IcyVeins

IcyVeins

Lives in United States San Jose, CA, United States
Joined on Aug 18, 2010

Comments

Total: 256, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

IcyVeins: This is, quite simply, a godly lens. A lens of this quality normally costs $2000 or more, and is of course much larger and heavier. The corners are razor sharp wide open, there is no light falloff or CA, there's really just about nothing to complain about here. Anyone who is a m/43 enthusiast should be racing to get this lens, based on these samples and the test results from SLRGear.

the lens has already been tested by SLRGear, just compare their results with this lens to their results with any of the Canikon 85mm f/1.8 lenses, and this lens is longer than those (150mm vs 127.5mm).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 06:30 UTC
In reply to:

IcyVeins: This is, quite simply, a godly lens. A lens of this quality normally costs $2000 or more, and is of course much larger and heavier. The corners are razor sharp wide open, there is no light falloff or CA, there's really just about nothing to complain about here. Anyone who is a m/43 enthusiast should be racing to get this lens, based on these samples and the test results from SLRGear.

Wrong, the Canikon lenses have corner softness, light falloff, CA,, not to mention they are made of plastic. Only a fanboy or a troll/hater could think those lenses deliver this kind of performance.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 06:14 UTC

This is, quite simply, a godly lens. A lens of this quality normally costs $2000 or more, and is of course much larger and heavier. The corners are razor sharp wide open, there is no light falloff or CA, there's really just about nothing to complain about here. Anyone who is a m/43 enthusiast should be racing to get this lens, based on these samples and the test results from SLRGear.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 05:45 UTC as 89th comment | 16 replies
On Relaxation in the Play it again NOT top 10 challenge (6 comments in total)

This image is focused very poorly. Kind of hard to understand given it is shot at 11mm and f/8.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 03:03 UTC as 2nd comment
On Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 review article (271 comments in total)

The FX-Pro1 is a great concept but it is not quite yet a finished product. However I expect that the next camera will have improved the autofocus issues, and hopefully it will use an EVF to lower the price. If they do that then it may be a better deal than Sony NEX due to the great lenses available and coming soon.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2012 at 01:38 UTC as 57th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

ashwinrao1: Though Fuji, if you are reading this, please make us a 135 mm f/2 equivalent...an 85 mm f/2 would give people a classic 35/85/135 lineup option as well....

No it isn't. f/2 is the equivalent of f/2, it captures the same amount of light per compared to the size of the sensor. If you want everything in full frame "equivalent" then just get full frame, real simple.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2012 at 06:26 UTC

Not much reason to want the 18mm f/2 when you could have the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 at probably the same price. The current 18mm is the least good of the lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2012 at 03:08 UTC as 46th comment
On Canon updates EOS 60D and EOS 60Da firmware to v1.1.1 article (19 comments in total)

Great job Canon, it only took you TWO YEARS!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2012 at 21:59 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

36hike: Do us all a favor: If you don't know what the pricing is going to be, hold the press release.

Maybe they are using the response to the press release to gauge what the price should be

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2012 at 01:03 UTC
On Gold Coast Light Show in the Stormy Weather challenge (9 comments in total)

The only way to get this image is to cheat and make it in photoshop

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2012 at 06:28 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply

Also, this shows why Canikon are so useless to anyone with a clue; THIS is the kind of lens Nikon should have made, smaller size and including macro instead of a useless extra 50mm of range and making it huge.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2012 at 05:39 UTC as 42nd comment | 5 replies

That is the most compact superzoom lens I have ever seen...AND it has macro!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2012 at 05:34 UTC as 44th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

IcyVeins: next year they'll probably make something even more stupid like 28-500mm

you also save about $1700. Using a single lens with low optical quality on an interchangeable lens camera is defeating the purpose. If you don't care about image quality then use a chaper more portable camera with the lens already attached and even more range.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2012 at 22:11 UTC

Why didn't they do 17mm?? There was way way more need for a good 17mm lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2012 at 20:13 UTC as 55th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

IcyVeins: This lens costs $600. Therefore, the D600 will cost $2000 and the D600 + 24-85mm kit will cost $2500.

$2000 is not close to $3000. A $1500 FF camera is going to be so stripped down of features that it's going to be not even worth being interested in.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2012 at 16:51 UTC
In reply to:

IcyVeins: next year they'll probably make something even more stupid like 28-500mm

Lol Bjorn always there to defend Nikon to the wall. I could care less how much profit Nikon or any other brand makes, bottom line is if they make products that are ripoffs, are useless, or are targeted at ignorant people, I'm going to call them out. This is a stupid lens because there's already 18-200 and 28-300 and if you insist on only one lens then just get a bridge camera it's much more portable.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2012 at 16:47 UTC
In reply to:

IcyVeins: Nobody is going to buy this lens except for suckers and people who want to brag about how badass their lens is.

Those people can buy a Nikon P510 and get 24-1000 mm in a portable camera that costs half as much as this lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2012 at 08:42 UTC

This lens costs $600. Therefore, the D600 will cost $2000 and the D600 + 24-85mm kit will cost $2500.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2012 at 07:17 UTC as 82nd comment | 4 replies

next year they'll probably make something even more stupid like 28-500mm

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2012 at 07:09 UTC as 53rd comment | 7 replies

The bar has been set for a quality but affordable full frame lens.

Now, Sony: BEAT IT!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2012 at 06:38 UTC as 86th comment | 1 reply
Total: 256, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »