I own an Olympus and think this is a gorgeous camera, but feel like Micro 4/3rds is getting pretty over-priced for what it is, relative to other options. You can get a Sony A7 body on Amazon for $1098, or an A7II for a few hundred $ more. Heck, a Nikon D5500 is much cheaper and gives you more MP, larger sensor, 14 bit RAW, and way better battery life for about the same weight.
SarahBK: Would anyone ever consider throwing the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC into such a comparison?
Please hurry up and post it Rishi! Then do ones for 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, and all the full frame lens manufacturers.
DPReview: This is such a useful and interesting test, I really wish you guys would do more of these with many of the popular lenses and focal lengths out there today!
Kudos to you guys for looking into this. And I agree, uncompressed RAW should certainly be included on a $3500 high MP camera aimed at professionals.
In your final full review, I really hope you'll investigate and give your findings on the 'Hot Pixel Issue' Photography Life seemed to uncover here:
The 24-70 with VR looks nice, but 2.4 lbs and 82mm filters, no thanks. I really wish Nikon would catch up to Canon's glass options with a new 24-70 f/4 VR (no, I'm not interested in the so-so 24-120). Not to mention a new 135 f/2. Happy to see the 24 1.8 and 200-500 though.
Lot of technology in this lens makes me think it will be a stellar performer. MTF's and sample images look excellent. It's nice to see an MTF where the long end is as good/better than the wide end. Not that I don't want great wide-angle performance, but I get tired of manufacturers releasing these long zooms where the tele performance drops off so bad it's barely worth using.
Price is definitely high at launch but when was the last time Nikon (or Canon, Olympus, Sony) released anything where everyone thought it was fairly priced. Sigma is the only one who does that. Give it a few months and Nikkor rebates next spring and it should be more reasonable.
pacnwhobbyist: Thom Hogan mentioned on his website that Nikon sent out a survey to existing registered Nikon users about what sort of DSLRs they would like to see in the future. He said that was usually an indicator that Nikon is about to have a major release. Maybe that in combination with this lens announcement in an indicator that the D400 is around the corner?
If you remember, Nikon released the 24-85G FX lens a few months before they launched the D600, so they could be following the same schedule here with the D400. I'll never own the D400, but I hope they release it just to stop all the whining about it on here.
Definitely a different take on zooms, but I like it a lot. Covers the most popular wide-angle range with a fast aperture. Now if Sigma would also create an 85-135mm f/2 ART (with stabilization and a short minimum focusing distance) I'd be in heaven!
I was going to buy the 24 ART to go with my 35 ART, but will probably go with this new one instead (assuming the reviews/sharpness is ART-like). The 24 and 35 ART together weigh 47 ounces, or just under 3 lbs. This 24-35 isn't light on it's own, but consider it's just over 2 lbs., and you get a nice 28mm too, it's really a pretty good deal. Not to mention it likely won't cost as much both those primes combined either. Of course you don't the 1.4-2.0, but honestly it's not that big of an issue for me in this focal range anyway. It still should be awesome for astrophotography. And I can slap it on a DX body to get a quick 36-52mm range if needed.
I still would really love to see Sigma start releasing some ART focal length primes with a 2.0 aperture that are smaller and lighter than some of these behemoths. That would change the whole proposition, especially for Sony Alpha shooters.
JOrmsby: I actually think this is a pretty cool concept, and would be interested if it were $299. But $599 for a fixed lens addition to my iPhone is a bit much.
Launched, no. But for $299 you can get a Nikon 1 J4 on Amazon, or a host of their other J series with 1" sensors, and even more features than this DxO has. Also, for $599 I could get a Sony Alpha with an APS-C sensor and a ton more functionality, not to mention image quality (assumed from sensor size). Or a host of m4/3's options. As I said this is kind of intriguing, but really only because of it's size.
I actually think this is a pretty cool concept, and would be interested if it were $299. But $599 for a fixed lens addition to my iPhone is a bit much.
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.