B E: Am I the only one who finds it odd that X-Sync speed is almost never listed in specifications? Because it is the first thing I look for.
I look for it too but in this case I believe it is a leaf shutter that syncs at all speeds.
How refreshing to see appreciative comments.Panasonic have done their homework: it shows and the public is noticing.
iudex: I can imagine taking this lens on a safari (of cours combined with a dustproof body). There is enough ligt near the equator, so the relatively small aperture should not be an issue. On the other hand the biggest problem on a safari might be the dust, sand etc., so eliminating the need to switch lenses and having one dustproof combo where the sensor will never have to be exposed to environment can be a great advantage.
^ Or higher ISOs that are good and clean with almost any decent camera today.
Emacs23: More careful observation of results should dump down initial enthusiasm. In fact this lens is only great on FF. It is quite mediocre on APS-C and there's something in optical design or coatings which spoils color reproduction with filters (at least UV).
It is excellent on FF while the still besting the lenses purpose made for APS-C. This is a specious comparison. Much like saying your motorcycle is better than a car because it is faster and gets better mileage.This lens covers FF and thumps the competition. An APS-C lens can't cover FF and thus loses on the "edge resolution" front.
People always laud MF IQ. The truth is that many MF lenses were not as sharp as 35 lenses but then they never had to cover MF. This is precisely the case here but the lens in question still trounces the budget lens used in this false comparison.
@Yabokkie, this lens beats the others optically irrespective of whatever camera you put it on IF you can put it onIn the end, everyone wants great construction and excellent IQ and then wants to pick nits. The truth is that the new lens is superb but also the lenses we already have are fairly decent.
Hooray for Sony.A brilliantly sharp and well made lens for a small amount more than Canon's 2.8 IS offerings. Granted they are not a 50/55 but they are comparable prime configurations.
I hope this signals the beginning of a number of premium lenses from Sony. Considering that Fuji is currently setting the standard for optical excellence and fair pricing for their quality, I am sure that Sony have noticed the accolades for Fuji's line
ChapelThrill23: One of the biggest issues that the Sony systems have right now is how expensive the native lenses tend to be. I don't doubt that they are very high quality but other mounts offer some optional but still quality lenses at more modest prices too.
I see the bus of cheap trolls just stopped at DPR.
ulfie: 71 mm (2.8″) long make it a bit long for steady, low-light, hand-held shooting considering these two full-frame Sonys have no IBIS unless you're willing to pump up the ISO. The price for a "normal" lens is, IMHO, ridiculous.
Price too high? So everybody clamors for razor sharp optics but seem to think they should be priced like kit lenses? Maybe you need a cheaper hobby or softer lenses.
How do you come to the conclusion that it is only so-so for APS-C? The center is the sweet spot of highest performance and is what is used by the smaller sensor.The resolving power of the lens is measured to be extremely high in absolute terms..
In addition, DPR and DxO say the is one of the sharpest lenses they have ever tested so how does that make it mediocre?
Color reproduction? Lets see some facts that go beyond the typical color signatures of different lenses.
munro harrap: More programmed obsolescence. That big screen-do Fuji supply a weatherproof jacket that is non-scratch??Why doesn't the screen turn in towards the body for protection when not in use?The focus point selection on a Nikon 7100 only works when using MANUAL focus, like the D800, so this Fuji is no different .
I shall wait until it is full-frame with the same pixel density in the same-sized body with a screen that wont get wrecked (how about a screen cover, Fuji?).
All these cameras lack screen protection so obviously there is a programmed obsolescence cabal at work here, broken only by Sony's full-frame, slow as ditchwater also unprotected model.
Reviewers need to use stuff , not just repeat the company handouts, please. In practice these things are pigs to use.An R1 is superior except for noiseand RAW speed- it has an inbuilt 24-120mm lens as good as the fujis', and you can turn off the screen which is protectable. And it is silent plus 0.007sec lag prefocussed.
I'm guessing you own an Alpa?
BigBearSteve60: The specs say that its lens-mount is "Fujifilm-X"; so that means it's not built on a NIKON chassis?
@Yabbokie,Fuji have always had better glass than Nikon. They just have never had as large a system.Fuji used Nikon bodies because it was an inexpensive way to get into the DSLR game when the costs and risk was very high. Nikon cut them off and Fuji bided their time until they could see the how the landscape was sorting itself out.
Seems like they are in tune with what people want.
kadardr: From a manufacturing point of view a mirrorless camera must be cheaper to produce than a DSLR (fewer parts, lesser complexity). From a cost perspective a mirrorless camera should be sold cheaper than a DSLR. Mirrorless producers should also invest into concept and product PR, what they do at full extent and it shows in the prices. For their asking price Fujifilm gotta give supreme quality and sublime product support for life, and they really try their best (with moderate success so far).What I am emphasizing here is that please wait until prices get reasonable, because the reserve in launch prices must be high.
No matter what price is put on a camera there is some self-anointed marketing/engineering/economic genius that says the price is too high.First, how are you so sure what their cost structure is? What do you know about the sales volume? What is your authority to dictate their profit level? Also, what stops them from asking any price they want?
If they sell all they can at that price then they will make more delightful cameras for us. If they don't, maybe they will start selling sewing machines or something.
JaimeA: Consider this: David (nuts about photography) and I had a talk last night. The inconspicuous Fuji X-M1 sells today for $700 (with the good kit 16-50 lens $800). (I am very happy with this camera.) The new X-T1 costs $1,300 (with the top-rated 18-55 lens $1,700); almost double the price. The sensor size, MP count and engine are the same in both and will produce the same results at any given time. Essentially, it is the same camera with new clothes. Of course there are some hyped improvements here and there, but do you really need them? Will they noticeably improve your shooting? He’s got a point there.
Reducing the virtues of one product versus another to a couple of simple metrics completely misses the point. As 57even points out there are a huge range of attributes of a product that makes one more appealing than another. The controls, feel and EVF of the XT-1 are what many have been clamoring for.
If you came to photography after the ascendance of viewfinder-free digital photography it most likely will not interest you but those who long for a control system that was an update of classic controls then this will likely be very interesting.
(unknown member): Very nice indeed. Not for me though - I refuse to purchase a camera without it having a built-in flash.
Also Fuji - when will we see 4:3 aspect ratio in the X-series ILC cameras? Surely it is only a firmware update away? A large percentage of people need 4:3 aspect, so why not?
Crop tool is useful to get 4:3. You still end up with more file than m43.
ZoranHR: I think design should represent time in wich product is created instead to imitate past. Imagine arhitecture that still creates renaissance style churches.
I have and shoot with Fujifilm x1oo and Ricoh GR. Ricoh is just much easier to operate. Anytime. Regardless Fuji's "practical" appeal of controls I m convinced in practice that past should stay in past. Usage of past designs now is a bit silly unleast to say and I dont agree with some of you who say this design is more handy.
Form follows function. The controls actually ARE usefully placed and thought out. Change just so we can surf Byzantine menu formats is not progress.As for architecture you are clearly not paying attention to the modernist re-hashes popping up all over the place.
Fuji demonstrates again its commitment to continual improvement of existing models. For me this practice is one of the best "features" that Fuji has to offer the photographer.
Kirppu: Hey camera manufacturers one tip to prevent these after sell ripoffs. But the grip there in the first place. A camera should have a grip they are not smartphones.
Its an option. Some of us don't want grips.
clicstudio: ... And another year went by and DPR still hasn't bother to review the 2 flagship Canon and Nikon cameras...
B&H reviews can be helpful except that so many are written by people clearly too inexperienced to know how to evaluate the kit they have. Breathless exclamations of joy written ten minutes after the opening of the box does not constitute a valid review.
Peter Gregg: What a difference a day makes. The new images are representative of what I expect - and was hoping for - from this lens. It is pro level and the results certainly look like it. It seems on par in quality with the 85L II by eyeballing these images. Having both lenses in hand would confirm it, or show the deficiencies. The advantage of the 4/3 system is equal light as full frame with a little deeper range in depth of field. For most folks this is an advantage making full frame a disadvantage because of the razor thin depth of field. For most purposes this is a big plus, except for those that are looking for an ultra thin range in their DOF envelope.
"This M43 vs FF arguments don't mean anything. I want to see Portraits at low light, all taken at F1.2. Otherwise there is absolutely no point for this lens."
Believe it or not we bought lenses in the 70's that were this fast and low light was where we used them but generally not for portraits. Indoor sports were how we used these lenses and we WANTED more DOF.
It would be nice to see a lens manufacturer get away from petal shaped hoods on its prime lenses and provide a design that optimizes shading.The petal design is helpful for zooms but is a style affectation on primes.
Boerseuntjie: JK Imaging is just a shady Chinese copycat company with a shiny Kodak name.http://www.photocounter.com.au/2013/kodak-camera-licence-to-unknown-start-up/
This is what happens when a historic brand falls upon hard times. Best to avert ones eyes to avoid mutual shame.