Dave Oddie: The focal length range is very useful. On APS-C i use a Sony 11-18 which is similar. Usefully wider then the 16mm on my CZ 16-80.
The problem with the Tamron though is with it being a FF lens is size and weight.
I can't help thinking if I was a FF user I'd be happier with a 24-105 zoom complimented by a 17mm prime lens for the wide angle forgoing the flexibility of the zoom.
Does anyone make a 17mm FF prime these days? It all seems to be zooms which are large and expensive.
Relative to the f/1.4 lenses, Nikon's 28/1.8 and 35/1.8 FX lenses are also pretty small and light. Canon's 24/2.8 IS and 35/2 IS aren't what I'd call huge either.
Nikon's 18-35/3.5-4.5 makes for a very light alternative to this new Tamron lens as well, if a zoom is what you are after.
There are a number of 14mm f/2.8 primes for full frame (Canon, Nikon, & Samyang) and Zeiss has an 18mm f/3.5. The latter is a good bit slower, manual focus, no stabilization, and still half a kilo or so. I'd grab the Nikon 16-35/4 or 18-35/3.5-4.5 over it just about any day.
Fairly certain that Nikon made a 17mm prime back in the 70s or so but I have no idea how good it is. Definitely manual focus though.
Kodachrome200: People still use filters?
Fixing an uneven sky is doable, I'm sure, but I wouldn't want to spend that time if I didn't have to. If a shot had a lot of water and sky in it, the effort could be worth it. But if just using the polarizer for a deeper blue sky, it is likely easer to just deepen the sky in post than to fix an uneven sky.
Polarizers only have issues on ultra wide angle lenses with lots of sky in the frame (which becomes uneven in color). If using the polarizing to control reflections on water or the like, it will work just fine regardless of focal length. The latter case for a polarizer is the one where post-processing won't work as an alternative, too.
John C Tharp: This lens is unique, yet it's market position is a bit awkward; a fast aperture with stabilization is great for a number of uses, but the unsealed nature of the lens combined with the difficulty of using filters, along with some stiff first-party (and third party) competition means it might not be as popular as it is cool. And it is cool.
If you intend to consider this lens, why would you take it over the other lenses already available in the same focal length?
For Canon users, it is the first time they'll have a native zoom lens wider than 16mm and f/2.8.
For Nikon users, it is much cheaper than the 14-24/2.8 zoom.
For both camps, it is the first f/2.8 wide angle zoom with image stabilization. It is also the first zoom going wider than 16mm and longer than 24mm.
For those reasons, it is pretty interesting to me.
Eigenmeat: So i don't know which is the worst: the flareor...The fact that a critical precision module like the AF sensor can be misplaced to such degree that is visible to the naked eye... I thought we were taking about micron order of precision here on $2300 camera.
How do you reckon it is misplaced? Based on my understanding of AF modules, the assembly needs to be adjustable in position to compensate for variations in the full assembly (and quite a complex assembly with many tolerances to compensate for). If the camera is AF'ing properly, the module is properly placed, at least in the eyes of the QC technician (and for most users who will likely never encounter this flare issue).
My guess is that Nikon had a batch of components on one end of the tolerance that forced the AF module upwards just a little too far when the module was properly adjusted. Given the difficulty in replicating the flare issue, it is very easy to imagine how the effected bodies could pass all of Nikon's QC measures.
Canon certainly isn't catching the problem on their cameras!
LarryLatchkey: to me this screams 'uninspiring'. just another point-and-shoot MILC with a lense that the average customer won't ever take off. no viewfinder, no clickwheel, no handgrip, generic design. 'faux pentaprism hump' is cringeworthy. Reminds me of Coolpix S3x or Pentax Optio I-10, with the difference that those were so pop that it was cool. I would always choose a GM1 over this one. sorry, i know the world wasn't waiting for my opinion...
Doesn't appear that there's anything 'faux' about the hump. The pop-up flash appears to be housed there and the hinge for the LCD extends into that zone as well.
JamesD28: So, does the 28mm F/2 with the fisheye converter turn it into a 16mm F/1.1? Or is the converter designed so it stays at f/2?
Front mount converters don't change the f-stop of the lens. Rear mount converters, like the Speedbooster and Canon/Nikon/Kenko teleconverters for telephoto lenses, do.
Daniel Lauring: I love that Fuji has had such an aggressive lens release map and the quality of the lenses but the prices are truly "cringeworthy." Typically, they do drop to more reasonable figures in a year or two.
Stephen, You have your equivalent lenses mixed up. Canon and Nikon's full frame f/2.8 standard zooms are equivalent to a 16-47mm f/1.9 zoom which this Fuji is not. Canon and Nikon do offer a few lenses that come far closer to being equivalent and all are much less expensive than the lenses you mention:
Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS: $880Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS (full frame, 16-70mm f/2.7 APS-C equivalent)): $1149Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8: $1400Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR (full frame, 16-80mm f/2.7 APS-C equivalent): $1300
SRHEdD: As an old Nikon guy, after my D600 flaked and D800 had white spots, I jumped ship. This is a great camera, and for a change I actually HAVE a camera that gets a great firmware upgrade! As good as it WAS, it is very noticeably faster now! You get so many creative hardware scenarios with Sony, and they have the lenses I need. Not as many as Canikon to be sure, but very nice lenses in my wheelhouse. The 16-50/2.8 is a great kit zoom, but a little heavy. And having an A6000 as a second kit, using the same flashes, microphones, etc. is very satisfying (I can even share lenses with a LA-EA4!). Even my Sony P/S uses the same basic menus and I can add a mic to its hotshoe on a windy day. That's three different formats/mounts using shared kit. THAT'S how to build a system. Great job Sony! I'm with you for the long haul! ...Now to get that new A7ii to fill out my bag!
Anyone else remember this firmware update for the original Canon 7D that nearly doubled the raw buffer?http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/EOS7D_firmware_features
kadardr: Just to elaborate on it's not worth the money:1. For the same money you can buy a Sony DSC RX1(R) (ok used)2. You could buy a X100T AND a Sigma DP Quattro3. You could buy any top of the line APSC DSLR with decent lenses4. You could buy an OMD E-M1 with 20 AND 75mm primesThe list could be extended almost endless.If you buy Leica you buy fanboism, self identification and boost through Leica brand, self confirmation environment through Leica brand. The product here is the price and the heritage and the halo of past photographers achievements. Express yourself through your images!
A Canon SL1 plus 40mm f/2 pancake prime is barely larger than the Leica in height and depth (about 0.5"/13mm in both directions) and smaller in width (by about the same distance). If you put a viewfinder on the Leica there goes that height advantage, too.
viking79: I have never understood "pro" support. Have spare gear.
So when your main camera is getting repaired, what do you do for backup? Buy a backup for your backup?
dbo: Why is it mandatory to be a pro photographer?
I am advanced enthusiast, owning A900/A99/A7R/A7S and all G/Z lenses except 35G/70300G/500G.Not enough to be recognized as a support-worthy customer. Unbelievable.
F..k o.f, Sony...
I'm sure Sony is willing to accept your $100/year if you send them some samples of your work. How do they know if it is paid work or not? They probably just want samples so that they can use them for free in their advertising.
Greg Gebhardt: Night be good for an compatable laptop if it is short of storage but no camera could effectivly use these.
The 50% increase to the buffer capacity of the D4s seems to indicate that certain cameras (one of the few that actually use these cards) can take (some) advantage of the faster speeds.
lacikuss: I like its bokeh very soft to the eye. for this type of lens I prefer AF though.
Becksvart, using an f/1.2 lens and applying a 2X crop relative to full frame means that the depth of field is similar to f/2.4 on the larger sensor. In my experience, phase detect AF has zero issues by that point, even with moving subjects. I miss focus frequently shooting something moving at f/1.4 on full frame (m4/3 equivalent of f/0.7) but I blame myself as much as the camera (and still get a decent percentage of keepers). For a static subject, f/1.4 and PDAF are non-issues on full frame in my experience.
spzphoto: I have already tried a similar DIY solution using the very same quick release taken from a gun store (it's a rifle belt quick release) but there is a huge drawback on the design of the off-the-shelf quick release which apparently is the same one CAMS prototype is using.The release button is protruding and it can accidentally get pressed while the camera is bouncing around your body (it did happen to my assistant who used it first).I really like the system as it seems to solve the issues most sling straps have but the off-the-shelf quick release is a no go.If they also make a custom quick release with a recessed button, I'll be their first customer.
Full disclosure: This is my Kickstarter project.
We do plan to offer both a protruding and flush button option for the quick release. See update #5: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1921293637/cams-pro-sling-strap-camera-plate-and-lens-plate/posts/961739
hybert46: So finally what is the more compact, potentially cheapest or easiest lens to produce, a FF 100mm f/4 or a m43 50mm f/2? Both should have a roughly similar size of entrance pupil as it is defined by the ratio of focal length over the f-number. Anyone care to elaborate on this, could be interesting!
hybert46, that all depends on the lens design. The new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is almost 100mm long despite its short focal length. The old manual focus Nikon 105mm f/2.5 was only 78mm long.
Sdaniella: Kodachrome 25 ... ISO 25I've been asking for 25/12/6 since Canon offered ISO 50never mind 64/32!
Pritzl, that 2/3 of a stop should mean a fully usable f/1.4 in broad daylight with 1/8000" shutter speed and no ND filter. To me, that's huge. It should also mean lower noise and more DR.
AndreSJ: RX100 III
this 1" battle is getting interesting
But which is right for you??
Do you realize that only the RX100 and NX Mini have a 1" sensor? The other two cameras in your grouping are APS-C.
SteB: I think that's pretty impressive. Even taking into account down-sizing the other images it's clearly the cleanest from any FF sensor at high ISOs. I think this might have some potential from a macro/close-up photography perspective. Light is always a challenge, and often you have to use flash to freeze motion, or handhold. The big problem with flash in daylight is fall off over distance and black backgrounds. This means the background all has to be close to the subject to prevent it, which restricts how you shoot. I think this type of high ISO performance is maybe getting to the level where with noise reduction software, it might allow a type of photograph previously impossible in field macro photography. We'll have to wait and see if it's there yet. It'd be a lot better if it was A7 price.
What is useable to you? I've gotten plenty of good-enough-for-web use images from my D3S at ISO 51200. I don't like using ISO 100K but I have used it several times.