Yanko Kitanov: Leica - do you believe your customers are idiots to whom you may lie regarding "optical corrections" while they are buying a Sony NEX cam with Sony NEX glass for 10x the price?? A pathetic way to show that you are going down.
People buy BMWs for many different reasons. But It's hard to duplicate the driving experience in any other automobile. This is deliberate on BMW's part. People who buy them are not fools.
SDPharm: > DPR: Most interestingly, we were told they relied on optical corrections, rather than software to project the best possible image onto the sensor. <
After re-reading this above statement, I guess one has to sigh and throw his hands up in the air.
Of course Leica uses optical correction to project the best image on the sensor. How would you otherwise apply software correction BEFORE the light hits the sensor?
The key is in three little words "rather than software."
Did Leica lie? Technically, no (not publicly anyway.) Did DPR lie? Does not seem so either. But it sure pointed a big finger at Leica. Fact is, regardless what was said and what was heard, most people will just start calling Leica a lier from now on.
Now we just have to decide if DPR is doing a good journalist's job, or it's another Reddit.
You wasted most of your post nitpicking about about the sentence construction. A few implied English words were left out. You understood the meaning of the sentence, as did most intelligent readers. The article currently has a comma and four additional letters - not sure if it's been edited. Either way it's easily understood.
So only Leica could be accused of Lying - not DPR. It's difficult to tell, but I suspect Leica has made better optical corrections than many manufacturers. They probably didn't mention the additional software corrections to DPR. And they may have been content to allow anyone to assume that's all they did, without feeling the need to "correct" them (it's hard to miss the irony here).
Henrik Herranen: Hmh.I know I sound like a broken record, but how is sensor size not worthy to be on the list of "Key specifications"? Isn't that pretty much the #1 specification of a camera without a fixed lens, even much more important than the number of megapixels?
Really, please, don't assume everyone remembers the sensor size of every camera series of every manufacturer. Yes, some of the nerds know (almost) all of them by heart, but not everyone, not by a long shot..
It must take a lot of effort to look slightly down the page at the first chart in the article, or at the full specifications that immediately follow it on the next page.
Based on the way many major elections have gone in this country since the dawn of the internet, I'm not sure being popular is something to be proud of ...
I'm amazed at how quickly the comments have come in!
More comments than usual - yet shorter.
I think most of us can't quite understand these expensive Leica cameras. Few of us own one, so we're looking in from the outside, trying to comprehend.
But two points are hard to argue with: Leica makes quality (including some of the world's best optics), and many owners love them.
Thanks for the mock photo with that disgusting logo on the back!
BJN: The Lytro interactive image samples are under 900 x 600 resolution. Do you think that they wouldn't provide higher resolution samples if they had them? The end image size in pixels can be provided despite the nonsense about megarays and equivalent of 5 megapixels conventional resolution. Where are the 2560x1920 (5 megapixel) image samples?
Talk about a no-information launch. No ISO range given. Is the f/2.0 lens fixed aperture (pretty sure it has to be)? If the lens is fixed aperture and the max shutter speed is 1/4000 second, how does the camera handle bright light scenes? What control does the photographer have over exposure? What's the frame rate and write time? For $1,600 Lytro had better have a lot more information and better resolution examples to show. The samples are cute but highly staged. The 3D baseline separation is tiny, so we get shown shots of miniatures.
Apparently you've never heard of an ND filter.
However, I wonder if it would disturb the angled light rays?
In any case, they don't pretend to be either an everyday or professional camera. It's just stage two of an interesting concept, and they want to find/allow photographers to see if they can make some good use of it in its current form.
If it ever becomes refined, then we can allow Sony to take over and market it, once the main innovating has already been accomplished.
NancyP: Well, for the landscape photographer, the Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM is a good lightweight choice - weight wise, 6 Canon 40mm equal one Sigma 50 Art, pricewise, 4 and one-half Canon 40mm equal one Sigma 50 Art. I would like one of each, the 50 Art for my bokeh cravings on short-distance trips, and the Canon 40 for those camping trips where I am hiking 10 miles a day with a 35# load. The Zeiss 21mm goes along regardless of weight - I love it to bits, the 800 gram gorilla. I am afraid that I might feel the same about the Sigma Art.
@DigiMatt - I'm glad you mentioned Jr. High - the place where 8th graders beat up 7th graders because they're less mature.
Altruisto: Everything is gorgeous in this lens, but the bokeh can get ugly sometimes with line doubling. I visited the Nikon 58 f1.4 for the sake of comparison, and there the bokeh is always buttery smooth.
Yes, he buys and sells cr@p, or cr*p (or whatever he calls it) and recycles it. He's very green!
But I can assure you some people think (for good reason) that the Sigma is more cr^p than the Nikon, and it has nothing to do with brand loyalty.
Ron A 19: So basically what everyone is agreeing upon is that the Zeiss and Sigma are so close in performance in sharpness that Sigma should be lauded for having created an affordable autofocusing Otus. I for one feel empowered that I can afford something so amazing, and can't wait to find an excuse to upgrade my current 50mm.
Lots of people are saying it's not as good as the OTUS. And a number of people (including myself) say they'd rather not get the Sigma at all because of one characteristic or another, although they'd choose one of the other non-OTUS alternatives.
But most of us are impressed with the sharpness, so if that's your main criteria, get one!
DStudio: This is clearly a good lens. Its images are nicer and more interesting than from most Sigma lenses.
But it does have flaws. For example, some of the samples appropriately show busy backgrounds (and foregrounds) that are sometimes distracting, even if you're not looking for them (example here: http://g2.img-dpreview.com/5A6544ADCB5C4EB1A75BF3F0AEBE46B8.jpg)
The somewhat disappointing new Nikon 58/1.4 doesn't appear to suffer this malady. There are other 50ish lenses that don't either.
And the Zeiss OTUS does a good job of melding an analytically sharp lens with beautiful rendering, although I'd lean more toward beautiful (and less technical), given the choice. For example, as long as I'm going MF, I think I'd rather use some older Leica designs.
But in today's market technical quality is emphasized by many people, which has also yielded film like Kodak's Ektar 100 (which didn't appeal to me when I tried it). So while I might not choose it myself, the OTUS gives an amazing balance.
@Kendall Helmstetter Gelner: I thought you were going to show me something dramatic! I was getting all ready to apologize, thinking I hadn't looked at enough OTUS photos!
No lens is perfect, but the OTUS is much different - and much less offensive - than the Sigma here. Also, with that last photo (of the flower) I couldn't find any reference to which Zeiss lens it was, in the EXIF or elsewhere. Could you please show me where that is - perhaps I missed it?
WilliamJ: That lens seems promising for sure, but the problem remains the weight: 815 g mainly of nice glass... to add to my magnesium alloy made camera, it's to say 820 g (empty). If I have to move with two more lenses in my bag... my bad, ouch my back !
Just get a Q with an f/1.9 lens and stop worrying about it. Problem solved! ;)
RichRMA: Nikon's 58mm is an overpriced standard lens. The Sigma clobbers it, at less than 1/2 the price. My favorite 50-ish lens was the Voigtlander 58mm Nokton, but it's not as good as this lens.
I was a bit disappointed with the Nikon 58's results, but I think I'd choose it over the Sigma if they were the same price. Its characteristics would suit me better (but this is all hypothetical anyway, since I don't have a Nikon).
Alexis D: Ha, ha. While I am ready to believe that this lens is exceptional, I have some doubts however about DXO's findings. I will wait for more reviews before I will believe the speculation mentioned here that the Otus is actually better.
Sigma has proven many times that a high price tag and/or a luxury nametag does not necessarily mean the best, though obviously excellent.
You can just look at photos from them and see that the OTUS is better right now.
But if you're not that picky, or don't care about the particular qualities where the OTUS has the advantage, that's OK.
simpleshot: The DXO test comes out with the same result as the tests from SLR gear and Digital Picture. They all confirm that:1. The Sigma is sharper than the Otus, except in the corners.2. The Sigma has less vignetting than the Otus.3. The Sigma has less distortion than the Otus.For all of that, the Sigma only costs $950 as opposed to $4000 for the Otus.The Sigma has AF, which makes it a lot more practical.
Actually you're all wrong, if the DxO sharpness tests are accurate.
The OTUS has a slightly more impressive result overall, at most if not all apertures.
The Sigma is a tiny bit sharper at dead center wide open. But the overall sharpness wide open is MUCH more impressive on the OTUS - nearly as high in the center, yet equal across the frame!
It's only at f/2.8 and f/4 that the OTUS is less sharp in the corners. Yet this is exactly where the OTUS pulls ahead in the center, with the best sharpness achieved by either lens. It's a nearly perfect design "compromise," I think.
So it's not true that the Sigma's "sharper in the corners"; neither is it true that "The Sigma is sharper than the Otus, except in the corners."
However, it IS true that the OTUS has much smoother bokeh and OOF rendering.
And I don't see CA, vignetting, and distortion being a problem on either lens, with Sigma narrowly winning in two of these areas while Zeiss narrowly wins the other.
KameraFever: Bokehlicous! The ability to shoot wide open portraits at 1.4, have them be sharp, and costing under $900 is understated. Many photographers will flock to this lens.
@JF69 and @Zeisschen: I'm in general agreement: http://g2.img-dpreview.com/5A6544ADCB5C4EB1A75BF3F0AEBE46B8.jpg
"Ghastly" may be overstating it, if you're suggesting it will ruin most shots - but it certainly will ruin a few of them, as you can see.
So you make a good point. There are competing lenses that won't do this. Even the "failure" Nikon 58/1.4G appears to avoid this problem, as far as I've seen.
nikonman2004: I can't wait for Sigma to re do their 85 1:4
I'm stupid. I bought an 85/1.4 (not Sigma) for all kinds of shots. It seems to work well with all of them.
Peiasdf: One of these days there will be people running a studio with SONY Alpha mirrorless camera + Sigma lenses. The horror, the horror.
Better to get Zeiss if you're shooting Sony. But maybe just skip 50mm here anyhow, and get the excellent Zeiss 85/1.4. If you're spending that much on camera and studio equipment, no need to quibble over the price difference of these lenses.
Kind of like the Pentax 40mm pancake lens, I suppose. Some people love it, and I'll get "in trouble" for saying this, but I find it fairly uninspiring. Pentax makes 35, 43, and 55mm lenses that are much better.
This is clearly a good lens. Its images are nicer and more interesting than from most Sigma lenses.