Does anyone know whether this is in preparation to discontinuing development and support? They're still great tools.
That's one smudgy fingerprint in slide 9.
mike80: I'm happy that Sigma is again offering a large aperture telephoto zoom lens for APS-C users, but haven't decided whether I should try to find a copy of Sigma's older 50-150mm f/2.8 OS lens rather than buying this new lens.
The new lens has a shorter zoom range and lacks the stabilization of the 50-150mm f/2.8 OS, but has a larger f/1.8 maximum aperture.
50mm f/1.8 prime lenses are cheap and plentiful, and 85mm f/1.8 lenses, while less common, are still very affordable. What makes this new lens special, aside from having an f/1.8 max. aperture at all focal lengths, is it's f/1.8 max. aperture at 100mm.
Using an online depth of field calculator, I found that at 100mm and f/1.8, if I focused on a subject 10ft away, I'd have about 2.5in of depth of field to work with. At f/2.8 and the same subject distance, I'd have about 4in of depth of field.
What is the practical usefulness of a 50-100mm f/1.8 lens given the limited depth of field at 100mm versus having OS and the 100-150mm range?
mike80: It's great that you have your own style and aesthetic preferences (and, to be honest, I don't do ultra-shallow depth of field as often as I used to -- though I like having the option to do it now and then), but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any "practical usefulness", as you put it, for many others who have different preferences.
...adding: I do portraits with the 135/2, which would be 90/1.4 on APS-C. You do have to be careful with how you use the depth of field, but when it works it's lovely.
People pay good money for the 85L to shoot portraits. To get that angle of view and depth of field on APS-C you'd need 56mm f/0.8! Likewise, the f/2.8 zoom (and fixed focal length) lenses are very popular for sports on full frame. They have the same depth of field as this zoom on APS-C.
Pro-tips: 1) many people buy wide aperture lenses precisely to get that narrow depth of field (hint: portraits); 2) many others shoot subjects significantly farther away than that, can't rely on image stabilization, need all the shutter speed they can get (hint: indoor sports).
Hugo808: Puny focal range, too heavy and no IS! It's hardly a winner from my perspective but the speed will have people running for it in droves.
As the differences in reach is so feeble surely we'd all be much better off with a 75mm?
Or get the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 A, for half the weight and 2/3 of the price, and crop as needed. It'll be a bit worse than the zoom towards 100, a bit better towards 50. And it's compatible with full-frame cameras. This is still a really interesting zoom but, if I was using APS-C, I'd find it very hard to justify.
USD 500. This comments thread is going to be fun.
cityofdust: I would love buy a canon but cameras are ugly and sony cameras are ugly too but sony has the better sounding numbers.
wish for more retro style and canon could make use of there history.
But Canon has always been up to date with design, occasionally pushing boundaries. What you think now as 'classic' designs were novel and modern at the time. Coming out with a 'retro' model would be a violation of their history.
Comments sections whenever a camera gets released in anything other than black are the best entertainment.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromophobia
iShootWideOpen: 50, 50, 50. The 50mm is just as intimate but doesn't introduce the ugly distortion. The 35mm is great for candids and environmental portraits at a distance.
Rishi -- Try picking up a medium sized object, say a coffee mug (I'm doing this right now with a Rubik's cube). Put it at about 20 cm from your eyes, and try with different angles. Look at it with either eye closed, and then with both eyes open. When one eye is closed you should experience seeing it as a wide angle lens would render it. With both eyes open, you should experience seeing it with a surprisingly flat perspective. But visual perception is indeed a far more complicated thing that we are aware of, and there probably are big differences from person to person.
"the slight amounts of barrel distortion that I find pleasing because loved ones I view up close also have that level of barrel distortion" -- this is not quite true regarding how most people's visual perception works. Unless you always close one eye whenever you get very close to your loved ones (maybe Rishi does?...), for close-up objects our brain takes the two images from each eye and processes away the perspective. I think this is why to many (most?) people it's the very long focal lengths (200mm+) that are perceived as strangely intimate -- because they sort of replicate (without the stereoscopic processing) how we perceive very up-close objects.
Joe Ogiba: 4K @15fps ? Memo to DPR , that is not 4K video. 24fps is the minimum for video. This is a pure click bait headline.
More like 15 fps continuous shooting with a very big buffer at 8MP resolution.
I clicked to come here just to watch the train wreck in the comments.
Mattoid: Why do these things always have fish eye lenses? Give us a wide rectilinear!
Because they're smaller and cheaper. What would make sense would be to offer software (maybe even in firmware) to "defish" the video.
misspiggy01: you are very generous that you are showing the canons at a max iso of 200 and save them the embarrassment of the comparison with the sony at 1600!
the lens is very impressive. a lot better than my nikkor Ais 20mm f4 which gets acceptable corners only by f11. but then the nikkor is so small that i always have a hard time finding it in my bag!
That's a weird comment. Canon sensors have a relative weakness (that's irrelevant for most people) in dynamic range at base ISO, but from about ISO 800 up they are as good or better than any.
cd cooker: Can you add the Canon EF-35mm F2 IS USM in this comparison?
And, while you're at it, the Tamron 35/1.8.
They call me Hans: Oly, Pany, RICOH, SOMEONE! MAKE UNDERWATER CAMERAS LIKE THIS.
With a 15m rating it's not an underwater camera, just well ruggedized. But would love to see something similar at a reasonable price from one of the Japanese manufacturers.
Fazal Majid: Nice, but not a successor for the Cousteau-designed Nikonos, which had optics specially designed to work in water, which has a different refractive index than air. Unfortunately neither does the Nikon AW1.
The Nikonos was a scuba diving camera. These cameras can barely handle snorkeling, they're not at all aiming for the same market.
SirSeth: Looks like a really nice underwater camera. But $2900?! Yikes!
With a 35mm equiv. lens it's a poor choice for an underwater camera (which makes the unusual flash location a bit pointless). More of a generic land camera that happens to be well ruggedized.