1) This lens should have been released together with the original D7000 back in 2010. The timing of this lens is baffling. First they kill DX by not releasing lenses and forcing everyone to m43 or full frame, then they release DX lenses. Great.
2) IQ is poor. The 17-55/2.8 is significantly better but has no size/weight advantage over full frame and lacks VR.
I guess everyone is better off with the Sigma 24-105 and a cheap full frame body.
If I were still a Nikon DX user, I'd be all over this lens right now. It is the perfect zoom for DX users. Unfortunately it came 5 years late, and I sold my Nikon gear 3 years ago due to lack of native, light-weight lenses.
The 17-55/2.8 was too heavy, the lack of 16 and 24mm primes unbearable.
Jim Evidon: Leica is steadily breaking away from Panasonic for their small camera line. They are going for very high quality cameras to satisfy every need; from completely manual M's to automatic fixed prime lens Q's. I'll stick with my M9P with a Fuji X100 backup for now, but the Q looks like an ideal small street shooter/travelcamera as long as price is no object. This camera is getting back to the original Barnack concept; a small carry around camera with few complications. Keep it up!
What are you talking about? I'd bet good money that this camera/lens is a Pansonic design for "testing the water" just like the RX1 was for Sony. The f/1.7 aperture gives it all away.
It wouldn't surprise me if this camera forms the basis for Panasonic's new full frame mirrorless line. Most likely Panasonic is hoping for a Panasonic/Leica partnership similar to the Sony A7 with Zeiss Loxia and Batis lenses.
Looks 100% Panasonic to me. They just glue the Panaleica lens on in Germany and call it "made in Germany".
What I would like to see is an IQ comparison to cheap A7 + cheap 28/2.
King Penguin: So this Fisheye is larger and heavier than my FULL FRAME Nikkor 16mm AF 2.8D......mmmmm, the benefits of M43....LOL.
Sorry M43 guys, but facts are facts!
Fri13 you don't know what you're talking about.
Sergey Borachev: These prices just ensure that most people continue to go to M43. I really doubt how much better quality, if any, you can get out of this Zeiss 16-50mm than the smaller, lighter and much cheaper Panasonic 12-35mm or Olympus 12-40mm
Yeah, thanks, I can stop looking at Sony cameras from now on, since they are still making good quality lenses only at such prices. So long!
@Sergey, these full frame f/2.8 lenses have the background separation if a f/1.4 lens on M43. Imagine you could throw away all of your M43 primes in favor of just one full frame ZEISS zoom. That's why professionals spend this amount of money on these lenses.
Is DP Review going to try to explain the discrepancy between its studio test results and DxO Mark?
Canon informercial from a site sponsored by Canon. No surprises here...
This camera is a RX10-clone disguised to look like something better. The RX-10 has a target audience, but for 4K use I don't see why anyone would choose this Canon over the flexibility of a GH4.
Great for videographers, otherwise I don't see the point of large lenses on m43.
ccclai: Equivalent to F2.8 in full frame?
@Michael L NYC 99: and a full frame sensor allows for faster shutter speeds because you can use higher noise-free ISOs. This is a circular argument.
RubberDials: The review reads like it was written by a Nikon D750 owner and manages to skilfully bury almost all that's good about the A7ii under faint praise and exaggerated weaknesses.
What's funny is no one considering buying the A7ii is going to buy a D750 instead. A7ii buyers are trying to get away from cameras like that.
And if you want to compare them properly the D750 doesn't come off that well at all. Not surprising considering the A7ii is a higher-specced camera. It has a faster shutter, faster flash sync, twice raw buffer size, higher video bit-rate, focus peaking and IBIS as well as all the advantages of a mirrorless.
And where the D750 outperforms the A7ii at high ISO you fail to mention the contribution of the IBIS which you found conferred '2-3.3 stops of 'hand-hold-ability', so any high-ISO advantage is essentially eliminated.
Also the D750 can't shoot any wider than f1.2 either whereas the Sony has a range below f1. It can even shoot the rangefinder only Nikon 35mm f0.95. :)
"Funny because this comment reads like it was written by a Sony fanboy!" - Barney Britton
This reply from an editor lacks class and perfectly illustrates the level DPR has sunk to.
There's something you reviewers are not getting, and that is the target market.
People buy their initial Nikon DX or Canon Rebel. They like the size. But then they learn there's barely any upgrade path. There's only a handful of lenses and most of them suck. Nikon and Canon force them towards a big and heavy full frame DSLR, nothing to do with the original camera size they fell in love with.
That's why the Olympus OM-D and Fuji X-T1 are so popular. You still have a crop sensor, but at least you get a fantastic lens selection.
And now Sony has their own "full frame OMD". And let me tell you this. The A7 II despite its added bulk is still smaller and lighter than my original D5000, my first camera and the camera that made me fall in love with photography. You get full frame performance in a DX-sized package. It is fantastic for most of us.
This is why the A7 series are so successful as well. So many people frustrated with the Canon/Nikon upgrade path now have another great option.
If it had a built-in EVF, I might have been interested. For now, the GM5 does the same but better. And with a better lens selection.
E.J.: Very misleading size comparison. the REAL size difference without making one look much bigger by hanging a bigger lens off of it to mislead the viewer, is not so much of a difference at all. Once you put the same lens on them, which extend past the grip anyway, the difference is essentially insignificant.
@Dan Bracaglia: and I disagree with you. It feels larger due to the larger grip, which is welcome because the old grip was a pain to hold.
If you place both bodies together and look from the bottom you'll see the difference in depth is marginal at best.
The biggest difference is the heft. It is a lot heavier. But at least the wobble mount is gone now.
Here's to hoping the mark III will shave off those 100 grams and bring back the nice dials.
fatdeeman: I can see that the high ISO performance is TECHNICALLY not class leading but I like the way it looks in the sample photos. I found the same thing with images taken with the RX1, the noise has a film like quality to it.
Good sample shots like that remind me that noise is as much of a problem as you let it be. It can be used creatively and will rarely hinder a great photo.
Yes! I find that the optimizations Nikon applies are resulting in a more digital look, despite higher DxO ratings.
I see a similar thing between Olympus and Panasonic, despite identical sensors I find recent Panasonics to look more organic.
Photomino: a silver award for the most advanced mirrorless camera ever made....
@Dan Bracaglia: Nikon D750 uses the same yesterday's sensor and does get a gold award.
naththo: Still struggle to catch up with Nikon again. Nikon still ahead of it!
Whatever people say. In DPR's own studio comparison tool the A7 II looks much better than the D610.
Tonio Loewald: The ISO 2000 shots look awful. For comparison I looked for another recently reviewed camera's sample shots and tried the OM-D EM-5II — which looks better at ISO6400 than the Samsung does at 2000 (and with a smaller sensor).
It's impressive that Samsung is building out its own camera platform from top-to-bottom (sensors, bodies, lenses) — something only Canon and Sony really match — but at least for now they seem to continue to be lagging Sony in sensor tech. (The OM-D is using a Sony sensor AFAIK.)
Olympus is not using the same sensor over and over again. E-M5 and E-P5 use a Sony sensor. EM-1 and EM-5ii use a newer Panasonic sensor.
This newer sensor scores worse on DxO, but is significantly better in real-world use. I would not doubt for a second that this Panasonic sensor is better than the APS-C Samsung.
Lassoni: I'm not really sure I understand how the optics are made, but I get the impression that good resolution lens = heavy (zeiss, sigma) .. so if one wants to get good image quality/high resolution from a lens (better than nikon 50 1.4 or 1.8) , wouldn't it be possible to limit the maximum aperture of a "high resolution" lens to 2.8 ?? This way you could have a lens that weight same as a "lightweight 50", but have notoriously better resolution (for increasingly demanding sensors) ?
Doesn't the lens become a bit lighter when we sacrifice the need for it to be "wide aperture", and in turn become "heavier" when we demand it to have better image quality, and the two cancel each other out? Same weight, 2 stops slower, better image quality due to better optical design?.
As the Loxia lenses prove, you can still have a relatively fast aperture (f/2) and exceptional image quality.
I'd love some more f/2.8 primes from Sony, but I guess there is little market for f/2.8 lenses because most people want bigger, better, faster.
Aur: The way Carl Zeiss gets their MTF performance so high is through their lithography work with ASML. Those lenses need to be within 10 atoms of precision.
The failure of Nikon and Canon to allow carl Zeiss to use autofocus patents, is going to cost them dearly, you don't want Carl Zeiss on your bad side.
That MTF graph is ridiculous, it is literally off the chart, because it's so precise the chart would need to use a logarithmic scale to show any faults. There is nothing from Canon or Nikon that comes close.
The Zeiss-labeled autofocus Sony lenses are designed by Sony engineers and manufactured in Japan. For example the FE 55/1.8 was designed by Naoki Miyagawa.
Zeiss is just licensing the blue badge granted that the Sony-designed lenses meet some quality criteria. Very similar to Panasonic and Leica.
So this has nothing to do with Canon, Nikon and autofocus patents.