Being a Canon I expect the handle is an extra £9,000 accessory? And following Canon logic, if they ever make an IS version it will double the price (for no extra glass) to £198,000? Can't wait for the 'extender' version.
Reactive: I'm a Canon user, and frankly I'm sick of their obscene prices, bulk, and lack of innovation. Recently, an advert for the lovely little OM-D EM1 has been staring at me from the back cover of a magazine on my side table... the temptation!* Since Panasonic also make MFT lenses, my next camera is highly unlikely to be an SLR. Roll on the OM-D EM1 MkII...
* I owned an OM10 30 years ago, and still can't understand why modern SLRs are so stupidly bulky and heavy.
My decade-old Panasonic video camera focussed almost instantaneously, so when Canon announced that the new 70D sensor 'improved' autofocus speeds during video (from the stupidly low benchmark of previous EOS models) it hardly seemed like an innovation, just an overdue patching-up of previously crap performance.
People have been slotting-in extra magnifying elements into telescopes, magnifying glasses and other lenses for well over 100 years, so again it hardly seems innovative to me!
My daughter's £100 Nikon compact tracks several faces very well. So they put it on a 1DX. About time. If you can program the 1Dx to recognise particular faces (e.g. Celebrities A and B) and it can then lock onto those in a paparazzi scrum, then yes, that is quite a good development of existing technology.
I'm a Canon user, and frankly I'm sick of their obscene prices, bulk, and lack of innovation. Recently, an advert for the lovely little OM-D EM1 has been staring at me from the back cover of a magazine on my side table... the temptation!* Since Panasonic also make MFT lenses, my next camera is highly unlikely to be an SLR. Roll on the OM-D EM1 MkII...
sdh: I'm inclined to think a lot of people's expectations are way out of line here.Canon's offering a true ultrawide lens at a price point that halves the previous price floor.
I've used this lens a bit in recent weeks and am very pleased with its images. Stopped down (around F/8) my picutres look consistently sharp from center to corner, even at 10mm.
Maybe my expectations were low (this is admittedly my first UW), but at $300 the lens would have to be truly garbage to warrant complaints about IQ. This lens is far from garbage.
AFAIK UW's are harder to design than standard FL's. This lens reeks of value.
I'm very happy with my purchase.
If Canon have made another "cheap-but-much-better-than-it-should-be-at-the-price" lens - like my EF-S 55-250mm - it deserves to sell well.
DaGurney: Let us know when Adobe decides to sell software again. Until then, screw it.
And while you're waiting, investigate Inkscape, Gimp, Krita, Blender, Scribus, Libre Office (all for $0.00). That lot can probably do most of what you need for the 'price' of a voluntary donation, often with lightning fast update cycles and direct contact with the developers! Now *that* is the way forward. Adobe's loud marketing and customer-hating practices belong in a museum.
mac: white text on black background... bad idea.
Just like this site! Have to press Ctrl+A to invert the text just to prevent my retinas getting burnt-in scan lines for the next 2 minutes!
Danny: The message is simple: who is supporting a CC system is supporting a very scary future. If Adobe will be successful with their CC, others will follow. Visa versa.It is up to you how you would like to see the future. Plenty of alternatives, so no excuse.
Say NO(!) to Adobe's CC, they lie to you, and you know it.
The 'scary' bit is that any company that moves to this model immediately becomes less motivated to innovate or serve their customers. They're getting your money, every month, and they hope you'll forget that. You could never, ever, forget when that latest grossly overpriced Adobe 'update' came along - you consciously had to decide to stay with Adobe. Now they'll gain by exploiting customer inertia. They can sit back, reduce the frequency of updates, cut back on R&D, and still not have to care too much, because it's going to be more difficult for you to leave them. All very negative, and stacked in favour of the corporation, not the customer.
Sorry if I sound cynical, but I can't believe Canon would give away anything worthwhile for nothing. And yet again, another Great British rip-off for the paid service: "Oddly, the price for these services is listed on different parts of the site in the same amount for Pounds Sterling and in Euros". Canon, please explain why?
I'm a Canon user, but I won't be using this service.
Reactive: Don't forget to sign the petition (not that the greedy execs at Adobe will ever listen to customers):
Everybody understands the idea of making a profit, and if you don't like a company then don't buy their products. Agreed. So perhaps you missed the point of the petition? Nobody would have cared at all if Adobe had introduced an *option* to rent their products on a monthly basis. If CashCow is so wonderful, it could only have increased the number of happy new Adobe users. What the petition highlights is Adobe's hideous *demand* that they will drill a small hole in your bank account, widen that hole whenever they choose, and as a reward for letting them do that they'll lock all of your work in a vault if you ever stop paying.
Don't forget to sign the petition (not that the greedy execs at Adobe will ever listen to customers):
jkenehan: I'm not so deterred by the downtime - it happens - but I find a far more troubling flaw with CC. It's the diminished incentive for Adobe to develop. With licensed releases, Adobe was greatly motivated to advance the technology to encourage us to buy the latest and greatest. Once we're on subscription, that cookie is far smaller. Why kill yourself sweating development of new features when your customers are rather locked in? They can ease up a bit!
My take is that the subscription model is far worse for Adobe's future than for us as consumers - they have given up a good bit of what makes businesses great - the magic of competition. I think Adobe saw short term green and didn't consider the harmful effect on themselves.
Exactly right. In the extreme, the result of CashCow could mean that Adobe developers could come to work and play poker all day. When reviewers started to notice the total lack of development, they'd do the usual Adobe trick - no bug fixes, one or two pointless new ' features', and of course (where most of the money goes) a wall of loud marketing hype.
Adobe were already glacially slow at doing anything radical to their software - like improving the mess of creaky old functions bolted on over the years - CC just lets them become even fatter and lazier.
David V: I would not be surprised if this camera were contracted out to another manufacturer altogether (including lenses). A quick and lucrative way for Leica to drop a red dot on them and charge the faithful an exorbitant amount of cash, believing that they are getting Leica quality in a smaller, "more affordable" package.
The lenses look like Panasonic m4/3 lenses and are "consumer grade" slow. The sample images that were posted here are overwhelmingly ordinary. I'll keep my Fuji X gear, thank you.
I thought Leica had been thinly disguising Panasonic cameras for some time? I seem to remember camera magazine reviews saying as much. It's sort of a shame that the red dot means nothing any more.
Reactive: I just used this site's own lens comparison and came to an astonishing conclusion: stop down to f4 or smaller and you might as well buy Canon's 50mm f1.8. Try the comparison yourself. Above f4, the figures are near *identical* across the board, with just a slight barrel distortion on the Canon (easily correctable in software). So do I spend £850 on the 815g 100mm long Sigma, or spend £85 (yes 1/10 price) on the 130g 40mm long Canon? What could I do with the spare £765? New camera body? A new high-spec laptop to add a touch of sharpening to my Canon's images?
Fair point, but that also means:
a) You must use the same camera manufacturer for the next 10-20 years, as you can't change the mount.b) Your chosen camera manufacturer stays in business, does not upgrade their mount, or at least allows for backwards compatibility, for the next 10-20 years.c) We'll still be using great big heavy lenses on great big SLRs for the next 10-20 years (unlikely).
I'm delighted (genuinely) that you have so much spare cash to make this seem like a sensible purchase. I'm not so sure that it will really make or break any shot that a much cheaper f1.4 or even f1.8 would take. It is the composition and lighting of a shot that really count, not the pixel-peeping nth degree of sharpness.
Trubbtele: Goding to buy this lens :-) Small money for high quality!
Above f4 it's no better than a Canon 50mm f1.8 at 1/10 price.
ItaiB: Does it mount on a Canon 60D?
And above f4, the even cheaper Canon 50mm f1.8 matches the Sigma's specs, apart from some small barrel distortion that software will remove. And all at 1/10 the price and 1/6 the weight! Makes the Sigma look rather silly really.
I just used this site's own lens comparison and came to an astonishing conclusion: stop down to f4 or smaller and you might as well buy Canon's 50mm f1.8. Try the comparison yourself. Above f4, the figures are near *identical* across the board, with just a slight barrel distortion on the Canon (easily correctable in software). So do I spend £850 on the 815g 100mm long Sigma, or spend £85 (yes 1/10 price) on the 130g 40mm long Canon? What could I do with the spare £765? New camera body? A new high-spec laptop to add a touch of sharpening to my Canon's images?
Reactive: What a great shame that Sigma are getting so greedy, just like Canon.
Oh, I see. How odd that Sigma want to get into such a tiny market niche. I would have thought they'd be battling it out to kill Tamron in the independent lens market, not trying to sway a handful of pros and specialists.
Its 60% heavier then their existing 50mm f1.4, uses almost twice as much glass, and as a result will cost over twice as much as the Canon. Hardly an elegant engineering solution? I'm sure Canon will be delighted that sales of their own f1.4 will hardly be touched, as very few people looking for a discrete 50mm lens will want to spend $1000 on a brick to hang round their neck.
What a great shame that Sigma are getting so greedy, just like Canon.