haha, yea, 85G, darn, keep poisoning...

I'm not sure about technicals and working of the focus breathing things, I read to achieve 1:1, you need to focus at MFD which will result in smaller aperture of f/4.8, but as you aid, usually for macro, we want more in focu, usually smaller aperture will be use, unless one just want the eye in focus or small head of the insect, etc. Then again, you might see some macro shooters do cropping, so they can use bigger aperture and fill only small part of the frame.

It's much much much more. Considering the Nikkor version has not VC, take Tamron without VC to compare which is around RM1.2K. That'll be about 4X difference.

For hobbyist, unless one is loaded with Vitamin-M, it's very hard to justify the price.


If VC is not important, do check out the non-VC version, which is cheaper and sharper.
From most reviews, the sharpness is comparable or close to Nikkor, especially considering the price difference.
Compared to other lens you mentioned, the drawback is the reach, which is limited to 50mm, but you get constant f/2.8 through the focal range.

Best? Better than the 70-200?

Btw, the 17-55mm f/2.8 is bigger than 24-70mm f/2.8

Ahh... then I think the definition of 'best' lens is vague here. It should be better suit your needs or easier to use.
In general, the better should be talking about overall (e.g. built quality, image quality, performance, etc).

That's why I was surprised when I first read which was the 'best' lens

I was also surprised, was at Nikon BTS that day with Calvin, he mounted the 24-70 on the D5100, while I have 17-55 on the D7K, somehow, the 24-70mm looks thinner and smaller.

Previous rumoured around the same size as high end compacts, e.g. Panasonic LX5.

Anyway, DPReview mentioned the reason behind such small sensor... is not to disrupt DSLR sales/market?

Why not? Someone gonna do it, Sony and Samseng already did. People who know and understamd, will go for the larger sensor, plus the price value you're paying for a APS-C vs a high end compact sensor.

Nikon's attraction would be the adapter which can use F Mount lenses, but the puny sensor... It does have hybrid auto-focus.

ISO from 100-3200, while 6400 in Hi mode.

In this case, I think the Pentax Q is more interesting and more profesional? It's smaller? small lens, interesting lens,etc.

Finally, if Canon comes out with a APS-C size sensor mirrorless, it'll be like a big slap on the face of Nikon?

Yea, you can get nice telephoto range
But, with f/1.8 or f/1.4, the DOF will be very different from DSLR.

No idea, the price is not cheap either; and there're so many competition available, especially the GF3. Remember recent DigitalRevTV video comparing between LX5 and GF3. The Nikon mirrorless would be something like LX5 but with interchangeable lens and better performance, but actually, you may notice many compact users want to achieve the shallow DOF and "bokehlicious", which they can't get from their compacts (unless they do close up/macro; which even Nokia N8 can do it).

So, question is, for people moving from compact to mirrorless, will they choose Nikon mirrorless or the competition out there? Unless they prefer Nikon brand or looks, or?
For smaller/compact size, I think Pentax Q might be even more interesting and with the tiny small lens, there's up to 7 or 8 lens available, numbered by 1, 2, 3, 4... and the operation is more towards professional, etc.

Anyway, I'm sure there will be it's own category of users/fans, just that, I don't see it able to compete much. More if Canon announce their mirrorless with larger sensor and more tempting features.
I remember NikonRumors posted a poll about who will buy, the result was very negative, but who knows because maybe someone will change their mind after seeing the real thing and the special features.

If this doesn't sell well, wonder what will happen. The worst is those who bought it and has to suffer the fate.

Yes, but how much difference I'm not sure. DX and FX have difference too, but FX is have more shallow DOF and bokeh?