Sean65: No sigma 35mm?
These votes are nonsense. You can't reveal the results unless you vote which mean you have to vote for products you're not even familiar with in order to see the outcome which is kind of skewing the result.
Why don't they just say what did you buy this year?
The Sigma 35mm was announced in 2012. This poll is for lenses announced in 2013.
DigitalWalnut: No Sigma 120-300mm Sport?
The Sigma 120-300mm Sport was announced in 2012. This poll is for lenses announced in 2013.
coso dp: No EOS M with its super attractive price and image quality? Come on
The EOS M was announced last year, and is therefore ineligible for this poll.
mpgxsvcd: Why IS in a super wide telephoto lens?
For use in any situation where you might want to use shutter speeds slower than you can comfortably hand-hold. With wideangles, this might include:
1) Shooting interiors of buildings
2) Shooting landscapes in fading light
3) Using slow shutter speeds to add motion blur, e.g. to water
Of course it's useful if you shoot video hand-held.
Albino_BlacMan: The 24-105mm should be compared to the Nikon 24-120. The Canon lens is pretty well respected. The Nikon lens seems to bring a little more controversy so that's probably where the Sigma will steal sales from
We'll aim to compare to the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 when the Nikon-mount version of the Sigma becomes available.
Jogger: Exactly how large is the market of hipsters with FF DSLRs?
Almost exactly the same size as the market for the Nikon Df... (*ducks and runs*)
jaygeephoto: Just need a little help understanding this system; this is an APS-C camera?So the 23mm would give an angle of view of a 28mm or 35mm lens? - compared to that of a full frame (24X36) camera. Sorry in advanced for my lack of knowledge on this.
It's an APS-C system with a 1.5x crop, so this 23mm lens has the same angle of view as a 35mm on full frame.
webrunner5: Is it just me but I don't see even one picture in the samples that are REALLY in focus and none that have what I call PoP.
It's probably just you. What exactly do you mean by 'PoP'?
Mike99999: I don't understand why everyone is raving about this lens. Judging from the sample pictures the rendering is awful. I *strongly* prefer the images I'm seeing from the Panasonic 20/1.7, the underrated Olympus 17/1.8 and from the new Sony Zeiss FE 35/2.8.
Seems like a repeat of the highly overrated Fuji 35/1.4 which is basically a rebadged Sigma 30/1.4 which nobody wants to admit. Behind the scenes Sigma is an OEM for many major brands, and Fuji is definitely one of them.
So ignoring, for the moment, that the XF 35mm F1.4 R has absolutely nothing in common with either version of the Sigma 30mm F1.4, which lens do you imagine the 23mm might be based on?
manulvu: Could you verify the exif data once again, please..
The EXIF data is correct
DocDerm: Photographer: Is this a JPEG or RAW? Fuji is said to have excellent JPEG's, is this one of them? Thanks!DocDerm.
All the samples in this gallery are JPEGs straight out of the camera.
Pat Cullinan Jr: May I offer the suggestion that a greater proportion of sample photos be taken in full daylight?
You may. However at this time of year in London and Seattle, I'm afraid that can be easier said than done.
YouDidntDidYou: @dpreviewhas dpreview always used exposure compensation to correct the camera's metering in "real world" samples or was it introduced/only for the nikon df???
We frequently use exposure compensation to adjust the camera's metering (and have done for years).
makofoto: So from reading the review and seeing the sample shots @ 100% I now wish they had produced a smaller/lighter 23 mm F2.0 ... oh well
That lens is on the front of the X100S.
KL Matt: It must have been quite a challenge to take so many photographs with an f/1.4 lens and reveal so little about its out-of-focus rendering. Was that the aim here? Make certain every last bit of the image was sharp from corner to corner? Besides the one flower shot and maybe the whiskey cellar to a small extent, I don't have much more of an impression of how this lens renders than I did before. But yes, it does indeed appear to produce sharp images. :-/
It's a 35mm-equivalent semi-wideangle, so it's barely a challenge at all to shoot wide open and not get much of the image out of focus. Because of this, F1.4 wideangles are arguably more useful for keeping ISOs low in low light, than they are for shooting with the aim of getting blurred backgrounds. The gallery simply reflects this.
Craig Atkinson: it's a fine lens - I find at f.4, the x100s is sharper but at f.2 the 23mm if miles ahead. Shame there's no way of adding an auto ND kind of like the x100s but more like the Ricoh GR.
The softness of the 23mm F2 on the X100(S) wide open is due to an increase in spherical aberration at closer subject distances - this isn't actually all that unusual. The 23mm F2 is distinctly sharper at close range, but it does develop quite visible barrel distortion.
inorogNL: how does it compare to Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4?
Optically, it's at least as good. But it serves a rather different role - it's a 35mm equivalent moderate wide angle, rather than a 50mm equivalent normal lens. The closest Micro Four Thirds lens is the [Olympus 17mm F1.8](http://www.dpreview.com/products/olympus/lenses/olympus_m_17_1p8).
groucher: Good review but please DPR stop referring to this camera as an 'underwater camera'. It is far more than that. Anyone with an interest in outdoor activities from caving to mountaineering and everything in between could be interested in this camera whilst 60 fps makes it the ideal camera for ball game photography and birding, particularly in the soggy UK. Wish I had one to photograph today's storm.
The AW1 desperately needs a viewfinder though. Using a rear display in harsh conditions is difficult.
@groucher: I'm not sure I understand your objection. Most of the time we refer to the AW 1 as a 'rugged' camera, and only occasionally use the word 'underwater' (even then, only with specific reference to taking the camera underwater). We don't at any point imply it can *only* be used underwater, either.