wlad: I doubt any Nikon shooter will buy this, when the Nikon version costs just $500 more.It would be competitive with 1/3 to 1/2 the price of the Nikon lens. Not so with 2/3s of the Nikon's price tag.
...make it half the MSRP price
$1299 is the MSRP. Street price will surely be a bit lower. Also the Nikon was launched 5 years ago. Tamron has had time to catch up (hopefully)
Rmano: I wonder when and if they fix the completely busted EV bracketing mode (just 2/3 EV maximum). I have a A55, I hoped they fixed it somewhere, I filed up various request and comments, but no. Three lines of firmware code and no way to do a nice bracketing on Alphas.
I too have the A55 and its just flabbergasting that it does just +/- 0.7 EV. Even the most basic Canon DSLR can do at least +/- 2EV.
ZAnton: There is already Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for almost 1/10 the price.Only real crazy techno-geeks will buy Zeiss.
The Samyang is no doubt a good lens. Reviews praising it so highly can't be wrong.
However you can't take filters conventionally.
LaFonte: You have to understand that this is the "real" Zeiss, not a pay-for-rent name that is used on sony lenses. As such it actually isn't that expensive and will probably hold its value for a long time.
Right, the Sony 135mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.4 are crap coz they aren't real Zeiss lenses ? You do realize that both lenses are probably the best in their respective classes. The 135mm especially has no equal.
healer81: Lens looks interesting, especially for canon shooters since nikon already has a 14-24 which is spectacular. Canon doesnt have an answer for super wide angle at this moment so this lens will accommodate.People in this site is always complaining about something, dont mind them.
^^ No offense bed bug, but I hope you realize that the 8-15 is a fisheye lens and not a rectilinear wide angle like the Zeiss ?
In any case even Nikon's 14-24mm has a drawback that it cannot use filters. This CZ lens can make use of a Lee filter system or a Cokin Z pro system.
The Canon 14mm is by no means a bad lens, but its performance is not as good as the Nikon at 14mm and the Nikon has the advantage of being a zoom but costing only a few $$$ more.
Forget sub $1000. The only other camera that can do 10 fps and more with AF is the Canon 1D MK IV costing $5000 and Nikon's D4 at $6000.
Plus the Canon 1D MK IV has a buffer of 26 RAW shots and the Sony A57 has a buffer of 21 RAW shots so the Sony isn't too shabby at $699.
ogl: I don't understand this camera
T4i is a mythical camera as of now. Compare it to existing Canon APS-C cameras and I have no doubt its going to perform a bit better. High iso performance is IMO one of the most overhyped features I have ever seen as I have seen few good photos clicked at high ISO levels (only talking about APS-C and not FF).
I am more concerned about everyday low ISO performance and most Sony cameras have tuned it so that the DR for highlight performance outdoes the competition. That (IMO) is far more important than good high ISO performance.
If fast AF during live view, fast AF during movie recording and fast burst modes don't excite you then of course the camera isn't really for you. But a lot of other people do like those features and are willing to sacrifice a bit of high ISO performance for that.
RawthenticFilms: this is a kick in the balls for any A77 user, most of the A77's unique features are no available in a camera that is selling for less than $900.00 that is some major BS!
Also more AF points (including more cross AF points) and far more external buttons.
Cy Cheze: A wonderful lens. But also a good illustration why this pauper covets something like the Fuji X-S1, or any sort of <$1,000 devices that offers long zoom and a sensor bigger than 1/2.3". After all, a FF alternative would not be something I could use that often, or want to carry around, even if money weren't a constraint.
Ah, I am not a fan of such big lenses either but one look at the quality of photos and I instantly know that for those who have the patience and will to make proper use of these lenses will be rewarded by something really special.
As good as superzooms are, they are pretty useless at the long end of the zoom.
thx1138: Sorry it's ridiculous to think IBIS system can cope with a supertele lens like this. IBIS does not stabilise the VF image and with a 500mm on a crop sensor the image will be bouncing all over the place. if you've never used a supertele you will be shocked. Now add a 2x TC and try it! This should have had IS built into the lens; no way a sensor will be able to be shifted enough to counter the extreme shake of such long FL. Oh that's right Sony doesn't have such a thing.
What people are trying to say is that IBIS doesn't stabilize an image in an OVF camera. (Like the older A700, A900, A850).
The new SLT cameras take a live view feed directly from the main sensor which is stabilized. So your EVF WILL SEE A STABILIZED image with any lens you attach.
Thats what Emacs23 and CollBaxter were trying to say.
Sdaniella: Hopefully Sony's FF A9XX will finally have Exposure Simulations Live Preview
to keep up with other that already available on all Canon EOS LV dSLRs, and Nikon D3/D3x/D3s/D4... and low-to-mid level alphas, SLT's and part-time on NEX's... it was missing on A900, and the A850 totally lacked LV whatsoever.
hopefully, Sony won't skip on it, like Nikon skipped on their D800/D800E...
Not sure on this exposure simulation stuff, but Live view in Sony is very useful since it uses phase AF rather than slower contrast AF. I know a couple of people who use live view to shoot 90% of the time since there is no performance loss compared to using the viewfinder.
This is more true for the older Sony DSLRs like the A300 and A330 which had a terribly tiny viewfinder.
Edmond Leung: Why not from Carl Zeiss? More new Carl Zeiss lenses would be better. Sony should consider to cooperate with other brands, like Leica, Cooke and Angenieux.
^^ Hopefully thats just the MSRP ! If thats the street price I doubt anyone will buy that ! :P
Even the 300mm f2.8 is the most expensive 300mm lens but at least its only around $2k more than Canon and Nikon 300mm f2.8 lenses. If the price is correct this means its around 10k more expensive !
@Guidenet - All Sony bodies have IS. However if you use this lens on a NEX then there wont be any IS. :P
Also since Sony SLT designs get their live view feed directly from the stabilized sensor, you do get a stabilized feed in the EVF. :)
Mssimo: Almost 8 lbs. Sony is getting ready for Olympics and world cup Brazil 2014!
^^ Unfortunately they don't work in tandem. People tested a few Sigma lenses that came on Sony mount and retained the OS functionality.
The tests show that activating just the lens IS or just the body IS resulted in approximately the same amount of stabilization.
However activating both at the same time resulted in more blurred photos as neither system is aware of the other and work independently.
Mssimo: Sensor that is in the SD1? The only way to screw this up is to make it 3,299 bucks (matching the price of the D800)
Sigma; Grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.
My kind regards to the late president of sigma.
Well they slashed the SD1 price to $2299 so there is every possibility that these two cameras will be priced sensibly. :)
Joseph: To bad they have not announced a release date...
Hmm. I must have been drinking when I added the Sigma part ! :P I dunno why I wrote that. Yes I wholeheartedly agree with your post.
The Canon 70-200mm f4 IS is an optic launched in 2006 and its extremely sharp right from wide open @f4 till around f16.
Considering that a) This is a brand new optic and b) Tokina is known for quality optics unlike Sigma, I would wager this lens will be interesting to a lot of people looking for a high quality short zoom that is sharp throughout its focal range.
caramelised: I'm a Nikon user and am looking hard for a 70-200mm option.If disregarding price I can either have the original VR version or the VRII version (I have doubts about the Sigma 70-200mm OS's optical quality).
If this turns out be as good as the Canon 70-200mm f/4... then I have another option on my short list.
The 80-200mm is not a replacement for a 70-200mm f4 IMO. I have a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 which is approximately the same weight and size as the Nikon and I leave it at home for a few shoots since its so damm big and heavy. A 70-200mm f4 class zoom is around 700 gms and much smaller dimensions while something like the 80-200mm weighs almost 100% more at 1.3 kg.
Personally ill take the extra f stop over the weight issue but a lot of other people would want something lighter like a sharp image stabilized 70-200mm f4 zoom.
F. Kamphues: Nikon photographers have been waiting a long time for a relatively light weight 70-200. Tokina is known for its excellent optics and build quality. For 600 Euro they can take my order now.
IMO 600 EUR/$800 is the correct price for this lens to sell well.
Not something ill want or need but the high demand for the Canon 70-200mm f4 tells me that this lens could sell very well if priced correctly and if Nikon/Sony/Pentax don't wake up and realize they need a lens like this ASAP ! :P
mark25: how about this:
Nikon has announced its pricing for the D4 high-end camera. The price will be $5,999 for the body and $119-$9,999 for the lenses, meaning you can expect it to create around a $10,000 dent in your pocket if you want to be able to take pictures with it.
does this give a good idea of how much you'll need to scrape together....????
it is very sad and strange on dpreview's part to make the price look frightening by using unnecessary 'dent in the pocket' and 'how much you'll need to scrape together' phrases.... and after reading the people's response in the comments section, it looks as if they have lured many prospective buyers away...
as much as i like dpreview, this particular 'style' of price announcement from them is, in my opinion, something to which i strongly object, especially keeping in mind that those are MSRP prices...
Ill have to agree with you. When I first saw the title I assumed straight away that they hiked up the price from $1699 to $2300. So I got a little confused seeing the price of the body still $1699.
Nobody planning on getting this camera is going to plonk down so much $$$ without checking the final pricing with the kit lens.