Wow, well done Nikon!Significantly better than normal 810 and Canon 5 DS R
ZAnton: And next zoom from Sigma will be like 24-25mm f/1.4; 1 kg weight; 17cm long and 12cm in diameter?Fro those who doesn't want to llose a moment:get 2 DSLRs with 2 light primes.
Pros will get 2 bodies.Amatures will be fine with standard f/3.5-5.6 zoom.Amatures will be happy with standard f/2.8 zoom.
So this lens is only for some techical freaks. Not a very big market niche.
fmian: I would rather just get a Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS.Take a step back for wider coverage and a step forward (or crop) for a tighter shot.IS mostly overcomes the 1 stop advantage of a f/2.0 lens, as you can easily shoot handheld at 1/8s with the IS lens.It's less than half the size and weighs 3.5x less than the 24-35.In terms of sharpness I can only look at the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 crop to compare it with, and the 28mm trounces that lens when it's also set to 28mm f/2.8.I'm thinking Sigma has kind of lost the plot here and are going for the spectacle of having a wider aperture zoom than anything else. With a lot of sacrifices though...Anyway, just my thoughts.
IS doesn't always help. You can't shoot people (irl, not in a studio) at expos. shorter than 1/30s, and you'd better have 1/60 s.So those 4 claimed stops of IS won't help. You cant photograph people at 1/2 s. To say nothing about kids.
And next zoom from Sigma will be like 24-25mm f/1.4; 1 kg weight; 17cm long and 12cm in diameter?Fro those who doesn't want to llose a moment:get 2 DSLRs with 2 light primes.
cgarrard: Officially- This camera is severely handicapped without a built in finder- both financially and comparatively. A nice built in EVF for the same price would make this camera much more interesting to me.
I don't need a VF, neither my wife or mum do.I like VF in SLRs, especially those gorgeous VF in Nikon D800 or D4, but those tiny build-in nano-VF in compacts are totally useless.
They would better do an on-chip PDAF, instead of those stupid FPSes.RX 100 needs a longer lens. 70mm is way too short.
To DPReview: Thanks for the exellent comparison. It would also be nice to see lens comparison at 35, 50 and 85/100 mm equivalents. For example on the studio test scene at 60mm Pana has definitely sharper image in the center and 2/3 outside (cards). So those focus lengths are much more usefull than telezoom extremes such as 200 or 400mm.
0:40-0:47 AF hunts =)
ZAnton: Ho ho ho, concerning other Oly lenses, I wonder what horryfying barrel distortions will that 7-14 have.
the trick is, after correction (and cropping) it is not 7mm any more.It will be 8 or even 9 mm.
The Nikon 1 system has an f/1.8 18mm lens and an f/2.8 10mm lens.
The system doesn't have fast zooms.
For 2.7 crop f/2.8 can barely be counted as "bright".Ok, I missed 18 f/1,8.But still, their zooms are way too dark, f/3,5 and worse.No f/2.8, f/2.0 or better standard zoom.No wide-angle fixes, no wide-angle zoom,no more or less bright tele and portrait.And 32mm for 711 Euro - seriously? 711 Euro for a toy camera?To the top of all, 1 doesn't accept Nikon flashes and "old" Nikkor lenses are so unsharp, that they are totally unusable on Nikon 1. So for me, as a Nikon owner Nikon 1 doesn't make any sense. I bought M43 for my wife.
*conserning -> considering
All their recent lenses have massive distortions. Both Oly and Pana.
ImageAmateur: Looking forward to the Photozone review. I currently use an older Tokina 28-70 2.8 AF-D and it works lovely on my D300. Really nice optics.
If this lens comes with the usual Tokina optical excellence, and comes in around USD1,000 it will surely sell well.
Hopefully they keep QC in top form, avoid decentering issue with copies etc.
I don't care about VR, moreso optical and build quality. And at say, 1,000 it will not be much more expensive than some fast primes and much cheaper than others.
16-28 on a crop sensor?Are you OK?
Azzy: $1250 ??? 1,010g ???? 82mm filter???? no VR ????
Good luck Tokina....you'll need it
The price will go down very steep, but that's still not enough.
WindKeeper: I'll admit, I expected this lens to be in the $700-900 range. The first assumption of $1250 really puts me off. I know I've been vocal about waiting (no lie) since February of 2014 to give this a shot. Sounds like I'm either getting the Nikon used or maybe going for the Sigma. I've used the Tamron quite a bit and simply can't stand the aberrations.
The real price will be at 1/2 of the recommended in 2 month.
Albert Silver: The biggest issue I have with it is neither the price nor the concerns of sharpness, but the weight: 1010g !! (over 2.2 pounds) That is heavier than any 24-70 out there and by quite a margin. For example, it is over 25% heavier than the Canon equivalent. I know a lot of people complaining about the weight of 24-70 lenses as it is, so it is hard to imagine this being a runaway success unless the optics are out of this world, and the AF is too.
@ImageAmateurThe thing is, optically Tokina is not better than any of the competition.Neither it has an OS/IS/VR, like Tamron has.It will be good, if its IQ will reach at least level of Tamron or Nikon.
So it is in all regards Tokina is WORSE than the rest. The only advantage - price, but is it enough?I own Tamron, and I find it bloody heavy. Add another 200 gramms and save $50-$100 - no thanks.And again, Tamron at least has OS/IS/VR.
Ho ho ho, concerning other Oly lenses, I wonder what horryfying barrel distortions will that 7-14 have.
lacikuss: Looking at these extra large lenses compared to FF equvalents I believe at this point only the Nikon 1 system has held to the original promise of a portable system
but Nikon makes no bright lenses for its 1 System, with exception of 32mm.Nikon needs bright lenses even more than m43, but they failed. Pana, Canon, Sony have already done supecompacts with bright zooms for the same sensor size as Nikon, and Nikon is still picking a nose.No bright cheap fixes, no moderaletely expensive bright zooms... nothing
MikeGre: How do I attach this lens to my belt or harness? I would need a very strong connection and attachment or worry about it getting lose.
If you are like 200 feet from a lion then this focal length would give you a full sizeframe of just its eyeball.
How will it balance on my Canon 1000D?Will the Canon's mount hold the weight?Will the lens fit in my Lowa Photo-Backpack?
If you are 200 feet from the lion, you will get a full size frame of just its balls. :)
155 Mb for a photo viewer installation file? I mean seriously?
I am using Irfan View and when installed, it needs 14.5 Mb with all plugins.
OK, when and where can I get my 12-600mm f/1.4, 500 gramm, for $1000 ?