johnsaxon: Won't fit in the pocket so it might as well be larger. I just bought a Canon S110 refurb on their website for $129 that does 90% of what this camera does, all while fitting very easily and comfortably in my jeans pocket.
S110 is in a different league, actually two leagues below the Sony (I owned the S100 and while I agree it was a nice and small camera, it had it´s limitations both in picture quality as well as handling, basically it was still a small sensored compact, whereas the RX100 competes with M4/3 cameras).
VREN: Nice to see, but conservative speed for not so conservative price.
You can critisize Pentax for "conservative speed", since it´s 16-85mm has only f3,5-5,6. This Nikon is much faster (2/3 to 1 EV, i.e. letting twice as much light at the tele end), so hardly you can say it is too slow. Actually it´s the fastest 5x zoom; all lenses that have constant f2,8 are much shorter (usually max. 3x zoom). So there is no problem with the speed, the only problem with this lens is its exorbitant price.
brownie314: Why Nikon! Why make a lens that already exists for DX. The Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 is an excellent lens that can be had for less than half the price of this Nikon lens. Why not give us a nice, compact 24mm 2.8 (or 2.4) prime! It would make the D3300 and D5500 very compact. But no.
brownie: you are wrong, 78mm vs. 80mm is something you don´t notice. It´s about angle of view, which changes significantly between 16 and 17mm, whereas between 78 and 80mm it is negligible.
Btw. the discussion here made me order the Sigma 17-70 C today. :-)
16mm vs. 17mm is a visibe difference. Not dramatic, but visible. I would say this 1mm at wide end is more important than 10mm at tele end.
oselimg: Ok, it has f2.8-4, credit given where it's due. This is an "enthusiast" lens not a main stream one therefore $1060 ok. However it's only 1/2 stop faster at the wide end and 1 stop at the long end compared to mainstream alternatives which in most cases is not significant. No wedding photographer will dare shooting with f4 at the longer end. if it had f2.8 throughout it would have made sense especially at the long end and even slightly bigger premium would've been justified if it were, performance wise, the "jack of all trades". With todays sensor performances I think the target audience wouldn't hesitate increasing the ISO one step instead of paying $$$ premium. 7 blades aperture is another Achilles heel for this zoom.
16-80mm DX lens is obviously not a wedding or portrait lens. It is an universal walkaround lens that can also be used for casual portraits. Btw. the background blur of 80mm f4 is pretty similar to 50mm f2,8 so partially the length substitutes for luminosity.
I dare to disagree, 85mm at f4 and at f5,6 makes visible difference. You can check this at Fujifilm X mount lens site here: http://fujifilmxmount.com/comparison/en/test-our-lenses/
iudex: One thing I noticed immediately is the weight of this lens: it is pretty lightweight given the FR and the luminosity: only 480g. The Pentax 16-85mm is 2/3 to 1 EV slower, but weighs even a bit more (488g). The Sigma 17-70mm is bit shorter on both ends, but weighs only a fraction less (465g). And most importantly this new Nikkor weighs even less than it´s much slower predecessor the 16-85mm/3,5-5,6. I remember people here arguing that the Pentax 16-85mm couldn´t have been faste since it would have been much bigger and heavier. Now it is clear it is possible to make a lens with similar FR, that is faster without being heavier. Good job Nikon.
And it costs 1100 EUR in my country, what is even more crazy. 700 EUR is adequate for what it is (DX-only, variable aperture, non-weather sealed lens).
One thing I noticed immediately is the weight of this lens: it is pretty lightweight given the FR and the luminosity: only 480g. The Pentax 16-85mm is 2/3 to 1 EV slower, but weighs even a bit more (488g). The Sigma 17-70mm is bit shorter on both ends, but weighs only a fraction less (465g). And most importantly this new Nikkor weighs even less than it´s much slower predecessor the 16-85mm/3,5-5,6. I remember people here arguing that the Pentax 16-85mm couldn´t have been faste since it would have been much bigger and heavier. Now it is clear it is possible to make a lens with similar FR, that is faster without being heavier. Good job Nikon.
fireplace33: anyone know what the max aperture would be at 50 mm?In such non constant aperture lenses, the F2.8 is sometimes lost very quickly as one zooms in.
I'd like to see a comparison of this lens in its 17-50 range to my Sigma 17-50
Well 50mm will be something on the edge; maybe f3,5, maybe f4. You can compare the apetrure course of similar lenses here and make a guess as regards this new Nikkor: http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-da-16-85mm-f35-56/construction-and-handling.html
eno2: Everything is very nice about this lens, except the outrageous price.
Exactly. I critisized Pentax for the launch price of their 16-85mm lens, but now it seems it was priced pretty reasonably. ;-)Btw. the Sigma is without doubts the best buy in this segment; useful focal range, reasonably fast, optically decent and really inexpensive.
iudex: This is exactly the lens the Pentax 16-85 mm should have been. Almost the same range, but much faster. The price is extremely high, however.
Well I do not shoot in a downpour so I cannot tell whether I really have some advantage of a weather-sealed lens (I have one WR lens); my other lenses are not weather-sealed, but they survived a few splashes by the sea without harm and this is everything I need. Of course having a WR-badged lens gives more confidence, but it is not inevitable.
I am a Pentaxian, have a weather sealed camera, but I would trade weather sealing for 1 EV gain any time. While you utilize weather sealing twice a year, faster lens is something you use every day.
This is exactly the lens the Pentax 16-85 mm should have been. Almost the same range, but much faster. The price is extremely high, however.
DuxX: If this lens can deliver almost-the-prime performance then this small focal range can be forgiven easily. ;)
Assuming from stellar performance of the 18-35mm you can expect not only "almost-the-prime performance", but prime lens performance. There are many reviews that compared the Sigma 18-35 with primes and there were primes that were beaten by the Sigma.
After Sigma released the groundbreaking Art 18-35mm/1,8 there has been many rumours on future fullframe sibling. I was expecting something like 24-50mm f2 so I have to say this is not something I am amazed of.I am happy shooting with my Sigma 18-35/1,8, it is optically amazing, sharp even wide open, with silent focusing, built like a tank. However I sometimes (actualyy quite often) wish it was a bit wider and a bit longer, only 1,94x zoom makes it sort of a prime lens, 18mm is not really wideangle and 35mm is just normal angle of view, nothing for portraits (despite promising f1,8) and I have to constantly switch to wider or longer lenses. And it is really heavy to carry around all day.This FF version is even more like a prime lens, 1,4x zoom limits it´s usability significantly. I am sure the lens will be optically great, Art badge is a guarantee, f2 is great and unrivalled, but buyers will have to expect something like an "extended prime" instead of a zoom lens.
The Silver Nemesis: Two in One. What about the weather?
If I can assume from Sigma Art 18-35/1,8, no weather sealing.
TheDevil: I think when cameras get this small they don't need an EVF, especially if they have a touch screen. My G7X works fine outdoors, the screen is bright and visible. The touch screen makes it pretty intuitive to pick your focus points. I also like how the screen flips up vertical like the G7X.
I agree with BarnET: 600mm in straight arms is an overkill, you don´t have to suffer from Parkinson disease to encounter problems with shaking the picture.
wetsleet: Lots of comments about no EVF, and I'd tend to agree that a 'proper' viewfinder (i.e. not a display screen) is an essential part of any camera. However, every time I look through one in the shops, it is like looking down a tunnel with a little window at the far end.Are there any decent ones out there? By which I mean, about what I used to get in the days of film SLRs, say >70% magnification in 35mm SLR terms.
BarnET: I tried the RX10 and I wasn´t raptured by the EVF. But as I said better than nothing.Btw. the best way to tell the difference between EVF and OVF is to try Fuji X100/X100T (or X-Pro1), where you can switch between OVF and EVF. I would choose the OVF any day.
The EVF of RX100 III is really tiny and by no means comparable to pentaprism EVF, but it si still useful in bright sunny day, plus putting the camera to your eye stabilizes it. I am also no big fan of EVFs, it is strange and unnatural to me and I would accept only EVFs on high-end CSCs like E-M1 or X-T1.Anyhow even a mediocre EVF is better than none.