'G' lenses - does the label indicate the same standard as in the past?

[osullic]

For those who are used 'G' lenses from Minolta, and now Sony, do you think the 'G' label indicates the same standard now as in the past? Of course lens tech, coatings, motors, etc have advanced, but do you think that the 'G' label is slapped on lenses easier now than in the Minolta days? 'G' lenses were really Gold standard back then. Would you say the same for all the lenses that get the 'G' label from Sony now?

 

[SA2016]

Unfortunately my experience so far I'd have to say no, I realise Sony are playing somewhat of a catch up game with their competition and are under pressure from their users to release new lenses and bodies but personally I'd be more impressed if they just slowed down and made there existing line up to the highest possible standard, coming out with new technologies every other month does kind of make the products feel like toys.

[Guest Peter Kelly]

I think it is, in many respects, quite difficult to compare with lenses from the past, as the nature of the technology and means of measuring has changed considerably.

Back in film days there was little, or no, auto focus. Even when it came into being the motors were in-body, rather than in-lens. The same is true for stabilising, although that started in-lens and only in-body later.

 

Also, over this time, materials technology has moved on, yet the perceptions of it remain rooted in the past. While most of us regard a good solid piece of metal the very best, it simply isn't always the case. There can be so many considerations that it's not funny: strength, both impact and tensile, weight, temperature stability as regards expansion and condensation, price, accuracy and ease of manufacturing, etc. So while it may appear, on the face of it, that a newer, more plastic lens is not as good, the reality may be different.

 

Then we come to testing and measurements. While there have always been certain standards to apply, I think we are far more critical of any flaws these days as it is easy for us all to do our own tests. I suspect that lens quality varied at least as much and probably more in the past, but few had the time, money, or skill to fully test their lenses. Now, however, just about every lens bought gets examined and pored over to a ridiculous degree!

 

Personally, I think 'G' lenses are every bit as good in terms of performance. I also think they are better designed. It may be, in a few cases, there have been compromises (weight versus strength) and cost may well come into it, but it's not something that unduly worries me.

 

If you were to suggest the 'G' label was nothing more than a cynical marketing ploy to scam money out of unsuspecting buyers I would strongly dsagree. I have always been delighted with those I have bought and still use.

[Zé De Boni]

It is marketing, but not at all cynical. Product name is the first marketing tool for any company so that consumers can infere the quality or other properties associated to that brand.

Before I decide for a lens I check the tests available, as well as the lens design. Few people really understand about lens construction or MTF graphics, therefore the label is so important.

Sony E-mount lens line, full frame or APSC, has many different levels of "quality" or standard, to satisfy all kind of consumer. You get better quality from any G lens than from the cheap ones, specially the kit lenses. Likewise, you may expect more from a Zeiss branded one. For instance, I cannot stand the 16-50 mm kit lens. The Sony G 18-105 mm was my choice for an all-around / video lens and I am not disappointed.

I agree with Peter Kelly (once more) and add that the optical industry had a great development since the days of Minolta. Now you find many more extraordinary elements in the lens composition: ED, LD, FLD, ULD, aspherical, double aspherical, extreme aspherical... once they were just 1 or 2, now they can be over 40% in some designs Even aperture blades count is going up 7, 9, 11, just to improve bokeh, a subjective feature.

The standards were raised. I believe that new lenses, from any brand, perform better than the corresponding old ones. Higher resolution sensor demand it. Though the new G Master line is essentially one more marketing label, Sony's explanation is the most reasonable as one should expect.

[Zé De Boni]

"Sony's explanation is the most reasonable as one should expect.", I said.

The only way to check is using the lenses yourself. You may rent them. Otherwise if you buy a bad sample or a problematic lens, sell it quickly as I have done so many times since long before the digital era.

•  

[Al Pha]

 

"Sony's explanation is the most reasonable as one should expect.", I said.

The only way to check is using the lenses yourself. You may rent them. Otherwise if you buy a bad sample or a problematic lens, sell it quickly as I have done so many times since long before the digital era.

•  

 

Thanks for your honest admission! I'll never buy a lens from you, that's for sure! LOL!

[jstevensphoto]

I have not used G lenses in the past, but just got back from a trip with my new 24-70 G and I am very happy.   The auto focus is instant, no delay.   The color is great.   A little distortion, but easily corrected.   This lens is just as heavy as Nikon and Cannon's versions, but balances well with my A7Rii.  Way too expensive, but life is short. 

[SA2016]

^ Couldn't agree more, would be hard pushed to find a better 24-70 on the market right now.

[jstevensphoto]

I'm planning on buying the Sony 70-300 G for my A7Rii and my wife's A7R.   My 24-70 f2.8 G is so good, I am going to get the 70-300.   Probably not a good low-light performer, but we typically shoot in good daylight most of the time.   I tried the Vello Adapter for my Nikon long zooms, but it just can't find the auto focus.   Too bad, but now I have a good excuse to spend money on the Sony 70-300 f4.5-5.6.   

[Golem]

Unfortunately my experience so far I'd have to say no, I realise Sony are

playing somewhat of a catch up game with their competition and are under

pressure from their users to release new lenses and bodies but personally

I'd be more impressed if they just slowed down and made there existing

line up to the highest possible standard, coming out with new technologies

every other month does kind of make the products feel like toys.

  

+1, every word of it.  

 

Reminds me of the many years that I ALWAYS drove SAABs. I

was a believer, and I like things that are kinda different. SAAB

was so busy introducing new and different tech that they never

really had time to get the bugs out before moving on to the next

newer new ideas, and a whole new swarm of bugs.