SETI: Heh, green skintones again =)
So Canon's the "gold standard" here, and Nikon's the "green standard?"
Why not compare to Leica or Phase One?
Being most popular doesn't make you right. If it did, the United States government would be nearly perfect now! ;)
GThomp: Not impressed - chromatic aberration and edge softness at f7.1 is completely unacceptable especially considering the price of the lens. I'm getting better IQ from my old cheap 18-105mm on my D7100 but perhaps the bokeh is better and the 16-80 has a larger max aperture. Have looked at samples from other sites and they tell the same story - way overpriced and certainly not a classic lens
I've seen good results from the 18-105, even though I normally stay away from kit lenses.
It certainly makes the price of this hard to swallow, doesn't it?
You've got to have some pretty special needs if you're going to pay this much for a lens you're going to shoot at f/7.1.
Fao91: "and here @4:08http://youtu.be/5HZ2pvfmT_s"
How funny! At 4:08 I thought they were trying to show how cruddy the Canon example was at showing shadow detail or the wrinkles on the clothing. Instead they were bragging about its "incredible detail!"
I don't know if these were processed differently (or at all) out of the camera, but it sure is funny how some people see things.
I like a 300/4 - don't usually need f/2.8 at 300mm (although it certainly has its place).
Anyway, I guess she has a little green in her face on the Nikon side.
"If you complain about it to Nikon they will just adjust the color balance on your camera's playback screen as a way to shut you up."
LOL, do they really do that!?
How about Capture One? Most of their profiles are really good.
Do you have this same complaint with the camera's JPG engine (which can be important to some event photographers, amongst others)? How about on film?
Mikael Risedal: what is real world samples? if you don't compare with another lens?I don't care about dpreviews real world examples if I don't have a reference
Your reference is your experience.
And your emotions.
Your experience tells you from an analytical standpoint.
And your emotions tell you if you especially like them, or if they're quite average.
Leica owners (at least the ones who buy their most beautifully rendering lenses) aren't crazy. They just have money and emotions.
nicolaiecostel: After seeing all the samples at 100% I can say that this is a pretty decent lens, a 7.5/10. It really shines between f8-f11 but at wider apertures it shows some flaws like edge softness and quite visible chromatic aberation, mainly green and purple fringes.
Close up shots at 80 mm are quite useless unless you want soft, fuzzy pictures.
Shooting with the sun in the shot also doesn't do the lens any favors, decreasing the contrast and showing iregular flare.
I'm a prime shooter so this has no appeal to me but for others it might just be what they were waiting for.
Besides potential sharpness issues (I usually don't scrutinize sharpness as much as other factors), I think the new HD coating is dubious. I don't know if it's because they've changed the glass again (like they have every generation except perhaps A to F) or the coating itself, but I'm not sure I like it better.
In any case my (very realistic, I'm afraid) fear is that Ricoh is reaping the ugly fruits of what Hoya did when they laid off so many of the fine Pentax lens engineers. They were like artisans and craftsmen. But the new guys are probably more like - well, engineers. Analytical Engineers doing a job.
I believe the Pentax 16-85 is almost "good enough." But the best thing it has going for it is the almost reasonable price.
However, as with this wide-to-short-tele APS-C category in general, there are too many "almosts!"
valenttin: Try to compare with that: http://www.dpreview.com/products/olympus/lenses/olympus_12-60_2p8-4 Exactly the same focal and aperture...
Yes, the Olympus is a very good lens, but not the same sensor size.
However, you'd think this (quality) would be just as easy (or more easy) to achieve at APS-C sizes - so why is it so hard?
I agree with your sentiments here. Since when is "shining between f/8-f11" something to brag about?
If it's more interesting/compelling images you're after, primes are a good solution. Fortunately Nikon has a quality mid-range prime lineup.
But it's disappointing everyone has such a hard time making a high quality APS-C zoom that goes to ~16mm wide (and ~50+mm wide). I can't think of a single great one yet - not even if you're willing to pay. At least the semi-affordable Pentax and Sony 16-50/2.8s are arguably as good or better than their more pricey Canon and Nikon counterparts. So this makes them more palatable (and they're generally pretty good). But these are still not something you're going to brag about like crazy.
EDIT: Although not a DSLR, Fuji has probably done the best here.
Results look typical for a "kit+" lens. The only problem is the prices keep creeping higher, making them less and less interesting or desirable.
Perhaps my recollection is poor, but it seems the 24-120/4 gives nicer results.
I wish manufacturers would solve one of the key problems of variable-aperture lenses (please let me know if one has). A quality lens will give very good image quality stopped down by only 1/3 or 2/3 stops. So on these variable-aperture zooms the camera needs a setting to automatically stop down x/3 stops from wide-open at any given focal length. Otherwise you'll set a lens like this to f/3.5 at 16mm. Then you zoom to 80mm and the camera automatically adjusts the aperture to f/4, which is suddenly wide open. Now your image quality is significantly degraded - you want f/5 here! So you manually set f/5. Then you go back to 16mm - it stays at f/5 - what a mess!
Manufacturers, PLEASE fix this problem, or give us constant aperture (or at least f/3.5-4.5) zoom lenses!
gens: I was hiking John Muir Trail and happened to be at the top of Half Dome that day and witnessed the wedding. Apparently, they didn't bring any guests, but everyone at the top cheered loudly when the priest said, "Now, you may kiss your bride." I took some shots of them. See page 2 of this album.
I like your photo album too.
s.seng: I can get my 7" figurine from my local ASDA (Wall Mart ) for £59 ($90).
It looks like the quality is worth about £50 too!
And you MUST stand still for 12 seconds!
JLobo: There is a company in Portugal that already makes these for more than a year. It's called "3d Life" .https://www.facebook.com/3dlife.pthttp://www.3dlife.pt/
They can make very complex figures, for instants people with objects in their hands. You can see a video of the process here (only in portuguese, sorry). http://sicnoticias.sapo.pt/programas/futurohoje/2015-06-02-Instantaneos-em-3D-chegam-a-Portugal
This is pretty neat too. I noticed in the video it says "demora pelo menos 2 semanas a ficar pronto" -> "it takes at least two weeks to get ready."
In Osaka can you get it the same day?
Why are people so jaded? This is cool.
Nathan Cowlishaw: It's going to be fun watching the Micro Four Thirds Consortium eat the rest of the photo industry alive and position themselves at least as a leader and authority that will make all other companies wonder why they didn't follow suite. ;) I love Micro Four Thirds, with all the selection of lenses and manufacturers really chiming in: Panasonic, Olympus, Leica, Kowa, Voigtlander, SLRMagic. Man, the sky is the limit with this open standard.
Ha Ha you're funny! This doesn't make m4/3 any better or worse than it already is.
MrAnthonyH: I don't know why this booth requires the GH4, other than synchronizing all the cameras. Since it's Panasonic, a booth could be made with much less expensive cameras with m4/3 sensor cameras and still keep the 1/1000 speed. It may be $450 for the 3D figure, but it would be much more expensive to actually own a booth and operate it. For something like couples photography/figurines at $1500 per GH4, that's $180,000 plus the cost of the printer, software, and synchronization equipment/mounting grid. Let's say the booth costs $200,000, so at $500/figure, that's 400 figures you'd need to do just to break even. Good luck with that.
If you're Panasonic, why would you choose your cheap models?
lorenzo de medici: Rishi is a fine photographer, and optically the lens appears to be excellent. I'm just not a fan of close up portraits, or wide angle shots with a shallow DOF. So while I commend Sigma for producing a unique product, it's not one that I would buy or use.
I appreciate the comments.
I wish I could describe better what I like/don't like about the images from the particular lenses. It's when an image grabs my attention, and makes me want to be there (or feel like I almost am).
Bokeh and sharpness certainly play a part, and they're easy to analyze. But colors, contrast, a "3D" look, and other factors come into play. I think it's great when a scene looks better than in real life, but I still want it to look relatively natural. In the end I judge mostly by the overall look viewed at 50% or smaller size. While I tend to be analytical, that can work against me if I'm trying to achieve an overall pleasing aesthetic.
I do commend Sigma on the VAST improvements they've made in recent years - they're getting much closer to my liking.
I personally am fascinated by how glass (I mean the glass itself) and the particular generation it's from/manufacturing/materials can greatly affect the beauty it picks up in the light. I guess that's what I see.
That's interesting Rishi. It makes total sense from an analytical standpoint.
But as much as I try, I just can't make myself *like* the photos from the Sigma Art 35/1.4 as much. For that matter, I don't like the output from the Canon 35/2 IS as much either. I just looked at some images from both again. I still think with Canon you need to go to the L glass in most cases (for nice images).
Even though I don't shoot Nikon, but I can see myself being happy with most of the f/1.8G lenses, unlike the aforementioned Sigma and Canon 35mm models. Not perfect, but pleasing images.
Halfwaythere, I'm curious which specific lenses you had in mind. I understand that video advantages can be important, but for photography are there more impressive models (than the 35/2)?
I'd be very interested to hear about this.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Sigma images are sharper at f/2. But that doesn't mean I'd like them more.
I'm not sure I like the lens (I'm generally not a fan of Sigma rendering), but I agree that these focal lengths can be good for portraits.
On Nikon the f/1.8G primes would probably be a good alternative.
OrdinarilyInordinate: Well, it's great for professionals or people who have a lot of money to burn on software, but it's prohibitively expensive for an average amateur photographer. I wish they had a more reasonably priced trimmed down option, perhaps without tethering functions.
You get a 30 day trial with Capture One, so that's the same as most hardware.