AdamT: Ripping off the UK as usual . Tax is only a fraction of the difference the rate is 1.56 Dollars to the Pound - that means the lens should be £512 + Tax + Import duty , about £650 not £800 Greedy Barstards
As the article takes the trouble to remind us, the UK price will settle further than the US price, bringing them even closer together.
When I was thinking about buying a 120-300 OS a few months ago, the UK price was significantly lower than the US price.
Mirror lens for mirrorless cameras? So they won't be mirrorless any more...
donaldxr: Just remember one thing: It's a phone. The camera is just an extra feature.
It's actually a powerful computer with phone and camera peripherals built in.
Pat Cullinan Jr: Richard,
For your sake please consult with a large-format pro or other grizzled adept about "the greater low-light ability that a larger sensor would otherwise give."
Len speed remains constant.
All the best,
It's hard not to get very exasperated with yet another post from yet another "grizzled adept" who doesn't understand the effect of changing sensor size.
Richard and Joe are both right.
If those samples had no lens corrections applied (as the article says) then they are remarkably free of CA for a fast lens. Very impressive.
I was toying with the idea of replacing my 30/1.4 with Sigma's 35/1.4, but this could be a better option as I have no plans to switch to full frame and f/1.8 is fast enough for me.
Steve Balcombe: Touit? Is that pronounced twit, or twee?
I'm not just having a cheap laugh at Zeiss's expense here, this is a genuine issue - do they not employ English-speaking international marketing people??
@AbrasiveReducer - " And "poison" in German is "gift"."
I once had the pleasure of explaining to a customer that his product, called xxxxxx Mist in English, needed another name for the German market. Google translate: http://translate.google.com/#de/en/mist
@klopus - "Steve, Zeiss is proudly and historically German company. Why should they name their lenses so that it is convenient for Americans?"
I'm not talking about what is convenient for anybody, I'm talking about the unbelievable stupidity of calling a product "twit". Maybe you don't know, it means idiot. I would have expected better of Zeiss's marketing department.
Touit? Is that pronounced twit, or twee?
I can just imagine the dpreview editors smiling to one another as they anticipated the cries of "what does this have to do with photography?" :-)
Overall I'm in favour. I think many of the objections are just a 'shock' reaction which will dissipate pretty quickly as people get used to the new look and work out how to use it.
BUT - I think they've made one hideous mistake, which is that we can no longer browse photographs with the data on the right. Sure we want the best possible view of the photographs (which was already possible using the Lightbox) but sometimes the data is part of what you want to browse and now you have to actively scroll down to see it. Imagine doing that dozens or hundreds of times...
Also in the views where we have screenfuls of justified images, I'd like the option to choose much smaller images.
One final thought - I have fibre broadband so it's all very slick, but I wonder what this is like to use on a slower connection???
This is a daft argument and always has been. If an image is used to tell a lie, it doesn't matter whether that was achieved by digital manipulation, directing a scene, using a biased selection of images, or whatever. A lie is a lie and the tools used are irrelevant.
Neither of the above examples tells a lie, so there's nothing to object to.
"... you don't need a valid license or Internet connection to uninstall the software." - Winston Hendrickson, VP of Creative Solutions, Adobe Systems, Inc.
Whooopsy - the graphic at the top calls this the 18-35mm f/1.8 DG. Should be DC of course.
I subscribe to Wired, it contains some fascinating stuff and people who have succeeded despite (or by) flouting convention are a favourite topic. But this is just tosh. "Studio lighting"?? Is he kidding?
These are some of the most poorly executed and pointless street photographs I have ever seen.
Spectro: If this was under 2k, I would be all over this lens. Sigma has been really impressive, hope the qc improve. Got 2 sigma, got some af issues sometimes.
The currently model is easily bought for £1600 in the UK, and when you bear in mind that includes 20% VAT it probably does equate to about $2k. I don't know why the actual US price is so much higher.
No doubt the new version will be more expensive for a few months though, especially if they are in short supply.
ScottD1964: It's actually not an overly large lens. Bout the same size as a 300 f2.8 prime. 6lbs give or take. Not super heavy but not light enough that I wouldn't use a monopod. I have the current version and love it. This one should be even better.
The current model is actually quite a bit heavier than the Canon EF300/2.8L MkII - 2950 g vs 2400 g - and there's no mention of a weight reduction in the press release. My arms ache after an hour of hand-holding the 300/2.8 so the extra 23% would be significant to me.
'There is a defense to lawsuits called "laches", meaning that the owner of rights has slept on his/her rights too long and therefore lost them'.
Sounds similar in spirit to a property law here in the UK, which says that if an owner has knowingly allowed someone to occupy land for more than (I think) 15 years without a tenancy, the occupier owns the land. I fell foul of that when I tried to remove someone from a property I owned and received legal advice that I would never succeed because the previous owner had done nothing about it over a period of 20 or 30 years.
Pity the comments section has been swamped by an irrelevant discussion.
But regarding the technique itself, I'm sorry but using the gradient tool is poor advice. You can just about get away with it in this particular case because there is a conveniently detail-free straight band just above roof height in both images, but in general you won't have this. The wiser and more versatile technique would be to marquee or lassoo the area to be revealed and refine the selection to create a soft edge before filling the selection with black/white as applicable. Or in many cases it's quick and convenient to select first then create the layer mask from the selection. You can then fine-tune by painting with a soft brush, or whatever suits, directly onto the layer mask.
There are applications for using gradients on layer masks, but this isn't one of them.
Here's a kind of similar story with a different outcome:
Be sure to look at the Humans of New York blog as well:http://www.humansofnewyork.com/
That's good stuff. I'm not a big mobile user but this will be great for the occasional boring train journey.