pdbdeepak: I just love this website...but the combination of the colors used are hurting my eyes really bad!!:(
Please change the colors. Or invert them. Black backdrop with white text is really a bad idea!!
Nope, black BG with white text is much better to read
Please add a Nikon D600 as a Nikon benchmark.
I bet, when you will need a replacement for this carton box one day (and you will), you will get it for like $10.
I would better enhance the wide end than the tele end.
I don't know what is the purpose of this article.Of course DSLR cann't be a "always with me" camera. If I go shooting, I take DSLR, if I go cycling/hiking/walking I take a pocket camera.So that's it.
falconeyes: 20-1200 mm F/16-33
and according to optyczne.pl, it isn't even sharper at F/33 than F/47.
Can't see any other application than bright daylight video from a tripod ...
it is f/2.8-5.9. where do you get 16-33 from?
Same camera & specs with 1/1.7" sensor please.
Nukunukoo: Definitely my next lens... just wished if had OIS.
You don't need IS much on these focal lengths. For people/event photograph exposure times must be at least 1/30sec, better 1/50sec. So you can shoot this lens handheld. For landscapes you do need a tripod anyway.
Also f/1.8 will give you a lot freedom.
Next step - is to make it 24-70 FF equivalent and reduce weight a bit.0.8 kg (Tamron 24-70 VC) is too much even on my FF.
marike6: Very nice performance from the new 18-35 3.5-4.5G. And it couldn't come at a better time as I've recently changed by Tokina 16-28 2.8 for the 28 1.8G. And as good as the 28 1.8G is, it's not all that wide.
Enter the new 18-3G. The slower max aperture is not such a big deal for landscape photography.
Money no object I'd simply add the 14-24 2.8G, but like the Tokina lens I just got rid of, it's large, heavy, pricey and doesn't take filters. The 18-35G seems to be a good compromise on size/weight, price and performance. Thanks guys.
I agree, that the lens is very good,but they should have made it 16mm instead of 18mm on the wide end.
Did those idiots at Adobe finally did proper dpi-control for those who have hi-res monitor? I bet no.
Mike99999: This lens is crazy slow.
Primes are the way to go for mirrorless systems: Olympus 12mm f/2 is the wide angle of choice.
@abortaborttokina 11-16 f/2.8sigma 10-20 f/3.5canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5nikon 10-24 f/3.5-4.5tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5tokina 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5
I wanted to get one of these and I tested both in the shop for quite a long time. Nikon is WAAY better fits a hand. (a friend of mine also tested both and had same opinion).Those 4 seconds for Nikon to process a file is total BS. Although Nikon Is slower, it is just 0,5sec longer than Canon.Optical viewfinder by Canon has no sense - it is so tiny, on the other hand, Nikon tiltable screen can always be rotated so that sun doesn't block the whole image.For me, real disadvantade of Nikon is its slower lens, at was mentioned they have a whole 1 stop difference at 140mm equiv.
ZAnton: I used Corel Draw at work. I wanted to do some very basic things - take PrintScreen with a map, crop it and paint directions from a railway station to the office. After 45 minutes my brain exploded but I still could not do it. With a PS it took me 2 minutes to do that.Corel Draw has THE MOST stupid and illogical interface I EVER used. Even worse that facebook.
Sorry, I meant Corel Photo Paint, or whatever it calls.
I used Corel Draw at work. I wanted to do some very basic things - take PrintScreen with a map, crop it and paint directions from a railway station to the office. After 45 minutes my brain exploded but I still could not do it. With a PS it took me 2 minutes to do that.Corel Draw has THE MOST stupid and illogical interface I EVER used. Even worse that facebook.
Nightwings: No viewfinder = NO SALE
There is already OM-D with EVF
zinedi: External EVF in the middle only, for extra money? Forget it. No built-in VF - no camera for enthusiasts and advanced photographers.
I don't need EVF/OVF on an enthusiast camera.
Tiny 1/2.3" sensor under a dark lens f/3.5-6.3, that will be the most expensive useless camera.
Kodachrome200: I still dont get this. Again we are simply achieving the performance of 2.8 zooms on full frame. And in order to do it we are handicapping the zoom range and making an aps rig big and heavy and expensive. why not shoot full frame. and if you have an aps c body wouldnt you rather have a lens that was pretty good on dof and low light but had a normal zoom range? I mean if you really want lovely bokeh you should look to standard zoom anyway they tend to not have as nice a look as prime lenses do in these ranges. And they are already plenty of primes that offer f/1.8 and even faster.
@mick32this lens will cost same as f/2.8 lens for FF.Size and weight: Compare Canon 5D3 vs. Canon 100SL or Canon 650D or 60D
Why not shoot FF?How about lowest price for FF at 1600 Euro vs. lowest price APS-C 300 Euro?How about weight and size of the camera itself?