beholder3: So you get "silver" awards and 84% for:- unreliable autofocus (" no way of persuading the lens to focus accurately at all")- poor sharpness at the aperture it is mainly selling for("anything but sharp wide open, giving rather soft, low-contrast images")- overpriced / poor value for the money ("Very expensive")?
The three key factors suck. Not even mediocre.
Makes me think the "silver" is the silver dollars offered by Nikon / the Amazon gear shop to smoothen these review results for allowing good sales figures.
The most likely reason it can't focus reliably is because it's so soft @f/1.4. How an AF system is meant to determine what's actually in focus in that situation I am at a loss to explain.
ragmanjin: I don't understand how the D7100 and D610 are getting so many votes. One's a slight spec bump over the previous model with no new tech or gains or even a prettier body, so by logic should be sitting at about the same level as the K-50 or A58 here. The other's identical to its predecessor in pretty much every way, announced early and for the sole reason of averting attention from the huge quality control problems of the one it's replacing, so by logic should be sitting at the same level as the T5i (which was released to divert attention from the T4i's rubber grip allergen issue). At lease the Df looks a little different, the SL1's one of the smallest DSLRs ever, the 70D and K-3 have completely revolutionary new technologies in them and the K-500 finally signals Pentax's return to having an actual lineup of DSLRs complete with non-weather-sealed entry-level models.
Anyways, just a thought.
It's weird how people justify buying Nikon or Canon APS-C because there's a Full Frame option. This argument for deciding which APS-C camera is "best" is irrelevant. Pentax makes dedicated APS-C lenses (apart from the FA 31, FA 43, FA 77, DA*55, DA*200, DA*300 and DFA 100, and a few more, which are all FF lenses) which are, generally, smaller than FF lens options and which have smaller image circles. People don't cite "no FF option" when judging M43 format systems so why would you do it for APS-C? Do people expect their FF glass to be compatible with MF bodies? I doubt it.
mpgxsvcd: Do telescopes count as lenses?
Celestron 14 v Nikon 800mm? Celestron wins every time if you want to get up close and personal with Jupiter, Saturn and any number of wonderful astronomical wonders. And it's cheaper too.
DigitalWalnut: No Sigma 120-300mm Sport?
That's an absurd qualification. The release date is far more important than the date of the announcement because people can't truly judge something until it's available. The fact that Canon versions of 3rd party lenses are released well in advance of other mounts also makes it imperative that no voting take place until ALL lens mount versions have been on the market for at least a few months. That may mean that a particular product will not appear as a contestant until next year but so be it.
If Nikon are adding code that deliberately sabotages Sigma lenses could that be regarded as anti-competitive and be subject to damages claims (class action) from Sigma users?
samfan: I know the 1st party manufacturers aren't under any obligation to provide support for 3rd parties. But do they really think that if they don't make their own lens such as 50-150/2.8 or 18-35/1.8 for DX, and break the support for such a 3rd party lens, I'll buy a 70-200/2.8 VR and 24-70/2.8 instead? And maybe a FX body to boot? Really?
Because the answer is no, I won't, and I also won't buy any more bodies from Nikon. If my existing bodies get way too old to still be useful, I'll rather just switch to a brand that 1) offers the lenses I need, 2) allows me to use 3rd party lenses without being too worried about the future.
Fortunately I'm in no hurry. Let's see which of the DSLR/MILC manufacturers get their sh*t together the best.
The new Sigma 50-150 is sharper than all of those other zooms you mentioned as well as being a dedicated APS-C lens. I'll agree that it's heavy though, and, as such, you lose some advantage. The Pentax 50-135 is very light and is the same optical formula as the Tokina 50-135 although the Tokina doesn't have the weather seals, construction or great coatings of the Pentax..I have a few Sigma lenses and will be monitoring how future FW updates for the D800e work via other people's experiences b4 installing them on my cameras.
I'll think twice before updating my D800e's when the next firmware update comes out. It seems probable that Nikon is deliberately trying to make things difficult for Sigma and it's customers.
The K-3 smokes the D7100 in any comparison apart from maybe focus tracking. This comparison is a travesty for the following reasons: A. The sensor shake reduction mechanism can do (i) amazing star tracking when combined with the O-GPS, (ii) horizon correction (iii) sensor shift (shift lens anyone?) (iv) sensor shake based AA filter
B. The new hi-res exposure system C. the silky shutter D. 25 cross point AFE. f2.8 AF system that works way down low (in the dark almost)F. Huge buffer for 23 RAW shots at 8 fps G. superior ergonomics (ISO right where you need it and DOF Preview on the shutter button lever etc etc)H. The Green Button and numerous exposure modes Nikon never heard of.
The K-3 is a no brainer when compared to the D7100.
PS: The new AF system also uses the new hi-res exposure system to differentiate and track.
Well, the Sigma 50 "kills" it according to the Dx0 Comparison page.
Funny thing about Dx0 is that they have my Pentax DA*55 looking really bad and yet I know for a fact it's better than my Sigma 50 AND Lenstip MTF's say it wipes the floor with the Nikon 50 1.8 & 1.4G lenses too. The disparity between results from different sites is confusing to say the least.
50's on Nikonhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/steve-griffin/8114187505/
HubertChen: Interesting pictures with appropriate post processing in different lightning, different focus / bokeh and different types of composition will be much more informative. Barney Britton wrote today that dpreview staff should live with a camera for a month and shoot with it every day in real life. I admire the goal, I can not see it executed here.
On a 16 MP APSC you also need better lenses than the ones used to judge of what the sensor is capable off. Shooting RAW and processing in Lightroom would also be advised. Most people who spends this much money on a Camera will not use the images unprocessed. Besides that I found the images uninspiring. Executed such as this with no commitment to the effort I would be fine there is no sample gallery, as I can not find information in this one.
Better lenses:FA 35 mm F/2 AL. Superb @ f/2.8 ... f/5.6DA 77 mm F/2.4. Superb @ f/2.8 ... f/5.6These lenses are relatively low cost and optically good enough to really use this sensor.
You meant DA 70mm because the FA 77mm is superb from wide open
DonM999: Why no star field?
Take a picture of the moon so that you can see it's features and get back to us after you counted the visible stars on both hands?
Charlie boots: We have millions starving on the planet. There is a huge typhoon hitting the phillipines which will devastate the lives of thousands and we spend millions sending the olympic torch to the space station and back instead of helping these people. What a farce and a shame on us all.
All so greedy corporate intersts can milk the consumer for even more.
And with a healthy flame to boot ;-)
rfsIII: I bet they come out in 6 months with a Df-V that adds full video capabilities. Now THAT would be a camera.
Super 8 "video" what else? ;-)
(Yes I know s8 was not video.. sheesh!)
Pentax_Prime: Poor people - first they paid for Adobe products .... now they pay again for Adobe products.
News flash! Adobe announces "Silver Lining" a product for those drenched by the cloud.
HawaiiVolcanoes: we are "getting wound up"..because quite frankly we hate Nikon ...they stopped being relevant in the (anything other than DSLR market) a VERY long time ago....VERY long time ago...and we don't like the cameras that are currently on the market. If you ask any REAL photographer if they would like input on a new camera ..they would "jump" to do so...because...no single camera out there gives anyone with brains what they really want. Period
I think a Pentax K-3 might.. My K-5 is much better ergonomically than my two D800e's
gustabod: for that price they should throw in a roll of digital film
Would that be magnetic tape or just a punch card? ;)
RichRMA: Invoking the "spirit" of the Noct, a lens with a hand-made aspheric glass element in the same breath as when talking about this lens, which probably has a plastic, molded "hybrid" aspheric in it is...dubious.
They can make molded glass aspheric lenses. People are also making excuses for the price citing the aspheric element but doesn't the 85/1.8 have an aspheric element (albeit likely a molded one)?
This lens doesn't even have ED glass (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) and the basic design and construction seems not all that different from the 50.1.4G so where's the cost coming from.. apart from making a zillion trial and error tests?
bossa: The night shot on the official samples page doesn't show point sources for the street lights. They are all triangles and sheared. There's also lots of blue fringing around lots of the lights (purple fringing).
Looking at the portraits the lens doesn't seem as contrasty or sharp at f/2 as one would like. My DA*55 seems better.
I'll take a look at one when they are available though as I love my 35/1.4 G despite what people say about it.
Looking at the full resolution shots at 100% all the lights are shaped badly and not just in the corners.
The night shot on the official samples page doesn't show point sources for the street lights. They are all triangles and sheared. There's also lots of blue fringing around lots of the lights (purple fringing).
LukeDuciel: The MTF of the Nikon new "noct" has nothing exciting compared to Zeiss Otus 55mm.
Not sure why Nikon built this thing. Probably for the loyal fans?
The Nikon MTF: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/normal/af-s_nikkor58mmf_14g/index.htm#photo1
Zeiss MTF: http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_otus/otus_1455.pdf
The Nikon clearly has LESS astigmatism according to those MTF charts. The dotted lines track the solid lines very well, unlike the Zeiss charts.
The Zeiss contrast is great for both lines but the resolution lines show quite a lot of astigmatism.