Togglebolt: 7 blades, sharpened properly can produce a sharp image but the difficulty in disassembling this lens and then to remove the aperture blades to sharpen would be a deal breaker for me. Never mind trying to put them all back together!! Of course if they come pre-sharpened like Nikon's aperture blades, then you can get at least 5K shots before needing sharpening. It's a shame these apertures get dull so easy. I have a closet full of disassembled lenses with dull apertures, such a shame to see all that nice glass not being used. I guess thats how Canon gets everyone to buy new lenses, ship them dull, make them difficult to sharpen and people just toss them & buy a new one, just like a shaving razor!
Harrys.com is now offering blades for all of Canon's STM lenses... Excellent quality, better than OEM.
Since when does Photoshop handle 3D information?!?!? Is that new with this version or has it had that capability for some time?
tornwald: I am betting this will be able to compete with the Zeiss Otus. For a lot less money
I'm not sure your logic works... according to your thinking (price of 35mm vs. 50mm) then the Otus would not cost $4K.
As I understand the announcement, Sigma is looking to create a lens that competes with the Otus, not the Canon 50f1.4.
Also, given Sigma's great success as of late, if they did produce a lens that is at least comparable to the Otus, then I'd guess the price would be somewhat above $1000,maybe $1200-1500.
OK, these comments are based on a price of...???? As far as I can tell no price has been announced. Did I miss it?
Nukunukoo: Owning the newest Sigmas, this one is my must! If it gets priced similar to the original's $599, then Nikon's Lens thunder has essentially been pwned! I can hear the collective moans of many a Nikon execs.
BTW, the past Sigma 50mm was (and still is) quite good but tis time I post it on eBay for this new bad boy!
I'm guessing something like $1500, if indeed it is going after the Zeiss level of quality.
Nothing listed here makes me want to upgrade from Elements 10. Though I use LR4 for most of my editing.
David Naylor: Wow, this "AF issue" is being blown completely out of proportion. I've had this lens for over a month now and haven't had even the slightest indication that there is anything wrong with the AF. If there is any inconsistency I'd say it is well within the limits of what is normal for any lens using phase-detect focus.
And since the open-loop AF myth has been de-bunked (i.e. PDAF *does* confirm focus after shifting) then a large part (all?) of any inconsistency will be the fault of the AF sensor.
Very informative review Andy. Thanks for your efforts.
While I've had the 18-35 for less than a week and have had limited opportunity to use it, I have to agree with David Naylor about the AF. I have not had any concerns with it thus far. I was surprised to find it was a concern in the review.
By way of contrast, my 50mmf1.8 is totally untrustworthy re: AF. I do not feel that way about the Sigma f18-35. Yes I know, apples and oranges. I'm just trying to give my sense of the magnitude of the problem: I don't doubt that the reviewers have identified a legitimate issue, but I simply haven't found it to be a limiting factor thus far. It certainly is a limiting factor with my nifty-fifty.
dstate1: Is there anyone else here who only reads comments with 4 or more likes? The interweb is seriously over stocked with bs pundits. I miss 2003 like you cant believe.
I'd respond to this but I'm waiting for it to get one more like.
Gary Martin: Impressive lens, but I wonder how resistant it is to flare. My previous experience with Sigma lenses has been problematic in that regard.
Not very well, unfortunately. Flare is the one area in which it gets dinged in the Lenstip review.
But that won't stop me from buying it.
57even: If you had a choice between better live view AF and better DR and noise performance, which would you choose?
live view af performance
Kirppu: "AF works in light levels as low as 0 EV"So what does this actually mean, no pahse detection in very very low light?Aka black cat in coal mine. :)
Ahh, no... the equivalent aperture setting for 0 EV using a 2-sec exposure is f1.4, one stop down from f1.0.
Donnie G: For me, sometimes it's just fun to try and guess what Canon's next move is going to be. Since the 70D is so close to the 7D in terms of features, I'm guessing that Canon will either drop the 7D type from their line or take it up to a price point above USD $1900 (probably $2099) in order to offer buyers a clear choice of either top level APS-C performance or entry into their full frame sensor bodies. As for the new phase detection AF CMOS sensor tech, I have no doubt that it will find its way into every Canon imaging product from the 70D on up, because it really is a game changer. EOS M, Powershot, and Rebel buyers will most likely have to make do with hybrid contrast detect/phase detect sensors similar to what's available in the T5i now. It just makes sense from a marketing standpoint. And even if it doesn't, it's still my best guess for the next new product cycle.
I agree with your first point, a $1900-$2100 7D Mark II makes a lot of sense to me, but disagree that the EOS M and Rebel lines will not utilize the new Phase Detect AF Sensor. From my view, Canon would be crazy to not give these lines the advantage of fast, accurate Live View AF. There are certainly plenty of other features that sufficiently differentiate the 70D from the M and Rebels.
OK, let me say first that I am very impressed by this lens and am close to preordering one.
However, I haven't seen anyone comment on the character of the oof background blur. While the highlight bokeh seems good (though it has some edge highlighting at some apertures), it seems to me that much of the oof background areas are a bit "nervous." Has anyone else noticed this?
I've tried to compare 35mm f1.8 images from this lens to similar images taken with Sigma's 35mm f1.4 lens, and it seems to me the f1.4 lens produces a smoother, calmer background.
I think I'm going to get flamed for this critical comment, but I am interested in what others think about this.
jquagga: $80 bucks; no significant new features. Right, let me sign right up for that.
It doesn't even pass the laugh test.
I agree that the spot correction tool is a great addition. Also the more flexible vignette tool.
But I'm going to wait to upgrade... I just bought LR4.3 a few months back (currently running 4.4) and am saving my photography dollars for a new lens.
Alwynj: New sensor? Ok, if you say so. I was looking at replacing my D7000 with a 7d or upcoming 70d or 7d mark ii. However, if this is Canon's take on advancement then I'll stay put. It's said this sensor will do duty in the '70d' as well and as far as I can see it's no where near the D7000 sensor. I want 7d focus and speed yes, but wouldn't like to sacrifice IQ and DR
"To use today's DR to its full extend, means exposing for the highlights in a large DR scene, which usually means underexposing shadows and pushing them in a converter..."
Gotta agree with hoawardroark on this one... TrojMacReady, it seems you are describing an approah that is widely viewed as poor digital practice precisley because it aggravates the shadow noise problem.
As howard indicated, best practice recommends overexposing the highlights w/o blowing them, and then pulling the highlights down during PP.
mraad: I was a bit sceptical, but at first glance it does seem to be a new/improved sensor. Especially the high ISO samples (6400 ones) seem quite a bit cleaner than what my t2i/550d is able to produce.
I am actually quite curious now for the review!
I agree... re: high ISO noise the photos seem to be about 1-stop better than I'd expect to get with my 550d.
I too am interested in reading the full review.
But no tilt screen!?!?! That's a real dissappointment for me.
InTheMist: The compressed focusing coverage on both the 6D and D600 put me off.
Am I alone?
I agree on this... is there some advantage (less cost) to putting all the focus points jammed in the middle? It seems obvious that they ought to be around the third points, but they hardly ever are.
davidgp: Has DPReview given any explanation for the long delay in finishing this review? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the amount of time from start to finish has been exceptionally long when compared to other cameras they have reviewed in the past few years.
I really would like to hear their final take on this model but I'm beginning to think they have decided for some reason to not complete it.
Just as Rbrt and turner72 replied to you 2 weeks ago, I'd like to hear dpreview's take on the GPS & wifi's effect on battery life, as well as their take on the features.
Also, is there a reason for the delay? It is, I believe, unusual for dpreview to be so delayed with a review. Sometimes such delays are tied to issues uncovered during the review process. Is that the case here?
It is not about what is already availble in terms of information. It's about dpreview so delayed in completing a review and the reason for it.
Maybe dpreview has already given an explanation for the delay and I've simply missed it. But I have been looking.
Has DPReview given any explanation for the long delay in finishing this review? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the amount of time from start to finish has been exceptionally long when compared to other cameras they have reviewed in the past few years.
Looks like an ingenious approach to minimizing tripod size.
Theoretically there is a slight reduction in the stability of the center column due to the change in cross-section of the center post but I suspect it is a non-issue in real-life situations.
Looks like a winner.