The last one is great, really creative.
My question is why bother with a mirrorless MF system in the first place? MF systems aren't small or compact anyway so how does the absence of a mirror help?
mike earussi: Never heard of a CPL that can transmit 90% of the light. Wonder how they're pulling that miracle off?
I already own two Hoya HD CPLs. That's why I wasn't sure what the Manfrotto PR release was talking about. ASAIK the Hoya HD CPLs use the best polarizer material available which results in a 1 1/3 stop light loss instead of the usual two.
Joe Mayer: Sure, why not? Because the pro filter market isn't already covered by B+W. There aren't enough (good and great) filter manufacturers. Interesting move on their part unless they think their name will help them and the profit margin is insanely high because I doubt they'll dent the current makers, especially B+W. Of course, I'm biased and think B+W is the best and I wouldn't put anything else on my lenses.
At least it isn't Hasselblad coming out with a rebranded $50 Hoya adding wood trim and charging $500 for it.
Never heard of a CPL that can transmit 90% of the light. Wonder how they're pulling that miracle off?
It's about time, it was an industry wide joke.
Sometimes I get the impression that to Ricoh Pentax is nothing but a joke. Besides, I refuse to buy any camera that isn't covered with chocolate and has a cherry on top.
I guess when you have nothing new to say, the best you can do is to try to say it in a new, more dramatic, way. The end result is a big PR fiasco for Canon.
The main advantage is that Rodger has already gone over the lens before it's sent out, so you know what you purchase is in good shape. No one else does this--and I would trust Roger's lens over a manufacture's refurbished one.
Hey, monkeys have rights, too. It's our culture's anthropocentrism that's causing us to callously destroy the habitats of other creatures who have been on this earth just as long as we have. Maybe the money from its use should go into a wildlife fund for the protection of indigenous species.
I commend Sigma for completely changing their design philosophy. Once known as one of the worse lens manufactures only a few years ago (to the point where Lens Rentals quit carrying their lenses due to so much mechanical failure) they now are producing some of the best lenses around. Only time will tell how durable they are, but hopefully they will prove to be as good mechanically as they are optically.
Dr_Jon: My one concern about this lens is too many people are complaining about AF issues. Is it possible to test it on as many Canon bodies as possible and report what you see? (Canon bodies as you have a Canon version.)
As someone else said, it doesn't matter how sharp it is if it misses focus...
E.g. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx"The bottom line is that, the longer I focus tested this lens, the less sure I was about its focus accuracy.... (a bit removed as I was over the character limit for a post) ...What I learned from the many hours (actually extended into days) spent shooting and analyzing thousands of images is that the 50 Art lens' AF cannot be completely counted on. Sometimes, most images are properly focused and when my shots counted, this lens delivered. But sometimes, more images are out of focus than I am comfortable with."
I trust Brian to have an objective opinion BTW.
No AF system is perfect. Each camera body is unique since there is always a certain amount of tolerance in its construction (see Lens Rental's series of articles if you're not familiar with this topic--http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy).
That's why Sigma's AF Dock is so useful, it enables these variables to be corrected for on a body by body basis. An interesting test would be to compare Canon's 50 f1.4 to Sigma's for AF accuracy after the Sigma has been calibrated using the Dock.
That's what the USB Dock is for, to fine tune AF to your specific camera body. The tester may not have done this.
The question unanswered is are they replacing using the new improved shutters from the D610 or just putting more faulty D600 shutters back in?
The camera market is finally saturated with plenty of good used cameras on the market for sale. Eventually sales will stabilize to replacement levels. The question is which companies can survive at those lower sales levels?
I'm amazed that Hasselblad doesn't realize at how pathetic this comes across and how much it demeans their otherwise excellent brand.
BTW, I have an Argus C3 that I've taped a Leica sticker to that I'd be willing to part with for only $2,000. Any takers?
What's really good about this lens is that it will put pressure on the other lens manufactures to up there game as well, though hopefully at less cost.
gerard boulanger: I hate to say this but "smart" phones and their integrated camera devices are eating some of the market share of the entry level digital cameras.Anywhere you might go in the world, most people take souvenir/family/vacation pictures with their telephones.Now, how to explain the drastic drop in shipment re DSLRs and even on the relatively new concept of mirrorless cameras? Economy, lack of new technology, prices?
Saturation, there are only so many people in the world who actually want dslrs. And since the product has pretty much matured feature and IQ wise there's no real reason for present owners to update. This is a cycle all products go through, for example the PC market with its declining sales.
Actually, I thought she was a manikin.