iudex: I can imagine taking this lens on a safari (of cours combined with a dustproof body). There is enough ligt near the equator, so the relatively small aperture should not be an issue. On the other hand the biggest problem on a safari might be the dust, sand etc., so eliminating the need to switch lenses and having one dustproof combo where the sensor will never have to be exposed to environment can be a great advantage.
Antony: it does not have to be midday, the sun in central Africa sets quite rapidly, so there is enough light say at 7:00 PM and dark at 8:00 PM. Have a look at some safari pictures and what time they were taken.
Henry Richardson: I normally don't make predictions, but I will this time. I predict that there will be some people who will buy this lens and make photos that are much better with it than the people who look down on them for using it and who post on dpreview. :-)
There are situations when a superzoom lens (even mediocre) can serve better than a dozen of excellent primes in your bag, that you cannot put to your camera (because you don´t have time, space or simply carry too many stuff that you have no opposrunity to switch lenses). You are talking about places where you go often: but in majority of situations you travel to places only once and one picture you really take is better than an ideal picture you never took, because you had no appropriate prime with you.
Shunda77: This lens could be a game changer for those wanting an all in one lens on a DSLR to replace a superzoom bridge cam, it could also be a fantastic walk around lens as it is remarkably light weight for its range.
Obviously there will be optical compromises, but some of the recent lens developments have been pretty well engineered for the range they cover.
In short, if this lens can provide reasonable image quality without too many quirks, it will become very popular.
Watch this space......
Yabokkie: you declare you live in Japan. I have seen may people from Nippon in european cities running through historical sites with many different ILCs, but I have not seen a single one switching lenses there. Majority of them had zooms, either wide-angle, normal or superzooms. Why is that? Obviously for convenience of having one universal lens that can cover most of the situations. It is really not too comfortable to switch lenses on the Athens Acropolis with all the dust flying in the air. And I was also carrying only one standard zoom (17-50/2,8), so that I was able to carry the camera all day long in my hand.
I don´t think so. I think 99% of DLSR owners have more than one lens, even if it is only a cheap 50mm prime. But for travelling it is a huge advantage if you don´t have to switch lenses constantly. I know many people who travel only with one single lens (not because they don´t have more lenses, but just because they know there will be no time to change lenses or no space to carry a bag full of different lenses.
I can imagine taking this lens on a safari (of cours combined with a dustproof body). There is enough ligt near the equator, so the relatively small aperture should not be an issue. On the other hand the biggest problem on a safari might be the dust, sand etc., so eliminating the need to switch lenses and having one dustproof combo where the sensor will never have to be exposed to environment can be a great advantage.
Exactly, this is an answer for those ultrazoom fans claiming they would switch to DSLR, but that there is no superzoom lens to cover the focal lengths they are accustomed to. So here they are: 24-450mm is pretty much everything you can ever need, from wideangle shots of landscape up to wildife sooting. Yes, there are compromises in quality, but still it exceeds quality you can get from any ultrazoom.
samfan: Well if they can pull off a 16mm , why wouldn't they rather make a decent 16-100 or something?
All these superzooms are rather tiring. 'Either get a crappy megazoom or deal with prime lenses' seems to be a message of the day. What happened to good zooms with moderate range and moderate speed? Not pushing the envelope much lately.
If I had a possibility to buy moderate zoom like 16-85 for my Pentax, I would already have it; unfortunately nobody makes such a lens for K-mount. My ideal lens set is 18-35/1,8 for low light situations and 16-85/4 for travelling. However the Sigma 18-35/1,8 is still not available for Pentax and nobody makes 16-85 zoom for K-mount.
ashokvashisht: Why are superzooms not coming out with bigger sensors, say, 2/3" instead of the normal 1/2.3". Ideally priced at about US$550-600 and having a fixed focal lenght zoom ( f2.8) of 25-600 mm. That would be a good camera!
There laready is one ultrazoom with 2/3 sensor (Fuji X-S1), but did not make big sales. The reason is that ultrazoom (let´s say 25-600 mm) with this sensor size would need considerably big lens. The X-S1 is just as big and heavy as a mid-sized DSLR. Imagine it has constant aperture lens: it would be even bigger; who would buy it instead of DSLR? What advantages woud it have?
LukeDuciel: Iti'll be tough choice between Sony A7(R) and Fuji XT1 for me.
A7:+ FF- Operation & Ergonomics; Lens choice and quality.
XT1:+ Design and operation- not FF
the IQ should be on par between the two.
I use D800 (same sensor as A7R) for work and own X100S (same sensor as XT1) Both of them can produce image that turns into amazing prints. The dynamic range and low light capability is definitely on par (kudos to Fuji, fighting FF with APS). I have not used A7, but from the reviews, the IQ is sufficient for me.
Sony's logic is always bizarre. I used to use NEX, sold because of the stupid design. RX100 is a keeper, but still leaving a lot of improvement wanted. On the other hand, I picked up the X100s naturally without hitch
From what I heve seen so far the image quality from Fuji XE-2 (same sensor as this new X-T1) is on par with Sony A7. Which is actually a victory for Fuji, since it is "only" APSC. So if there is no visible advantage of A7 in picture quality, why wanting a fullframe that does not offer enough lenses? I applaud Sony for bringing FF mirrorless this small and for this price and would choose it over equaly priced E-M1, but Fuji is (at least in my opinion) closer to FF and seemingly the winner of these three.
Richard Murdey: The collapsible lens is a tradeoff. Smaller, but you have to press a button and twist to unlock it before its ready to use. In addition to turning on the camera.
I agree. I bought an Olympus E-PL3 to my dad and he still struggles with the collapsible kit zoom. It is not pancake-type and small like the Sony 16-50, so I really see no reason to use this principle.
Shamael: Why this mini sensor? This is ridiculous, as if Fuji was not able to produce a 1" or put an apsc in such a box.
That´s why the RX10 looks like a great compromise.APSC with longer than 5x zoom is nonsense, since it would be big just like DSLR with lens and who would buy a camera as big as a DSLR without the possibility of changing lenses?
Well done Fuji. Especially the fast standard zoom is very useful. With 16mm it can well serve for landscapes (and with f2,8 also for interior shots), as well as for portraits (55mm at f2,8 enables sufficiently shallow DOF). Paired with expected decent optical quality os XF lenses this looks like the perfect lens for Fuji CSC users.
OliverGlass: whoa! That 16 to 55 2.8 is looking pretty attractive to me. The 18-55 is nice but the 16-55 is likely a better landscape and travel lens for those who want something wider.
Exactly. I have a 17-50/2,8, but I would apreciate both a bit wider and longer ends and this Fujinon gives it both. Well done!
abortabort: Filling out very nicely indeed.
Though looks like no new primes (other than the 56mm just announced) for the foreseeable future, specifically no 85/90. Still one of the best and fastest growing out there.
abortabort: yes, considering the basic zoom for X mount is 18-55/2,8-4 tha gain in speed is not huge; however for portraits (where shallow DOF is desired) you need wide aperture at the tele end and 1 EV is perceptible. Not mentioning lower models like X-A1, where the standard zoom is 16-50/3,5-5,6.
There are enough primes already, while there were no fast zooms, so it is a very welcome addition. While I am not so sure about the telezoom, the standard zoom looks perfect and for many it could be the only lens.
After the Sony RX10 and Oly Stylus 1 all the 1/2,3" sensored ultrazooms seems like dinosaurs just before the meteorite fall. 1200mm, f5,6 and 1/2,3" sensor, how good can the picture be? The only thing that needs to be praised is the weather-proof build (and a decent EVF considering it´s class).
After drowning my last smartfone I chose the Xperia Z1 because of the sensor size (and because it is waterproof). However I was a bit dissappointed by the outcome. It´s better than my wife´s iPhone 4s, but not that better as I expected from 1/2,3" sensor and f2 lens. I blame Sony for putting 20 MPx and for aggressive noise reduction. Maybe future possibility to shoot RAW may change things a little, we will see.
Matt1645f4: Pentax K3 but i agree with some of the comments regarding lack of lens line up, I use Pentax but i do sometimes miss the large choices offered by both Canon and Nikon, and third party manufactures who seem content to just build for the "big 2". And before i get slated by my fellow Pentaxians i refer to long lenses the 560mm is just crazy be nice to see a 70-400 f4
I agree that Pentax user has wider choice of lenses than people usually think, especially when Tamron/Sigma is taken into consideration. However the trouble sometimes is that third party makers tend to prefer Canon and Nikon, leaving Pentax behind. E.g. some Sigma/Tamron lenses are made only with C/N mount or introduced first for C/N and only later on for Pentax. This is exactly the case of Sigma 18-35mm (my lens of the year): I wanted to order this amazing lens for my Pentax, but it is still not available in Europe (although C/N mounts are on market for a while) and should be available in 1Q 2014.
iudex: I do not doubt that SL1 is a nice small camera, but praising it as there were no small camera+lens combos in the past is not really fair. Take any entry-level DSLR from Pentax, add an extra small 40mm XS lens and the combo will be even smaller than SL1 with 40mm STM lens. http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1490Tha same with a zoom lens: Canon has nothing to compete with ultra-compact 20-40mm Limited zoom.
I see, Pentax cannot compete in video features with Canon, that ´s for sure. I just wanted to focus on DSLR small-form factor, which is no new invention of Canon, but has a long tradition at Pentax, not only the bodies, but most notably the Limited lenses (the 40mm XS being the smallest DLSR lens ever).
Kinematic Digit: I own the EOS-M, SL-1 and of course my other stuff with the 5Dmk3 and Leica gear.
I really love the SL-1 for it's compact size, and perfect amount of features for more than enough advanced amateurs to enjoy.
I rarely put too much bigger onto this camera than the STM lenses, but occasionally I put the 100mm macro L onto it and it's surprisingly fun kit to carry around. It even supports the hybrid-IS which I believe none of the other Rebels support (maybe the the T5i).
Great video on this camera as well and paired up with some great glass it just becomes a sensor to add to a lens because of it's weight and size.
Sure, this diagnosis already has a name: gear acquisition syndrome :-)http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/07/10/photographer-blogs-about-gear-addiction