I think this is a legitimate point, but it's kind of ancillary. DSLRs from the boom period were no less intimidating or complex, and people bought them by the truck load, for the simple fact that DSLRs were the only way to get decent IQ out of a digital camera, and everyone was a lot more flush with cash. Now a smartphone is a necessity that costs like $1000-1500 a year, and on top of that people are in worse economic shape. People are holding on to cars longer, young people are holding off on moving out and buying homes, the list goes on and on.
Lot of threads here talk about "needs"... unless you are a professional photographer there's pretty much nothing more trivial or unnecessary than a stand alone camera. They are 100% luxuries, and they are luxuries most people never could, can't and probably never will be able to justify or afford. We are getting back to the old normal.
Sir Nick of High Point: Just an FYI for those who may not know. The reason that this lens needs BR Optic technology, as well as being so big and expensive, is because it is an SLR lens, which puts it at a disadvantage for anything less than 50mm.
The reason is due to the space behind the lens, which is required for the mirror.
If you want to shoot this focal length and don't need a an SLR, you would probably be better off picking up the EOS M3 and the 22mm f/2, which will not suffer from any of these problems. Not trying to diss this lens or step on any toes. I'm just trying to be helpful.
The 22/2 is literally over 2 stops slower than the 35/1.4
And the EOS M3's AF is so-so. Also requires a separate viewfinder, which can't be used in conjuction with flash. The two systems share nothing more than a field of view in common.
Getting warmer Canon but still pretty arctic. Hopefully the M4 will come with a built in EVF and an even remotely competitive price tag. Still, I will watch for the sales on this.... this with the tack on EVF, the 11-22 and the 22/2 would be a monster kit, and I will bet the body price will be down in the $300s by Xmas :)
Next stop: MF MILC!!
These specs look promising!
Is there any processing on this? This shot is incredible.
OMG SO SEXY
LOOK AT THOSE BARCODES!!!!!!!
ProfHankD: To me, the one obvious lesson here is that at 50MP FF, even 11mm @ f/5.6 has quite limited depth of field. I can't imagine anyone consistently nailing focus using manual focus with an OVF at 50MP. This will be a challenge even for focus peaking and magnified live view....
Lol, the differences in-focus/out of focus that show up on higher pixel counts is the depth of field I am talking about. With a higher resolution sensor the depth of field of the subject that is in focus is smaller. In your example if you call having 1/3 the depth of field a "slight difference" then we just have a difference of opinion. But that is a clear backtrack from pretty much everything you have claimed in this exchange so I will take it.
Depth of field is dependent on the circle of confusion. For digital cameras the circle of confusion is dependent on the pixel size/sensor resolution. For the eighth time, Google it. What you are essentially saying is that high resolution sensors are just as easy to focus as low resolution sensors, and that's simply not true.
That's not true. Pixel pitch/MP count affects depth of field too... i.e. the higher the MPs/smaller the pixel pitch, the smaller the depth of field for a given focal length/f-stop/focal distance. So no, 300' is not past the infinity point of that lens all the time, because the infinity point changes based on how many MP the sensor behind the lens has.
And even for a 5DIII 300' is not the infinity point for that lens. Seriously, do some reading on DoF and go play with a calculator. You just might learn something
It is not past infinity. The DoF for that FL/f-stop/focal distance and a camera with the 5DS' pixel pitch (I used the 7D) is 75 feet.
You should learn about DoF before trying to discuss it.
Glad they finally made a 24.... but it's too big and expensive for DX use. I'm still holding out for 16mm and 24mm companions to the awesome 35mm DX 1.8. But it's clear Nikon is following the money. All these 1.8 primes together will cost like $3000... way out of th reach of a DX shooter and kind of ridiculous IMO. But I'm not in charge....
How is the dynamic range....
All the studio pics look a little out of focus.......
Wedding photographer: DPreview, you are reviewing F0.95 lens, the main feature of this lens is ultra wide aperture 0,95.and people spending their dollars for this kind of products primarily for this feature.And they are ready to use heavy lens with manual focus primarily for this feature.
1) How much 0,95 images this sample gallery has?2) How much Examples of bokeh with F0,95 - only one ?3) Where Portraits of people with shallow depth of field?
Why your short on F8? it can be done with cheaper autofocus/kit lenses with similar quality and without visible differences.
How much is the fish?
I would hope at $1100 this would be better than a kit zoom at 10.5mm@F/8. Pictures at stopped down f stops would help show this thing's value at other f-stops.
Henrik Herranen: "The lens is neither especially small nor light, though for the specification it is a good deal more compact than a similar lens for a full-frame or even APS-C system."
Hmmh... 10.5mm f/0.95 lets in as much total light and has the same DoF as a FF 21mm f/1.9 lens. Canon's EF 24/1.4L II is both lighter and shorter, and lets in more than double the amount of total light. So what are the "similar lenses" that is won by this lens being "a good deal more compact"?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Voigtlander isn't a useful lens. But I do believe that this article begins with an incorrect statement.
No, Androle said both field of view and aperture diameter determine the amount of light hitting the sensor. How much light can you gather from a sliver of a scene? Doesn't matter how big your aperture diameter is when you are zoomed in super far.
Good call out.
Physics are physics. It seems smaller format lenses at best maintain weight and size parity with larger lenses of the same max aperture diameter and field of view.... but they almost always cost more. Samyang 24/1.4 FF manual focus lens costs $350-500 new and is one of the best 24s out there.
Oh Nikon. Another month another recall.
sportyaccordy: They should have
- updated the 17-50 2.8 with VR and weight reducing tech- made this F/4 through the FL range and made it cheaper
or my favorite
- used these resources to make some wide fast DX primes. No way am I gonna pay $700 for an FX prime to use on a DX body when the 35 1.8 DX is $200. They need an 11 2.8, 16 2.0 and 24 1.8 in DX to go with that.
Sorry, I meant on the long end and through the range. I could see this being a big deal years ago when shooting past ISO1600 was iffy but 1 stop is hardly worth paying a 2-3x premium for. 2 stops maybe.
Opening to F/2.8 on the wide end requires additional + better elements to control aberrations, vignetting yadda yadda. That is why this lens is smaller + lighter + cheaper than the 17-50/2.8
F/4 to F/2.8 is only one stop. And that would make the lens smaller and cheaper.