Just gotta say DPReview, the new Exposure Latitude tests and page are extremely useful! I look forward to seeing more cameras included in it going forward.
Really useful tool DPReview! Would love to see more of these lens comparisons available!
JOrmsby: Does it say anywhere if these are metal-bodied, or are they the same cheap plastic like Oly has in their 45 and 25 1.8's?
Oly's metal 12mm 2.0 is listed at 130 grams, while the plastic, similarly sized 45mm 1.8 is 116 grams. Not a meaningful difference in weight, but personally I really prefer the look and more professional feel of the metal. Oly's metal 17.5mm is around the same price as these Panny's, and their own plastic ones (25, 45), so it's not like the metal ones always cost more either. I'm hoping these bodies are metal.
Does it say anywhere if these are metal-bodied, or are they the same cheap plastic like Oly has in their 45 and 25 1.8's?
JeanPierre Thibaudeau: I wonder what the price will be for the 42.5mm F1.7 lens...Any clue, anyone?
B&H has it for $398 (US) pre-order.
Very sharp extreme corners. Looking forward to this lens!
Not the greatest sample photos, but I think it's worth mentioning how nice the bokeh appears to be. Very smooth and round, even at the edges of the frame at f/1.4. People always knock the 35 and 50 ART's for their 'not great' bokeh, but to me this one looks pretty nice here. Not to mention very sharp in the center.
Not the best sample photos, but I think it's worth mentioning how nice the bokeh appears to be. Very smooth and round, even at the edges of the frame. People always knock the 35 and 50 ART's for their 'not great' bokeh, but to me this one looks pretty nice here.
probert500: How about a series of smaller f2.8 lenses. The ART lenses are great but BIG and heavy.
Right John C Tharp, Canon has taken a wise course and created a few nice 2.8's, with IS. Fast lenses are more the rage in mirrorless, where you need them faster to get the bokeh people want. A FF 2.8 will give more bokeh than Oly's and others popular 1.8 primes for mirrorless. To each their own but I'd love some better, lighter FF 2.8 primes.
I agree! Once they fill out the fast ART primes range I hope they move to small and light 2.8's. Or I'd even be happy if Nikon did that on their own as long as they were sharp wide-open. That's one way they could help draw their full-frame closer to the mirrorless size and weight advantage.
I've used them both for years, Aperture for storage/organization and basic edits, and Lightroom for heavier RAW processing. I'm sad to see Aperture go, but the next Photos app should be enough to do the same for me.
My only concern is this gives more leverage to Adobe, who I really hope doesn't make Lightroom a BS subscription service like they're done Photoshop. If it goes that direction, I'll be done with Adobe all together.
Guess I'm also bummed that this probably means we won't ever get Raw support for my new EM-10 in Aperture either...
I'm currently using Lightroom 4.4 with ACR 7.4. I just ordered an Olympus OMD EM10, so do I have to upgrade/purchase LR 5.4 now to be able to view/import the Oly's Raw files to work? Or is there another update to LR 4 that will work?
audiobomber: DPR needs to change their dynamic range measurements. The current system favours manufacturers who apply heavy tone curves to boost jpeg DR. You can't compare DPR measurements fairly between say an Olympus EM-1 or Canon 70D vs. a Nikon D7100 or Pentax K-5 II, because the first two manipulate the tone curve, and DPR measurements hide the manipulation.
DXOMark results are the only accurate measure of dynamic range, and DPR staff know it. What they are showing as DR on this site is deceiptful. At least report on both, especially since DXO is now affiliated, and proper (accurate) raw results are readily available.
I agree, and was surprised looking at DPR's charts showing the D7100 having wider Dynamic Range than my D600. Also seems to favor this 70D in the highlights. No way that's correct. I'll believe DxO's charts first. DPR's is oddly skewed, and by judging from many of the comments here, readers know it...
Why on earth would anyone pay almost $1300 more than the 50 1.4 for this lens? Seriously.