Juck: A slow, manual focus 300mm mirror lens? That on anyone's shopping list?
the da* 16-50 is ridiculously soft at 16mm.
Olympus, Sony, Fuji, Nikon: this is your cue to launch a full frame mirrorless Leica killer!
Mike99999: Rather than this lens I'd have DX 18mm f/1.4 and 24mm f/1.4 brothers for the 30mm f/1.4.
I guess in a way this lens is a lot like the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8: very narrow range but replaces a number of non-existant primes. I wonder if the price will be similar to the 11-16 as well.
The 20mm f/1.8 from Sigma is too soft, too dark, and too big for APS-C. What I'm talking about is f/1.4 primes for APS-C, just like the 30mm f/1.4, just wider.
Besides, for those who have tried it: the difference in bokeh between the excellent Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 on DX, and the 24-70mm f/2.8 on FX, is very very faint.
At the wide end there is a slight difference in amount of OOF blur, while at the long end the difference is negligible (due to the DX lens being slightly longer at 85mm equivalent).
Rather than this lens I'd have DX 18mm f/1.4 and 24mm f/1.4 brothers for the 30mm f/1.4.
RichRMA: $1000 and you can't change the lens. Why would anyone considering spending that kind of money (or less even) give up that ability? Don't say "pocketability" because an Olympus E-PM2 (has OM-D sensor) with a Panasonic 14mm pancake will kick the c--- out of this Nikon and be able to change lenses, for FAR less money.
The OM-D sensor is equal to the D7000 sensor.
A smart man chooses the micro four thirds with 20mm f/1.7. Even if you never want to change lenses, you will have the ability to upgrade the body in the future without paying for a new lens.
007peter: * WOW * color me impressed. I admit that I make fun of EOS-M, but this lens, alone is making me reconsider my opinions about EOS-M
1. AF Speed isn't critical when it shoot WIDE ANGLE landscape. Unlike telephoto, your subject will be stationary buildings instead of a moving person. 11-22mm STM strengthen the argument for EOS-M.
2. Massive Price drop from $799 to around $400 + 22mm STM kit makes it hard to resist.
I can buy a single Panasonic 20mm/1.7 lens for my M43, but it would cost me around $350. Yet, for just $75 ~ $100 more, I can pickup an EOS-M + 22mm STM lens.
When I had my Canon DSLR, I refuse to buy the 10-22mm because it doesn't have an IS. Now that canon has one with IS....and in such a tiny package..... I'm really excited about this lens.
EOS-M + 11-22mm STM would make a great single traveling lens. It may be the only lens I need for traveling.
If you are ok with f/5.6 zooms, you should just pick up a Sony RX-100.
This lens is crazy slow.
Primes are the way to go for mirrorless systems: Olympus 12mm f/2 is the wide angle of choice.
maxola67: "Pentax cameras are great, but Pentax as system seriously lacks lenses. Beside several excellent primes (which still do not cover the whole range), there is literally no good zooms for the system."For Pentax-K there are about 80 different lenses in the current production line.Isn't it enough?I've got DA*16-50 and 55-300 and those are very good lenses.Why to propagate info trash?!
The 16-50 is miserable. I've owned it, it's not a good lens.
JMichaelsPhoto: The reason I've only ever purchased one olympus and will never again was the fact that I paid so much money for the E-P1 when it first came out, like $900, and in 6 months the E-P2 was announced for $600. And again, a new PEN digital is now exorbitantly expensive as the first and there's absolutely no reason for most people, even those interested in mirrorless cameras, to buy one. It's not the prettiest, it's not even the most advanced. I honestly do not understand this company, or why they believe people will just run out and buy their cameras when there are much better options out there. You're either a m4/3 fanboy and will stand behind any piece of crap that olympus makes, or you're an enthusiast who already has a bunch of cameras and for me, I've got no incentive to buy this camera. I've got an E-P1 already and replacing it for $1300 isn't an option for me. I use my Nikon D7000 more anyway.
Never buy the latest & greatest camera bodies, from any brand.
I paid $250 for my PEN E-P2 after the E-P3 came out. The camera works just fine with good IQ.
Nikon is dumping perfectly awesome D90 bodies for $500.
It's just a matter of months until the E-P5 and E-M5 are half the price of what they are now. So until then your photos have 1 stop more grain, who cares.
Carlos AF Costa: Full Frame? No? Ok, thank you, but no!
Recently, there was a statistic published that showed that 99% of the top shots by photojournalists were shot on f/2.8 zooms.
A f/1.4 prime on micro four thirds will do the same or better than a f/2.8 zoom on FF.
You lose the flexibility of a zoom, but the gain in compactness is tremendous. There is definitely place for MFT where size is of importance.
Old Ed: Has anyone else noticed that there is STILL no "portrait prime" for DX, THIRTEEN YEARS into the format??? Please forgive me if I don't get excited that one has been announced for the "m43 wannabe" format.
There's a 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.4. What else do you need?
fdfgdfgdgf: the 4/3 format will die as the sony NEX/eos-m has similar wight with much better IQ.
Not sure the market positioning of the gh3 as cameras such as Nikon d5200 has the same wight and better performance characteristics
canon ceo said here that APSC is the way to go and the tiny combo of eos-m +lower wight of the prime are a better deal then any 4/3 toy. but 4/3 has important role to trigger more development of an apsc milc
Nope, you are wrong. There are no small APS-C lenses, therefore MFT will always win.
Try putting *any* tele lens on an APS-C mirrorless. It's nonsense.
FF bodies were the perfect balance with manual focus FF lenses.APS-C bodies are the perfect balance with APS-C AF lenses.MFT & Nikon 1 bodies are the perfect balance with tiny MFT/1 lenses.
I like the idea, but not from Canon.
The sensor is terrible, a lousy 1.6x crop and there are no EF-S primes for this thing.
///M: note to Canon, make the lenses smaller!
Canon will never commit to EF-S glass.
DaNPrS: I don't see the market for this.
People upgrading from point-and-shoot always look at size first.
petepictures: That's quite a but overstatement. Olympus had smaller bodies for years.
Canon also doesn't use a proper APS-C sensor. The Canon is 1.6x crop, Olympus is 1.9x crop. Big deal.
Photato: Without mini lenses is kind of pointless the effort to make it small.Would have been nice to have a 22mm pancake to go with this, like the EOS-M has.The only really small lens, the 40mm pancake, doesn't cut it for the EF-S bodies like this one for general photography.
Too bad Canon decided to remain stagnant with the sensor. I was expecting them to start moving towards larger pixels.
A Nikon version of this would be nice though combined with a 35mm f/1.8.
itsastickup: I'm seriously not understanding why people are comparing this APS-C camera to m4/3.
m4/3 still has serious bokeh issues: too much depth of field even with large apertures. Unless you go off-piste, you can't get a normal lens with any kind of decent ability to obliterate the background. And no, I don't want t a Nokton 25/.95, or whatever it's called. APS-C isn;t as great as FF of course, but it's still workable.
You also don't get Canon's bokeh king zooms. I looked at other systems and either they have not enough OOF bokeh or like Sony and Nikon they have have poor bokeh zooms.
There is no system out there that does what Canon APS-C cameras do.
Of course, if you don't care for such a thing as very limited bokeh then it's a non-issue, but it's still an issue for the rest of us and so it's not correct to directly compare this system to m4/3. There is no direct comparison (yet).
You don't seem to know what you're talking about.
12mm f/2, 17mm f/1.8, 20mm f/1.7 produce more OOF bokeh than any equivalent lens you can put on an APS-C Nikon or Canon. Canon APS-C is terrible. There's no decent lenses on the wide end at all. On the long end any system will produce decent bokeh. Go educate yourself.
Henrik Herranen: Suggestions to DPreview:1) You really should add sensor size on the highlight features of every camera (in mm x mm). And put it first, or at least amont the megapixel line. In my opinion sensor size is even more important than the number of megapixels because it will ultimately set an absolute upper limit for image quality.2) Another suggestion would be to also put the equivalent maximum aperture along with the equivalent focal length. To those who can read such equivalence numbers the equivalent aperture will tell the total light capturing capability of the system (over the whole sensor) as well as absolute diffraction limitations (again over the whole sensor).Kind regards,- Henrik