offertonhatter: Cheap looking but not really cheap feeling if other recent lenses are to go by. HD coating, excellent. DC motor? Ditto. Weather sealing? Excellent. Very flexible zoom range, but only after tests will we know how it performs. No point in presuming until tests are done.35MM FF? Maybe a typo, but possibly not.
Lets wait for the performance tests before slagging it off.
Finally to another poster, it is spelt dying and not dieing. And that word has been mentioned for the last 35 years when it comes to Pentax, and yet........
When you consider the Hi-ISO performance of current sensors the actual need for faster lenses is no longer mainstream, especially when compared to the film era. If you need shallow DOF, shoot in low light, or shoot sports then faster lenses make sense. Otherwise its just carrying more weight.
DenWil: Would someone care to take a stab at explaining to me why an 85mm lens purpose built to cover an 24 x 18 image circle by Pentax is not proportionally equal to an 85mm lens when it is purpose built to cover a 36 x 24 image circle by Zeiss?
If an 85 is actually a 130 then what is the 85?
While the lens is the same focal length regardless of the sensor the FOV is different depending on the size of the sensor of course. However the viewfinder of an APS-C camera only shows what the sensor can see so like the sensor the VF is also a crop in FOV. If you put a dedicated crop sensor 85mm on a FF body the image will appear to be the same as a FF 85mm but there will be severe vignetting in the corners. Some Pentax lenses, especially primes, are actually FF lens (DA* and D-FA*) that will function without significant vignetting on the presumed Pentax-Ricoh FF they say will be coming out (whenever).
Wes Syposz: she never really explains why she prefers a FF...
You must be clueless. Angle of view is the correct name for what you said. Angle of view and field of view mean the same thing expressed in different measurements.
Frontfocus: What a bunch of crap. A crop sensor is a negative point?!?!?! :
- crop sensor give some more reach. Well a 1.6 X factor is worth thousands of dollars compared to FF if you use longer lenses. -She likes knowing that her lenses are true to their focal length. I think a real photographers just cares about framing (real time) and are not constantly thinking what focal length the zoomed in/out.
Record voice: well the 5D3 has not option for that either. What is she talking about.
I wouldn't mind to pry her 1DX systems from her hands and they don't have to be cold dead :-)
You need to grow up yourself. If you are a sports pro and don't have to "buy" your own lenses then APS-C would be a negative like she says. Personally I only shoot crop sensor but I know where she is coming from. My brother is a 40+ year full time pro who shoots LF, MF and FF. I am a 40+ year amatuer who takes paying gigs when I feel like it but stays in APS-C mainly for the positive she mentions.
Wes Syposz: looks kind of big, maybe is an optical illusion due to the use of the extreme wide angle lens with the exaggerated perspective, wrong choice IMHO to demonstrate the actual size, Eh... Dpreview
A lens that is optically 600/6.3 is going to have a front element about the same size as a 500/5.6 or a 400/4.5, meaning usually a 95-105mm filter size. So yes it is big but compared to what?Thinner but a little longer than a 120-300/2.8. Closer to Pentax's legendary F/FA* 250-600/5.6 (about the same length but the Pentax had a 112mm front filter I think). About 1/2 stop slower with greater zoom range. If it was as good as that lens they will sell thousands of them. Too bad they may not make it in Pentax mount (good thing I have a Canon system also).
lambert4: Where are the micro four thirds mounts? Come on Sigma give us a little love for our little sensors.
In "minor" he means you could remove the tele-negative rear group maybe. Doesn't mean it will still work normally as this can sometimes change the registration distance plus it might not allow the light cone to fully illuminate the FF sensor. They have been using such groups ever since they found that by using them they could make the lens shorter than its listed focal length would normally be. Sort of like having a TC built into the rear. I remember my Sigma 1000mm F8 APO was like that back in the 90's. Lenses was about the same length as a 600mm lens. However usually those things are only about 1.2x-1.5x in magnification not 2x.
Joe Mayer: Quick releases need to be convenient and yet difficult to do accidentally. I'm not sure I like this one. All moot though as there are a lot of alternatives that exist already. And I suppose that personal preference comes into play as it does with most things and fwiw, mine is to use an old fashioned camera strap and support my camera with two points as the manufacturer intended and I feel comfortable with.
This is not that different from a regular "pro" carry that you can do with a regular camera strap that people have been doing for decades. Looks like one of those $50 solutions to a $5 problem. While it looks nice the old way carries the camera + lens in exactly the same position for a one-handed manipulation without that cost.
Lukas Gal: Little mistake RAID = redundant array of independent disks not Inexpensive.
Sorry also. In was "inexpensive" from the original designers/inventors of RAID because you could use cheap non-server rated drives in simple RAID systems. Later on the RAID manufacturers changed the wording because they didn't like the idea of inexpensive since RAID systems are not exactly cheap compared to comparable single drive systems. And in actuallity all of the RAID modes up to 5 existed before the name RAID was even published in a paper.
rrccad: so out of all these, only one would I consider the be "astro-photography" which is a challenging discipline in it's own right.
the rest i consider nightscapes. it's a shame that only one DSO made it on this list, as photographing DSO's is a technological challenge , extreme patience and time far exceeding that of the regular nightscape photograph.
I agree as a 45+ year astrophotographer only #3 and #8 qualify as far as I am concerned. Not to mention I was doing as good as #8 as a junior high school student in 1963 with an RV-6, Practika 35mm, and Plus-X film.Every astro-imager has to start somewhere but calling these exceptional (except #3 which is decent) would tend to call into question the experience of the person choosing them.
racketman: is this lens actually still for sale anywhere?
This lens is brand new not to be confused with anything made previously. It was only announced late in 2013.
ulfie: Size-wise, it's a dang blunderbuss! Kind of negates its low-light, f1.4 shooting abilities if camera shake adds blur due to its size/length, no?
It is actually easier to hold a heavier item steady than a lighter one when you need to point it at something. Just ask any professional shooter. Lighter weight is better when you need to move something you are pointing, like when panning.
TheDman: I'm not sure how a ball head improves my experience. Why would I not want the control of my pan/tilt that came with the tripod?
I used pan/tilt heads for about 2 decades. Then I bought a big used Graf Studioball so I could mount a Wimberly Sidekick. Since that time 25 years ago everytime I buy a new tripod I chuck the pan/tilt head into a box and put a ballhead on it instead. The only time they come out of that box is when I decide to sell one. I still have that Studioball and it still works fine, even though I have other Arca-plate ones.
ceaiu: Why is everyone assuming only Sigma is affected? Maybe they're the only ones (or just the first) to have a fix.
Sorry but both Tokina and Tamron pay licensing fees to just about all the camera makers that don't have an open standard mount. Camera makers, including Nikon, are willing to make a buck just like everyone else. Most don't know that the Big 4 (Canon, Nikon, Minolta, and Pentax) have had a cross licensing agreement on their patents for at least 4 decades.Sigma on the otherhand, due to the lawsuit they won, can only reverse engineer everything (except open standard mounts). And occasionally when a new camera comes out the OEM may change some responses in the code table and may make Sigma lenses erratic. Whether intentional or not I don't know. At least until Sigma can figure out the changes and redo a firmware fix. As far as I know any Sigma DG lens should be fixable, but I know absolutely that any non-DG lens will not be fixable. I have an analog era Sigma 100-300/4 EX HSM IF in Canon that still works with bodies upto and including the 60D but have not tried it on anything later.
zycamaniac: Not to be picky, but 2000 is the last year of 20th century...
Its true though. There was no year 0 so a decade goes from year 1 to year 10 (1 BC was followed by 1 AD). That means a century (100 years) ends at x000 not x999.
Sordid: What happened to Eye Controlled Focusing by the way?IMO an extremely useful thing!
Pentax actually did the original R&D on eye-controlled focus but never decided to keep going on it to put it in any of their cameras. Canon picked up the ball and ran with it. One of its issues was on the EOS-3 if you had the AF set to 45 point it would often switch points from the time you wanted the picture till the time you pressed the shutter. As a result many pros just left it in 11-point AF mode. One reason why most DSLRs still have between 9-15 AF points. Too many is often too much.
photogeek: I don't get why people use "normal" zooms — this is the range where it's incredibly easy to "zoom" by just getting closer or farther from the subject. I get UWA and tele zooms, but I haven't owned a "standard" fast zoom for well over a decade now. I just have 35 and 50mm primes instead, and 80% of the time I just leave the 35 on the body.
Well for one thing you won't be getting better image quality with primes, period. And you don't have to miss something by taking time to put a prime on or change one. I used primes for over 30 years. Now I generally use top zooms because there is little difference between them and primes, sorry. A bag full of primes will weigh as much as this lens of course.
falconeyes: I would have been keen to learn about AF consistency using the new 70D's dual pixel live view AF.
You seem to be under the misconception that reviews happen in the present and not in the past. Reviews are just like articles. They get done, then written up, then proofed, and then finally get published. Chances are when this was started they were not in the stores as yet and they only had a pre-production model somewhere in someones possession. And likely not the reviewers.Commenters need to have a better grasp of reality.
Press Correspondent: This is a fake record. I don't know what "antique cameras" this guy owns, pinhole, Polaroids, digicams, or smartphones, or may be he owns a thousand copies of the same model, but in my book "antique camera" stands for film. The world record for having the largest number of film cameras belongs to Richard LaRiviere (USA) who owns 894 DIFFERENT film cameras that he has collected since 1960.
What part of "every CAMERA in the photo is a film camera" don't you get?Technically, in the USA, antique can be anything older than 25 years ago or more. And all the large cameras in the photo I can identify as large format film because they all have lensboards on them.
Well for a fact every camera in that photo is a film camera. And the Guinness record he set for the second time is "stills" cameras, meaning no video or phones or even video film cameras. Since he inherited 600 from his father in 1977 when there was nothing but film cameras I'm sure he could round up another 300 to beat Richard's supposed record. He has rare cameras going back to the 1890's. As for Richard, his collection record is for motion picture film cameras not stills. That is the only record he holds.