"I can't shake the feeling that the Df is a little bit... silly"
Same here.... :-(
Ken Johnes: the D600 is really evolving every week.this Df version seems to omit so many useless functions (that´s what the pure photography moto says ,aint it? ) and up the price to another level . this is all every nikon d300/d700 users are waiting for for the last couple of years ;-). looks like nikon is trying too hard to compensate for the oil fiasco the 600 created .need my money Nikon ? give me a d300 and d700 with a latest sensor in it and without any changes to the body or AF system and you can have it .if you are too stubborn not to bring out a d400 ,am not gonna spend anything on nikon.
""need my money Nikon ? give me a d300 and d700 with a latest sensor in it and without any changes to the body or AF system and you can have it .""
They did. It was called the D800 ;-)
Lift Off: Someone please forward this news to Nikon.
Well done, Fujifilm.
I have a Nikon system now, but every day I think about dumping it all and switching to Fuji.
Still has 1/200 maximum flash sync speed instead of 1/250. I thought this thing was getting a new shutter, lol...
It's unfortunate that they didn't include the *new version* of the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS. It's been out since last year and all the reviews I've read say it's an amazing lens, very sharp with few aberrations. I do own this myself, but use it on the D7000.
Plus, with a 75-225mm "full frame equivalent angle of view", and a minimum focus distance half that of a 70-200, the 50-150 OS a really versatile lens too. Sadly, DXOmark is often very slow about getting lenses reviewed, so make sure you take their recommendations with a grain of salt.
DPR, any idea when you'll get the Fujifilm X100S review done?
The X100S is in the same category (APS-C fixed lens compact) and is probably what people want to compare the Ricoh GR and Nikon Coolpix A against more than anything.
Thanks for the relevant and timely article!
After Adobe's switch to online-only, I'm sure a lot of photographers are looking for replacement programs... ones that you only have to pay for *once*, and won't lock you out of your own work if you stop paying.
Glad that they are updating the firmware. Hopefully they will continue to improve the X100s' functionality and flexibility.
I outlined most of the issues I had with my X100s in my full review here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3482733
motobloat: I'm surprised no one has mentioned this here:
This is a *street photographer's* dream lens.
You get 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm equivalents, and everything in between, all at f/1.8. No more do you have to just pick one of the three classic 'street' lenses - you can have them all.
New street kit? Small SLR like D3200 or 100D + this lens - small, fast, light, high-resolution, and really, really flexible.
Wow when did everyone become such weight-weenies, haha. ;-)
I guess it's not a lens for everybody.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this here:
veroman: I don't know of a single Sigma lens at f/2.8 or larger that's sharp wide open. Is there one? If history is any indication, I suspect this new zoom won't really come into its own until f/2.8 ... which really doesn't make it all that competitive to Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8. I'd like to be wrong, 'cause the idea is terrific. I'd purchase it in a second if f/1.8 is sharp. Would let me shoot all day long at ISO 400 or lower with my small Canon.
>> I don't know of a single Sigma lens at f/2.8 or larger that's sharp wide open. Is there one?
Define "sharp"? All lenses are softer wide open than stopped down, so... these are Sigma lenses I own that I consider *sharp enough to use* wide open. There are others I don't own as well.
17-50 f/2.8 OS50-150mm f/2.8 OS (this one is crazy sharp)120-300 f/2.8 OS85mm f/1.4
itsastickup: Totally hopeless bokeh test.
For me it's a deal-breaker: bad bokeh means unusable portraits.
Closing down the aperture can get rid of hard edged rings but also double-line 'nissen' bokeh which make for poor/disturbing bokeh as in the two pics (I would call this bokeh 'poor' and unusable). Typically I shoot f1.4 lenses at f2 for bokeh reasons. But in addition, you are more likely to get rings where the focus is at a distance and the blur moderate, as with these pics, while at close portrait distances the rings may not be so hard; which is the type of photos I am most interested in.
On top of that: a closed down aperture can be useful (one doesn;t always want obliteration-bokeh) but the bokeh can deteriorate.
So effectively we need a range of apertures and distance to know what the bokeh situation is.
Bokeh is so neglected that I have to do a lot of research to work out whether a lens is any good. It's a pain.
Mr. Duck, if you can tell the difference between the two images you posted, I'm sure the rest of the class would love to know what exactly you think you are seeing.
The second link Amin posted has plenty of detailed blur comparisons that show that there is little if any difference between the two lenses: http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L
If you removed the titles on those images, there's no way anyone would be able to tell which lens is which. If you just want to bash Sigma, fine, bash away, but no one is taking you seriously...
Jaelkay: I'm sure Sigma cherry-pick the lenses they send to DP Review and other reviewers.
The Sigma 35 f1.4 I have is nowhere nearly as good as my Nikon 35 f1.4. The borders on the Sigma are very soft when compared with the Nikon.
Lol, I love these conspiracy theories.
Seriously though, look up the recent lensrentals test that has five copies tested. They are all the the same. And Roger Cicala is a self-confessed Sigma non-fan. In fact, read everything on his blog. It's that good.
facedodge: If it weren't for the onion bokeh, this would beat the 35L.
What, the Nikon 35G doesn't have Onions?
vladimir vanek: this type of gallery is soo annoying! page reload on every click on an image, endless scrolling again and again to center the picture vertically... vrrrr....
Setting up Lightbox2 (or similar) for your galleries would be super great and easy to implement.
nicolaiecostel: Well, it doesn't look like it's going to be on par with the canon L or the nikon G, but at roughly half the price, in my country, it would be naive to expect that. The image quality is decent, vignetting is acceptable, not much chromatic abberation, pretty good sharpness. I don't relally like the colors, they are pretty bland, sigma style, or maybe it's that canon sensor. Also, the bokeh isn't something to rave about, the highlights are pretty dissapoiting, showing a texture in the highlight blobs. This being said, this lens does cost about 800E brand new in the store, so the only real choices for this money or less are the f/2 lenses from canon/nikon, if you want AF, that is.
Meh, I dunno, looking at background blur in samples of the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 and Canon 35mm f/1.4, they're not really any better. Wide angle lenses have a tough time with background blur because of the perspective effect on the background, so none of them will ever be as good as an 85mm anyway.
Regarding sharpness, aberrations and the rest, I'll wait for the imatest / dx0mark results. Random sample photos are not going to be meaningful for accurately measuring those qualities due to all of the uncontrolled variables. Empirical science - separating fact from fiction since 1600BC!
There are also some good samples just published today:
Richard G T: Where's my mid-range Nikon 50-150 f/2.8 for DX??? Been waiting years for it but Nikon throws out another 70-200 full frame lens. I'm sure many will be happy with this lens but I want a DX! At f/2.8 with VR it would be faster and probablly smaller than this lens. Still waiting.....
It's made in Japan by a company called Sigma, and it costs $999.
It's not small though - stabilization elements add a lot of heft to telephoto lenses (or if they are small, then they add a lot of vignetting and wreck image quality in the corners, e.g. Tamron 17-50 VC).
Stop waiting around for slowpoke Nikon - they don't really care about making new DX lenses besides slow kit zooms. Third party lenses, or leaving Nikon altogether, are your only options.
Interesting that Nikon put this lens out before updating all of the older stuff that needs a refresh (300 f/4, 80-400, 17-35 f/2.8, 17-55 f/2.8, 200mm macro, 180mm f/2.8, etc. etc.).
I guess they've gotta get some more mid-tier FX lenses out for people to use with the D600. But why? If you're paying up for an FX sensor and its extra stop of thinner DOF, then why put f/4 lenses on it?
It would be cheaper to just buy f/2.8 glass and DX bodies - same DOF control as f/4 on FX, but faster shutter speeds due to the larger aperture.
I wonder if anyone will buy this thing...