disraeli demon: Still no affordable, compact 24mm f2 lens for APS-C - I guess if you're into primes, Nikon (and Canon) expect you to upgrade to full frame.
@M DeNero: (For context, this is on APS-C)
I like to use the 24 in conjunction with an 85 and a 300. This three lens kit can cover most needs. Add in a macro and a fisheye for special situations.
I use the 24 for landscapes at an outdoor sporting event, or closeups of foliage/flowers. It's also good for an indoor dance competition in a (relatively) dark gym. Here you have low light with fast motion - plus you often want to limit the depth of field. It's still a challenge to get the more interesting shots, because you need a performer to come really close to you. But a wide-to-standard zoom will net you approx. 0 interesting shots.
Perhaps you can see how a 300, 85 (plus sometimes 135) mm kit also needs a fast 24.
It all depends on the situation. There are times for zooms, but 2 camera bodies with a prime on each usually works well.
I think it's a good idea. Spare the viewers. We'll see how it works.
Zeisschen: I heard next week there will be a camcorder that produces a 90min Hollywood blockbuster automatically, with built in Oscar guarantee!
You're right - if Titanic won best Oscar, these films should be a shoe-in!
Francis Carver: It's official, folks. A USD $249 camera has more brain, than your average human.
What astounds me is that Mark can actually find five morons to agree with him.
At least they prove the first part - "The brain is underutilized."
Top Dog Imaging: The sample photos are inconclusive. I wish I were young and had a fun job like the kids from Washington. Through their eyes, we've seen their buddies, significant others, the Space Needle, the Cascades, hiking trips, pub and coffee shop scenes, random street views, sunset/sunrise snaps, random nighttime photos, etc. It would be much more helpful if pro photographers were asked to take the "sample gallery" photos. I am unable to form an opinion about the A7-II.
Top Dog seems to be extremely interested in where (he thinks) he stands in relation to everybody else.
Well, Top Dog, I think your name says it all.
If you believe putting up with commenters like you makes this a "cushy" job ... refer back to Barney's post!
Please, not "Pro" sample photos like Nikon posts with every new camera or lens - those are the worst!
Talk about not being able to evaluate the product ...
I love the Zeiss portraits of the young woman, and the under-the-bridge shot taken with the Canon 11-24.
I'd say that's a pretty good "gain/shed" tradeoff!
OldDigiman: Hell, just as I was getting ready to eBay my 24-70 that I hardly use now. I wonder how many hundreds of $$ this announcement just cost me.
Why don't you find out and let us know?
M DeNero - I understood as soon as I got one. Maybe I didn't so much beforehand.
The very fact that my 24mm is fast causes me to bring it along and leave my 20/2.8 and 28/2.8 behind. It has become one of my three key primes - all of which are fast for their focal length.
So I'll never understand why people don't understand - unless perhaps they've never tried them.
Some notable cameras made it just under the wire.
On the ILC front, you have the extremes with the Phase One IQ3s and the Pentax K-3 II (and Panasonic GX8).
I suppose it's appropriate for budget-minded Pentax shooters who are hanging on to CS6. The next DSLR they should release will be more expensive, with much more expensive lenses. So once you go that route, I think you can pay for the CC subscription.
I doubt Phase One shooters will have this struggle. Half of them rent it, so why not rent the software too!
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!