Sorry, but if there is any lens that belongs on this "stand outs" list of 3rd party lenses, it's the Sigma 300-800 f5.6. THAT is a "stand out" lens. The vaunted camera makers don't have any current zoom with a maximum focal length longer than 400mm. Pathetic! The "Sigmonster," as it is affectionately known, is the ultimate telephoto lens, covering the complete range of focal lengths from 300mm to 800mm, at a reasonably fast (for this reach) f5.6 CONSTANT aperture. You would need a steamer trunk full of big, heavy, expensive primes to match only a limited patchwork of SOME of the focal lengths covered by the Sigmonster alone.
I'd also vote for the Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 (FF) to be on this list, as the widest rectilinear zoom lens in existence (the 8-16 APS-C lens is not quite as wide). With almost NO distortion, it is also a "stand out" lens, and is another example of Sigma pushing the envelope beyond where the ultra-conservative camera makers dare to go with their lens offerings.
Hammon Photo: Does anyone know if the articles comment that the crop mode for NEX E lenses is 15mp for the A7r and 10mp for the A7 correct? That would put the MP at less then half the sensor, but I thought the APS image size was more like 2/3 the size of a FF sensor, that would maen the A7r to have more like a 22mp cropped image size. Anyone see anything to this effect?Thanks,Mark
APS iimage is less than half the size of FF image.
FF: 24x36 = 864 sq mm
APS-C (Nikon) 15.6x23.5 = 366.6 sq mm
366.6/864 = 42.43%
Hank3152: External battery chargers are optional? WTF?
This is how they make the body price look cheaper than it really is. Add the cost of the battery charger to the body price, and see what the body really costs.
Sorry, but I don't get it, Pentax. This is a 2:1 zoom ratio, relatively slow, variable aperture lens that isn't very wide on the wide end, isn't very long on the long end, and you want 849 POUNDS for it (I don't even want to think of what that is in dollars)?!
The main thing that's "limited" about this lens is what - range, versatility??
You would think that for your top-line lenses, you should be able to muster a 3:1 zoom ratio, constant aperture, and a focal length range that isn't boring.
alatchin: He is absolutely right on so many counts... It flys in the face of what many believe is the stumbling around by camera companies.
The A7 is very interesting to me, my only question is, how big would a 100mm f3.5 macro lens be... That is one of my staple focal lengths for my work, and if it is relatively compact I may pick up one of these.
Aside from that, a 35mm f2.8 doesnt do too much more than a 17mm 1.8 on m43rds and the 70-200 f4 only gains a stop more than a 2.8 on m43rds and I could probably buy the upcoming 40-150 f2.8, 12-40 f2.8 and EM5 for less than that one lens... But a reasonable macro with high quality could very well get me into this as it is a very interesting alternative to the other FF bodies.
FF gains 2 stops on MFT, not 1. FF gains 1.3 stops over APS-C. (Gains meaning noise/light gathering ability)
RichRMA: Sony is needed. The way AMD was needed when Intel was charging $500 for 386 chips. Even if you are an old, die-hard Canon and Nikon adherent, competition breeds innovation.
Actually, it's Pentax that is needed, but they're not holding up their end with the endless foot-dragging on making a FF DSLR. Pentax (if they ever get around to it) will bring the needed competition to keep Nikon and Canon on their toes, not Sony, since Sony has already raised the white flag on DSLRs. Sony is tooo busy coming up with yet another system they won't develop or support fully to pose any threat to Nikon and Canon.
Abhijith Kannankavil: the title of the article says what's the problem with Sony. they just keep bringing new things every six months n forget what they were selling to us six months ago.
Exactly. The quote epitomizes why Sony will never have a decent camera system - because they'll never develop one fully and continue to expand it, they'll always be on to the "next thing," leaving the customers of their existing products hanging.
PK24X36NOW: DPR viewfinder size fiction continues. "Dividing (viewfinder magnification) by the crop factor" is essentially an assumption (in this case) that the MFT sensor is 1/2 the size of a FF sensor, which it is not. It is little more than 1/4 the size.
The correct relative size calculation is as follows:
17.3 * 13 * 100% * 1.48 = 332.852 sq mm
35.9 * 24 * 100% * 0.7 = 603.12 sq mm
So the new Oly's "wonder viewfinder is actually little more than 1/2 as big as a typical FF dSLR viewfinder.
No, it does NOT mean "doubling the lengths of the sides." Magnification is an expression of the apparent size of an object (as seen through an optical instrument) relative to the actual size of the object.
"magnification — a measure of the ability of a lens or other optical instrument to magnify, EXPRESSED AS THE RATIO OF THE SIZE OF THE IMAGE TO THAT OF THE OBJECT."
SO, A FF dSLR viewfinder with a "magnification" of 0.70x is 70% as big as the sensor. It is NOT 49% as big as the sensor, which it would be according to your ridiculous "physics and math." If the viewfinder WAS 49% of the size of the sensor, the "magnification" would be 0.49x!
Viewfinder COVERAGE is SOMETIMES expressed as "linear" and sometimes as "area." Magnification, being an expression of relative size, is ALWAYS expressed as area, otherwise it wouldn't BE an expression of relative size at all. If anyone needs to go back to school, it is you.
The only "rubbish" here is the ridiculous notion that "magnification" is a "linear" measurement. Based on your brilliant logic, a FF viewfinder with 70% magnification is less than half the size of the sensor. BS. The fallacy of DPR's calculations is readily evident; a 100% coverage, 100% magnification MFT/FT sensor, according to DPR calculations, would be roughly 1/2 the size of a 100%, 100% magnification FF sensor, which is actually is FOUR times the size (roughly).
Believe any nonsense you like, but it's still BS.
DPR viewfinder size fiction continues. "Dividing (viewfinder magnification) by the crop factor" is essentially an assumption (in this case) that the MFT sensor is 1/2 the size of a FF sensor, which it is not. It is little more than 1/4 the size.
mosc: There are definitely some guys at Canon and Nikon that just pulled out some hair reading this pricing announcement! Not only does it hit their lens business but it puts the entire FF sensor format on notice.
LMAO. Yes, it puts the FF sensor format "on notice" that FF looks more intelligent than ever. This is a lens that would be equivalent to a 27-50 f2.8 lens on FF. It has less wide angle on the wide end and less reach on the long end compared with a FF 24-70 f2.8, while being almost as wide, longer, and heavier than Sigma's 24-70 f2.8 FF. Since it covers much less range, you'll need more such lenses to cover a similar range of focal lengths for APS-C as you would for FF. This would result in spending as much as you would on the equivalent FF lenses PLUS the difference in cost between the APS-C and FF bodies, while leaving you carrying more weight than the comparable FF system. AND, you're STILL stuck with the crappy APS-C viewfinder.
Thanks for putting us "on notice" of all this, Sigma! :D
So, for almost as much money as a 24-70 f2.8 FF lens, you get a 27-55 f 2.8 "equivalent" that is almost as wide, longer, and heavier as compared with a 24-70 f2.8 FF. Taking into account that you STILL need additional lenses to cover the same range as a 24-70 f2.8 FF lens, Sigma has successfully shown that you'll probably spend more than the price differential between an APS-C body and a FF body trying to assemble a full set of lenses with the same range and equivalent noise capability (I won't say image quality, since it won't be equivalent in other respects more than likely) for APS-C, and that you'll likely have MORE weight to carry around based on the lens size/weight that will be necessary. Plus, of course, you'll still be stuck with a lousy APS-C viewfinder.
Thanks for making the decision to move to FF seem that much smarter, Sigma!
Gary Dean Mercer Clark: Sony and Canon had the opportunity to buy Foveon when it was for sale. Foveon had spent millions targeting its designs for use in cell phones. Toshiba was one of the cell phone manufacturers interested in this sensor for it's phones but at the last moment pulled out and went with I believe Sony for its camera phones. At the time, Foveon was desperate for more investors seeking financial backing, promising huge returns at the time, discussing its development of the cell phone camera sensor for toshiba. Toshiba went with Sony cell phone sensors instead & Sigma bought Foveon. The rest is history. The current 46 MP (28-30MP bayer) sensor miniaturization effort foveon aimed towards cell phone market has been incorporated into the current foveon APC sized sensor found in the DPM compact and SD1M DSLRs. The image quality and size rivals full frame cameras like the Nikon D800 which amazes me. If you can stand the humor watch this video on youtube.com http://youtu.be/f3VjyHQiqdE
No, I'm not kidding. I offer you a comparison of two photos of the same thing under the same controlled conditions, and your response is to point me to a camera shop U-Tube video?! LMAO. I'm not "parroting" what anyone says, I have eyes and can make my own judgments. The SD1M will need another 4 million pixels and a sensor more than twice as big before it will have a chance to "rival" a D800's image quality - and then only for "base" ISO.
I've heard the "you can't know if you don't own/use" argument a thousand times. Can I take it you own a D800? I suspect not, and you should therefore be applying the same logic to yourself.
You need to be more cynical about "camera shop" videos. "Camera shops" are trying to sell you something - like that big pile of Sigma cameras they probably have collecting dust. That would motivate the "camera shop" to oversell the alleged image quality of those (unsold) cameras so that they can generate interest and (they hope) sales.
"Rivals full frame cameras like the D800?!" LOL you are a True Believer aren't you! Even at base ISO, the SD1M doesn't begin to approach the D800. Once you go higher than about ISO 200, it can't even keep up with a 2007 vintage D3 with a mere 12MP Bayer sensor.
Look at the Imaging Resource images side by side, no need to take my word for it!
Clint Dunn: The biggest problem with what Adobe is doing is that it leaves people with very little options. Don't want to pay for a subscription?? OK, fine, good luck opening that proprietary RAW file from that fancy new Fuji/Canon/Nikon/Pentax in your $600 copy of CS6 in a year's time.
I don't know about you guys but if the camera makers standardized with say dng files I could live with CS6 for the next 10 years easily.
Oh use the SW that came with your camera you say?? Oh yes, back to Silkypix....the joy. Admittedly it isn't Adobe's fault the camera makers are too stupid to standardize a RAW format, but they are about to alienate a LOT of people with their new business model.
@sandlands native DNG has actually been available since the K10D, two generations before the K7, from Pentax.
However, Pentax is a rapidly fading non-factor in the camera business, so its impact on this situation is going to be minimal. The major players (i.e., Nikon and Canon) need to come up with a non-proprietary RAW format that will enable their customer bases to be free from the constant need to buy new software and/or computers in order to use the newest cameras. Conversion of RAW to TIFF is not the answer, either, since the ability to process the RAW file is the whole point, a TIFF is lossless but already entails the processing being done and is therefore not a good starting point for digital image processing.
This lens won't change anything, it will simply reveal just how much size, weight and cost (as in, it won't be worth it) you'll have to bear for APS-C to be on a similar DOF and noise level as FF (ignoring other issues). It changes nothing because it's much too narrow a range of focal lengths, and the cost (especially when you consider the cost of the extra lenses you'll need to cover the rest of a FF 24-70 lens' range) will make APS-C users puke. This is Sigma's new, "high QC" line, for which the price tag is much higher than their old lenses.
The 120-300 OS price tag went up by $1,000 (STREET prices) when it went through the transition to the new "C/A/S" "dock compatible" version, with the same optical design from all appearances. If you think this lens will be close in price to their previous APS-C zooms, you're in for a rude awakening.
Sigma again shows the "Big Boys" (i.e., Nikon & Canon) what can be achieved in lens design. You essentially have Sigma to thank for the fact that wide angle zoom lenses even exist, because it was Sigma that showed the stuffed shirts at the camera makers that such lenses could be made, and could be made to produce high image quality, in the first place.
Having said that, this lens also shows how "size and weight" advantages are non-existent when you compare lenses with equivalent DOF range. In fact, this lens is basically as big or bigger, and heavier than, Sigma 24-70 f2.8 FF lenses, which get considerably wider at the short end and considerably longer at the long end, with the same DOF. The new lens hardly has a terrific range in terms of start and end points, and too limited a range at less than 2:1. If they managed a 15-45 f1.8, that would have been a much more attractive lens.
The other thing is, wait till you hear the bleating when they announce the price - LOL.
PK24X36NOW: All this discussion is premature - you need to wait for all those lenses to be tested on the D800E as opposed to the D800, since the DxO perceptual megapixel scores for the D800E are MUCH higher than for the D800, for whatever reason. (Seems the D800 is penalized for its OLPF far more than it should be.) If you look at the older Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (tested on both the D800 and D800E, AND the Canon EOS 5DIII in Canon mount), which is about as good a "cross platform" comparison as you're going to get, it shakes out like this: EOS 5DIII @ 14PMP, D800 @ 15PMP, D800E @ 21PMP.
You can also look at IR comparometer to get a feel for the difference between the D800/E and the 5DIII - 36MP definitely holds a significant advantage over 22MP.
Excuse me 5DIII s/b 15PMP.
All this discussion is premature - you need to wait for all those lenses to be tested on the D800E as opposed to the D800, since the DxO perceptual megapixel scores for the D800E are MUCH higher than for the D800, for whatever reason. (Seems the D800 is penalized for its OLPF far more than it should be.) If you look at the older Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (tested on both the D800 and D800E, AND the Canon EOS 5DIII in Canon mount), which is about as good a "cross platform" comparison as you're going to get, it shakes out like this: EOS 5DIII @ 14PMP, D800 @ 15PMP, D800E @ 21PMP.
Pentax was rumored to be releasing "several new dSLRs" as early as March
Guess this is what you've all been waiting for...