munro harrap: F4? In our country from about now until next March it is often a60th at f2 @400 ISO outside, sometimes all day. To get the equivalent on an f4 lens requires 1600 and at 1600 the D800 has lost half its resolution and three-quarters of its acuity. The problem is that if you go to ,say, MPB Photographic you can see for yourselves just how many Canon 24-104 f4 are traded in and then, sadder, just how many 24-70mm Nikon f2.8 lenses are traded in because they are only sharp in the middle on full-frame due to massive field curvature-like the old Canon.The new 24-120mm Nikkor is f4 and not sharpand the new 24-85mm IS Nikkor- is frankly junk I bought two brand-new 24-70mm F2.8 nikkors and have also owned, but had to return after testing another FIVE 24-85mm Nikkors. Sigma know this and want to replace these poor optics but it is dreadfully difficult to design a 24mm zoom for full-frame- the mirror box !Once designed any lens costs peanuts to manufacture to current poor standards.Next?
I hear what you are saying and generally agree. It's for these reasons that I went ahead and purchased the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 II even though I had promised myself to invest in my D800E only. I'm still testing the Canon, but so far it looks promising.
I have the 24-85mm. I wouldn't call it junk, but I would acknowledge that it has issues. It is very sharp in the center resolving more detail than my Canon (not surprising since it does have a 14MP advantage!). However, it is just poor once one deviates significantly from the center.
The biggest advantage the Canon has--in addition to very consistent sharpness--is it has world-leading micro-contrast and color. Images really do "pop." My Sigma 35mm has these same characteristics. If the new 24-105 has these same characteristics, albeit with slower speed, then it will be a phenomenal buy, and Canon and Nikon will truly start quivering in fear.
Marty4650: I think a lot of folks are missing the point.
This review was NOT done at the expense of reviewing any other camera. It's not like this will create any delay in reviewing some DSLR you want to see reviewed.
The review was largely written by Jeff Kellar. Jeff has always been great at writing quick reviews of P&S cameras. He's got it down to a science. Dpreview has some sort of arrangement with Jeff where they take his basic review, transfer it into their own format and then publish it.
Everyone wins this way.
Dpreview gets to print reviews for cameras they would otherwise not be reviewing, the Dpreview members get to read these reviews, and hopefully... Jeff gets paid something. If Dpreview didn't do this this we would get fewer reviews of P&S cameras, and many of the members here have a strong interest in these cameras.
Jeff will not be writing the review for the Canon 6D. That will most likely be done by Amadou, Richard, Barnaby, Andy or Lars, or maybe a combination of them.
that's great news! I've been a fan of Jeff from back in the days when he ran websites devoted to Mac clones and camcorders. I think that his work provides a really nice complement to what you do here.
I wish you and Jeff an long and productive relationship.
Airless: So if you used this adapter with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6, that gives an effective focal length of 12-24mm, you could have an effective focal length of 8.5mm at f/3.2? If so that is incredible.
What am I missing? The release clearly stated that the adapter only works on FX (full-frame) lenses, not DX/APS-C lenses.
The camera with the adapter uses much more of the lens than it does without the adapter. There would be horrible vignetting with APS-C lenses, so the Sigma 8-16mm would only be useable, perhaps, at 15-16mm.
Bare: This is ideal kit lens for upcoming Nikon D600.
$600 is affordable in the FF world. Look at Canon and Nikon current offerings. Neither Co. offer more than a couple of FF zoom lens for under $1000 each. Off hand, I can think of the 70-300mm for both Co.'s and the Canon 17-40mm. There may be others, but most of the lens offerings are on the pro level.
For me, moving over from Canon, my kit consists predominantly of prime lenses. Sorry, but I neither want to pay $1500-$2000+ for a pro-zoom lens nor walk around with hulking monster that weighs over a kilo and won't fit in a compact pack.
A lens like this meets the definition of walk around for me. For critical shots, I still have a 50 or 85mm prime. However, when I'm on holiday, an inexpensive compact zoom like this one is perfect (assuming it has IQ comparable to the original).
Vladimir Jotov: I don't get where is the focus ...
on the eyes (where it suppose to be) the sharpness is 3-4px, on the teeths 3-4px, on the chair 4-5 px...
On the skin I don't see pore, just 4x4 darker spots
Everything is so blurry on 24M, maybe the photographer should shoot on 15M picture size since this the objective doesn't provide enough sharpness for higher resolution with hi ISO.
Why are you blaming the lens? The softness looks like noise reduction. Nikon and Canon have gotten pretty good at hiding noise in jpeg--this is jpeg, right?--in relatively unobtrusive ways. The noise reduction in the Canon 5DMIII is amazing. It's biggest flaw is its horrific rendering of reds at high ISO.
If this is jpeg, I withhold my judgment until I see high-ISO raw shots.