[Ryan]

Quick update: wound up buying the 24mm pancake to go with my aging 350D. At that price point I figured I don't have much to lose. I looked through the photos I'd taken with a wider aperture than f/2.8 and realized I really don't use that range much so in my case sacrificing wide aperture for physical size is a good tradeoff given the price. I'm about to take off for five weeks around Asia and I think I'm really going to enjoy this little guy.

[PB PM]

A new lens is never a bad choice, enjoy your trip!

[PB PM]

Did some testing with the Sigma vs the Nikkor 50mm F1.8G, no contest for sharpness, as expected. Focused in liveview to make sure there were no focusing errors to hold back the test. These are unedited, and unsharpened beyond what Aperture does on import. Even at the small size of these images it's easy to see that the Sigma is a much sharper lens, marking it worth the extra cost if you work at 50mm often and shoot at wide apertures. The two lenses come very close around F5.6 and match at F8-11.

[Eugene]

Not a peep about the reported specs of the 5Ds/5Dr? Canon gets its D810 killer/competitor...finally. Now what to do about the eroding market altogether?

[PB PM]

Are there even any Canon full frame users on the forum? I did read about the 5Ds, but kind of just went meh. Then again I'm not one of those who would consider switching systems just for pixels. In any case Sony has some 40+ and 50+ MP full frame sensors in the pipeline, sounds about right for a D850 next year.

[PB PM]

There are also rumors that Nikon will release a D810 specifically designed for astrophotography (no name rumored yet, maybe D810a?), similar to the Canon 60Da from a number of years ago.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by PB PM Are there even any Canon full frame users on the forum? I did read about the 5Ds, but kind of just went meh. Then again I'm not one of those who would consider switching systems just for pixels. In any case Sony has some 40+ and 50+ MP full frame sensors in the pipeline, sounds about right for a D850 next year.

By the looks of it, the 5Ds/5Dr sensor is the product of a joint venture between Canon and Sony. Sony sensors everywhere.

[Matsu]

hmmm, Canon's with dynamic range could be a big deal. It'll be interesting to see how they position this. People who got spastic about 36MP are going to go apoplectic about 50+MP. But people often miss the point. The 36MP generation is the first where you can honestly say file size no longer matters for most types of output. Nature, fashion, product and architecture seem to be the target markets for a 5Ds today, and while you're probably not going to shoot news or events with it in 2015, or 2017, technology catches up, and someday you'll be whizzing even larger files around on your iPhone 10...

About that eroding market. I don't know. Some people think cell phones are an extinction level event for camera makers. I think camera markets were shrinking down in the face of convenience services even with film. 1-Hour photo labs and disposable cameras had displaced a good part of the "serious" camera market for many consumers by the time digital rolled around. Digital was novel, it was new, it was democratizing. A lot of people embraced digital and experimented with "serious" cameras again because they thought it could be cheaper. They didn't need a dark room, they could be independents in every sense - as learners, users, businesses - with no need for traditional training, hierarchies like agencies/newsrooms/editors, or partnerships with print houses, or old world business models. Everyone got all entrepreneurial, but not in a deep way. They'd take a few great pictures, their market would discover them, and the rest would take care of itself. Everyone took a lot of pictures and started giving them away just to get noticed, they realized that it's actually quite expensive being digital, and with the traditional business models eroded by an influx of moonlighting amateurs of various quality, it's not really that much fun being a (digital) photographer in the new millennium. You have to really love photography to want to do it seriously or professionally.

I think those numbers (of photography lovers) might have actually grown a bit since film, but not enough to match the combined production numbers of the major players.

[Eugene]

Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 VR revealed in patents.

[Matsu]

I was going to post this in my above ruminations on the future of the eroding market, but my post was getting a bit long. A look at the lens patents puts my thoughts on this in better perspective.

I've read one internet pundit claim the strongest new market for serious cameras can be described as "largest sensor, smallest lens".

I think that has some validity. It explains Sony's FE lens choices so far - f/4 lenses instead of f/2.8; moving full frame into the NEX mount. Nikon's new PF lens, modern FX 1.8 primes, and drive for more semi pro FX cameras fits that mould too.

I've written before that I think 135 format has accidentally fallen into this hybrid space where it's small enough to build compact systems and (thanks to digital) high quality enough to displace traditional medium format film markets.

The 10 and 17mm PC-E patents speak to the latter half of that equation. Those are seriously wide options. Canon already has a 17mm option; the world has never before seen a 10mm rectilinear tilt shift option in 135 format. Traditional medium and large format users can cover landscape, architecture and product with 10,17,24,45,85 tilt shift lenses. These aren't cheap, but if you wanted to, you wouldn't need larger cameras or camera w/backs to carry out precise movements.

NR says that the 24-70VR patent is for a PF (phase fresnel) lens. I'm not sure I believe that, even though Nikon has largely cured the bokeh issues of that technology - early implementations rendered a quasi catadioptric field - there's still a slightly sub-optimal point light source rendering to them. However, it certainly fits the smallest lens-largest sensor ideal. The 300PF is about 33% shorter and 50% lighter than the 300 f/4. A similarly shorter and lighter 24-70VR would make it roughly 24-85VR sized. Small.

A 200-400 f/4-5.6PF seems more likely, also patented. Let's see what happens.

[PB PM]

Nikon's corrections for the PF issues suppress the problem, not correct, at least according to early adopters. The typical use for a 24-70mm F2.8 would make a PF lens extremely undesirable, meaning it would be extremely susceptible to the flare problems related to PF technology.

[PB PM]

Now there are rumors that the 24-70mm F2.8E PF will be released later this year long with a 20MP D5. Seriously Nikon, 20MP flagship camera in 2015? I guess lower MP count is the only way to keep shooting speed in the 10+ FPS range.

[Matsu]

Originally Posted by PB PM Now there are rumors that the 24-70mm F2.8E PF will be released later this year long with a 20MP D5. Seriously Nikon, 20MP flagship camera in 2015? I guess lower MP count is the only way to keep shooting speed in the 10+ FPS range.

I'm not seeing anything too ugly from the new generation fresnel optics employed by Canon and Nikon when it comes to OOF rendering. Flare is another issue, but merging the worlds of optical and software correction seems to be the way forward, even for larger system formats. If the 24-70 is just as fast and half as large, it's going to interest people, though I agree that for this model at least they will have to keep selling a standard lens along side it.

D5 is a D4 replacement, so it's still a MP increase, and fast shooting, ultra sensitivity, focus speed/tracking and manageable sizes seem to be the design goals there. I'm far more interested in that rumoured 173 point AF system. Could be the perfect opportunity to offer D5s/D5x sisters. 20MP high speed/sensitivity and 50+ MP high resolution twins, for example.

[PB PM]

Lens rentals did a test of the old vs new 300mm F4 Nikkors. Looks like they come out even overall. The new model is sharper in the centre, slightly, but weaker in the corners. Kind of what I expected.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015...-just-one-copy

You save weight with the new model, but you don't gain much if anything optically. Perfect lens for a D6xx or D750. And unless the weight is a big deal, or you must have VR, keep the old one if you have it.

[Matsu]

His seems mildly de-centred, might be a bit better when he gets an ideal copy. Still, this update is about size and hand held shooting. The old one was a bit of an under-appreciated gem though.

[turtle]

If I had the money to put into a new camera I'd replace my aging Rebel XT with a Canon Full Frame sensor. Thing is I'm just not ready to spend that since it's such a small part of my life at this moment.

I love the specs I read of the 5DS, though would likely go for an older 5D to save a buck.

[Matsu]

I think you should go for it. The original 5D can be had for less than 500 if you shop around, the Mk2 - which has been used in much very high end work - can be had for $1000. They open up some lens choices that just don't exist with APSC DSLRs.

Speaking of... holy wow on Canon's 11-24 f/4. I'm sort of hoping that even though it's slower, heavier, bigger, and more expensive than Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8, that some of the Canon shooters who bought the Nikkor just can't resist the even wider native mount Canon, and we see a bump in the supply of used 14-24s...

[PB PM]

For someone who only uses a camera lightly a 6D might be the right choice, both in terms of performance, and price. The 5D modern series (5Ds and 5Dr) are kind of overkill for most people anyway. Early previewers are saying performance in terms of noise and dynamic range is not improved over the 5D MKIII. The D800/D800E/D810 will remain the dynamic range kings, if that is true.

The 5D MKII has poor AF performance, and is not that great in low light. There are many lightly used bodies out there, since many people bought the camera thinking it would instantly make them great film makers. The original 5D was better in low light, but had even worse AF, and you are unlikely to find a lightly used body at this point. Not to mention that it is hard to find and buy good batteries for cameras that old.

Matsu if you really want to save money, go for the new Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 VC. Better flare resistance, $400 less expensive for new vs used, has VC and might even be sharper (the 14-24 seems to be going for $1800 used these days, since the recent price hike to $2k for new units). It's a good time to sell lenses you don't want, in Canada anyway. I could fetch as much for my used 24-70mm F2.8G as I paid for it new four years ago. I may very well take advantage of that if Sigma releases a 24mm Art lens.

[Matsu]

PBPM, I started to write this: The Tamron is intriguing. Amongst 3rd parties, Tamron has an arguably better reputation for focus consistency than the others, and the wide aspect depth of field is going to make that somewhat less critical, but it's just almost long enough to replace both a 14-24 and 16-35...

Then I watched this: video from Matt Granger Note the focus comments. Focus acquisition is noticeably quicker on the Nikon's. I've found this to be the case for pretty much any comparable third party lens. However, in this case, low contrast focus acquisition is more reliable on the Tamron, it takes longer to get there, but it will get there in conditions where the Nikon gives up... VC, better coatings, better flare resistance, and arguably more useful 30mm long end, and it's quite a bit cheaper too. hmmm...

[turtle]

I didn't realize there was a 6D. Since leaving photography as a focus in life I've fallen way behind. looking at the specs of a 6D that is actually not a bad option for me at all. I thought there were only two full frame bodies for Canon. I'll look into it.

At this point I think any new DSLR body is an upgrade for my Rebel XT. Sure I want the most bang for my buck, but anything from Canon should be an improvement over this +9 year old camera.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Matsu PBPM, I started to write this: The Tamron is intriguing. Amongst 3rd parties, Tamron has an arguably better reputation for focus accuracy than the others, and the wide aspect depth of field is going to make that somewhat less critical, but it's just almost long enough to replace both a 14-24 and 16-35... Then I watched this: video from Matt Granger Focus acquisition is noticeably quicker on the Nikon's. I've found this to be the case for pretty much any comparable third party lens. However, in this case, low contrast focus acquisition is more reliable on the Tamron, it takes longer to get there, but it will get there in conditions where the Nikon gives up... VC, better coatings, better flare resistance, and arguably more useful 30mm long end, and it's quite a bit cheaper too. hmmm...

Yes, the Tamron seems to be a very good alternative to getting the best of both worlds in terms of local length and having image stabilization, something the less expensive Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 FX Pro and more expensive Nikkors both lack.

Focusing speed wise, the Tamron seems okay for the price. Most likely not as good for event shooting though. I haven't noticed a huge speed difference in AF with my Sigma pro grade lenses, but they are lagging behind equivalent Nikkors. Okay, the Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art spanks all Nikon 50mm AF-S lenses (and the 58mm too) in terms of speed, but that is s special case.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by turtle I didn't realize there was a 6D. Since leaving photography as a focus in life I've fallen way behind. looking at the specs of a 6D that is actually not a bad option for me at all. I thought there were only two full frame bodies for Canon. I'll look into it. At this point I think any new DSLR body is an upgrade for my Rebel XT. Sure I want the most bang for my buck, but anything from Canon should be an improvement over this +9 year old camera.

The 6D is almost the forgotten camera in the Canon lineup. It came out a few years ago, and while it isn't the most advanced or new body out there is sure offers a lot of bang for the buck in terms of overall performance, if you already have full frame lenses.

It will be interesting to see if the new Rebel's released yesterday (T6i and Tsi) new 24MP sensor will be an improvement on the older 18MP and 20MP APS-C sensors. There were rumors that Canon was going to source sensors from Sony for all their new bodies (Rebels and 5D series) but that appears not to be the case. In which case I suspect the gains will be modest at best.

[Matsu]

You're quite taken with the Sigma 50A. The sigma Art primes do have a special level of sharpness, I expect a 24A will follow that recipe. Every once in a while you read about focus niggles - live view, or inconsistent performance on a new body - but that makes the dock all the more brilliant.

Now, except for the 50mm, I think the rest of the Nikon 1.8G lenses are really hard to beat, and rumour has it a 24 f/1.8G is coming soon - to round out the set. Might be worth considering the Nikon if it comes in smaller, cheaper, and almost as sharp...

[PB PM]

Yes I do have a bit of a love affair with the Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art, it's been on my camera almost every day since I bought it. The sharpness, colour and contrast wide open to F4 just blows away every other lens at 50mm that I've tired, from the old 50mm F1.8D, 50mm F1.8G and the 24-70mm F2.8G at 50mm. Once you are down to F8 the Nikkor is very close, although it still is less contrasty. The Sigma also appears to have a ever so slightly wider field of view, which makes working in tighter spaces easier. Part of that is less suffering from focusing breathing, on the part of the Sigma.

If Nikon does come out with a AF-S 24mm F1.8G, I would strongly consider it, if it has nano crystal coating and comes in for under $799. Lets put it this way, if Sigma has a 24mm F1.4 Art at $999 and Nikon has the 1.8G at $849 or $899 the choice is easy in my mind.

[Matsu]

A 24mm would probably split the difference between the 28mm and 20mm: $699-$849. However, I'm not sure that the 1.8s need to be that much cheaper than an Art lens to be considered. The 35G and 28G both compare very well to the 35A, the 85G compares very well to just about anything that exists. The 50A is way ahead of anything with AF, but the rest of the nifty 50s are a weak spot in most systems. Rumour has Sigma doing an 85 as well as a 24, both will likely be excellent, but probably a little on the huge side.

[PB PM]

The 28mm f1.8G samples all seem to have focus shift and decentering issues, something that almost all reviewers out there hit on. Not exactly a lens to be praised. At least it has nano coatings and is much better than the F2.8D, so I guess we cannot complain too much.

The lack of Nano coatings on the FX 35mm F1.8G makes for weak contrast in anything but "good" light, like the 50mm F1.8G. Sharpness is less of an issue, that's true. I'm not a big 35mm focal length user, so I've not looked at that range very closely though.

While these AF-S 1.8G lenses are a step up from the "D" versions they are not in the same league as more professional lenses.

There is no reason for a Sigma 24mm F1.4 to be any larger than the 50mm F1.4 Art, the Nikon 24mm F1.4G isn't much if any bigger. As long as Sigma sticks to the 77mm filter size it shouldn't be outlandish.

[Matsu]

They're both very good series of lenses, and excellent to outstanding "for the money". The 50G is really the only average lens, but even there, for an average size (8x10) print you won't see any faults, you will see a nice smooth character about it. For me, for event work, the real problem is that you need more cameras than you would using zooms. Or you have to be really fast at swapping lenses, and I'm not.

When I'm going through an album, stuff that came off the 50 or 85 is easily recognizable, it just looks different in a way that I like, a lot... If I had three FX cameras, I'd take a 20,35,85 combination anywhere I could get paid to shoot, and the images would have a distinctive feel you don't get from even really nice zooms. Reports that the D750 focuses these lenses very well makes me want to spend more money than I should...

The 35G seems to be just as sharp as the 35A, though not as fast, but it's also smaller, cheaper and weather sealed. It might be a smidgen wider too, more like a 33 based on what I'm seeing in reviews. I think If someone has the money, the G series is the field lens, and the A series is the studio choice. They'll probably get back to the drawing boards on the 1.4Gs soon.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Matsu The 35G seems to be just as sharp as the 35A, though not as fast, but it's also smaller, cheaper and weather sealed.

None of the 1.8G lenses are weather sealed, they only have the rear gasket, which is only somewhat helpful for keeping dust out the mount.

For the money the 20mm F1.8G, 50mm F1.8G and 85mm F1.8G are great, but the other two I'm not so sure about. The 35mm seems to be too steeply priced, if it was $449 or $499 sure, but at $599? A bit of a stretch, but then I'm not big on the 35mm local length. I wouldn't buy the Sigma 35mm F1.4 Art at the current price either, just to keep things in perspective. I can understand the higher price on the 28mm F1.8G and 20mm F1.8G, since they are wide angle lenses, which have never been "cheap."

I guess I'm too spoiled by higher end glass and the better contrast offered. I always come home feeling a little disappointed by the results of non nano crystal coated lenses, the 50mm F1.8G in particular. On the D700 the 50mm F1.8G seems really nice and sharp, but on the higher resolution sensors it's just missing something. No amount of PP can make up for it. Of course the newer 1.8G lenses were all introduced with higher resolution sensors in mind, so I suppose they handle that problem better.

[Matsu]

Sigma just announced the 24mm f/1.4. They're on a role with these things. Good looking MTF curve for a 24mm, and no reason to doubt anything they've done with the A series so far, 'cept maybe bokeh, if you want to be a stickler - but I think you have to be looking for an excuse not to like them to really pick on that - there's plenty that's worse. Marginally bigger and heavier than the Nikon 24G - also a good performer, but $2200. Sigma probably solves one of those two problems - cost - though price is not yet announced. Can't do anything for the other, size/weight. The only answer to sharp, well corrected, lenses is to throw more glass in them. This one has 15 elements in 11 groups compared to 12 in 10 for the Nikon. Now go buy one and report back.

[PB PM]

Yes, if Sigma can keep the price of the Art lenses around $1k that would be great. I'd get that 24mm F1.4 for $1k.

I'll hold off on any pre-orders though, I'd like to see the actual price. If it is close to the Nikkor I'd have to rent both and see which one I like better.