Absolutic: The summary of first reviews, per mu-43 forum is Premium construction and snapshot focus like the M. Zuiko 12mm f/2 lensVery similar MTF curves to M. Zuiko 12mm f/2 lensFast and essentially silent AFGood but not superior sharpness across the frame - slightly behind the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 in terms of center sharpnessVery well controlled axial CA - meaning very little purple fringing compared to most fast wides (including the Panasonic 14mm and 20mm primes) and minimal green bokeh fringingVery pleasing bokeh character (subjective/opinion)Probably field curvature, optimized for medium-far working distances, thus giving poorer edge sharpness at close range with flat targetsSignificant barrel distortion which will be a non-issue for most people since it is automatically addressed in camera and by leading RAW processing apps
I am personally concerned that first reviews suggest it is soft wide open unlike 45/1.8, 75/1.8 and 12/2.0, and needs to be stopped down a little
Look at the photos on Robin Wong's review. It doesn't look "soft" to me.
tkbslc: I want to be the first knucklehead to mention 34mm f3.6!
Really, though, it sounds awesome, but we do already have 20mm f1.7 which is not all that different.
Good to have options. Besides, this one focuses much faster and quiter. Also, the barrel is metal and has a DoF/distance scale.
Kodachrome200: I dont get these crazy expensive m43 lenses. Small formats should not be a premium format. These lenses cost more than FF lenses. thats nuts
It's half the price of the Sony Zeiss 24/1.8 E.
gl2k: Perky price.Nikon DX 35mm f1.8 and FX 50mm f1.8 are about €170
FoV are not even close.
There aren't really any Nikon lens equivalent to 35mm for DX bodies, so here are real options:
Nikon 24/2.8D, $360 - much slower.
Nikon 28/1.8G, $700 - not as wide.
parkmcgraw: Having buildt my own digital devices and many lens systems in some cases making the element groups, do not from the specifications, understand why this lens, a minimalist design composed mostly of plastic should retail for so much money.
A lens with less manual control, more dependent on power and with the removal of the aperture ring, less of a professional tool.
■One “F” Low Dispersion (FLD) glass lens...
All the elements are small in diameter, easy to work, not too hard to polish.
■A floating inner focus...
The lens has some close focus capacity, nothing new.
■Super Multi-Layer Coating...
■A HSM (Hyper Sonic Motor)...
Nothing new, or expensive.
Compensation for using low stacking tolerance plastic.
■Thermally Stable Composite (TSC)...
Better plastic, but still plastic.
■A rounded 9 blade diaphragm...
No pats for doing what you should.
■A newly developed USB dock...
Marketing gizmo, no value to optics. Additional $10 to the BOM?
"Canon and Nikon are regarded in some circles as a professional camera, yet the entire lens lineup is devoid of aperture rings"
That's not entirely true. Nikon still sells D lenses, which do have aperture ring. Also, the focus motor is not in those lenses. Their price is also cheaper, e.g. 50/1.4D vs 50/1.4G. That said, the newer G lenses seem to have better IQ because of the optical redesign or just better coatings.
RubberDials: Every other camera manufacturer has centre pinch caps - Sony, Pentax, Nikon, Olympus - even Minolta had them.
There's me thinking it's finally time for Canon to come clean with it's users and give them in-body IS and they roll out centre-pinch caps. Simply amazing.
IBIS is the way. Olympus has shown us that a 5-axis IBIS can be as good as any lens IS. There are users turning off the Power OIS on their 100-300mm lens to use the E-M5's IS, so saying that IBIS sucks on telephoto don't know what they're talking about.Having IS in a lens makes it more optically and machanically complicated resulting in a bigger and pricier lens. Also, you pay for it every single time you buy a lens with IS. The engineering is wasted by adding IS to each new lens; it's far more efficient to design bodies with sensor shift as different multiple models can share the same IS design, unless the company improved the IS itself.That said, I doubt Canon or any other company will switch an existing system from lens IS to IBIS.
peevee1: What is the point of showing empty weights of the cameras? Does somebody want to take pictures without battery and memory card? And there are CIPA numbers, with battery and memory card available for all but Koreans. But if you do a review, why not to measure yourself, with the same card? If anything, the weight should be in a set with a spare battery and a bag.
The point is to know exactly how heavy the camera is compared to others while minimizing variables. Some SD cards are heavier than others. Care to specify which one they should use? And don't get me started with bags. That's just ridiculous.
Pavel Sokolov: I have E-PL2 and have no idea why I should upgrade to E-pl5. No killer features at all.
I have the E-PL2 too and it's tempting to upgrade because of the ...- better IQ (iso, dr, resolution)- tilting screen- touch screen- faster burst rate and AF- better video (1080p30)
Sure, I'm trading away the built-in flash but it's still much better.
That said, I'm in no rush to replace my E-PL2 and I've already started saving up for the E-M5. Who knows, maybe Oly may release a PEN w/ built-in EVF later on.
WhiteBeard: About pricing... A long time ago, lenses were made with a lot of metal and glass - not polycarbonate - and 70-200mm zooms (35mm eq.) were the most popular and mostly least expensive zooms available. Now, Panasonic wants to make us believe that putting an O-ring, less glass (polished by much more precise and efficient automated means than before) and putting back some aluminum instead of the usual polycarbonate is sufficient to warrant a 1500$ price tag... Anybody out there familiar about Marketing Theory and the expression "Whatever the Market can bear"?
A long time ago, TVs/CRT monitors had a lot of glass, were big and heavy. Then a few years ago, LCD TVs/monitors came out, which were a lot slimmer/smaller while being more expensive (at first)...
So what if this lens has less metal/glass than old lenses. It has AF, OIS, better coatings, better sharpness/contrast, and exotic elements (ED and ultra ED).
Anyways, MSRP are always high and the street price would be lower especially after a few months, just like the 12-35/2.8.
babamaru: Whats the point of having a small m43 camera if you are going to stick something like this to it?
This is small compare to a 70-200/2.8. Besides, do you suggest only having non-tele pancakes?
lpeters: I am constantly amazed with the negative comments on the site. Wow. It just never ends. I think it's great to see companies value design and challenge themselves and others. Putting quality before quantity. I can't afford a lot of the products posted, but you can be sure photography wouldn't be what it is today without them.
"any reasonable explanation of why there are so many vicious, retarded people posting regular comments"
Gen Y (and Z?)! This generation is full of narcissistic people with a strong sense of entitlement. They want the best and the world isn't good enough! Also, being always connected makes them readily share their thoughts. You should read the book, "Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled--and More Miserable Than Ever Before" by Dr. Twenge .
spencerberus: Uh, did most of you read 'the unique, Ive-designed M rangefinder will be auctioned in summer 2013'? That means there will be 1. This is not a consumer product, or a real product at all for that matter, its because they know they can combine Leica and Apple and got a ton of money from some rich person and put that money to charitable use rather than sitting in someone's stock portfolio, good for them - sure, it's probably a PR gimmick too, the end result is the same.
This will not destroy Leica design, revolutionize Leica design, revolutionize the industry, destroy the industry, or otherwise have much of an impact at all on Leica, Apple, the industry or the world in general. Quite complaining and go take some pictures.
Sadly there's this trend on the web that is on the rise: people reading and thinking less but spewing more crap.
mosc: Soo many comments about f2.5 being better than f4.9 comparing this to an RX100 at tele. Wow, do the math!
This camera is f11.8 equivalent at 112. The Sony is f13.4 at 100. Complain all you want about it but at least do the math correctly people.
or realize the real difference here is that one has a hot shoe, an option for an externa viewfinder, and is intended as a general purpose camera where the other is a carry anywhere compact designed for indoor shooting without an external flash at wide. The user who picks the Olympus and uses it without anything in the hot shoe probably made the wrong purchasing decision. Similarly, the user who never brings the sony with him because it doesn't have a viewfinder or external flash probably should have gotten the olympus.
Doing math is one thing, but you need to check your logic. So do try to keep up...
It is true that even though XZ-2 has a much faster tele end (f/2.5) than the RX-100 (f/4.9), actual amount of light gathered by both sensor is about the same (provided that the shutterspeed and ISO are the same). But this fact remains: for the same unit of area at the above f-stops, the XZ-2 is getting more light; almost 4x in fact. Therefore, the RX-100 will require a much higher ISO or slower shutter speed to properly expose the same scene at the tele end.
The RX-100 being better at higher ISOs (like 800+) is the result of its pixel having a much larger area than XZ-2's, which yields a better SNR. So, the RX-100 can use a higher ISO with acceptable noise levels to compensate for the slow tele.
That said, I won't be zooming in with these P&S in low-light often, so I would actually pick the the LX-7 over the RX-100 and XZ-2; it goes wider, brighter and is cheaper.
iudex: So downgrading from 1/1,63" sensor to 1/1,7" sensor and asking 600 bucks for it? Hmmm, what a progress...
One word, "fractions".
marike6: Everybody seems to think that RX100 has obsoleted all P&S. Having used the RX100, it's f4.9 at the long end aren't great for subject separation nor is the slippery, grip-less body great ergonomically. For this reason, compacts like the XZ-2, LX7 and X10 are not obsolete at all.
I always loved my XZ-1 when I had it and some of my favorite images came from this camera. Whether or not buying a small m43 or APS-C camera is better may be determined by needs. Many DSLR users aren't interested in investing in yet another ILC, but just want a compact camera with raw, and great IQ. The XZ-2, LX7, RX100, x10, or GRD IV are such cameras.
"You ever hear Olympus refer to this lens as a 6-24mm?"
It's stamped on the lens.
"They should all specify in 35mm equivalent f-stops like they do for their equivalent lens ranges"
That's stupid. The equivalent FL in 35mm is a useful reference for FoV. The equivalent f-stop in 35mm partially gives you an idea of DoF ONLY! It's useless otherwise. Also, I said partially as DoF is affected by subject distance.
Red G8R: There must be a new body in the works to go with these expensive lenses.
Saw a dude w/ the 12-35/2.8 on an E-M5 at some festival last weekend, he loves that combo. Some day, I'll get both; if only I can find it locally.
It's interesting that there is no Samnsung NX version. Could be a technical reason as the flange distance of Samsung NX is much longer than other mirrorless and image won't focus. That said, I'm surprised that there is no Canon EF-M version.
Flange distances:Fujifilm X-mount - 17.7 mmSony E-mount / Canon EF-M - 18 mmMicro Four Thirds System - 19.25 mmSamsung NX mount - 25.50 mm
EDWARD ARTISTE: Must be a real looney to trust this brand. Sounds suspect to say the least.
You probably should try or read more about some of their lenses before making such baseless statements. FYI, the 12/1.6 is pretty good.
In the mean time, mind these two quotes:
"What's in a name? That which we call a roseBy any other name would smell as sweet."
"Don't judge a book by its cover"
ianimal: The old Sony DSLR A850 was $1999 when released some years ago, so the Nikon D600 is not the cheapest ever I would say. Ok price but I would like to see FF cameras well below $2000. Possible?
The A850 has a sensor with higher resolution, has an LCD with more dots, has IBIS, has 1/8000, and etc. So considering all of that (spec, price, year released), the A850 is/was the better value.
That said, hopefully the street price of the D600 will be below $2000 and more FF camera will follow suite.
Edmond Leung: It seems full frame is already the trend...Yesterday was Sony...Today is Nikon...Where is the low-priced "full frame" for Canon and Pentax?I'm doubt how long can 4/3 stay in the market.4/3 and APSC may be faded out very quickly.
"I'm doubt how long can 4/3 stay in the market.4/3 and APSC may be faded out very quickly."
For DSLRs maybe, but $2100 is still expensive, especially if you can get a D7000 for half of that and the D7000 is more than sufficient for many. Even if the DSLRs using those formats are gone, the formats themselves will stay around longer as mirrorless, particularly m4/3, is still much smaller and that's important to some.