munro harrap: Have you looked at the COST of this item. It costs the same as a new D610 body, or a D800 body grey market.
My Leica screw 50mm f1.4 Canon lens cost me £50 thirty years ago and certainly would be as sharp as this machine which N.B. is an F1.7 lens. It does not act as an f1.4 lens. And I have an Olympus f1.4 that you yourselves can still buy for £50 that will be as good as this thing.
Given the fact that it is very unlikely that you would be able to tell the difference between their results, AND the unlikelihood of ever getting perfect focus at speed with an SLR in poor light (unlike a Leica in this respect) what a complete waste of money.
Thanks for the anecdotal evidence.
The comment section needed it.
shaocaholica: Why did everyone 5 years ago say it was impossible to put stabilization into a fast prime?
What does that even mean? How is it not fast? It's f/1.2.
NoCoShutter: DANG. I knew they'd make this lens. I have the 35/1.4 and it is absolutely STELLAR. I bought the 35mm Art at the same time as I bought a Canon 50/1.2L (it was time for an upgrade) *except* that the $1200 Canon 50/1.2 was **worse** than my Canon 50/1.4. And by a long shot worse on color fringing, blooming, and flaring. Oh, and focus. So I sent it back. The Sigma? RAZOR sharp even wide open. But be ready for a DOF measured in mm when you get close. There is no Canon L I own that is as sharp wide open as the Sigma 35mm Art. Bravo! ... and where do I pre-order????
Hahaha, "specialty lens". Sounds like you're trying to make up excuses for Canon.
When you spend a lot of money on a lens, you want something that's better than the cheaper versions. The 50 mm f/1.2 is worse in almost every way, and that extra aperture size isn't going to change a thing regarding the final result --- the photos --- which is the only thing that matters.
The current Sigma 50 mm f/1.4 is so good, especially the bokeh.
I'm only comparing it to the 50 mm f/1.4 lenses from Nikon and Canon. The Canon is the worst of the bunch, while the Nikon is good, but doesn't produce photos as pleasing as the Sigma.
I don't think I'd go for this "upgrade". The old one was also a fantastic size. I don't like this new lens due to its width.
I suppose if the results are incredible, it won't matter, but I had no issues with the current version.
The model in photo #2 is smoking hot.
peevee1: No VR again. For tripod-only photographers.
What is wrong with your hands?
I'm all zen-like when I'm shooting my 50 mm . A 35 mm would be even less of an issue.
KakoW: Sigma 35 f/1.4 was $699 in december. I hope that Nikon is good, because for $100 more you get one of the sharpest FF lens out there.
@ballwin12: KakoW said "one of the sharpest FF lens [sic] out there". KakoW didn't say it was the sharpest lens.
I think he's wrong about the price, but that's it.
It would be great if Sony released a fast 35 mm FE lens.
It would also be great if Sony released an RX1 fixed lens version. ;) The body on the A7 seems way better than the RX1, which I find really small, and slow to use due to the lack of buttons.
Sony seems to be incredibly capable of designing cameras with small bodies, but a body along the lines of the Fuji X100s (i.e. an RX1 in the body of the A7, or perhaps slightly smaller?) would just be fantastic.
Filipphotography: Do you guys think the 14mm will be sold for less once this new lens comes out? I should have bought the 14mm on sale for $668.
Why would it be sold for less?
Matewka: Nikon Df announcement: Nov 5, 2013 (3 weeks ago)Pentax K-3 announcement: Oct 7, 2013 (7,5 weeks ago)
So far...Df review includes: first impressions + full ISO range studio testK-3 review includes: first impressions + worthless sample gallery
Either I'm overreacting or some brands are favoured by DPR.
Since the K-3 has this unique "software AA filter" feature, I guess many people (not only Pentax die-hards) are extremely curious what this baby can do. Not mentioning that overall Pentax IQ and NR in recent models are outstanding, even beating some FFs.
And it's fair enough that they'd prioritise a camera that has garnered more interest over one that hasn't. I'm sure it makes sense to (most) users.
People will still complain though.
carrigman: "For anyone simply looking for the best image quality from a compact, the RX100 II is the answer." You can stop reading after that. IQ is what it's all about and the RX100 (versions 1 and 11) delivers that in spades. I have the original RX100 and I am constantly amazed at the quality it delivers.
In a way, you're right. Personally, I'd rather have the GM1 than the RX100, but if you buy a GM1 and NEVER intend on buying an additional lens, then the RX100 is also a great choice. I'd choose the GM1 only because I can build on the m4/3 "system". If I had no intention to, I would probably go with the RX100-II.
The RX100's lens starts at f/1.8, which would be quite useful in low-light shooting conditions. The m4/3 cameras have a larger sensor, but at the widest angle, you could be shooting at f/1.8 and ISO 1600 while a m4/3 camera would be shooting at f/3.5 and ISO 6400 for the same shutter speed. Meh.The image quality in good light seems great for both cameras.
mpgxsvcd: I agree with every recommendation they gave.
I was a little bit confused about the camera categories, but some cameras are difficult to categorise without placing them in two groups.
AshMills: Cor. anyone would think this site was owned by a major online retailer. Not that content has been changed recently in the runup to christmas....
If the advice and reviews were being steered by guys in suits who didn't give a poo about objectivity, then I'd agree.
However, I don't because the quality of the content hasn't decreased in the 10 years I've visited this site, even after Amazon bought it and Phil left. If they link to a place you can buy the camera, then by all means go ahead.
Amazon paid good money for this website. They may as well monetize it somehow.
Richard Murdey: This is a nice looking and nicely engineered camera. Not really Fuji's fault that this is the ultimate hipster camera. But hipsterific it is, much to the detriment of the community.
flickr groups devoted to the X100 are filled with, in no particular order
1. selfies taken in the bathroom mirror2. shots of expresso, latte, and other cafe beverages3. moody black and white shots of uninteresting and random cityscape.4. shots of the the X100 itself, in various expensive cases, taken with a camera that is not the X100
Do you know what a "hipster" is?
No? Okay then....
Stitzer23: Strange intro to the article. Dpr says it doesnt have enough time to review everything that lands in it office, yet here they are revisiting gear that has been reviewed.
This type of article doesn't take long to write.
An in-depth review takes them months.
It's all relative.
jioupahn: Just wanted to share my personal journey here - I own (still do) a Nikon D300s and an X100s.
I also have an assortment of Nikon lenses. Before I bought the X100s, I spent about 8 months using the D300s + 20mm F2.8 lens combo exclusively. Why? I wanted to see if I can "survive" with only a fixed lens camera.
I did and I bought an X100s in April 2013. I simply LOVE it!
I owned a D300 and my favourite lens was the Sigma 30 mm. Nikon didn't make anything that competed with this lens at the time, which is weird because I find it to be such a great combo. My love for this lens convinced me that I can "survive" with only a single lens.
I sold all my Nikon gear before the X100 was even released. I just had this feeling that the X100 was going to work out well, and it has. :)
eljamoquio: Is Fuji still lying about it's ISO, so people who don't do in-depth tests are fooled?
Because the ISO setting is 1-stop incorrect.
This issue DOES show up in real use. Whether YOU know or not is another issue entirely.
If someone reads a DPR review and compares ISO performance, and bases their buying decision partly on the ISO performance test, then they're being fooled.
Personally, I still love my X100 (original, not "S"), and my X-Pro 1, but eljamoquio has raised a valid point.
wlad: ..and comparing 100% crops from sensors with different resolutions makes sense because .... ?
Correct. It makes absolutely no sense. It's like comparing a 3" square cut out from a 6x9 photo to a 3" square cut out from a billboard.
A 100% crop would make sense only if you downsampled all pictures to 13MP - ie the resolution of the sensor with the lowest resolution in test.
Not sure I agree with that. Comparing at 100% crop does show the quality of the details captured at the pixel level. I think a comparison at the same resolution is also good, but that would be even less useful than a 100% crop, because nobody shoots with the Nokia 1020 and gets a 13 MP photo every time!! Based on what you've said, you'd be better off letting every camera produce images at their native resolution, while the Nokia ouputs to 5 MP, and then comparing images that way, whether at 100% crop or not.
Also, the 100% crops on page 3 are weird? In some of the eye photos, the 100% crop of the Sony and Samsung photos result in the eyes being a very similar size, but in the first one, they Sony is more similar to the 1020.
Did the camera-to-subject distance vary between shots? It would have been nice for this to not change so that we can see how much additional detail the 1020's 38 MP images capture.
Stefan M: Sorry. Can't hear it anymore. There is no such thing as equivalent to APS/FF/m43...whatever. Hence this lens is exclusively for APS it's even more absurd talking about any FF equivalency. A 18-35mm F1.8 lens will always be a 18-35mm F1.8 lens.
I guess a lot of people will enjoy this lens.
"The lens has a 50 mm focal length, or approximately a 35 mm equivalent focal length on an APS-C DSLR."
JDThomas: One thing I have to disagree with is two of the "cons"
"restricted zoom range". How can the zoom range be considered restrictive? Maybe if you compare it to a STANDARD zoom. But this is NOT a standard zoom. It's in a class of it's own. It's a super-fast zoom. You don't buy this lens for range. You buy it for low-light capability. If you look at it from that point of view it's not restricted. If you are going to lump it in the standard zoom category then ALL f/2.8 zooms must now have in the Cons column "restricted aperture setting"
"physically large for a standard zoom". Again, this lens is NOT a standard zoom. If you want speed you need big glass. To be perfectly honest. This lens a actually SMALL considering what it does.
"Limited zoom range"being a con is a laugh. That's a "pro" of this lens. That's why people would buy this lens!!
It's not an 18-250 mm lens, but that was never the point. Do reviews of prime lenses all say "limited zoom range" as a con?