Great! Thank you. I've been holding off, waiting for focus peaking because I specifically want to use some fine DSLR lenses.
The 16mm may interest me if it's IQ is not compromised to offer the fast maximum aperture. I'm into landscape, architecture and travel, so for me WA lenses are optimal if they are sharp across the frame and limit distortion and flare. I'm hoping Samyang have done well with this one. If it performs well it could be successful for them with these specs.
I salute the creativity of those who posted before me. It's all been said. Surely Hasselblad could have enhanced their photographic reputation by producing a new camera with the hallmarks of the brand instead of re-badging.
This lens (albeit a tad slow) looks like it might be good if Canon's claims about its optical abilities are borne out. It's just a pity there's not a first rate body to mount it on...... The reception to the first EOS M was pretty mixed. I thought Canon said that they were developing a Version 2 that was more enthusiast-oriented? If Version 2 is an enthusiast's mirror-less camera, good lenses might take some competition to Fuji and Sony.
Thx DPR. Looks interesting. When you take these sample shots, could you please consider including a few 'flare' shots - maybe a contra light, an artificial harsh lighting scene and a sun included WA landscape? Flare response can really help distinguish lens choices for some of us, but reviewers don't always address it. It's probably all the more relevant for fast and/or WA lenses.
Rod McD: No built in EVF (probably) or an expensive add on EVF (possibly) and a lens which ends up at f6.4? For $3,000? No thank-you. I'll stick for the time being with my G1X as my second camera - great IQ and slightly faster zoom. My future Fuji XE1s or XE2 upgrade is looking very secure indeed. That's unless there's a good, small and reasonably affordable FF MILC released (the NEX9?). With built in EVF please. Let's face it - that's what everyone's waiting for......
So did the MFT cameras, the GXR, the RX1 and the Coolpix A, with varying levels of expense ranging from modest to outrageous (Nikon). Add on EVFs are a woeful idea from the outset. They make the camera taller than one with built in EVF, add significantly to the expense, get lost, forgotten, knocked off, etc, and block the flash shoe in use. Egregiously bad idea. Just give us a complete camera in the first place.
No built in EVF (probably) or an expensive add on EVF (possibly) and a lens which ends up at f6.4? For $3,000? No thank-you. I'll stick for the time being with my G1X as my second camera - great IQ and slightly faster zoom. My future Fuji XE1s or XE2 upgrade is looking very secure indeed. That's unless there's a good, small and reasonably affordable FF MILC released (the NEX9?). With built in EVF please. Let's face it - that's what everyone's waiting for......
I don't know what this camera is (or isn't). This is all conjecture. What I'm pretty confident of is that the manufacturer who first markets a reasonably affordable, small AF FF MILC with a decent feature set, a high grade built in EVF and a matched suite of four or five small sharp primes will do well. They'll be running out the door.
OTOH, it might be the second or third one. Whoever makes the first one will probably be price gouging.......
AllMankind: What is it with Olympus and Panasonic, that they cannot make a rangefinder styled camera with a BUILTIN EVF?
To Vobluda - why would it cost more than a built in one? Same components, no shoe, probably less casing, less packaging, distribution etc. The world should consign add-on EVFs to history. Easily lost, forgotten, or knocked off and many block the flash shoe in usage. Bad idea. Sony and Fuji don't seem to have had any trouble achieving this. Just make a complete camera in the first place!!!
I'm still on the fence with a MILC purchase - using a DSLR and a G1X - but it's coming. Someone earlier described the desire for a built in EVF as "hype". So be it, but I'm also in the "no built in EVF , no sale club". Add on EVFs that cost maybe 30% of the price of the camera and make it bigger than it would have been with a BIEVF are a poor idea from the outset. They're easily left at home, lost, forgotten or knocked off and good few of them block the flash shoe in use. Let's just consign them to history and build a complete camera in the first place........
Rod McD: I'm with rondom below in thinking that the "FF equivalent DOF" thing is getting out of hand if that's the key goal of lens' design. We do need to give this lens the benefit of the doubt - it's innovative and it may be very good. OTOH I'm a bit dubious about ultra fast lenses. Everyone bangs on about maximum aperture like it's some kind of religion, but they often fail to acknowledge the downsides....... Fast lenses may have more curvature of field, soft corners wide open, vignette more and flare more. And they're sometimes diffraction limited at an earlier aperture than their slower counterparts. And they're larger. And they cost a lot more. Too bad if you're looking for portability, classic even sharp performance and performance at small apertures. For my interests of landscape and travel, some of the sacrifices for lens speed just aren't worth it.
Hi Yabokkie. I disagree that you can't have portability and IQ - there are plenty of 24, 35, 50, 70mm lenses from across all brands that are relatively small, aren't ultra fast and offer terrific IQ. I also disagree with the general concept that you can't have DOF without sacrificing IQ. It's a balancing act - you usually don't get optimal IQ wide open and you equally don't get it stopped right down. Each lens has its optimum.It may be that some cheap lenses don't offer high IQ - we all know that - but it's not true that slower lenses are cheap simply because they always offer poorer IQ than a faster lens.
Hi Managarm, Many lenses reach optimal IQ 2-3 stops closed down from wide open. This is the point between unresolved aberrations of design and the onset of diffraction. If a lens is slower wide open, it will usually be diffraction limited at a later aperture. Obvious example is medium and large format lenses - often f5.6 max, but IQ is excellent to f16, f22, even f32.
I'm with rondom below in thinking that the "FF equivalent DOF" thing is getting out of hand if that's the key goal of lens' design. We do need to give this lens the benefit of the doubt - it's innovative and it may be very good. OTOH I'm a bit dubious about ultra fast lenses. Everyone bangs on about maximum aperture like it's some kind of religion, but they often fail to acknowledge the downsides....... Fast lenses may have more curvature of field, soft corners wide open, vignette more and flare more. And they're sometimes diffraction limited at an earlier aperture than their slower counterparts. And they're larger. And they cost a lot more. Too bad if you're looking for portability, classic even sharp performance and performance at small apertures. For my interests of landscape and travel, some of the sacrifices for lens speed just aren't worth it.
I acknowledge in advance that the lens will probably be of excellent quality, but I can't help but think that a lens of this size is getting away from the concept of a very small neat package offered by a mirror-less body with prime lens...... As one accumulates a few lenses, the small size of the body is going to become less relevant in limiting one's kit size. It's going to start heading for small DSLR scale. The 18-55 is my limit for lens size I think - I'll complement it with a legacy glass 100mm/2.8.
I'm with whoever suggested that Fuji should offer very small telephoto primes in native X mount, say like the old 100mm/2.8 lenses from Olympus and Pentax.
I like this camera, but ......
1) The price is a substantial fraction of an interchangeable lens mirror-less camera - eg NEX6 or Fuji XE1. Add the price of the add-on GR VF and it might be even easier to buy the ILC.
2) What is it about manufacturers and the lack of built in VFs? - It seems a con to me to design a core body without a VF and then sell a (usually very expensive) accessory that bulks the height back up to pretty much what it would have been if it were built in. They're easily lost and they block the flash shoe in use. Bad idea.
3) For some reason large sensor/mirror-less cameras are deemed by their makers to be unfit for environmental sealing, despite being aimed at enthusiasts and being highly suited to travel and hiking etc.. None of the manufacturers has made their large sensor compacts/ILCs with sealing against dust and moisture. (eg NEX6&7, Fuji X series, Canon G1X & EOS M, Coolpix A, etc. Premium pricing should reflect premium build quality.
optongo525: I am sure some people will like this, but Cannon missed the point: with digital sensor technology, the extra reflection optics will be obsolete like the film. How small can you make those mirrors? Certainly not smaller than the sensor. Mirrorless is definitely the way to go. Look at Kodak and Fujifilm, be careful Cannon (and Nikon).
to yabokkie. Fuji has no good XF mount lenses? I think you'll find that you're way off beam. Some of the X series lenses are as good as any in the APSC business. And the admittedly small (but expanding) range is still vastly better than the two lenses offered by Canon with the EOS M.
Interesting little camera - especially in its relationship to mirror-less. I have a larger and heavier DSLR I'm not about to sell, but I also use a G1X as a travel and hiking camera. I find myself wondering if I'd have made the same decision if this camera had been available...... It's the smallest DSLR but still much larger with lens compared to a G1X with lens retracted. It weighs about the same - with lens - which is remarkable. I'd be fairly confident that it's VF and AF would be better. We'll have to wait to see what the IQ is like.
balios: Can you rotate the direction of tilt and shift independently of each other, like the Canon 24mm?
Sorry, I can't tell you why it's a default position. Both positions can be useful at different times. Perhaps they had to settle on one position for manufacturing/consistency purposes. Whichever position they set, they'd have someone wanting it the other way around.......
Thomas Kachadurian: Better be pretty amazing because it's way too close in price to the Canon 24 TS-E which pretty much defines amazing.
To yabokkie..... I can see no sensible point in even comparing the two lenses. They have utterly different purposes.
vodanh1982: What is the different between this and tilt & shift the camera?
In a nutshell (given that there are entire books written about this topic)..... Shifting a lens off-centre parallel to the film plane will allow converging lines to be brought parallel. This is very useful for architectural photography and can also be used to assist panoramic stitching. Tilting a lens with respect to the film plane allows the plane of focus to be shifted to gain sharpness across the intended image.Hope this helps. Perhaps Google something like 'lens movements', 'tilt and shift lenses', or 'Scheimpflug effect' to get more info.
Rod McD: Looks interesting. Note that the tilt and shift are on the same axis in the photo. The article says that the lens can be turned 90 degrees relative to the mount, but it's not clear if the movement mechanism can also be turned so the shift and tilt axes are at 90 degrees to each other.
Why no Pentax mount? Pentax don't make a TS lens and a good number of Pentax users have been keenly awaiting the Samyang....... With a Pentax FF camera expected in the next year or so, the lens would be even more relevant.
Correction - DPR's article says it will support canon, Nikon, Sony at the start. Samyang's own website says they will support Pentax mount. Perhaps it's just a timing/availability issue..... Rod.