dlkeller: If Tamron leaves the VC off this lens as they have their 18-270 PZD for Sony mounts I am through with their company forever! Otherwise, it is definitely on my wish list.
Not with Sony?
ThomasSwitzerland: Nikon: Are you sleeping?
I don’t need a „look-a-like“ of the Olympus retro mistake. Nikon, I need from you a real mirrorless innovative hi-end camera in order to avoid buying the Sony, and I want to have less weight without plastic lenses.
You know that Sony only weights less without lenses, right?
bossnas: Pure photography? LOL! Digital photography more like.
Pure photography is using light sensitive materials that you can hold in your hand, cameras that don't need batteries to function. That's taking things back to the root of the invention of photography, pure photography. Making images without the need of a computer, making prints without the need of a printer or inks. That's pure photography!
Pffft! Show me film SLR that did not need batteries. That is if you don't plan to meter by eye.PS. Digital photography where you process images yourself is much closer to the roots than sending your film to the lab.
Richard Franiec: Looks like beautifully designed lens on the outside.I wonder why zoom and focus rings are bunched together? Especially when what seems to be the focus ring is very narrow. Hope this won't create conflict between the two functions in actual use.
That is a great point - originally I bought my 24-105 for video and one of the big selling points was size and spacing of the zoom and focusing rings. That, and the fact that 24-105L is almost parfocal.
Suave: Hard to get excited about the Canon version when new 24-105L can be had for $640. Hopefully it makes more sense for other mounts, but, a Canon user, this is not the lens I was waiting for.
If I were in the market for 24-105, I without a doubt, would get it here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360768530920Of course, if you crave ratail packaging you do need to plop extra 50%
Joe Ogiba: Sigma needs to come out with an E mount version with OIS for the A7, A7r and VG900 or people will just buy the new 24-70mm OSS E mount lens coming out in a few months.http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/lenses/lineup/detail/sel2470z.html
Isn't it like $2k?
Hard to get excited about the Canon version when new 24-105L can be had for $640. Hopefully it makes more sense for other mounts, but, a Canon user, this is not the lens I was waiting for.
HetFotoAtelier: Can't wait to see how it compares to the $4,000 Zeiss :-)
It's 2.3k worse.
dylanbarnhart: This puts an end to the body stabilization vs lens stabilization debate. Sony finally figured out it was a mistake to stabilize the sensor and now put OSS on the lens instead.
No, they have finally figured that it makes no sense to charge for it once when you can charge for it with every lens you sell. Better yet, that they can sell the same lens twice - first regular, then stabilized.
dav1dz: Why are these lenses so heavy? I understand the Zeiss may have premium glass but the 70-200 f/4 G? At 840 g it's not exactly mirrorless weight and is heavier than the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS!
Because they are FF lenses.
Wow, 1k for 55/1.8! And now I hear that Nikon is coming up with 58/1.4 for over 2k.....
Ah, Apple and Leica, match made in heaven. It's like Loxley and Bagel.
attomole: Wonder how it compares to SIgma 1.4 DG on a D800, anyone done the math! ;-)
The math suggests that it is about 5 times better.
Doesn't Sony have a 18-55 lens similar to Canon's kit lens?
barry reid: A truly Bizarre test. Why use two lenses that couldn't be more different, rather than drop the same Tamron or sigma on to each body, to at least get some semblance of consistency in lens performance?
I saw a 70D at the store last night. It didn't have a 40mm as a kit lens.
alatchin: I already have a problem with cloud, I got the full membership as I own a design firm and was due to upgrade anyway... However my 2nd machine... my image workstation in my home with the calibrated screen is on the other side of the apartment from the Wifi.
So I bought a usb Wifi adapter as it is too far to run a cable... Not enough signal strength.
Returned the USB and bought a wifi network card and installed it into my machine... still not enough signal strength... I have 40 days left to solve this. Most likely I will have to buy a 30' network cable and occasionally run it through my flat so it keeps working.
Just a pain in the backside.
Buy a repeater, or if you are tech savvy enough make it yourself from any router that can run dd-wrt.
CameraLabTester: All of these "using this gadget, to get this assignment" thing is just plain PROPAGANDA for the gear in use.
It is getting so common for companies to use this avenue of advertising and awareness that is is just PLAIN BORING.
Come up with new ideas to promote your products, dudes!
product placement is the word
So, how long before they fire their photographers?
Joseph S Wisniewski: Seriously, $32 US for single way (sideways on the camera) generic extruded plate, when the same money will get you a Sunway or Benro fully machined plate with a square biridectional ARCA tenon and a top that's machined for a specific camera.
And $130 for a low tolerance cast clamp bundled with that extruded plate? Subtract the plate, and that means they want $98 for a cast clamp, when Acratech, Kirk, RRS will sell you the best fully machined clamps in the world for that, and Sunway or Benro will get you a basic machined clamp for $40.
Manfrotto has totally lost the plot, here.
The complete set retails for $100 - about the same price as generics, and much, much cheaper than RRS.
Star Raws. By G. Leicas.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review