RussellInCincinnati: Can't see the weight of this new lens anywhere.
98 grams. Ouch, this will play havoc with my back. lol.
George Veltchev: You can by almost a dozen Zenit 122 cameras with 50mm lens for the price of this lens !
Yes, but what would you prefer, one good bottle of wine or 12 bottles of plonk?
AndreaV: Well... it's more expensive than the Canon 20mm f2.8 and 2 stops darker. Is the quality really THAT good?
@ Wye Photography.
"Are the Russians known to make quality high resolution lenses?"
Well, actually, they have. But, as with most lenses designed for film use, they normally don't perform at anywhere near their best with digital sensors.
For use with my M3 or M6, I use two wide angle lenses, the f2.8/35mm Jupiter, which cost me about £13 in 1974, and when comparing K25 slides with a friend who had a £180 Canon f2/35mm it was very difficult to separate them, and we were using a high quality Rollei Projar-S lens in the projector. Unfortunately, this lens has a rear protruding naked lens element, so I can't use it on my A7 to see how it performs.
The second lens is the Orion-15 f6/28mm. I have it in L39 screw mount and Contax rangefinder. Both are superb with film, and in reality the slow f6 aperture isn't an issue as most wide angle lenses need stopping down to around f8 for best overall performance. This works exceptionally well on the A7 at f8 with edge to edge sharpness.
Stollen1234: "Made in Russia" so it will be boycotted. These people do not respect human lives freedom and prosperity
Putin Crimea war soshi enough said
Mark Twain once said that, “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.” With 64% of US citizens not having a passport, this could explain a lot of the anti-Russian posts here.
I believe Putin to be dangerous, and there will be an element of politically opinionated Russians equally anti-West, not just anti-US, but equally I suspect most other Russians are quite normal, just like the rest of us.
CFynn: "The new lens is handmade out of brass" - I wonder, how do you make a lens out of an opaque metal? Is it a pinhole lens or something?
Of course it's not handmade. The body is machined and the lens elements will by ground using an optical grinder. For "handmade" read "assembled by hand".
Kookie B: All,
Click on the image of the M6, click again for full-size, then take a close look at the aperture opening. Does anyone else see what I do? An oddly misshapen opening that can't be by design. Strange that they would use an image with such an obvious anomaly for the roll out.
Well, it may just be a pre-production unit to be used for promo purposes, but one would think they'd get it right.
The lens on the Voigtlander is #..06 and we can't see if this exhibits the same defect. As the alignment of the aperture blades is so off centre, this could affect imaging performance. I wonder, then, if this is Lomography's special design. lol.
If you're worried about the weight of this tiny lens, you are in serious trouble. :-D
elefteriadis alexandros: -Yes, some lenses are designed to win tests, some lenses are designed to take beautiful images ...-BUT 600euro!! are you kidding?..
The first Leica f2/50 Summicrons, which arrived from 1953 onwards, also had a thorium radio active element, such that the lens needed a lead rear element to stop the film from being fogged. Later production lenses dispensed with the thorium element. Mine is a mdi-series lens from 1956, so I don't know if it is radio active or not.
JJ Rodin: Has Russia shown that it could build consistent quality items? Ever?
Surely very high priced items may be fine but this is not that really - less than a Leica or most Zeiss made in Japan.
Hand made can be good or bad, it can mean no ability to have precise automation, so each lens system and optics may have a variance possibly a HUGE variance.
A lens ONLY for the brave, IMO !
The price point of this lens, assuming it will be sharp and offer respectable corner to corner sharpness, and I've no reason to believe it won't, could make it a compelling buy. That it WILL fit my A7 makes it a lens to check out.
I don't know how readily available Russian optics have been in the US, but in the UK they have garnered a good reputation, especially those arriving in the early 1970's, the f2/50 and f2.8/35mm Jupiters, and the much rarer f6/28mm Orion-15. This latter is an incredible performer and even wide open, but especially at f8 on my A7 provides corner to corner sharpness. Given that this is a Leica L39 screw mount, it does beg the question why a famous brand's wide-angles perform less well when used on a third party body.
Rather than a simple question of focal length, I do wonder if the actual optical design plays a part.
In the UK this didn't hit email in boxes until around 04:00 GMT on 2nd April, so like Andy Amos, I'm reading at a more friendly 10:33 GMT, and now it doesn't qualify as an April Fool's day joke.
But I will admit my instant reaction to the OMG was Oh, My Gawd!
rfsIII: In my opinion DPReveiw is leading readers down a dangerous dead-end path with all this "equivalent aperture range." The whole silly business started with a post on one photographer's website and has now grown into a weird cult of people who are angry all the time about f/stops and love to argue with anyone who doesn't profess unwavering faith in their precepts. And worse, it completely misses the point of the exposure triangle. To get more out of your camera you need to understand the relationship between f-stop, shutter speed, and ISO but this new religion you people have adopted throws that out and makes readers think that the surface area of the sensor is in some undefined way related. Converts go on and on about twice or four or 16 times as much light hitting a larger sensor than a smaller one as though that matters. Unless you are dealing with bellows or other real exposure-changing variables, from an exposure point of view it doesn't matter what size sensor you use.
@ rfsIII, I agree.
In my film days when I used 35mm, 6x6 and 5x4 formats, we all knew that for an equivalent FoV each format needed a different focal length lens. Roughly 50mm for 35mm film, 75/80 for 6x6 and a 150mm for 5x4. It was simply acknowledged that one result of this was DoF differed even when setting the same lens aperture and focussing distance on each. This was simply a law of optics.
It seems to me that arguers for the equivalent aperture range haven't heard of the inverse square law as it relates to optics and have introduced this mumbo jumbo as somehow being of a significance. One can go through a long lifetime of photography in complete ignorance of "equivalent aperture range" as it won't impact one one's photography one iota.
blink667: If I was shooting wide open most of the time, and I don't know many people who do, this article would be compelling. I've been using Nikon manual lenses and focus peaking on a 5N with good results. I don't know why it would be different with an A7/R.
It isn't any different. I also have the 5N and an A7. The difference with the A7 is the field of view expected from 35mm camera optics and using the same lenses on both bodies does show up edge performance, or lack of it, on the A7.
The quality of the images can be quite variable. The Canon EF f1.8/50mm Mk II performs exceptionally well across the whole frame and is exceedingly sharp. I have to use this with an adaptor with electronic contacts as there is no way to set the aperture manually. My Canon EF f3.5/4.5 28-105 also surprised me with the quality it can achieve on the A7, with the only slight reservation is a small amount of vignetting caused by the adaptor, but this can be edited out.
I've got high quality results from a Minolta MD f1.7/50 and an Olympus f1.8/50 Zuiko and really beautiful images with my Leica f2.8/135 Elmarit R.
Wide angle lenses can be problematic, but my Orion f6/28mm gives excellent results at f8.
To the detractors, try it before posting negatively.
If you don't video, don't mind losing 1.5 stops at the tele end, don't need the equivalent of 200mm but like the idea of 24mm, don't mind a restricted ISO range of up to 3,200 and can put up with the noise if you do use it, you consider 10meg resolution is adequate for your needs, you believe that an APS-C sensor has certain advantages, you do want a top quality Zeiss lens and want to save a lot of money into the bargain, get yourself a Sony R1.
rfsIII: God bless you DPR and thank you for using a tripod on your video shots! Finally we can see what the video really looks like.
I totally agree. Great that it was shot using a tripod so we don't experience the family movies syndrome, but I am put off most still camera video for two reasons: judder in the background induced by panning, and a similar effect when subjects move through the scene.
If I want video of my holidays, I use a very pocketable entry level Sanyo CG20 and which captures 1920x1080 at 17,500kbps and 59 fps. Despite its very modest intentions, it produces extremely smooth video with no signs of image stutter or judder.
If this inexpensive video camera from a not top-notch manufacturer can do it, why not better known ones?
KrisAK: I'd cancel my order for the GH4 in a heartbeat (I'm primarily interested in video), except:
-- No high-bitrate recording options for 60p (or anything else internally)-- The 29-minute runtime limit
Sony, the GH4 ships in about a month, so you've got approximately 4 weeks to come up with a firmware fix. You know where I can be reached.
Exactly. The limit is not total, only per scene. Want to bore the pants off your viewers? Shoot one scene lasting 29 minutes and they will be crying for mercy long before it ends. lol.
Ahmet Aydogan: Here's a another instance of a laws being written by people with little or no understanding of the matter in question. I think an appropriate response could take two different forms. One method would be immediately eliminate any distribution of any images from Hungary. Another response, my preferred way, would be for everyone to shoot photos of everything and everyone in sight. Fill every social media site with as many photos of as many Hungarians as possible. The Hungarian legislative body has proven its complete incompetence in this matter.
"And we thought the Soviet Union and the KGB era was gone!"
Unfortunately, not. Look at what has happened in Crimea. And Putin can't see anything wrong. Who's next?
munro harrap: An interesting review, but one that is unfortunately predictable in the sense that with Sony, this tends to be all you get. The extremely slow prefocussed shutter lag has been left out, but the analysis of the jpeg situation speaks volumes. Sony as others also need to write files as fast as they shoot them: nobody now should be waiting these times for the buffer to clear. My gut reaction based on 7100 use is its horrid not to be able to reverse that huge screen, facing into and flush with the body when not in use. It will get scratched to bits quickly. This is not made for us, its made to be quickly replaced. The cost of the lenses too are a joke in bad taste, and the f5.6 standard zoom is good, -it is a good lens, but it is too slow, and despite this too big. The lenses destroy the bodies size advantage (they could be Leica M size primes), and the body itself isn't exactly comfortable to hold and to use, and with water dripping everywhere in the rain?? Nah, I'll pass on this one
Regrettably, it isn't possible for a modern AF/IS/Auto diaphragm lens to equal a Leica M prime in size, however much I'd wish for smaller lenses.
UnitedNations: I AM SO GLAD I DID NOT BUY THE SONY A7!
If you cannot avoid blurry photos with 1/60 in the A7... just imagine how blurry the A7r would be.
Unfortunately, I get blurry hand-held pictures all the time with non-stabilised lenses, be they on my film cameras or digital. It isn't the camera, it's my inability to hold it steady.
I'm acutely aware of this, so always try and shoot at 1/125 or faster, or use some form of support, be it a tripod or wall. I don't lambast my Leica film cameras because of my own shortcoming.
bartjeej: This may have been noted already, but I'm quite sure the camera has no built in flash, despite what the review says in the key features list.
And neither does it have a 1.23m dot LCD. According to Sony's own spec it is 921,600.
I just wonder how many who are posting here actually own the camera and therefore have first hand experience of it, or are they merely repeating what they've read and in doing so have formed their own, unsubstantiated opinion?For the record I own it and whilst it is not perfect, which camera is, its blend of features and performance make it a solid performer. No issues with its jpegs, but its RAW is superior.
Pixel peeping is helpful only in looking at how a camera performs at the extreme, and seeing how another camera performs under the same shooting conditions, but it otherwise has no meaning for everyday shooting.
And for those intrigued by the lossless 14/12 bit RAW argument, I was intrigued too, so have a look here and make up your own mind: