callaesthetics: 40-150 f2.8 + teleconverter = this lens?
That would be a 420 f5.6, so no, it wouldn't be the same thing.
nerd2: Sharpest ever? M43 requires TWICE sharper lens for equivalent output. LOL
Considering how sharp their other pro lenses are, that statement, if true, would indicate very impressive performance.
The teleconverter is designed for only the 40-150 and the 300, and it is very good. It's very hard to discern any image quality loss when using it on the 40-150, I'll get back to you when I get a 300.
And, in theory, despite the greater magnification, the DOF should remain the same, giving the greater subject isolation everybody on this forum whines about incessantly.
richshep: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms)"So let me get this straight: I can shoot at say 400ISO at f4 and 1/500 second on the Olympus 300mm and at the same time I can shoot at 400ISO at f8 and 1/500 second on the 600mm and get the same exposure... Cool!
@Richard"Because it's a useful way of understanding the situation and it's demonstrably true."
I don't see much in this thread to corroborate that.
"Shoot F4 and 1/500th on an Olympus and F8 and 1/500th on a Full Frame and you'll capture the same amount of total light. Broadly speaking, the images are likely to look fairly similar."
No, you'll see a shot underexposed by two stops on the full frame, but the next time I underexpose a shot, I'll tell the client that I captured the same amount of "total light" as another format and see if that makes them any happier.
Sirandar: Actually this is precisely the lens I would like from Oly
My current 40-150mm does the job well but I would sometimes like longer reach. Most of the current affordable oly and pana lenses >150mm are just too slow to be useful. Even the slightest movement ruins the picture because shutter speed it to low (or ISO too high).
But I already know the price is going to be way too high to justify those few times I need this lens AND it only partially works on my EM5 mk1.
But well done anyway .... if I had an extra 2 grand I would buy, or use that to switch system
Have you slapped the teleconverter on yet?
Why do people perpetuate this?
f4 is f4
tkbslc: If you guys want to get outraged about something, why not the cost of cancer drugs or something important? This is just software. It is not life or death. If you don't like Adobe's pricing terms you just don't buy it. What's the problem?
Have you seen Big Pharma's greed? Adobe pales in comparison.
You make much of your living from Cancer Drugs?
razadaz: Many people here pointed out that DNG is a good workaround. I think they are right. The problem is how long Adobe will keep producing their DNG converter? I have no confidence in the future of DNG.
Or when will it become a subscription?
I'll take a look, but Canon still owes me an apology for the 16-35 II.
rfreund719: Image quality is amazing. It would have been nice if in any of the many reviews raving about the camera that they mentioned that you can't use the viewfinder if you wear glasses. It must be so obvious that it does not get mentioned. However if you are nearsighted and wear glasses it is a waste of time to think the view finder is something you can use.
I wear Glasses too, and I didn't have a problem either.
Did you find the diopter adjustment lever?
Jogger: In 2000 years the 200mp images from this camera will seem like primitive cave drawings to us now.
You mean they'll be considered great art?
I doubt anyone will be talking about these images in 2000 years, but they'll still be talking about cave paintings.
sobi700: is it made in Japan or Thailand, any idea?
Or they'll be extremely spicy.
It's a lovely country and the people are very friendly, just don't care for the humidity.
I'm good with my D800, it's been an ATM for me.
LarryK: As many bags as I bought from Tamrac, I figured they be set for life.
I like their big semi hard storage cases.
Well, you can add "discontinued", I was thinking of picking another one or two up.
As many bags as I bought from Tamrac, I figured they be set for life.
Simon97: The large open structures look very modern for their age. Note that he uses large format cameras which should have the digital geeks up in arms.
That's true, I love a good view camera, even a bad view camera.
beavertown: How super embarrassing for Nikon!
Sigma 35mm scored an astonishing 43, while this Nikon 35mm scored sadly 36.
No wonder Nikon has been switching off some Sigma lenses since the D5200 released, as they know the Art lenses perform better than their overpriced lenses optically and properly better in many ways.
The once laughing stock has become the king of lenses.
Watch out Canon, they may surpass you someday as they have already surpassed Nikon.
No, it's junk, I've never seen a good one in person. I think reviewers are getting bought off. I've owned Nikon for forty years, and I don't apologize for their shortcomings, they've made plenty of turkeys over the years.
If you'd like to buy my friend's, I'm sure he'd be glad to get rid of it.
The Nikkor 24-120 is a piece of junk, my friend was foolish enough to buy one.