hmmm where is that $1000 I hid last time...
Even though we can always say "sharpness is not the only thing that matters" - still, a $1700 lens with poor sharpness? Does it get better stopped down? yes, but for the price, IMO, not good enough. I tried it for a day and my first thought was the awful plastic build. Yes, it produces 'unique' rendering, but the fair price should be $700 less.
Mike99999: I don't understand why everyone is raving about this lens. Judging from the sample pictures the rendering is awful. I *strongly* prefer the images I'm seeing from the Panasonic 20/1.7, the underrated Olympus 17/1.8 and from the new Sony Zeiss FE 35/2.8.
Seems like a repeat of the highly overrated Fuji 35/1.4 which is basically a rebadged Sigma 30/1.4 which nobody wants to admit. Behind the scenes Sigma is an OEM for many major brands, and Fuji is definitely one of them.
LOL, both 23/1.4 and 35/1.4 will trash anything similar from the m4/3 camp. Last time I checked, Sony 35/2.8 is way overpriced for an f/2.8 lens.
another top Fuji lens! Can't wait to see how the new 56/1.2 and UWA zoom perform :)
same 18MP sensor? who'd buy that?
rdscibilia: This is better than the EOS M I bought for $299 how exactly?
As a user of both, IQ-wise Fuji wins hands down - esp in term of noise and DR. Canon is seriously stuck with an old sensor. Even 70D doesn't bring much improvement - and 70D sensor is the one will be used with the M2...
marike6: These look nicer than the EM-1 samples from yesterday which were slightly underwhelming for such a pricey flagship camera.
I agree, the new kit lens looks like a nice performer too.
Ladisai: If you don't use APS-C cameras and are devoted to stay away from it, please just carry on. Don't flood this with useless comments. It's a waste of time for you and other people. A lot of people are still interested in APS-C cameras and actually read comments here.
Problem is some of the smaller sensor users are feeling insecure, and the lack of confidence forced them to post BS comments here....
RedFox88: So many trolls coming out to bash a new Canon camera!
@yabokkie - good thing I don't care about m4/3...
The trolls only know and use smaller-than-APS sensor...:)
This is why Leica can't make enough M 240, too busy making fashion statements...
intruder61: i want the $5000 hermes edition
they will soon have the $7500 Herpes edition...
yslee1: How is it possible that the Tamron 17-50 VC and non-VC ended up with the same score? I have used both personally (albeit Nikon mount), shooting both real-world images and brick walls, and the VC version is distinctly inferior. I can't believe there will not be a difference on the denser 18MP sensor.
I also have both 17-50 VC and non VC - on my 650D, it's clear the non-VC is much better since wide open. It tells more about the so-called review :)
WACONimages: Most Micro Four Thirds standaard lenses are pretty sharp and decent quality given their price! Why it seems so hard for Nikon/Canon to produce fair priced, but still nice quality standard kit-lenses?
I've been since my first compact camera a Canon guy. Just happens so. Compacts, pro-dslr ect. Invest a lot of money in that. Lately I'm more and more surprised by MFT, especially their lenses.
And what is the point! of having lenses with a certain max aperture!, if you have to stop them down by one or two stops to get decent quality????
It seems mirrorless is a somehow better at max aperture. Hear good things also about the Nikon 1 system in this respect.
the only m4/3 kit standard lens that I know good is the Panny 14-45... besides, there are much more options for the DSLR users other than the kit lenses.
Cameron R Hood: Wow...yeah Pentax invented the pancake 40mm like 50 years ago, and they've had a modern autofocus one out for 8-9 years that is stunning, plus they reintroduced it with the K01, redesigned by Marc Newsome, but by all means review the Canon copy...
You haven't reviewed a Pentax lens in 4 years, and you completely missed the mark on the last one you DID review (the legendary 15mm Limited).
So, even though you think DA 40 is stunning, if DPR hasn't reviewed it you're less confident using the lens?
Peiasdf: "The E-PM2 and E-PL5 borrow the Olympus OM-D E-M5's proven 16MP CMOS sensor, a class-leader in image quality"What class is that? m4/3? That's a class of two. EVIL/mirrorless? It is better than Fuji and NEX?
Why this review reads like company press release with the overuse of hyperboles?
Class leader in m4/3 class ;)
The Zeiss is better, I'm sure - at more than twice the price of Canon but I prefer the one that I can focus easily ;)
jhinkey: Sigma is rumored to have the 135/1.8 sometime this year AND Nikon has a patent on a 135/1.8 IF AFS VR and likely will come out with this lens in order to compete. So it's good that we'll all have some choices in the fast 135/2 department somewhat soon.
The Zeiss 135/2 certainly looks outstanding and the lack of AF does not bother me for what I do - outstanding wide open performance across the entire frame is what I like to see (just like the 100/2 MP).
@Petka - 135 DC is not bad, but it's a dated design too. It's more expensive than the Canon but has much more CA and so-so sharpness wideopen
rhlpetrus: I just don't get how anyone would get a camera that doesn't produce a decent RAW conversion from the typical software. Any of the current competitors like the Canon G15, the Oly or the Nikon P7700 produce much better results.
Apparently this cameras is more about wow factor rather than IQ - which is important in 2013...
kewlguy: cool, silver star for an expensive compact with mushy images...
REally? consistent image? Funny, DPR's own raw and jpg comparison shows Canon G15, XZ2 being much more detailed at low iso...It's time the reviewer take a look at their own raw comparison LOL