Roland Karlsson: For far away subjects you can use an ordinary lens and a modern stitching software without any problems. There is no need for a shift lens for this, nor is it any advantage.
If things are near, you need to rotate around the input aperture of the lens. That true for both an ordinary lens and a shift lens. So .. for the ordinary lens you need a tripod and panoramic head. But ... for the shift lens you need a tripod and a tripod thread on the lens. If you move the lens you only can use it for far away subjects.
If you have a tripod thread on the lens, then the only advantage is that you get a consistent focus plane. If you torn the entire camera, then you also turn the focus plane, which might be problematic.
So - except for the focus plane stuff - I see no advantage of getting any shift lens.
I actually think a shift lens is easier to deal with than a nodal bracket, which must be adjusted for each and every lens (or zoom focal length). At least with a shift lens, it's guaranteed that all static objects will line up. Of course the shift lens is more limited in the number of frames you can stitch. It's also limited to stitching in one dimension.
Back in my pano head days, I used to carry two. One setup for my 50mm and another for my 85mm. Nowadays, I don't bother.
I've been using T/S lenses for quite some time, mostly for landscapes and studio stills to increase DOF. But today's photographer don't care about such nonsense. The only reason why they'd want a T/S is so they can selectively throw a scene out of focus, which they no longer need a T/S for. Instead, they use the built-in fuctions of their cameras/apps/photoshop to do what they think is the same.
I've also used my 90mm TSE extensively for stitched panos, especially in the 6MP (10D, 300D), 8MP (1D2, 20D) and 12MP (5D) days, but nowadays, 21MP (5D2) is more than enough for most of my needs so I don't bother. I also used pano heads quite a bit, which most newbies don't realize is essential for truly accurate stitching, especially when foreground objects are present. These days, I feel that pano head=too much gear to lug.
Today, most are content with handholding their shots and stitching together in PS, cloning in anything that doesn't line up that nicely. Hell, I'm guilty of it myself.
This would be a dream come true (for hipsters).
Analog is coming back for various media, not because its practical, not because of functionality, and certainly not for quality. But because it's cool.
For the bearded guy who wears women's jeans while riding a fixie: Too bad that you won't be able to pretend to be shooting film. You'll actually have to shoot film.
valentin_neda: This is how a digital back would look on a Nikon Fm3a:
Just get an Olympus OMD. Purpose buit, smaller, and less buggy I'm sure.
Ivan Lietaert: "a top notch fast 35mm autofocus prime without breaking the bank"Priced £900, the author obviously must be making a fortune writing for DPreview! This lens is priced at a working man's monthly income. I wouldn't call that cheap! Please think twice before you write this kind of thing!
@Kodachrome200There is no free lunch anywhere but at least you have 1 pound fish.
Don't be so quick with your top ten; there's still a bit over two weeks left in 2012, and I still have a few hundred photos to shoot this year!
Erik van den Elsen: I find this an awkward new Canon lens; I own the 24-105 F/4 L lens myself and find it very good, at least I have a very sharp copy. The current price of this 24-105 is now around 900 Euro.
So, why spend 600 euro more on a lens that has a much shorter range (24-70) but the same speed? Just because it has a Macro feature that you use every now and then? If you're really into macro, you will buy a dedicated Macro lens.
This lens sounds superfluous to me already from the beginning seen the rest of the Canon lens line-up and the range it offers... And this price is really rediculous! Much too expensive just like all other Canon lenses.
"See how many simple steps you have to take to make up a measly 35mm."
Please tell me... how many steps are required to make up this difference?
Sometimes I like to shoot city skylines from a kilometer away at 105mm. To get the same frame filling effects, I'd need to be 1/3 km closer. So we're probably talking about 400 steps. Oh wait... there's a body of water between me and my subject. Oh screw it... I'll just go for a swim. At least this is a sealed L lens.
Also, since most subjects I shoot are three dimensional, shooting at 70mm vs 105mm can yield quite different perspectives. It's not as simple as getting closer. 105mm can unclutter an otherwise cluttered background significantly more than 70mm can.
I actually think this new lens is a winner due to size/weight. No complaints from me about the 70mm max focal range. But I did want to point out that your argument is a poor one.
DavesMan: Canon is crazy! Nearly same price (in numbers) i Dollars, Pounds and Euros??? These three currencies are not equal value! If US price i 1500 Dollars, then i should cost roughly 1200 Euros and 900 Pounds.
The US don't do VAT. We have sales tax, which varies from state to state (and sometimes city to city). And no, it's not included in suggested retail prices since sales tax can range from 0% to 10%, depending on locale.
Robert Eckerlin: A Question (of somebody who has not a lot of experience) about "contrast".
On the amazon.com Website, I have read a user-review by "Naftade" of this Tamron zoom lense. Naftade was making comments on the "contrast". From that user-review I got the impression that zoom-lenses (and also other lenses?) where not all equal when it comes to their contrast behavior.
Is that impression correct? Can the difference between lenses on the subject of "contrast" be sufficiently significant to influence a buying decision? If this is the case, could future lense review also rate the contrast?
Thanks in advsance for an answeer and explanations.
Some lenses are more contrasty than others. Whether it would factor into a buying decision depends on your shooting and post-processing style and how demanding you are. Personally, I might be willing to compromise and accept a slightly flat lens (depending what the benefits are), since it's pretty easy to make contrast corrections in post.
Chris2210: Looks like a nice lens - wonder how it will compare with the Panny 20mm f1.7?
That lens is smaller, [slightly] faster and cheaper - albeit build quality does not look so good. It is one of my favourite lenses, because it's sharp - and vitally for m4/3 it's a pancake. So that's quality and compactness and the ability to create shallow DoF even in this format. For me personally, I can't see what would be compelling about this Olympus [rough] alternative, particularly given the price.
As for m4/3 vs FF. they're different beasts and it's ultimately futile to compare.
Quality in the smaller format will always lag behind because of the physical limitations. But that size factor can be a huge advantage too and a lot of the time [perhaps most] quality is more than good enough. But let's just not pretend it's AS GOOD as current generation FF, because you're putting a welterweight in with a heavyweight...
Right now, m4/3 provides enough IQ and functionality for the majority of my (pro) needs. But still, it's not nearly enough. Soon enough, it'll get there. When it does, I will probably invest in not only cheap light weight lenses, but in higher quality (heavier) glass as well. Overall it'll still be much lighter than my 5D2 kit.
I've been adopting m4/3 due to image quality improvements and compactness. For more critical work, I still turn to my FF 5D2.
I've been shooting in the 35mm format (and later dSLRs) since the 90s, never choosing pro bodies. I chose this format due to quality and compactness. Yes, even with heavy L lenses, it's still much more compact than MF, or even a pro body (1 series). There are times I've used cheaper lighter sharp lenses (50mm/1.8 and a host of others), but when needed something rugged and sharp, I always reached for the higher end lenses (L glass).
IMO, the Panny 20mm is one of those cheaper lighter sharp lenses. Very sharp, easy to tote, and not as expensive as those with much higher build quality (i.e. Oly 17mm/1.8). But some pros will undoubtedly choose these higher priced lenses, despite being bigger and heavier, and despite being on a system known for its compactness.
AbrasiveReducer: I get flack when I question if an expensive item is made in Japan. Now, even Sigma is eager to reassure you it is. There's nothing wrong with China or Thailand but at these prices you're paying for Japan. Not a fan of Sigma but it does look like the are trying to improve the QC.
Japan and Germany are the only two countries capable of manufacturing high quality optics. Some photo products might be made in China or Thailand, but the lens elements were almost certainly manufactured in Japan.
China probably will have this capability soon enough.
LeonTheremin: What do people use these f/4 lenses for? Is there an inherent advantage with them for closer distance focusing? Is it something with the fact that its easier to put an image stabilizing system on the smaller glass? Are people only thinking of gaining stops from hand held motion? Or is it simply that they're less expensive and IS is considered a consumer feature? Having been schooled by a film photography pedagogy, I would never think to spend money on such a slow lens that (from my perspective) can only be used with studio strobes or in bright sunlight. I can't imagine the practicality of a lens with such a slow maximum aperture outside of large format photography. For reals, I wanna know.
I'm a pro who uses the 24-105 f/4L frequently. Sure, I'd prefer 2.8, but the 24-70 f/2.8L (which I also have) is a bit short on the long end as an all-in-one lens for events and such. I often do carry an extra body, sometimes longer glass, sometimes with a wider faster prime, depending on the nature of the work I'm doing. But the primary camera (often the one with the 24-105 f/4L) usually does 90% of the shooting.
The f/4 is sharp enough on my 5D2, and the bokeh-philes will complain that you can't isolate a subject enough. Cameras these days are fine at higher ISOs, and the IS certainly helps with handholding.
10 years ago, I was using ISO50 to ISO200 film (chromes), and even with primes, shutter speeds were well below what I'm getting with my 5d2. Hell, even 5 to 6 years ago, with my 5d1, I couldn't crank up the ISO as much as I can now.
I'm sure Canon's choice to go f/4 on the 24-70 has to do with keeping the size reasonably small (the 6D is more consumer oriented).
Me likely the thirty-five, despite lacking the red ring. A couple strips of masking tape and some glossy red spray enamel will fix that.
The 1.4 is too damn bulky. Plus IS is more useful for my shooting style than the extra stop in aperture. Bokeh schmokey.
^^^ That is one ugly camera. That is all.
3 way heads are slow and cumbersome. Great for larger, clunkier formats and static subjects (especially architecture), but for dSLRs, I much prefer a ballhead. The Compact Ball Head leaves much to be desired, but for lighter dSLRs and lenses it should be fine. Plus better ballheads tend to add quite a bit of weight, easily gobbling up the 1/2 lb savings by going carbon fiber in the first place.
With Google's pricing on their Nexus phones, I can't understand why anybody would even bother with carrier-locked contract phones. Nexus phones have great specs, are unlocked, are true world phones (pentaband), always the latest version of Android, no carrier bloatware, and CHEAP. More and more carriers are offering cheaper "no-contract" plans these days too.
iPhone is still a great phone, but it's going downhill fast. Apple has peaked. Give it another couple of years.
90% of these comments are funny. IQ of most dSLRs has been great for years. Sure there are still incremental improvements, but the majority of photo uses won't exploit that. It's a pretty rare event for most commenting here to need enough IQ to blow up a ISO3200 file to 16x20 inches.
I'm shooting an event next week, and instead of bringing along my 2 5D2 bodies like I normally do (with 24-105mm/4L and 70-200mm/4L; rarely have a need for 2.8... just extra weight), I will be bringing 1 5D2 body with 24-105mm/4L, one 5D MkI with 35mm/2, and one 20D with 85mm/1.8. The 5D2 will be my bread and butter, and the other two outdated bodies will be for additional snaps. I'm betting that the client will be more than happy with pics from these 'legacy' cameras, and won't even be able to tell the difference.
So the moral of this story is this. The 6D will be more than capable for most. The D600 will be more than capable for most. Features and lenses should determine what you get.
My dream camera would take pictures, make phone calls, send text messages, allow me to access the internet, and pleasure me in unspeakable ways *giggity*
I'm a pro Canon shooter heavily invested in the EOS system (since mid-90s), and have recently bought into the entry-level end of m43 to test the waters for more compact gear to use for personal and/or less critical pro work. So I got an EPL1 and some pancake lenses, and can see myself upgrading to high-end m43 gear for those jobs in which the benefits of lighter gear outweigh the image quality from FF or 1.6x crop bodies. So imagine my excitement when I saw this GH3 preview. Until I saw how big it is!
It's the same/size weight as the Canon T3i, which for someone like me, would be a preferable option for a light weight body since I have lenses for it already. I won't be getting a T3i (due to lack of rear dial and size), and I won't be getting this GH3 either (due to size). Maybe a used GH2 or an OMD is in my future. Or wait for the GH4.