and it made me work for composition and it showed off. Somehow if I look back at those Images I really like the look. But it was really out my comfort zone. So maybe I should try it again. But the, I can take the 35 and with the hybrid zoom function just crop it slightly and have a 40/2.2 equivalent with only a tiny bit less resolution.

Just to simulate the focal length.

I sold of the GR3x for GR3, which actually has been sold of just 2 weeks ago. Too little use.

Somehow I would like that this lens could replace my 35 & 50. But actually selling those off and getting the Sigma 35/1.4 II makes more sense. I use the 35 for indoor casual portraits and then a 35/1.4ii works very well for that.

Currently have too many lenses in my opinion.
 
CharlesH said:
It just showed up on Panasonic USA. Expect to ship in 4 days. I ordered the silver one! It has a four year warranty here.
Click to expand...
My 40mm just arrived today. Two months after I ordered it.:mad: Panasonic explained they had a "system" problem that held it up. But I could never get them to describe what that meant. (And maybe they didn't really have silver.)

Anyway it is here, running on my S1II, and my first impressions are really positive, just what I had in mind. I like the small size and lightweight and 40mm.:)
 
I'm still wondering what the rendeing looks like compared to the 35/1.8 I think a Sigma 35/1.4 ii and 40/2 woud be very nice to have, as the 1.4 lens is much bigger. Trying to use the 35 a bit more lately. When I looked at the first pictures this vacation from the 24-60 and 28-200 is that I actually don't like the rendering that much. The 28-200 is on the soft-side but ok, and the 24-60 very sharp and a bit harsh when stopped down, too digital, don't know.

The 16-35 stays my most beautiful rendering lens. I still have my 24-105 and I think I might return to it for the rendering... something to look at when I return from vacation. (don't have that one with me).
 
RuleOfThirds said:
I'm still wondering what the rendeing looks like compared to the 35/1.8
Click to expand...
I don't see a big difference... In you mean rendering in terms of microcontrast, focus fall-off or color rendering, I don't see it... but I had no time yet to compare the exactly same image taken with both lenses.


P1054171-2.jpg
  • Panasonic DC-S5M2
  • LUMIX S 40/F2
  • ƒ/7.1
  • 40mm
  • 1/60s
  • ISO 3200


P1054199-4.jpg
  • Panasonic DC-S5M2
  • LUMIX S 40/F2
  • ƒ/9
  • 40mm
  • 1/200s
  • ISO 100
 
RuleOfThirds said:
I'm still wondering what the rendeing looks like compared to the 35/1.8 I think a Sigma 35/1.4 ii and 40/2 woud be very nice to have, as the 1.4 lens is much bigger. Trying to use the 35 a bit more lately
Click to expand...
I have been using the 35mm f/1.8 with the S1II and have switched it out for the 40mm f/2. I'm not a very good judge of "rendering" per se, but anything I've seen from the 40mm so far is quite good. Is there some kind of scene you have in mind where rendering is an issue? If I ever have a chance to directly compare the lenses I will keep your concern in mind.
 
I admit, as I said, I like adapting the Konica 40/1.8 a lot, so that makes it harder to consider the LUMIX… but those two samples from @xaviergut were beautiful, and I also loved the M4/3 20/1.7, so now I’m tempted. :p
 
Close and medium focus. Like a head and shoulders shot with a busier background. To indeed see the focus fall off.

Focus fall off I liked the best was that of the old Fuji XF35/1.4. Also a 35mm…

The Sigma 35/1.4 Ii kind a resembles that.

What I ment with digital look is an oversharpend look, without adding sharpening. If you get what I mean. Probably a lens rendering thing very contrasty + very sharp by default. Probably the solution for me could be a touch less contrast.
 
RuleOfThirds said:
What I ment with digital look is an oversharpend look, without adding sharpening. If you get what I mean. Probably a lens rendering thing very contrasty + very sharp by default. Probably the solution for me could be a touch less contrast.
Click to expand...

I think I know what you’re talking about, but I think it’s not ‘too much contrast’ so much as ‘lack of tonality’ or ‘flat colors’.

I love contrast in the form of inky-black shadows and bright, vivid colors. What makes the ‘digital look’ you describe bad for me is when the color gamut is compressed; large blocks of color that are a single hue, with little or no shading or gradients. When combined with high sharpness, that makes the entire scene look artificial, like early CGI. Nature loves complexity; even things technically all one color will have shading and color shifts as the light falling across them changes.

Look at the sky in @xaviergut’s second sample; even without the clouds, see how it shades from light blue in the bottom right to a darker, more vivid hue at upper right. Or at the darker and lighter stripes in the grassy area, showing the edges of the mower’s track as it moved across the hill. That’s the kind of thing that adds verisimilitude to an image.
 
I had today 10 minutes to take this two pictures:

P1054348.jpg
  • Panasonic DC-S5M2
  • LUMIX S 40/F2
  • ƒ/2.8
  • 40mm
  • 1/80s
  • ISO 100


P1054349.jpg
  • Panasonic DC-S5M2
  • LUMIX S 35/F1.8
  • ƒ/2.8
  • 35mm
  • 1/60s
  • ISO 100



Both are SOOC jpgs, taken with a tripod, in Aperture priority at f/2.8 and auto white balance. I think that the color rendition and contrast (or microcontrast) are the same. Maybe at 200% the Lumix 35mm F/1.8 is a tad sharper... but you have to magnify the image a lot to see it.

In terms of focus fall-off the teddy bear was too close to the flowers in order to apreciatte it. I will try in the future with different subjects, backgrounds, etc. when I have some spare time.
 
xaviergut said:
I had today 10 minutes to take this two pictures:

View attachment 17972

View attachment 17973


Both are SOOC jpgs, taken with a tripod, in Aperture priority at f/2.8 and auto white balance. I think that the color rendition and contrast (or microcontrast) are the same. Maybe at 200% the Lumix 35mm F/1.8 is a tad sharper... but you have to magnify the image a lot to see it.

In terms of focus fall-off the teddy bear was too close to the flowers in order to apreciatte it. I will try in the future with different subjects, backgrounds, etc. when I have some spare time.
Click to expand...
Your "grass" looks like mine... I'm not the only one in the world with that problem :) 40 vs 35 is still quite a difference. The closer you focus the bigger the difference of course. These small pictures show no significant difference indeed. I think if you would have taken both wide open from the same spot the amount of blur would almost be the same I think.
 
xaviergut said:
I need the days to have 30 hours so I can do all that hahaha
Click to expand...
I am arguing for a 8 day week for a long time, to add an extra Saturday.... not happend yet either. Well it's green, and if you mow it short it will look like grass for at least 2 days. If short enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top