Wow, great image quality. It's right along up there with full frame sensors. Those JPEG's are amazing though, surpassing all of the full frame i've compared it to on your charts.
ozturert: It looks as big as Canon 100-400mm or Nikon 80-400mm. As you go telephoto, APSC advantage diminishes I guess.
My arguement is if you can make a fuji 35 f1.4 a lot smaller than a Canon 35 f1.4, why can't you do the same for the 100-400....but like someone mentioned, i guess it's different for long tele lens.
villagranvicent: Too many new tech features, including the crappy X-Trans sensor.
It's funny cause i rate my XT1 to a 24MP bayer sensor, dare i say this sensor appears to have more resolution than my 5D3.
callaesthetics: If i put a full frame 300 f4 lens with an adapter on the Olympus i get the same image and exposure correct? And it only uses a small image circle from the full frame lens, the Olympus is engineered so that it uses only a image circle made for m43 sensor, so why are the lens the same size? Shouldn't this lens be smaller?
That mostly makes sense, so the main reason for this lens being double the price of the Canon can be contributed to new tech and supply & demand.
I say it mostly makes sense because most 35mm lens are longer than 50 & 85mm lens.
If i put a full frame 300 f4 lens with an adapter on the Olympus i get the same image and exposure correct? And it only uses a small image circle from the full frame lens, the Olympus is engineered so that it uses only a image circle made for m43 sensor, so why are the lens the same size? Shouldn't this lens be smaller?
40-150 f2.8 + teleconverter = this lens?
JohnEwing: "No touch screen" is actually a point in its favour.
the 'one hit zoom to 100% of your focus point preview' button is a lot faster than touching and pinching.
I feel Slater has been wronged. Wasn't it Slaters intention to have the monkey take some pictures. Take Slater out of the picture = no monkey selfie = no pictures for Wiki to exploit.
Now even more excited for 7D2
chlamchowder: The Nikon AF-S 200-400/4 VR II is $6750, and the TC-14E is $500. Together, they would cost $7520.So, the question is, is the convenience of having the teleconverter built in worth $4480?
where as the Nikon add-on teleconverter will degrade the image a bit due to it being an afterthought piece, there is no image degradation in Canon's built-in version. It was engineered to operate with it's teleconverter without compromise.
It's a specialty lens, for the time when a photographer is shooting in a snowstorm, sandstorm, hostile environment, etc and attaching the teleconverter is out of the question.
But i do agree, it's too pricey.
wow, that's very nice for that high of an ISO
Mssimo: Added the Canon.
Nikon 35mm F1.4G vs Canon 35mm f1.4L vs Sigma 35mm F1.4
Elements 10 vs 11 vs 13Groups 7 vs 9 vs 11Filter 67mm vs 72mm vs 77mmWeight 600g vs 580g vs 665gSpecial Elements (one aspherical) vs (1 aspherical) vs(1 FLD and 4 SLD elements)Price $1620 vs $1329 vs $899 (current amazon price)
Canon stops down to F22, sigma and nikon go to F16.Canon has 8 Blades, Sigma and nikon have 9
Canon has red ring, nikon has gold ring, sigma has no rings.
Sigma has a 67mm filter thread
samfan: So does the 35/1.4 replace the 30/1.4? Guess I should get the old version quickly then. Sigma has a weird habit of upgrading great oddball lenses to crappier mainstream versions (usually from EX to OS).
The new 35 1.4 is made for full frame sensors. 30 1.4 is crop only.
not sure what all the complaint is about, but given the price point to sensor size, lens compatibility, accessories, image quality, etc...no other camera comes close. And all this at a small package.
I myself probably won't buy it (my 5d3 does me wonders) but i can see this heading in a potentially great direction.
these are decent samples but don't do any justice to the 5D3. my experience with it has been a great deal of joy. I still can't believe how clean high iso images look.