achim k: Flare test:putting a light source just a bit outside the frame may also mean, that reflections may be caused by a surface inside the camera body! I rate the EF 40/2,8 as one of the best flare-resistant lenses I ever had!
I know what he's referring to, and it still doesn't convey a point.
What's your point? Either way, it's a problem.
Didn't read review, don't know what's being referred to, but your post is not really making much sense.
Just another Canon shooter: It is an interesting lens without doubt. But..., it just shows how limiting the APS-C format is, not otherwise: narrow FL range, horrendous OOF rendering near the focus plane, kinda soft and low contrast. The Tamron 24-70/2.8 is very similar in price, weight, and probably price; and is much better in every respect on FF, and has IS.
The whole point of the smaller format is portability. Once you try to match larger formats, you get absurd solutions like this one, or the m43 f/2 zooms.
However any full frame camera with an equivalent lens is significantly higher in price than this with any but the most expensive available bodies.
It's an option. It's not for everyone, but for those that don't want to invest in FF or reinvest in new FF tech it may well be an extremely attractive option.
Between availability of extremely large aperture primes, speed booster/variants, and now large aperture zooms I'm certainly rethinking my own desire and ownership of full frame.
ryansholl: *Obligatory bitching about not having reviewed some other camera*
Presumably combatmedic870 wrote his own online review to combat this deficiency for other potential users.
Barbie Video Girl hasn't been reviewed yet...
DPR is totally dropping the ball!
*Obligatory bitching about not having reviewed some other camera*
Peiasdf: I am sure someone will take it in now that it is in the NYTimes. That said, most of SOHO art scene is just trendiness, not art.
30 years of trendiness is history. Someone's interested.
AZBlue: If this is the quality of photos produced by these photographers, they deserve to get fired.
He intentionally used the same equipment he is to be replaced by. You've just crapped on your own point in support of his.
Nigel Wilkins: I'd be happy to buy one if I needed or wanted it enough. Nobody bats an eyelid if you spend £12k on a car, yet the car's value will drop like a stone...unlike this lens.
Yeah, I completely understand what was meant, tkbslc. Saw the opportunity for comedy, went for it.
penguinman: From Andy Rouse web page.
This is a plea to the lens geeks. Please do not start comparing the Canon lens with the Nikon one, it is pointless. The Nikon 200-400 does a great job for Nikon photographers and the Canon lens will do a great job for Canon photographers. Comparing the two is just pointless, as no one is going to change camera system to use this lens are they? No they are not, so please don’t fuel the silly Canon vs Nikon debate anymore, it’s not what this lens or this review is all about.
To be fair, I was being intentionally daft, as I imagine rallyfan with his "doesn't fit a canon camera, so doesn't matter" comment was intentionally naive.
Seldom do I see someone miss the point by such a wild margin.
I spent a few days at Kruger with a man that owns nothing but a FF Nikon body and the 200-400vr. Someone in the position he was in years ago would certainly benefit from comparison. Aside from worry that a prized lens might not fare well against new competition, I see little reason not to run such a comparison.
Stop lowering the bar for accountability in lens performance.
That has merit if no one ever based initial buy-in to a system based on available lenses.
This is a specialty item. One that people seek out, and Nikon's version is very, very popular. There is a great deal of merit in comparing the two, as with the relatively low cost of a camera body in comparison to the glass there's nothing keeping one from just picking up a body of the other brand to use with a superior lens investment, even if they ARE invested in a different brand.
Compare! It's not a Nikon vs Canon debate, it's Nikon 200-400/4 vs Canon 200-400/4 debate.
I wear a belt to work, which keeps my pants up, which keeps the crack of my ass from showing, which keeps me employed. But it definitely does not earn my living, nor did your car earn you yours.
CameraLabTester: It's a white lens with a feel that is unique.
The switches are ergonomically appealing.
This is what the users wanted, and Canon listened.
Even the tripod collar has been made streamlined shaped.
Although the IQ reports remain to be checked, the ergonomic design of this new lens is quite the right proper design. Nikon should be following up with it's own... since the shape is not at all patented or exclusive,
1% of a helluva lot is a helluva lot
peevee1: Nikon does not really play to the small sensor strengths.What they need is an ultrafast zoom. Just take the lens from Panasonic LX7 - f/1.4-2.3 24-90 mm equiv. for 1/2" image circle, and scale it up for 1" image circle. How much glass is in LX7? 50-70g? That would be 200-300g for Nikon 1, quite reasonable, and a great kit zoom. Or look at what Sony did in RX100 - small and light for the same size of sensor.f/3.5-5.6 zooms? f/4-6 zooms? OK for FF, a joke for 1".
Another advantage - possible zoom range. 20x zoom can be made for 1" quite compact, and for no other ILC system. Play to it too. Beer can of 10x 10-100 PZ is a joke, when 16x is available for MUCH bigger APS-C - from Nikon itself.
Another one? Macro. Nothing can compete in macro with small sensors. Where is Nikon 1 macro (which could be macro zoom for those pesky insects, say, 2x, again to play to the unique strengths).
Ah, yes. The "just make it bigger and all the physics of the lens will work the same" argument.
Hint: It doesn't work that way.
Slynky: These days, laws are (it seems) usually made to give more rights and leeway to the corporate world at the expense of the individual (who will never have the wherewithal to seek redress).
It's simple really.
Citizens are commodities.
Citizens? Is that what consumers used to be called?
Marques Lamont: An interesting question I have is this:
In general, how much do you plan on spending on photography per year?
I think this question will make things a bit clearer.
I take it that many here don't plan on spending more than $500 per year?
Well, what can one buy for $500?
A nex 3 series, late model, newFull set of legacy primes from 28 to 200mmTripod and all necessary accessories
If you chose photoshop, your choice next year is:
And who knows how long you'll be able to afford it even if you could squeak it by this year. Pricing is at Adobe's whim, is it not?
An interesting question in my mind, perhaps not in others:
Regardless of software used, a modified photograph in common vernacular has been "photoshopped" or "'shopped."
Suppose that will always be the case? If it is, will one day down the road people have to consult a dictionary to figure out just where in the hell that term came from?
ARB1: Dang Nikon, were is our video update?
Well. There it is. Found it.