gil: The A6000 is already a killer for hummingbird BIFs (short distances up to 20 feet) and this one improves on the AF. The possibilities are exciting but the cost is not (gear + collateral costs of making the wife receptive to the purchase).
If you throw well, you could easily kill the bird from 20ft, yes.
BPD7: Too bad their lens lineup SUCKS.
I'll stick to my Fuji with amazing lenses
Exactly my thought, too
Robert Holloway: Maybe it's me and this is not a comment about the Sigma. I just don't see the need for 20mm f1.4 . Can someone explain where this lens would have a real practical use. Astrophotography? Not really something I'd think of for portraits. landscapes at f1.4? Thanks!
I was tricked by adobe, I guess. I purchased the stand alone LR6, installed it on 2 computers, then my son needs a LR so I thought why not subscribe the CC? After I subscribed the CC, adobe blends both LR6 and CC into one. So I ended up paying twice and still have only two computers with LR...
Leica is more a living fossil than the pandas.
$1200. Expensive toy
I don't get the rich russian heritage thing, I thought the original design was by Zeiss? There are copies of 50/2 and 50/1.5 from russia, doesn't make them russian heritage ;)
Marksphoto: Screw this, how difficult is it to make af lenses?
I own a helios 55/2.0 lens and I tried it on 5d mk2, super sharp lens, great contrast, but I think I paid $5 for it at the flea market... I would never have paid $10 for it because there is no af.
right, esp because you can get a sharp AF lens for $10.
Nice samples, but we can see some decentering on image 42. Even at f/8 the right frame is visibly softer with more purple fringing.
GabrielZ: After getting used to all those stratospheric prices for Leica's new camera models lately, this looks reasonably priced for what you get!
Compared to SL, very reasonably priced :)
kisvakoncl: OMG!"I feel a great disturbance in the Force....as if millions of Canonian fanboys suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.."
As a canon user, I'm excited with the new Nikons. It will put more pressure on Canon to release something competitive.
NOw that this sensor size has become the new full frame, next we will see m4/3 sensors getting its way into barbie camera!
Thomas Traub: Aparture of 1.2 does not make sense in portrait-photography, because you get hardly both eyes sharp, if one eye is only 2 cm behind the other .. even with my 85/1,8 on my D610 the faces have to be parallel to the camera (although you get a great bokeh)
Nikon compared to Fuji:
D 7200 + 50/1,4 = 1.045 g weight and 1.264 €Xt1 + 56/1,2 = 845 g weight and 2.198 €
even with the 58/1,4 the 7200 is only slightly heavyer and cheaper than the Fuji-combo.
And Fuji does not have the advanced-light-system.Nikon has much more lenses, accessories and flashes....
The Xt1/10 are nice cameras but the equipment is not as lightweight as the difference of the weight of the bodies make believe.
If Fuji would offer cheap lenses with 1,8 (as Nikon does) the whole equipment would be much cheaper and lighter and than they would have an advantage in price and weight.
But with the very expensive and heavy lenses Fuji is no option for me.
But I'll keep it in my eye :-)
Nikkor 58/1.4? really? Clearly you never tried the Fuji 56/1.2. Of course some will say portraits don't have to be sharp wide open as an excuse to the crappy 1.4 performance by the Nikkor :)
Serious Sam: Spends 1.5k $AU on ONE lens on a 16mp APSC system? PLEASE!!!
Add a $AU100 and That the ENTIRE cost of my new Nikon D5500 system. Body + Kit lens(only use at 18mm) and the three 1.8G(s)....
I know some people has money to burn but at least spend it on something has high retain value like Leica lens....
I am speechless.....
Yeah the fuji lens will eat all the 1.8 nikkors for breakfast LOL
joe6pack: F1.9 means nothing when sensor size is not known.
It doesn't mean nothing, the f1.9 means marketing ;)
PhotoKhan: All the tests in the world can not quantify the most important trait in a lens, one this has in spades: A soul.
If you want a soul that comes with the lens, buy a Leica lens. For the price it could even come with a personal assistant. This one focuses itself at least.
Thesun: Canon QC strikes again. Like most of my L-glass, this lens also suffers from serious decentering. The sailboats at f1,4, almost 50% of the picture is unsharp. The whole right side of the picture is blurry! Great!!!
@Angrymagpie - it doesn't matter left or right is blurry, it just shows that the focus plane is tilted. You just need to know which side is going front/back. The jeep shot shows the left part has sharp focus at the back and the right at the front. The sailboats, is sharp on the left meaning that the right part is basically bokeh because the focus is way closer to the camera.
No need for flat surface if the subject is far away. the difference of sharpness between left and right frame is too extreme. Check out the sailboats shot and the jeep shot at f/1.4. In case of the jeep shot, the left part is blurrier (check the left and right tyres) suggesting tilted focus plane. It's best to check for decentering at infinity focus, though.
Yes, it's badly decentered - and it's a prime lens with no IS. My 70-200 II is slightly decentered (just found out after a year so not too bad), but I had to go through 5 samples of 24-70 L II to get a decent one. So much for an L lens...