King Penguin: Hats of to Fuji for producing this great looking little camera with enthusiast controls, I'm a FF user with a lot of Nikon glass, but if I wasn't I'd be tempted by this little beauty!
Good for you!
Hats of to Fuji for producing this great looking little camera with enthusiast controls, I'm a FF user with a lot of Nikon glass, but if I wasn't I'd be tempted by this little beauty!
J A C S: The 8mm is about 10% longer than the Canon 15mm, the same width and a few grams lighter only. More expensive and collects less light.
Similarly, the 7-14 is 23mm longer than the Canon 8-15; width and weight about the same, 1 stop less light, same price.
What happened to the portability of the m43 system?
Careful Mr Canon user, these M43 fanboys have extremely thin skins (perhaps there's a weight saving here....ha, ha).
I pointed out that the Nikkor FF 16mm fisheye, which for all intents and purposes is the is lighter and smaller than this new offering from Olly and the amount of guff I got was, well 'interesting' to say the least!
Truth hurts for these M43 fanboys!
tkbslc: Can someone tell me why a FF shooter would waste so much time telling m43 shooters that their lenses are crap? Just curious what's in it for them.
Honestly you M43 guys are so sensitive.
The Nikkor 16mm is on a practical day to day amateur user level the equivalent of this fisheye, ie, if you are a Nikon FF shooter you have this to play with, if you are a M43 user you have the new Olly to play with or the much smaller Panny f3.5 to play with (which I used to own). If you shoot Nikon DX you've got a 10.5mm to play with and I'm sure Canon shooters have their fisheyes as well.
The Nikkor may have been designed years ago but it is still relevant on digital and it's one of the best out there.
All I'm saying is it is lighter and smaller than this offering and people are having a go at me and suggesting I'm dissing the entire M43 system because I highlighted a single fact......which I am not!
Shame on you guys, man up and grow thicker skins!
tkbslc: Why does it make so many FF shooters angry when people using cameras with smaller sensors have access to nice lenses that they can use to make good photos? Is it some kind of defense mechanism so they can feel better about buying FF?
You guys are always going on about bulk and I'm just pointing out that isn't necessarily the case.
I'm not dissing the M43 system, I used to be a user but there is nothing wrong in pointing out when someone is talking guff!
Facts are facts, this fisheye is LARGER and HEAVIER than my to my equivalent (in a practical user sense) than my Nikkor FF fisheye.
That's all I'm saying......and it seems that the M43 fanboys can't accept this without getting upset!
M43 is all about being small and light and this lens 'ain't!
We don't feel angry, we are just amazed that a system which harps on about being small and light, brings out a lens (the fisheye) which is LARGER and HEAVIER than a full frame practical equivalent........now that's irony!
I used to have a nice M43 system with a set of primes equivalent (in a practical sense) and they were smaller than my current FF primes (which are quite small) but this new release fisheye is LARGER!
That's all I'm saying.
King Penguin: So this Fisheye is larger and heavier than my FULL FRAME Nikkor 16mm AF 2.8D......mmmmm, the benefits of M43....LOL.
Sorry M43 guys, but facts are facts!
Have you ever tried using a fisheye in the rain? LOL
We're talking about size here and I'm saying the superb, built like a tank, all metal Nikkor 16mm fisheye is LIGHTER and SMALLER than the M43 offering.
.......and the whole point of using a M43 sensor, which is a 1/4 of the area of a FF sensor, is to keep everything small and compact.
Poor design or limitations of the m43 system?
The Nikkor 16mm is superbly sharp (my example is) and all the reviews are great to, it's all metal and yes SMALLER and LIGHTER than this new M43 offering......my point was I thought M43 was all about being more compact.
As for aperture, I'll leave that for the equivalence experts, but with a FULL FRAME sensor user we know we can easily make up for the f1.8/f2.8 difference with higher ISOs.
Sorry to point this out to the M43 guys, but facts are facts!
So this Fisheye is larger and heavier than my FULL FRAME Nikkor 16mm AF 2.8D......mmmmm, the benefits of M43....LOL.
Neez: I just like that i can use this with my 70D for video. I wish they made a 30mm version though, would sell like hotcakes for APS-C users.
Perhaps you have a bad example......and if I'm shooting wide open I do so to isolate the main subject and the bokeh is good. Normally I shoot with smaller apertures and it's as sharp as anything then and FX sensors are so great at high ISOs I only open wide when I want subject isolation
I used to own the DX AFS f1.8 when I shot with a DX cam and it is a sharp lens but the bokeh is not as nice as the AFD f2 by a wide margin.
As for contrast and colours, personally I prefer the AFD lens, images have a more natural feel to them.
Yes, size is important to me as it makes the camera much less obtrusive when out taking pictures, hence I don't own any zooms.......
Mmmm, my Nikon AFD 35mm f2 is the same small size as my AFD 50mm f1.4, ie, small and it uses the same filter size (52mm) so it doesn't need to be any bigger! I shot Nikon but if I shot Canon I'd buy this lens.......
JackM: And relatively cheap because it's made by communist slaves.
......like Apple then and many global American ams Japanese companies.......you're living in the past!
Funny thing is with Dark Goob's extreme prejudiced views is that people will discount anything he says because they are so prejudiced!
They don't even have humour or irony to make the rant even slightly amusing to read.
2 out of 10 is my score on his comments and I'm being generous.....
vscd: I don't understand why Nikon doesn't use the number 5400 for it. The 5xxx is not unlimited with numbers and I think the series will go on for some more years ;)
That's going to upset the D400 wishers ........
samhain: Good job Sony, nice to see a f1.4. I didn't think they had it in em. That's the kind of lens that grabs other brand shooters attention. Hopefully more fast 1.4's to come.
But- putting out a 90mm macro before an 85mm or 90mm portrait lens? Seriously? That just doesn't make sense to me. Just like when Fuji's intial lens launch included a 60mm macro and no portrait lens. Widely considered a 'wtf' move. Even Fuji later admitted that was a mistake.
Well, I used a Leica/Lumix 45mm f2.8 with a Gf1 years ago for portraits and it had super bokeh......
A very nice lens to use, may not be ideal in paper spec form but in actual use......super sharp, great bokeh, made people look attractive......which it's what it's all about.
King Penguin: I expect the people of Afganistan are happy about this.......
Irony, dear boy Irony......
I expect the people of Afganistan are happy about this.......
King Penguin: Mmmmm, no flashing LED disco lights......I'm out!
....or maybe not!
Mmmmm, no flashing LED disco lights......I'm out!