brumd: "On first use the filter needs about four hours of sunlight to create the hydrophilic characteristic"
What does that mean exactly? 4 hours of bright light on a sunny day? How long would it take on a cloudy day, for example in Iceland?And how long does it take on second and third use?
Yes it is - it is the UV A spectrum with the violet filter to cut out visible light
I've seen them in night-club also - but is it the right frequency. Won't be too surprise if Tokina also sell you a UV lightbox costumed built to meet their filter requirements,
@Lassoni - That's a good idea - as long as we can isolate the effective UV frequency we could construct a small UV lamp box to charge the filter- that way it could be used to condition the filter overnight ready for the morning trip. Not everyone has access to ready sunlight.
Jozef M: How much weight? How big/small is this apparatus? Use the metric system too, please.
@Francis Carver - are you serious, the metric system has some logic whereas the Imperial System has none - totally arbitrary. How do you relate an inch to a foot then to a yard - just someone tossed up a set of numbers. I went through all my high school year in a metric country (MKSA - Metre, Kilogram - Second and Ampere ) then went to university in Australia doing engineering- at that time still using Imperial Units - what a struggle - pound, pound force, pound mass, slug, stone,weight, inch foot.... no rhyme or rhythm at all - I am glad that they saw the way and converted to Metric or IS since 1975. We call it International System for a good reason = universally understood.
Yxa: Why is it called Super 35 its smaller than the still 35mmIt should be called sub par 35 (that would be more true)
@ Yxa - I like your Avatar - but in using the main character of Avatar as your Avatar don't you think you may infringe their copy right, unless of course you hold copy right to the film - in which case I withdraw my comment.
Say 6% of the world population is still using the Imperial Units - apart from USA and UK I can't really see anyone else is using it. Even your neighbor Canada is very much into metric.
armandino: Mmm.... $30,000 strapped on a drone...
They charge you $30,000 because they can, not because they have to. When you are dealing with mega buck industries such as movie making where a good actor could earn $20 mil for his/her trouble for a few months work $30 thousand is chicken feed. Now you know where your $20 per movie ticket goes.
Drone not includedWas watching a document on Sir David Attenborough and the drone they used - wow $100,000 if I have to put a price on it and only flew for 2.5 minutes at a time
5 lbs or approx 2270 grams7.3x4.9x5.5 inch or close enough to 185x125x140 mm
ragmanjin: I'd be curious to see how it compares to the equivalent Samyang, they've been getting some good reviews as well.
Yes Der, I understand however for some person like me manual focus lens is out of the question - unfortunately when you reach a certain age your eyes will fail you no matter how good your subscription glasses !
Aren't they all manual lenses
mpgxsvcd: I disagreed with the statement that the A6000 wasn't good enough for high ISO shots. Then the photographer stated that he regularly shoots with the A7S.
I guess that explains why he is more pessimistic about the A6000's high ISO performance than I would be.
Agree - how on earth can you compare a $550 camera against a $5000 professional beast
Thank you Dpreview and all "actors" and production staff for putting this video together - hopefully with this series Sony recapture their mojo to become the innovative company of the past. Amazing what a $550 camera could do - of course can't forget those thousands dollars lenses. I am impressed with the underwater footage beats any p&S AW cameras out there. Can't wait to see Nikon and Canon responses - The FX DSLR is getting heavier by the day.
Well it is Chinese/Lunar/Tet New Year - the year of the Goat/ Sheep.Happy New Year to all
Michel Cojan: «Minimum focus distance is 38mm.»Should read 38mm (millimeters) or 38cm (centimeters) ? not exactly the same...
Sorry folk, I miss read those numbers actually the yellow 4 is 4 ft on the FT scale and the white 1.2 is 1.2 m on the Meter scale. So this is somewhere in the middle of the distance scale - We already know reading from Torkina Technical details this lens (24-70) minimum focus distance is 0.38 meter.
Tokina AT-X 24-70mm F/2.8 Pro Specs
Focal length: 24-70mmOpen F value: f/2.8Lens construction: 15 elements in 11 groupsAngle of view: 84.20° ~ 34.49°Minimum focusing distance: 0.38mMacro maximum magnification: 1: 4.73Maximum diameter × total length: φ89.6 × 107.5mmWeight: approximately 1,000g
Singh: Just re-read the headline and no mention of IS, that's put me off. I don't have a 24-70mm f2.8 of any make but it would be one if the next lenses I would buying. Not having IS could be a show stopper for some buyers including me :-(
Well may be they should equip this (rumored) lens with an apodization optical element - a Sony technology - since Nikon have been in collaboration with Sony on sensors may be they could get the license for this technology - unless of course Nikon have their own.
It is OK - I am not intend to get this lens anyway - just commenting only - awaiting the new 24-70 PE VR Nikon - it is coming - with a bit of luck....
No the Nikon does not feature Internal Zooming, Internal Focusing only so it does extend while zooming - may not be as much as the Torkina but extending nevertheless.
Focal length: 24-70mm Open F value: f/2.8 Lens construction: 15 elements in 11 groups Angle of view: 84.20° ~ 34.49° Minimum focusing distance: 0.38m Macro maximum magnification: 1: 4.73 Maximum diameter × total length: φ89.6 × 107.5mm Weight: approximately 1,000g
The Nikon 133 mm long @ minimum length is already longer than the Torkina
Looking at the photo #5 the distance scale starts at ~0.4m (1.2 ft)so 380 mm is the correct value.
Earth Art: Has Tokina fixed their flare issue with the 11-20 over the 11-16? That thing was great, but produced giant green boogers in harsh light.
Also, I could see the 24-70 selling really well if the price is right. It has to be crazy cheap to compete with all the current 24-70 lenses.
At more than $USD1650 the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 non VR is not exactly crazy cheap. Anything can beat it on price and features.
Thank You - Happy Valentine Day to you too