jdh99: I wish this had been a 400mm f5.6 with fresnel design. I'm sure this new lens will be good, although how much impact the fresnel design has on sharpness remains to be seen. It just seems slightly late to the party when you consider you can get to 600mm with Tamron and Sigma zooms for less money albeit more weight. Better late than never but I don't think I will be parting with my old 300mm F4 AFS unless this new lens is significantly sharper.
You're right ;) but seriously thats what i have permanently attached to my 300mm AFS and it works but i recon it would be better image quality if I didnt need it and Nikon had a reasonably priced fixed 400mm in the first place
I wish this had been a 400mm f5.6 with fresnel design. I'm sure this new lens will be good, although how much impact the fresnel design has on sharpness remains to be seen. It just seems slightly late to the party when you consider you can get to 600mm with Tamron and Sigma zooms for less money albeit more weight. Better late than never but I don't think I will be parting with my old 300mm F4 AFS unless this new lens is significantly sharper.
jdh99: In my opinion there are some people posting who are looking at this lens in the wrong way. There seems to be people who don't feel this is really an f2.8 lens compared to say the canon and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 lenses and that somehow Fuji are inferior to Canon and Nikon/Sony because of the weight of this lens. If we take that same argument why aren't these people complaining about Canon/Nikon full frame lenses in terms of subject isolation/weight compared to say the equivalent focal length medium format lenses...its the same pointless argument.Make no mistake this is an f2.8 lens!Yes in terms of subject isolation it will behave slightly differently to a 24-70 f2.8 full frame lens...The best way to look at it is that it will behave the same as a full frame 16-55mm f2.8 lens!
Nerd, I disagree, full frame 24-70 f2.8 lenses and bodies are not dirt cheap in my opinion and I wasn't referring to cost/versatility but to equivalence in terms of weight and focal length and aperture with medium format.Secondly, I don't believe I am mistaken, this lens behaves the same in terms of depth of field as a full frame 16-55mm f2.8 lens. This another way of looking at it...If you shoot your full frame 24-70 at 55mm f2.8 and look at the subject isolation do you complain/worry about it often....because that's how much separation this Fuji lens will give at its longest focal length... Its still substantial. If you want more subject isolation on your full frame camera at 55mm then buy a cheap 50mm f1.8 prime lens....If you want more subject isolation than this Fuji lens gives at its longest focal length then buy a prime lens. All of these fast zooms are heavy, Nikons 17-55 f2.8 without OIS weighs in at 750g, if this is an issue dont buy it
In my opinion there are some people posting who are looking at this lens in the wrong way. There seems to be people who don't feel this is really an f2.8 lens compared to say the canon and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 lenses and that somehow Fuji are inferior to Canon and Nikon/Sony because of the weight of this lens. If we take that same argument why aren't these people complaining about Canon/Nikon full frame lenses in terms of subject isolation/weight compared to say the equivalent focal length medium format lenses...its the same pointless argument.Make no mistake this is an f2.8 lens!Yes in terms of subject isolation it will behave slightly differently to a 24-70 f2.8 full frame lens...The best way to look at it is that it will behave the same as a full frame 16-55mm f2.8 lens!
HiRez: Not sure why all the hate on this lens, it looks like a pretty good package to me for the price. 24mm-84mm equivalent is a good range, 84mm is in the range of a true portrait lens. With most high-end FF zooms you get 24-70. Plus weather sealing and < 1 foot minimum focus. Sure OIS would be nice but it's really not necessary in this focal range, again most comparable FF zooms will not have it either.
Big question for me is how is the performance wide open? It has to be exceptional at 2.8.
Agreed. This lens will produce head and shoulders portraits with less distortion of facial features than a 24-70 with the caveat of less background blur
jdh99: This is a shocking development and a blow to Sony's E mount. Mount adapters always degrade image quality. Consumers shouldn't expect to have to adapt the mount
Jhinkey, yes to a certain extent adapters (not that this product is, although tampering with the mount could have similar results) will always degrade image quality, whether its perceptible or not depends on a number of factors. You should read this article on the issue for clarification from one of the best lens testing resources on the internet.http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters
Quezra, I wasnt saying that the mount was the cause of the vibration issues, just another problem altogether on the A7r. Hopefully this together with other issues will be resolved in next generation bodies.
Finally to me it was a shock seeing this since I have never seen such a product before for another other system and I have been considering buying an A7R. Since the consensus seems this is a unnecessary product I am no longer shocked and maybe if Sony iron out a number of other issues in the next gen bodies would seriously consider buying one.
I haven't had the time to personally conduct or search for surveys on this issue, I have better things to do, clearly fotodiox must be drawing straws in their product design meetings or as you imply this is a dpreview/canon/nikon conspiracy. Products tend to exist for a reason but clearly not in this case.
I'm glad you haven't encountered any issues with telephoto lenses, but since you give your subjective opinion, I have seen substantial evidence in various blogs and forums that there are issues with the A7R and lenses over 100mm (vibration etc) (Sorry I havn't read your report yet). But maybe Im not allowed to mention this since I haven't yet conducted a survey on the issue and I don't own the camera.
quezra, Im sorry you seem to have taken my post so personally! Maybe the words I used were a slight exaggeration but I stand by my general point. As a consumer interested in Sony A7 cameras, seeing the announcement of a product like this together with comments from people like Stu5 is concerning. Excuse me if I'm mistaken, Im not an engineer, I don't own this camera and Im not a metal fetishist. Lets put it another way, does Fotodiox make a similar product for nikon and canon mounts? Not that these other companies products have been free from any problems but the fact that a product like this exists suggests there is a problem either with the mount or the camera and that concerns me especially considering we have no heavy 'pro' lenses yet available in FE mount.
I stand corrected in my terminology but my point is this suggests sony under-engineering the E-mount. Should consumers be expected to adapt/change the lens mount to mount larger lenses on their camera? I personally don't think so.
Just adjust the white balance in post processing. I don't see the need for this except maybe for film shooters
This is a shocking development and a blow to Sony's E mount. Mount adapters always degrade image quality. Consumers shouldn't expect to have to adapt the mount
Looks like this new tc-14iii has limited compatibility! Nikon USA only shows its compatible with the new 400mm and newest 70-200 f2.8. Crap
2PK: ROFLMAO! 3 years ago Sony released the Alpha 850, full frame, 24mp sensor, less than $2000 and barely a word was said apart from a little known Barnaby Britton praising Sony for doing so.
Then Nikon announce the D600 and are heralded as the saviours of the photographic world despite being late to the affordable FF party.
As for the high iso low noise performance there are already cameras out there that cost less and peform as well if not better. So will all the Nikon fanboys put their toys back in the pram and quietly but quickly please leave the buidling, and if the Canon club could just join the tail of the line too please.....
Oops you're right. I meant the opposite. It's been a long day :)
Whether or not this actually matters to you depends on whether or not you shoot raw, shoot at high iso or shoot big prints etc. The OMD is an awesome camera and may well suit your needs perfectly irrelevant of the above.
Comparing RAW at ISO 6400 the nikon D600 enjoys around a 2 stop noise advantage over the OMD. In other words in RAW, the nikon d600 at ISO 1600, performs about the same in terms of noise as the OMD at ISO 6400. Look at the graph, the noise on the y axis, the ISO on the x axis and extrapolate the line across. This applies to all aspects of noise dpreview meaure: grey noise/black noise/chroma noiseThis is also backed up by the in studio photos posted a few days ago on this site. Particularly look in the shadow areas around the cotton reels as these areas reveal the most noise.
These graphs only look at noise at 100%. This doesnt take into account the loss in dynamic range the smaller sensor cameras will loose as well as the fact that the nikon has more megapixels so downsampled to lower resolutions it will look even better. The canon 5dmkiii will show a similar performance to the nikon vs other micro 4/3 cameras ie OMDI dont consder that a marginal difference but a very signifcant one
The fuji is a great camera no doubt. Its sensor performs brilliantly, its not cheap though especially considering its limitations. If you dont need DSLR and the advantages that a dslr system brings then its a wonderful camera.
I find your second comparison laughable. So your trying to say the omd and pentax k-01 and sony cybershot has lower noise than a full frame dslr. I can see youve carefull screwed the results ie JPEG only and only chroma noise.
lensberg: One thing is abundantly clear... Canon still is the king of JPEG's beyond a shadow of a doubt...
As always with Nikon's new iterations... RAW remains a muted affair... A fractionally cleaner image by the D600... but details are quite blatently smudged away... I guess thats the price one has to pay for having a cleaner RAW image at high iso's... Canon's 5D III slightly noisier, but visibly superior detail retention... especially at 12800 & 25600
The king of JPEGs? I thought that was Ken rockwell. I haven't used an out of camera JPEG for years. When you spend this much on a camera unless you are a pap you should really be focusing on RAW performance. In my opinion Nikon has the overall edge in image quality over canon at the moment. We are pixel peeping over minute differences in raw noise here. The most glaring difference noted by many respected observers is not the noise difference but the dynamic range advantage of the nikons. Of course there's more to a cameras overall performance than image quality alone but thats not what this thread is about. Considering the nikon d600 today is £900 cheaper than the canon I think this is a very good perfomance.
JoeR: My opinion based on these raw images, the D600 clearly beats the D800. D600 is marginaly better than 5DMKIII.
However throw in the D4 and it beats them all by a large margin. It makes me wonder about the DXO ratings.
Does any of this have relavence to real world photography?
Lensberg, I agree the noise level is not groundbreaking but as you says it effectively matches the 5dmIII in raw from a noise point of view. I expect its dynamic range to be similar to the D800s, in other words notably better than the 5dmIII. Considering today it costs £950 less than the 5dmIII I consider that a groundbreaking deal!
Lets be honest here, this is pixel peeping on a high level but credit where credit is due, Nikons current sensors have been top notch and are coming in at a lower price point than canon. Canon is taking a calculated risk in assuming the price difference still won't be enough to tempt current users to switch system. However, I know a few people who are 7D users who dont want to fork out the high price of the 5DmkIII who are very disappointed by the spec of the 6D and are considering switching to the d600.
jdh99: D600 looks great in RAW at high ISO. To my eyes equals if not betters 5dmiii which costs $1400 more. Combine that with amazing dynamic range and you have an amazing product.
The JPEG performance at high ISO isnt as good as the RAW. I get the impression Nikon purposely does that to ensure the D800 and d4 remain top of the pile. Most online comparisons only look at JPEG noise which is meaningless to most shooters who use RAW converters
Yep but it's nice to see the differences with ones own eyes. DXO sensor ratings are questionable.
your more than entitled to your own opinion but to me the high ISO performance of d600/d4/d800 is better than G1X and I believe most others would agree