Max Savin: Sigma f1.4 for Nikon: 23.46 oz (1.466 pounds)
A7r camera: 14.36 oz35mm Sony FE f2.8: 4.23 oz.
Backpacking 20-30 miles on rough trails and overland. Which would you carry?
I'd take the one that gives more shots per battery charge.
bleh... or is it meh..?
I'd rather see them bring back 1.7 AF converter.
I have a single question - can a camera, equipped with this lens, track?
Did it beat 1D X and how bad?
Adobe must be thinking with its little head. You know, the one it wants to screw us with.
Adobe should call some paper periodical and ask how's subsciption model working out for them.
skogredd: After they ditched Ideas for Android, I would never consider using any Adobe mobile app.
I don't believe fragmentation to be a huge issue. Tablets fast enough to handle LR will be relatively new and will all run some flavor of JB. Revenue - in this case I can agree with that, Android users are more price-conscious, and are more likely to notice that they are being ripped off.
Another addition to the stable of overpriced manual 85's.
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.