TN Args: Excellent. Now to wait for Sony to put it in a body the size of a cigarette packet. Then we will have an MF camera that looks as ridiculous on its lenses as a Sony A7 on a 70-200 f/2.8. And we will all call it a 'breakthrough'.
the so called "weight balance" doesn't exist for any camera-lens combination. the real issue is handling which may come from bad design of the maker or inexperience of the user.
the curve for X-T1 doesn't look right but in ISO chart Claff says X-T1 is more noisy than X-E2.
Boissez: Why is this camera listed as Semi-Pro while the E-M1 isn't?
> features found in professional gear
like a shutter button, dials, an LCD display, ...
the best customers may be those who want pro gears without knowing what they are. best profit for the makers.
pict: pentax mount please.
things will change if each Pentax user buys ten bodies.
neither is for pro, semi or quarter or whatever, but between the two I'd take E-M1 for better response (thanks to Panasonic though) and better operation.
Kodachrome200: Im actually surprised that its more expensive than the 35mm 1.4. Traditionally that would be a more expensive lens
why should anyone think Leica or Zeiss means good quality? though some of them do perform well, like lenses from any makers, including Russian or Korean ones.
> Zeiss glasses is industrial standard
it used to be many many decades ago.
Joed700: If this lens performance like their 35mm f1.4, it would be awesome. However, is it really necessary to make a standard lens so big? We are not even talking about telephotos here...everyone is making these big and long prime lenses. Way back, one of the advantages of using prime lenses is that you get nice IQ and compactness, but now everything you grab out of your camera bag is heavy and big...
also more lens elements means slower T-number but it seems we don't have many options. the lens could have been bigger if Sigma wanted to further improve corner performance.
Underdog 3000: Too bad it's not available for Pentax. This with the K-3's sensor and IBIS would make for a great portrait rig.
it's not designed for Pentax in the first place. not before Pentax can have 35mm full-frame sensor.(but this Sigma should be a better lens on APS-C than Otus).
beenthere: I'd take 16-150 with slightly better optical performance if asked. Who honestly wants to carry this behemoth (or the equally massive Nikon 18-300) around all day?
one has to decide between "fast and heavy" and "slow and light-weight"
Earthlight: Sigma is on a roll. 24 mm f1.4 next please. Or make it a fast 20 mm... drool...
35-135/1.8 for APS-C sounds interesting.
DStudio: After looking at the various links here to sample photos, I can see the Sigma isn't the equal of the Zeiss OTUS. The Zeiss produces more 3D images, more colorful images, more beautiful images.
Also, as is common, this Sigma isn't as sharp wide-open as the lens it claims to replace.
This is one of Sigma's best efforts yet, but it still plays second fiddle.
> Sigma isn't the equal of the Zeiss OTUS
I'd say it's a better lens than Otus. higher image quality at the center (maybe 50% of sensor area) and with AF.
Debankur Mukherjee: This lens seems to be better then the Nikon G type but cannot match the Zeiss Otus but the Zeiss is deadly expensive.........
> can not match the Zeiss Otus to 100% but it matches it at least to 95%.
the Sigma matches Otus to maybe 80% at corners and 120% at the center. my impression is it's a better lens than Otus (though flat performance across the frame is often considered high grade).
Alphoid: Wow! For just $600, I'll be able to get ugly photos all the way from 16mm up to 300mm for months, maybe even years, until the lens breaks!
if we think photograph is about framing/perspective more than image quality, a superzoom should have its position in the gear list.
white shadow: I may buy one if it is better than my Zeiss ZE 50mm f/2.0 Macro. Will the AF have any issues. If one need to use manual focus override, then one is better off with the Zeiss. What about the colour rendition, micro contrast and bokeh?
it's easier to make MF lenses than AF ones but photograph is also about fast response to catch the moment and effectively you get zero image quality if you miss the moment.
marc petzold: Within a year or so..the price will be the same like for the Sigma 35mm/1.4 Art Lens - around 679 to 699 EUR here in germany.
Go, Sigma, Go! This great new 50mm/1.4 already crushed all competition from Canon & Nikon, and is quite a equal match for the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 - awesome, given the price is only 1/4 of the Otus.
Well done, Sigma! (i'm a Fan of old Zeiss MF Lenses)
The 1st Sigma Art 50mm/1.4 Review here:
Hopefully dpreview would test this great lens, too....even i can't afford it,would love to read the review.
from SLRgear.com's review:
> Zeiss 55mm Otus lens shows slightly sharper corners > on a sub-frame camera at ƒ/1.4, than does the Sigma, > but this difference becomes negligible at ƒ/2.
then the area Sigma wins may shrink to 50% something.
from the MTF charts at f/1.4 (tested using different standards) it seems that the Sigma is better than Zeiss within the APS-C image circle, or about 70% of area in a 24 x 36 mm2 frame.
Richard Franiec: It is really refreshing and encouraging to see the smaller player like Sigma to go toe to toe with the legend like Zeiss. For fraction of the price.I'm watching recent Sigma's unpretentious approach to their new product with awe.
This lens among the other Art Series lenses should serve as a bucket of an ice water on the heads of disillusioned profiteers from major brands.
traditionally, 50mm primes have the mission to be good cheap lenses and we have a legendary German formula to do just that.
the trend now is to kick the ass of old thinking.
Nikon 50/1.4G, 280g, USD 439, 1.57 dollars per gram, at half of the price per gram, the 815g Sigma will worth 639 US.
should give it the highest priority over all other reviews.