DStudio: Looking at the samples, looks like a great 15mm lens!
Now, since it's going to be shot at 15mm most of the time, can anyone please remind me why we need the zoom?
^^ You are referring to 16mm on crop. Not the same thing on FF.
On full frame most zooms start at 24mm or 28mm.
babart: So why can't they make a f/4 model too, so everyone can afford one?
Yeah there are hardly any good affordable UWA lenses for FF.
The Tokina 17-35mm is pretty well priced but it uses #%#%^ 82mm filters.
Not everyone needs the widest setting all the time. I have used my Sigma 10-20mm often at 20mm also when I didn't need the extreme angle of view. Zooming is far easier than simply changing the lens to take a shot.
Boss of Sony: Does this camera have anything over Sony a6000 apart from IBIS?
^^ Their A7 now sells for $1200 and anyone calling them second rate hasn't used them enough. I am using one for the past 2 months and my initial appreciation for the build quality has only grown.
Now I am no Sony fanboi. I loved the Olympus OMD EM5 that my friend uses but I liked my A7 even more for the better IQ and I most certainly didn't find the OMD to have any superior build quality and neither did my friend using the OMD.
Alexsfo: Micro Four Thirds is an impressive system. It is ok to have more choices even if it's not priority FLs at the moemnt. m43 is truly the only alternative to Canon and Nikon. All resources now need to be allocated to refining AF with on-sensor PDAF. It can be done, Nikon did it. We need PDAF for both both stills and video. Even if it's just a single center point, it'll do. It is the last remaining gap between m43 and dslr, everything else is way better already (EVF is MUCH more useful than any OVF, get used to it. OVFs are for film, EVFs are for digital).
There is no lag with a DSLR. There is a minor blackout but any sports photographer will tell you they will anyday prefer an OVF over an EVF for sports.
Does this 240 fps viewfinder still show a slideshow when shooting ? If yes then the OVF wins again.
mpgxsvcd: Wow that looks like a stunner. However, I can't help but think that a Panasonic GH4 in capable hands with the right lenses could probably come close to matching it.
$28,000 to spend on lenses goes a really long way towards making the playing field even for the GH4.
In photography and videography its not difficult to get good quality without breaking the bank. However like Medium format to Full frame the difference between good/very good to excellent is far more expensive than it is from mediocre to good.
So too for this camera. A GH4 will come decently close but for that extra 10-15% quality you will need to pay through your nose.
Agree with you on all the points except the last one. I use EVFs and while I personally love them many do not. There is always some micro lag when using EVFs and for people used to the lag free OVFs that can be very disconcerting.
Plus for tracking moving subjects an EVF is not nearly as useful than OVFs due to the slide show effect at max FPS.
So while I would choose an EVF over OVF the vast majority will rather have an OVF.
Look the OMD is a fine camera and the lenses it takes is more pocketable than what Sony uses. My friend uses the older EM5 and I was impressed with the handling, build quality and general IQ from the sensor.
However we both agree IQ wise the OMD is not in the same league as my old Sony A55 which has a light blocking SLT mirror. The OMD bottoms out quickly in tricky lighting situations and he uses it mainly for the 100-300mm lens which gives him plenty of reach.
Other than that he finds his Fuji XE-2 far superior in the IQ department and the OMD is ONLY for reach where the Fuji options are very expensive.
Anyone saying it matches good APS-C sensors are correct for only general photography. Anything more demanding and the smaller sensor reaches its limits pretty quickly.
yatbond: Folks. Ok, your ff and apsc are amazing cameras. This is also an amazing camera, which I own together with many great lens. All can produce amazing photos. Choose your priorities and choose your camera. For me, mobility is key. I need relatively small camera bodies and small lens together with great ergonomics.
This is the only format that actually fits all my requirements. And I also shoot FF when I don't have to take care of my kid.
+1 Agreed. Visited your website. Lovely photos ! :)
nikonson: Rich man's lens: FE 90mm/F2.8 = $1,500Poor man's lens 1: 85mm/F2.? = Maxxum 50mm/F1.7 + 1.7X converter + LAEA4Poor man's lens 2: 85mm/F2.? = Maxxum 50mm/F1.4 + 1.7X converter + LAEA4
If you are referring to the Sony Alpha 85mm f2.8 SAM lens then yes its a full frame lens based on the CZ Sonar 85mm f2.8 design.
A very sharp lens for low price but also has a crap plastic body.
ChicagoInPhotographs: Leica M mount sized lens with autofocus was what I was hoping to see. These lens are too big IMHO.
If you see their large APS-C lenses it was a strong inkling that their FF lenses were going to be huge !
photofisher: Looking at this big glass, I'm glad I went m43. Not the absolute best in IQ but perfect size. The cost and size are probably worth it for pros but not for me.
Different needs. I also want something small and compact and my A7 just in't as compact as I would have liked.
However after using a 35mm camera I simply can't go back to using half and quarter frame sensor cameras.
For people who just need compact cameras with good to decent IQ m43 is a very good compromise. A couple of friends use them and I love how compact they are.
But for those that need 35mm performance there is no substitute and I have resigned to the fact that ill never have a really compact system if I need AF. But the 35mm IQ makes me very happy with my choice.
Arn: The 35/1.4 looks tempting. Any info on the weight? 24-240 is interesting for a walkaround lens if performance is decent. I fear the macro may be overpriced. I'm hoping to see Tamron produce EF lenses in the future, like an SP 90mm macro.
^^ Impossible. To make a lens for such a small flange distance requires a completely redesigned lens from a DSLR lens.
@Arn - If you don't care for AF since you are looking for a macro lens you can get a Canon adapter and use the Canon 100mm f2.8 L IS lens or a Tamron 90mm.
Yxa: A compact package-not
If you compare it to a 5d Mk 3 /D810 combo these lenses will easily best them in size and weight.
quatpat: Well, a full frame lens is a full frame lens, no matter what body you put behind... This said, it seems like a lot fo people are mislead by the relation body to lens size, which make these lenses in the photos look bigger than they really are.
Some of the commenters here below seem to forget how small the A7 bodies are, which is why they think that the lenses are huge in relation to them.
All the above lenses you mentioned other than the Voigtlander are APS-C only lenses and also slow f2.8 lenses.
Large aperture lenses like the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 needs to have AF and needs to be sharp wide open. Modern lenses need many more elements to correct against abberations and remain sharp wide open.
Take the Sigma 35mm f1.4. Its huge and big but its also the sharpest 35mm f1.4 for DSLRs around.
I am sure they will show it in future. This testing seems to have been done in some photo fair so there would be some limitation in testing.
Once the Dpreview guys have a test sample they will put it through its paces in real world shooting environment rather than this artificially lit photo fair.
Alan Jervis: All this rejoicing before there is any indication of performance. Sigma is developing a reputation, but it has some way to go before its brand is synonymous with quality and past history is forgotten!
My friend and I tested 5 copies of their Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art series on his Canon 5D mk3.
ALL of them had an issue with infinity focus and none of his other lenses do.
They would misfocus 10/10 times at infinty if using a single AF point. If using AF point cluster it would misfocus mabye 5/10 times.
Focusing on near objects the results were tack sharp and beautifully rendered.
THinking this could be a problem with his camera he asked for the store's test camera and that had the same issue (a 450D)
Unfortunately my friend wasn't about to spend money on a lens that already didn't work fine right out of the box and got the Canon 35mm f1.4 L instead.
Now that lens isn't as sharp as the Sigma. It just isn't. But focusing is FAR FAR more reliable and for his usage he needed reliability.
The AF in the metabones adapter is near useless in the field. Not worth using for any critical work.
MF is reasonably easy especially for close up shots using focus peaking. For subjects near infinity it becomes a bit more tricky to focus on and you may have to rely on focus magnification to help focus.
lcf80: Damn it, Sigma, why all the love for the FF, only? When we'll see some nice Art lens, but dedicated for u43, instead of dark DN? Olympus consistently refuses to create bright optics, Panasonic pricing for lens like 42.5 F1.2 is ridiculous, and there's a lot of space for high-quality bright lens with AF. Create something like 35mm F1.2 or F1.4 Art for u43 (dedicated, weather-sealed design), and I will buy it day one if priced sub $1k.
Far lesser users of m43 than Canon and Nikon FF users.
Once m43 has a decent amount of users they may make something for them but its generally not financially viable since most m43 users would prefer an Olympus or Panasonic branded lens over Sigma.
sharkcookie: 8% wider than the Nikon 12-24, but the Nikon is twice as fast (one stop equals double the light). The Canon is 50% more expensive.
The main issue with your above post is the line "I use them only when its absolutely necessary".
You may use it when necessary I use it often and some may use it almost everyday. Depends on person to person. Photography is not an exact science and nobody shoots exactly the same as someone else.