Hopefully this will bring some movement into the long tele zoom market, if it achieves similar quality as the Tamron 70-300 VC. In Canon land, nothing really beats the aging 100-400 L so far, the cheaper Sigmas being worse and heavier.
Does the ISO wheel spin when the camera is set to AUTO ISO? ;-)
picture 9, the church. Is that staged? must be, can't believe there would be dead bodies sitting there. so, in all pictures, how much is staged, versus real?
too bad they didn't put the GPS in there that can be found in their smaller cameras. For traveling, it's nice to sometimes tag photos in remote areas.
abortabort: Seriously? The 16-28mm is a great lens, but 5 TIMES the price?! Samyang's cine versions are something like $50 more, if that. I suppose this will still be cheaper than the competition though.
I don't think they will make substantial better quality control on this lens - certainly not the way Roger suggests that cinema lenses need to be highly calibrated in his blog. The optical specs are the same as the normal lens, it's really just the barrel which is different. I think they look at it as a niche product, selling few copies to pros that can afford it.
CarVac: They may have reworked some of the mechanisms to provide for parfocal zooming. That would certainly account for an increased price.
based on the optical diagram, they are the same.
Jorginho: I just decided on the 84.5 filter series. Quite a few Dutch reviews by pro photographers convinced me. In general: in spite of the hard (organic) glass not scratch free, but no colour cast not even when you put two or three in your filterholder. Price is okey. So...no Cokin (creative) for me.
But a good thing they survive.
ah, nice, but not available everywhere yet. Still, they fit the Cokin P and same material as Cokin, Hitech, Lee, Singh-Ray (C39). perhaps dyes are better (no IR leak??)
Decent price with decent quality will sell. Look at how Lee is continuously sold out, despite the high price. They just need to update for modern needs, i.e. NDs, and gradients (no color necessary usually) for photography, and sets of filters for video (effects that are not easy to do in post).
Hoefie: If I have a 77mm lens, what filter should I get: M, L or XL ?As there is an overlap on all sizes; is the size really the only difference between the four ranges ?
Depends on focal length and what body it's on, i.e. the angle of view. You should get the range that covers the lens with your largest front diameter, taking into account the angle of view. I.e. on a tele, you can stack a bunch of 77mm filters with little effect, while on a wide angle, a thick filter (e.g. variable NDs) may already give hard vignetting.
Richard H Goodman: GOOD! Maybe I can finally get a 77mm P series adapter!
What's the problem? For a few $ you get a 77mm adapter ring plus P holder on ebay.
Well, despite the advantages of dSLR, a nice print on good quality film paper should last a long time. In that time you have to keep buying new technology every few years and copy your stuff again and again if you want to save it into the future. Hopefully some new stable technology will come along. I thought CDs and DVDs would last, but seems they don't. (hard drives fail of course routinely).
photonius: What about the Sandisk Eye Fi cards? Is this simply a licensed version of the Eye-Fi card with the same software and features as described here, or are there differences?
Thanks for the info on the Sandisk. Yes, looks like the Eye-Fi itself is not readily available in europe. hmm, if nobody wants to sell a decent product, so be it, they won't get my money then.
Thanks, yes, the Sandisk Eye-Fi cards are slower, but also cheaper. I noticed they are not sold everywhere though. Perhaps licensing issues, or WiFi regulation issues. I'd be interested to have some cheap WiFi capability for a non-WiFi body for test shoots in a home environment, no large data transfers, just avoiding a cable to stumble over.
What about the Sandisk Eye Fi cards? Is this simply a licensed version of the Eye-Fi card with the same software and features as described here, or are there differences?
Timmbits: yet another itty bitty crappy tiny sensor! I wish they would offer these camera with a bigger one - especially at these very long focal lengths, where IQ suffers significantly.
That's the whole point of the small sensor. This lens is 200mm in focal length to give 1200mm FF equivalent field of view. If you make the sensor bigger, you need a bigger lens. For a m43 sized sensor, you need a 600mm lens - look up how big those are.
D1N0: This sensor is useless for people that shoot through the viewfinder. Canon should put it in a mirrorless and focus on superior iso for their dslrs (not just almost on par with Nikon because that won't last very long). Wouldn't you need even better lenses because it is actually a 40mp sensor with only half the pixels actually used for imaging?.
No, there are still only 20 Mp microlenses. It's the sensor under the microlenses that is split into two photosites, so the phase can be read by only reading the left or right one. However, for the image, the signal from both is combined, so the result should be similar to a "simple" 20Mp sensor, unless all the extra electronics makes a lot of extra noise. On the other hand, averaging two photosites will reduce shot noise, so the image could actually be less noisy than a simple 20MP sensor. Dynamic range could suffer, if each of the two photosite would hold less than 50% of photons a single large photosite could hold.
qwertyasdf: I really hope the NX line success with it incredible lensesBut the unnecessary long flangeback distance is like a genetic disorder that will plague generations to come The inability to use m mount lenses and the stupid protruding lens mount killed the deal for me
But it means one should be able to use this fish-eye with an adapter on Sony or Canon mirror-less... ;-)
Jefftan: Sony NEX 10-18 F4 225 gramCanon 11-22mm F4-5.6 220 gram
not as wide, not as bright and same weight
What's going on? Is this the best what Canon can do?Can't understand
Well, look at the photozone review of the Sony lens. It's optical properties are not that great, rather poor at f4. All points towards the Canon being even better than it's well regarded EF-S 10-22. So, I rather prefer Canon's approach, even if on paper Sony's specs seem better.
Just another Canon shooter: Isn't this lens a bit too long for a UWA for a mirrorless camera (shorter flange distance and all that)?
Even though the EOS-M has a much shorter flange distance, ALL mirror-less systems have a flange distance around 20mm (except Pentax Q), which is double the distance for UWAs (around 10mm), so you still need a retrofocus design. And in any lens design, the lens elements take up space, so the retrofocus elements will take up a bit of space before you even come to the part of the lens that needs to collect the light at wide angle at the front. Further, no matter how short the flange distance, the fact is that due sensor design (and the microlenses on it), you cannot have light come in at extremely shallow angles, otherwise the light at the edges will just be lost. So, it seems the rear element is usually not closer than about 20mm to the sensor. That's why there is no 10mm pancake. Theoretically (thin lens), a 10mm lens would only be 10mm away from the sensor, and have a diameter of 10mm for f1.0! The only way to go smaller is with smaller sensors (Nikon, Pentax Q)
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review