Jogger: £549.99 = DOA
Sure, and I recall the same doom and gloom prophecy on the announcement of the PL25...
bluevellet: Pricey on its own, but a fair deal with the GM1.
I still think the Lumix 14mm and the 20mm pancake primes make more sense size-wise on the GM1. This new 15mm prime looks better suited for bigger m43 cameras.
Nice touch with the aperture ring too, more m43 optics should have that feature.
How do you know its pricey? You saw the MTF charts..?
Madaboutpix: Okay, I dig the comments about the 6 aperture blades and the considerable weight. But we're talking a fairly fast metal-barrel f2.8 lens, and as a Pentaxian, I'm pleased to see a third-party manufacturer still bothering to produce K-mount lenses. And much as I love the IQ and the starbursts from my Pentax smc DA 15mm Limited, I must say that with every new lens Samyang is offering in the ultra-wide and fisheye compartments (where non-AF isn't such a big deal), I'm more tempted to give them a try. Especially when I look at their budget prices.
Pentax do have a DA 12-28mm ultra-wide zoom on their roadmap, which may well turn out to be a colaboration with Tokina. I expect that to be a wonderful lens, but I'm not so sure if I will be able to afford it without breaking the bank. Therfore, keep on, Samyang!
Hyperfocal distance is short for 10mm angle on APS-C, but when critical focus is needed, AF actually is a very big deal on wide angles.
Tomee21: But why 15mm? Why not 12? Or at least 14? Those would make more sense to me than a 30mm equivalent.
Its meant as a tool to take pictures, not specs. On a field review, you ought not to be bothered that its 15mm and not 14mm.
Mirrorless Crusader: They already have a 14mm f/2.5 why are they making a 15mm f/1.7? A 12mm f/2.8 that's cheaper than Oly's 12/2 would have been better.
Olympus also have two 17mm, none of which is being an alternative product for the other.
Jogger: Prob $1000 going by the other "Leica" lenses for m43.
Last time I checked
PL 1.4/25 : $600PL 2.8/45 : $800PL 1.2/42.5 : don't know yet
If its the case, kudos to Olympus for seeing the quality in that patent. The 1.8/75 isn't short of very favorable reviews!
Artistico: Had Panasonic come out with this before the excellent and sharp-wide-open 45mm f/1.8, this would probably have sold a bit. Now more people will wait and see the test results before buying as this lens simply has to perform really well below 1.8 to be worth buying.
Unlike sentiments expressed in numerous other comments, I do like the name Nocticron. Summicron, Summilux and Noctilux probably all had some people doubting the naming choice when those came out.
I forsee myself framing, focusing and thinking before pressing the shutter : "Dammit! Why Nocticron?!?" :D
thx1138: f/1.2 would be awesome, but I wonder how much better it will be than the already superb 45 f/1.8 from Oly, given it will be probably 4x as expensive?
Was any prices announced yet?
itev: Why not Darktable ?
it is free !
I will give it a try for sure. My worry is if the workflow is fine with m43's lens correction
jackgreen: I really cant understand the concept of the Sigma 13-35 f1.8 lens. Yes, it's bright. But for what situation it's good? For interior or architecture shots you want to use small aperture, you never will shoot full open. For portraits its way too short. It's good news if they have new lens formula -- worth to wait bright normal and portrait lenses.
There is more to photography than portraits and architecture.
trungthu: """ Sigma's choice of F1.8 as maximum aperture isn't a coincidence; it means that the lens will offer the same control over depth of field as an F2.8 zoom does on full frame."""When we use the same shooting frame in both sensor sizes (APS-C and Full Frame).""" What's more, it will also offer effectively the same light-gathering capability as an F2.8 lens on full frame. By this we mean that it will be able to project an image that's just over twice as bright onto a sensor that's slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image."""As I know, in normal condition, the gather of light at each aperture is different with others. The lower number, the more of light. But when we have a quantity of light is "a" to be right exposured, that means the light come to the sensor is "equal" in any aperture (in relate to shutter speed), or any sensor size, not only at f/1.8 (in APS-C) # f/2.8 (in Full Frame)I don't know why the author say that...
This equivalence crap plagues m43 forums all the time...
Roberto Mettifogo: very good for movie making, solid, precise focusing and follow focus ready, precise markings on the barrel, don't complain about price guys, this is not for the sunday photographers... it is a high end lens for digital cinematography, and most of the user will rent them, the price is good.
in video, speed of focus is not the same concept as in stills, where the faster the better rules.You may want to focus at a precise speed, in sync with the actors and the punch lines. AF just doesn't won't for that.Then, there is the issue of AF hunting. You don't really want to show that in video. well, It happens all the time on youtube, but seriously, you don't want to do that.. That said, with cropping and smooth transitions, you can get away with AF in many situations. Say, you are shooting a wildlife documentary with several cameras on different angle catching a fight of some sort. You might get like an hour of video to choose from for maybe 3 minutes of footage. AF hunting is easily cropped away and not really a problem here.But trust me, on a movie sets, manual focus is extremely common practice.
RaZZ3R Death: Just asking here but does this little lens have very good macro capabilities because I see written on the lens 1:1.8 between 17mm and MSC logo and the only thing that comes to my mind the obvious magnification numbers.
25mm minimal focus distance.By comparison, the 1.7/20mm has 20mm minimal focus distance.
maxnimo: A theoretical question: If a wide angle lens is not sharp edge to edge then what's the point of having a wide angle?
Cine lenses are near perfect from edge to edge.
For still photography, its generally overkill...
threeOh: An observation: the fanboys seldom initiate a comment, all they do is respond. A very defensive posture. My take, a lot of us were looking forward to this camera as an alternative to the NEX 7 and Fuji xp1. Neither is perfect but Canon has eliminated itself from any consideration.
Sony did not start right away with the NEX 7.I would not call that new Canon mount death on birth right away.
marike6: What I don't get are all the ISO 8000 shots. When your testing a lens wouldn't want to avoid such extremes? It's not D4 and not a camera test.
If you can't get a fast enough shutter speed use a tripod or flash, especially for static shots. Ice cream doesn't move unless you count the melting.
Thats irrelevant. Having a few shots at high ISO does not get in the way of judging other pics at base ISO first and then, for serving as an example, the picture did not need to be an action shot.
Of course, a tripod would have been used normally..
Scott Eaton: The vast majority of complaints about HDR images often being 'over-cooked' have NOTHING to do with HDR. HDR images when properly executed are usually subtle, if not dull because of the expanded contrast range. Further manipulation is usually required to make them look normal, or aethestically pleasing.
It's the post tone-mapping algorithms often applied to HDR images that cause all the fuss, and the cartoonish images.
I hear you, but there is still place for that some image creation being on the less subtle side, so to speak.
One should be able to renders subtle HDR, not to systematically overkill just for the sake of showing off HDR capabilities. When it is all said and done, its all about why you choose to render a given HDR photo subtle or less so.
JackM: Seriously what is the point?? If you are willing to spend that kind of money and carry a NOT compact camera/lens combo, why handicap your image quality with a quarter-frame sensor? Go APS-C or FF!
Enough has been said about comparative size. Its a *significantly* smaller and cheaper combo than the FF equivalent.
Ivanaker: I just cant understand the pricing of m43, or any mirrorless gear, it is way to much.75 f/1.8 - $899.99om-d - $1,299.00
on the other handnikon d7000 - $1,199.00very new 85 f1.8 - $499.00
And that lens is an investment as you can venture to FX format with it.
Im glad m43 exists, some nice cameras and lenses from them, and they are pushing tech forward, and forcing Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax.... to make even better DSLR. But i cant see how anyone can choose om-d + 75 1.8 when for the same money you can get d7000, 85 1.8(FX), 50 1.8(FX) and 35 1.8(DX).And im not going even to venture into benefits of one system or another, ill give you that m43 is smaller.
Lenses don't lose much value over time, but not to the point of following inflation : if the Nikor 1.2/85 was designed and released in 2012, its price would certainly compare to that of the m.Zuiko.