AshMills

Presumably a re-housed Tamron 17-28? If so that is a great bit of kit. (despite the lack of AF switch on that either)

Pretty sure my eyesight isn't good enough to warrant 6K at 32" across.

Is this to stop Getty Images or similar owning them all, planting watermarks on them and charging us to see them?

Should we just copy and paste our replies to to people saying "why would you buy a cheap lens for an expensive camera?"

Just add a cheap Emount to m43 adapter, where (despite what he says) it will remain a 35mm f0.95 lens.

What is the "best" 35mm F0.95 for APSC?

Because the more you spend the better photos you take? This is for APS-C cameras, seems like a useful too to me.

Are these more "mass produced" than Canon/Nikon/Sony lenses?

Thanks Don, not trying to devalue your expertise at all, I was coming at it from different, more coal-face approach as someone who used to use m43 sensors professionally for years. I doff my hat to...

Did you use the RAW files, and steer well away from the default detail/NR settings which are terrible through Adobe. With proper settings they look fine to me.

Maybe Reportage does not need more pixels?

Nice pairing this with the 35-150 for events/weddings perhaps.

@Roland Karlsson - can I take issue with your comment that f1.0 lenses are or were commonplace in filmmaking, especially in 1973?

@Techtalk2 All my cameras use Arca-Swiss plates or cages with mounts, and they are all side-side mount. When I do accurate panos I add a calibrated slider with fixed 90 degree clamp. This I use...

@TechTalk2 - you have made clear your respect for the brand etc, and I have no doubt that this new head is a well-made and useful part of a kit, but the fact that you would need to add various bits...

It won't give you perfect panoramas unless you are able to move the camera to a point where it rotates around the nodal point of the lens, which is variable with the lens, so you really need a...

I have excellent 17-28 but I still want this.

So you would like a 28-200 2.8 that is smaller and lighter than a 70-200 2.8?

Rather lovely look. I am interested in light loss?

Bridge is not really free, as you need adobe software subscription for another of their products to use it.