Heie2: My biggest criticism is not the lens itself - I've never used it so I can't judge nor add my take on whether the review is accurate or not.
But DPR - please don't allow whoever took the sample photos for this review to ever photograph on your behalf again.
Yeah I agree...DPR is great for technical tests, but the real world samples for the last few reviews I've read have been pretty rough. Kind of does the site a disservice really.
camerosity: I'll take the 50mm. It had sharper results in this test. I think dpreview got it wrong...
The Otus is almost the size of the 24-70 2.8 lenses and costs $2300 more than this lens. Why would you even bother comparing the two really.
I got rid of my 50mm 1.4G as soon as I went FF. It was ok on DF, but I hated it on FF. Just a run of the mill boring 50mm lens that anyone could make.
I have the 50mm 1.2 ais and the 58mm 1.4G they both have different but special rendering and both are plenty sharp.
This lens is a specialty lens in that it is superb for photographing people and those who do so will love it. Everything I do is people photography basically. Sure I do travel and other stuff for fun, but by and large I'm photographing people when I have my camera in my hands and this lens is an absolute knock out in that area.
Would I use it for landscape and such? Probably not.
Dimit: This lens is a failure.Period.
ljmac: Such a limited lens at such an inflated price - with AF problems and at an odd focal length to boot - and it gets a silver award? I understand that it has some specialist appeal (particularly as a portrait lens, but arguably at the wrong focal length), but shouldn't it be a whole lot more of an all-round good performer to get an award?
This is not the wrong focal length for full length fashion. I'd say it's almost perfect. Slightly longer than a 50, but not quite so tight as an 85mm. So yeah it may be a little short for waist up portraits, but 3/4th or full length it's bang on.
ovatab: ... disappointing ...... small coverage ...... inconvenient ...... inconsistent ...... not best suited ...... falling off ...... awkward ...... not terribly comfortable ...... rather large and heavy ...... slow ...
classic fail :(
They may be professional reviewers, but are they all professional photographers? Judging from the test shots in the pub I'd say not.
I'd much prefer to read reviews from people who are shooting professionally not just reviewing gear professionally. I've read about 6-7 reviews by actual photographers and the overall theme seems to be:
Great IQGreat at high ISOToo ExpensiveDial implementation somewhat frankensteinishAF decently fastShould have had better focus screenCould be uncomfortable for those with large handsSmall and lightweight(as a positive trait)
This is the first review I've read that says the AF is bad...there are a ton of reviews floating around and this is the first to complain of AF....think about that before regurgitating everything like this review is gospel.
I know in my own personal use the Df AF is pretty solid...is it a D4? No and it isn't meant to be.
String: Retro for no other reason than to be retro just doesn't work.
I think the split prism manual focusing is way overrated. I would take the ground glass of a Rollei TLR ten times out of ten over the split focusing of a F3.
Deano255: Good luck hoping for a firmware update that would add video. Nikon only provides firmware updates that address fairly minor issues, unlike Fuji that seems to go out of their way to provide substantial updates that give users greater functionality. I also read where Nikon is halting production of the Df for at least two months to ramp up production of another body due to be announced early '14. That indicates the Df has hit the market with a dull thud. You don't do that if you have a hot camera, and I doubt that they would devote resources for a FW update for a camera that isn't selling and was never designed for video in the first place.
Or maybe the potential for making money off of an updated D4s sports shooting camera just before the Olympics is of greater potential profit. Signs seem to indicate they made this switch before or very very soon after the Df release in order to prep for Olympic season.
Not saying the Df is a miracle camera or anything I'm just saying they could try to get the first big batch out around christmas then switch to the new camera for the olympics while that money making potential is there then refresh the stock of the Df once that has settled down.
It makes more sense to do that rather than overload their production capacity with the Df then miss out on the potential of not only having photographers taking great olympic images, but also having the free publicity of people seeing what the pros are shooting.
NTNphoto: If this this isn't too expensive I look at it as a great opportunity to get the D4 sensor that is in a $6k body for half or less than that price. I don't need the insane ruggedness or 10fps of the D4, but I could certainly use the best low light performing sensor on the market today. Sure they're probably reusing tech, but it's not like they're throwing a D80 sensor into a $3k body or anything.
Not saying I'll be getting one for sure until I get more details, but I think people are quick to put this camera down for a number of ridiculous reasons without giving it a chance.
I just think there's room for it in their stable of FF camerasD4- Pro sport shooters, wedding photographers, concert photographers, news, documentaryD800- Studio, Fashion, landscape, super high res D610- Kind of a mix of everything...Jack of all trades master of none in a way(not saying it's a bad camera I have its maligned little brother D600 and like it a lot)
There is room for something else
I wasn't saying that the D4 was worth $6k, but what I am saying is if you want that sensor right now the only way to get it is to spend approx $6k. If you want the D4 sensor in a cheaper body I think $1500-$2500 is a fair asking price depending on the build and such.
Some are suggesting a $3k price tag which I do feel is too high.
Of course I understand that most of the price of the D4 comes from it's build, fast image capture, and high fps etc. However the fact still remains that if you want the low light capabilities of that camera you have to spend the money for that build quality whether you need it or not.
If you can get that same low light capability for $2.5k I think that's fair. It's basically the best low light sensor available today. Whether or not that extra capability is worth it or not is up to you. For me and my work the D4 is overkill and not worth it, but $2.5k or less I can justify.
I'm still a bit on the fence overall, but folks seem quick to hate this one.
If this this isn't too expensive I look at it as a great opportunity to get the D4 sensor that is in a $6k body for half or less than that price. I don't need the insane ruggedness or 10fps of the D4, but I could certainly use the best low light performing sensor on the market today. Sure they're probably reusing tech, but it's not like they're throwing a D80 sensor into a $3k body or anything.