DPR: Assuming the following isn't already under consideration, might I suggest...
1. Testing the D4/s and see if this is a trend for the series. If so...2. Investigate whether there's a tradeoff between sacrificing dynamic range for unedited high ISO output.
Considering the target for these cameras is photojournalists and sports photographers, they're not likely to spend much time adjusting images after-the-fact, meaning the exposure they have is what they're going to turn into an editor, which is better than no photo at all. Nikon could be making a technical decision here, and that there's no real middle-ground between 'has insane high ISO' and 'has amazing dynamic range'.
JOrmsby: No OS, No interest here...
"It's borderline moronic to launch a 1.5kg tele lens without IS."
Yeah, about that...
Care to revise that statement?
PS: Those were only the first four lenses I could think of. There are more, I'm sure.
Edit: I forgot the most obvious example...
$26,000, 15.67kg, and no IS. Shocking.
Ruy Penalva: Without image stabilization with this focal length is not a good stuff.
Find me all the Canon and Nikon primes at the equivalent focal lengths that have image stabilization. Also, I'm sure the tripod foot is there for a reason...
halfwaythere: I'm just curious how many of the vocally enthusiastic people will actually buy this lens.
The cheaper and lighter 18-35/1.8 isn't actually that great of a seller.
Seems to me like Sigma is flooding the market with lenses that nobody ever asked for while ignoring the "usual suspects": 84/1.4, 135/2, 24-70/2.8 OS or an updated 70-200/2.8 OS.
Amazon sales charts are snapshots in time and not indicative of trends. It's a significant difference, and something I wish people who quote Amazon stats would learn and realize they mean almost literally nothing. Also, are you looking at all five variants of the 18-35mm, or just one single mount? Are you assuming Amazon is representative of the whole market?
Niche products can be lucrative if they don't cost a lot to make and sell well enough to justify their existence. Breaking even on cost to produce and resale is not a reason to not make it (see: Sigma's camera business). Niche ≠ poor seller. Niche = very specific audience, which may or may not be predisposed to buying this product.
Their Art primes are popular because they have a specific audience. They're a high quality value alternative to Nikon and Canon. As I pointed out earlier, the lack of IS means nothing when you consider the primes it replaces also lack IS (and there's a tripod foot, meaning they want you to use it).
"The cheaper and lighter 18-35/1.8 isn't actually that great of a seller."
"Seems to me like Sigma is flooding the market with lenses that nobody ever asked for while ignoring the 'usual suspects'."
I think their avoiding flooding the market with the 'usual suspects' and carving out a lucrative niche market for lenses they can produce without exceeding or lagging behind demand. (They're a small company in Japan, after all.) Sure, most of their existing Art series primes are competitive, but, on the whole, they're 'just another option'. Nothing else like the 18-35mm f/1.8 exists, and I'm willing to bet that it sells well enough to justify for it to be produced on an ongoing basis.
LF Photography: Sigma is quickly becoming the most exciting lens manufacturer of today. Every new lens released lately has been a revolutionary marvel of speed and sharpness, and all for an extremely competitive price. If the rumors are true, I can't wait to combine this 50-100mm f1.8 with the (soon to be mine) 18-35mm f1.8, both of which effectively make my Pentax K-3II with IBIS have less ISO noise than any FF DSLR with a f2.8 lens, at least wide open.It's a good time to use APS-C DSLR's!
Now if Sigma could only do something about the AF issues...
"Sigma is introducing the heaviest lenses on a market that is now demanding light stuff. This is again a good reason to buy mirorrless."
If that's true, Sony and Fuji are doing something terribly wrong with some of their lenses. The three Sony G Master lenses weigh about as much as their DSLR counterparts, and Fuji's 16-55mm, 50-140mm, and 100-400mm lenses, aren't exactly light.
mosc: So on Canon and Nikon, the 24-70 f2.8's are pretty close in price to the 70-200 f2.8's. Sigma's 18-35 f1.8 is $799, why would the 50-100 f1.8 be so much more money (reported $1500)? Seems like their price target is their own 18-35 f1.8 doesn't it? Maybe $999?
Canon 24-70: $1,800 70-200: $2,000Nikon 24-70: $1,800 ($2,400 stabilized) 70-200: $2,100Sigma 18-35: $800 50-100: ??
$1,500 seems high for an APS-C zoom. Even one that fast.
I might add that, when you consider the prime lenses this single zoom is replacing in either full frame terms (e.g. 85mm, 100mm or 105mm, and 135mm), or APS-C equivalent (50mm, 85mm, 100mm or 105mm), you're either breaking even at $1,500, or saving a fair bit of cash.
That is to say, if $1,500 is the real price, some would probably prefer to have the single lens.
Interesting that you mention the 'no OS', considering few competing primes at these focal lengths and equivalent apertures have OS, either.
Also, there's a monopod/tripod foot. Perhaps they're telling you something...
"[S]wapping batteries or powering up from a long period of inactivity results in a lengthy delay before the camera will even display an image, much less snap a photograph."
"[O]nce the buffer is filled, the camera will write to the card for anywhere from ~20 seconds (extra fine JPEG) to ~30 seconds (compressed RAW plus ultra fine JPEG). During this time, menu and playback modes are unavailable to the user."
These are problems with a number of Sony mirrorless cameras I've had my hands on, including the a6000 I own. While perhaps not deal breakers on their own, I must admit it's a number of inexplicable little things such as these that mar the experience of owning a Sony camera for me, and I'm hesitant in considering another for myself or suggesting them to others.
AbrasiveReducer: Canvas is heavy and cheap (at least to the manufacturer.) This bag is over 4 pounds, empty. Canvas tends to soak up water too, even when treated. The only upside is that it looks like you're roughing it. Those big metal hooks add weight as well, and there's no shoulder pad. Ballistic nylon may not look as cool but it's much lighter and the good stuff is practically waterproof. To each his own.
I have to agree with you regarding the use of materials and the weight. 4 pounds empty is nothing to sneeze at, and I'd gladly trade the admittedly cool looking canvas for something lighter that's weather resistant and just as durable. I understand character and looks carry a premium, but I'd never sacrifice functionality for form.
amblepath: To me the pros of this lens are
1. I get a 600 mm field of view with shutter speeds equivalent to an f4 lens. In a size that can easily be handheld.
2.From the review I read the image stabilization is amazing on Em-1 and Em-5II enabling hand held down to 1/15 of a second.
3. Also from the review this lens is razor sharp centre and corners and doesn't even suffer from diffraction until f12/f16 and then only slightly.
4. On a lens like this I would be happy to take the extra depth of field and view it as a definite plus. ( Whole bird or face in focus at f4. )
5. Very high quality build.
6. Good for Macro work. (I don't understand Richard's comment as all I care about is what I see in the viewfinder and again I'll take the extra depth of field as a plus.)
ConsIt is expensive. (Translation... I can't afford it.)
As an aside. The Panasonic 100 - 400 hands on review did not garner nearly the equivalent full frame dogpile as this did. Olympus hatred is alive and well.
Oh, well, in that case: People got distracted by Nikon D5 and D500. They were announced a few hours after the Panasonic lens, and it appears they were a tad more popular. I feel kinda bad for Panasonic, in that respect. They probably thought Nikon was just going to throw a bunch of CoolPix cameras at us and call it a day. (That's what Canon did after all, as is the CES tradition.)
Ross the Fidller: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms),"
To mention "light gathering" at all & in that context is typical FF fanboism BS. Why did you even mention it?
I'll correct that whole statement for you!"The lens is relatively compact, given its long reach. Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field, its still impressively small and light for 600mm equivalent lens. The lens itself is 227mm (8.9'') long, and comparatively easy to add to a mid-sized camera bag."
Please, stay credible by not looking like a FF fanboi.
Of course, being 300mm it is going to be smaller & lighter than a 600mm lens!
Considering Richard has written a number of positive reviews of Micro 4/3 cameras, I highly doubt he's a 'fanboi' (a general insult that had little meaning before you degraded it further by trading a 'y' for an 'i'... trust me, I've been dealing with 'fanboys' since the mid-90's).
DPR has made it a regular habit to mention equivalency over the last few years. Read any story or review about a compact camera, and you'll find a chart or a paragraph about equivalency (e.g. yesterday's TS100 overview, all of the Sony RX100 reviews, etc.). Micro 4/3 users are not being singled out. To think they are is false and unwarranted.
"The Panasonic 100 - 400 hands on review did not garner nearly the equivalent full frame dogpile as this did. Olympus hatred is alive and well."
By 'dog pile' do you mean 'a mere single mention'? And, did you read the whole Panasonic 100-400mm overview? From the article:
"Naturally, the small size and weight do come at a cost: with an equivalent maximum aperture of F8 and F12.6 on the 200mm and 800mm equivalent ends, respectively, subject isolation and noise performance on a MFT camera won't be the same as what you might get with a full-frame 800mm F5.6 lens."
Try reading those articles again, carefully this time. You might realize the physical size of the sensor does not receive the same amount of light as something twice its size, and that has a tangible impact.
And, yes, technomad, they do talk about physics. I also like physics, and yet, what was said in the article is not wrong (despite even my believing quite the opposite in the not too distant past).
Uh, DPR published several articles about this:
Not all of those articles are strictly about sensor size, but, cumulatively, they do explain why "its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms)" is a perfectly legitimate statement.
Mssimo: Show of hands: Nikon D500 or the rumored Sony A6100 ((see sonyalpharumors))
36mp BSI sensor,silent electronic shutter mode,IBIS (5 axis stabilization?)4K recordingTouchscreenFast EVF larger than Optical VF on D810?Wifi and other featuresPrice around $1000 to $1300 (my own guess)
Being an owner of Nikon and Sony cameras and lenses, I'd be more inclined to buy the D500 for the following reasons:
1.) It's an announced product, not a figment of the rumor mill2.) Sony hasn't released a compelling APS-C E-Mount lens in quite some time3.) Of the existing system of E-Mount lenses - both full-frame and APS-C - few are really worth their asking price, in my personal opinion.
I'm sure you might think differently, and you're entitled to do so. I just don't think it's a proper apples-to-apples comparison.
MikeMiami: Nikon rolls out the D5 and D500 and Canon rolls out trio of inexpensive 20MP PowerShot ELPHs. Hmmmmm I wonder who has been listening to consumers!
Barney has a point: CES has not exactly been the place where camera companies release pro-level DSLR's. This is actually a change in behavior for Nikon.
Soggoth: $2000 looks a bit steep for DX camera
Agreed with BarnET. The Canon 7D Mark II debuted at roughly the same price, and the Nikon D500 is (arguably, at least on paper) the more advanced camera.
Also, Mssimo, the NX1 retail price was $1,500, just to be fair.
Bernie Ess: @ Mr. Roboto:Well, generally no camera I have used in the past (DSLRs) could add anything via apps, and Firmware Updated were very rare. So as far as I can see, this app adds a really useful function, and does it in Raw even. So if you think this is not worth 10 bucks, then just leave it alone... So far, I know of no other camera that adds this in Raw or adds it at all, so I guess 10 bucks is not much.
But that's a bit the mentality of the "app age": Should be free.
10 bucks is below the threshold where I start to think...
I don't think it has anything to do with the "app age". If this were Fujifilm or Samsung, this would probably be a properly integrated feature that came with a firmware update. It's also a one-trick pony, which just adds to the feel that it shouldn't cost $10.
Yet, Sony feels the need to label new features as "apps," and that's exactly how they feel. They're separate from the rest of the shooting experience - exposure parameters from P/A/S/M are not carried over into "apps". It's cumbersome to locate the Apps folder, find the app you want, wait for it to load, make all the changes to your exposure (because they're not the same as they are in the normal exposure modes), and then take a picture. When you want to take a normal picture, you have to quit the app.
For this feature, I'll keep my $10 and just take a few exposures and merge them later in Lightroom. It'll probably take less time, I have more control over the results, and I'll have not wasted any money.