Re: Canon EOS 400D & Nikon D40x : EOS EF lenses

Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Bull***! There isn't a Canon pro body manufactured yet that could
properly AF in low light, even with "fast" glass.

*Ssshhhh!*
Don't tell my 20D and 50mm f/1.4, nor my 70-200mm f/2.8!
They don't know yet they are not supposed to focus in very
low light! (as in "wide open, 1/15s or 1/8s or longer, ISO
(effective) 2000, and a stop or more pushed")

Hmmm, there is a distinctive difference between AF hunting and the AF
locking on to a proper and crisp focus. You're just hunting.

If you say so, you must be right. Fortunately it hunts well
enough and finds the correct focus anyway.

I know enough to get by and if I'm ever wrong in my life I will let myself
know. I can't remember the last time I was ever wrong.

Alzheimer's disease.

I thought there were lenses worth havin' and others not worth
havin'. I may have been wrong, and may have to start buying
every lens in sight to get my quota of "sellen' lenses".
Maybe I should start with Nikkors.

It's the same difference.

Well, the difference between $100 and $1 is the same as the
difference between $100.000.100 and $100.000.001, but it doesn't
mean the same to the poor slob who owns nothing but said $100.

It's all good! You can buy a decent snack for $100.

Rent or food, ay, there's the rub ...

If your goal is to fill a quota of sellen' lenses
Nikon isn't really a good place to start since 98% of them are all
keepers except for DX lenses. You can start with DX lenses I guess?

Well, I don't see your problem with DX glass ... it's not like
Nikon's going full frame sensors any time soon.

DX glass simply doesn't work as well as its earlier counterparts.

Oh, Nikon-goodness doesn't fit in DX glasses? Noone waving
the magick chicken over them?

Plus, you can't use DX on a 5D even if it were worth using.

So? They wouldn't AF anyway.

There are lots of documented problems and shortcoming with a good
portion of L glass so that's where I would start if I were you.

I keep trying and getting keepers that-a-way.

I'm finding that the box L glass is shipped in has more collector appeal
than the actual lens. I hope you didn't toss the boxes?

You can have them, as soon as I get that 5D, 1D Mk III and
the Canon 50mm f/1,0 you promised me.

So buy the 50mm f/1.8 and stick it on your Nikon bodies.

What color duct tape should I use?

Rainbow, obviously, otherwise you get CA.

Having a fast lens that spits out poor images with nasty bokeh
isn't something I would brag about in a "specialist" lens.

Poor bokeh? Poor images? Source?

Find a usable image from one and compare it to Canon's 50/1.8 and
tell me the 50/1 is any better.

I'm not the one questioning the superior optics of Canon's 50/1.8.

Google it up.

Oh, I see. No proof.

So the Noctilux has no weather sealing.

Why should it since it is a studio only lens? Nobody takes one outside.

There must be joblots of Nobody around where you live.

There's no justification for Canon not adding weather
seals to the 5D since it would only up the cost by a few pennies.

You obviously have
a) no idea what weather sealing means
b) no idea of marketing strategies

I know that 5D owners are paying a heavy price when they get caught in the
rain.

Yea, for after paying for the 5D they have no money for a
weather tight bag. Like most people buying a car cannot
afford insurance nor fuel, right?

And that's all Nikon's fault, since they don't _have_ any
full frame cameras at all ...

I'll bet you that Canon doesn't make the same mistake twice and
you'll see weather seals on the 5D replacement.

What or how much do you bet?

BTW> How many L lenses have weather sealing?

All of mine have weather sealing or become weather sealed
with a protection filter.

How many of Nikon's "L-equivalent" lenses are weather sealed?

By your standards all of them when a "protection filter" is applied.

Would that be an empty set?

Oh, BTW, I meant e.g. the 17-40, where the front lens
retreats into the body on certain settings, and hence is not
100% weather sealed without a protection filter (as stated in
the manual).

The 70-200, on the other hand, is weather sealed without any
filters.


You're right since I have always bought Nikon and they don't dump untested
units onto their customers.

No, surely not, Nikon makes no mistakes, ever.
A wonderful full frame body they have, too.

Nikon seems to get all the bugs worked out

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/nikon_acknowledges_component_problems_with_3_slr_cameras/

This is old news that I pointed out to you in another thread. Funny thing
is this was only a small sampling of D70s and Nikon never had any other
critical issues on any of their subsequently introduced models.

Never admitted any, more likely.

Must be all that LSD I am brushing my teeth with ...

Or methane narcosis from sniffing your own hot air.

Maybe I should sniff Nikon lenses.

and doesn't disrespect their customers to use them as beta testers.
I'm still saddened that the Mk III didn't break Canon's trend.

You are none of that.

Christ! Canon won't even let me beta test when I begged them for the
oportunity.

Why should they let you?


The 10D is enough for you. Maybe the 20D if you are nice.
Pass over the 5D.

NONSENSE! The 5D is still a useful body since I bought into it at a
very nice price point.

Your soul? Again? You did sell your soul to Nikon already,
didn't you?

Nope! I have no brand loyalty since I use what tool that does the best at
getting the job done.

You seem to have a strange idea which tool does the best at
getting the job done.

In fact, I might be able to squeeze out 24-months from it
before it depreciates to my breakeven point.

You cannot use the 5D body for more than 24 months?
My condolences.

It's a stretch but I'm going to tempt fate.

Try _not_ letting people play socker with our 5D --- your
lenses will thank you.

Have you ever used the world famous 10-22mm? Or do you base
you dislike on it not being a Nikkor? Shall I show you some
pics with a trashbag instead of a lens and some with the world
famous 10-22mm? Maybe even you will see a difference.

Why? Its quality is the same as Nikon's 12-24/4 DX,

Proof?

Google it. There are lots of examples of the 10-22mm's poor performance.

Even if there are, that doesn`t say the Nikon's 12-24/4 DX is
any better. And no, I won't google to prove your statements ---
that's your job, not mine, unless you pay me well in advance.

which isn't saying
much. If you want a *REAL* lens in that range you would be better
off with the Tokina 12-24.

The Tokina doesn't do 10mm. You are, probably, aware of the
difference between 16mm and 19.2mm?

The Tokina produces a useable image across its range while the Canon does
not.

Well, the 10-22mm won't produce 23 nor 24mm images.
On the other hand, what *do* you define as "useable image"?
"Anything from Nikkors (except DX), not anything from Canon"
could be your definition from all I read from you --- and if so,
you are right: the 10-22mm, being from Canon, will never produce
a useable image by your definition.

Why don't you use Nikon bodies? Aren't they good enough?

I do. You do realize that Nikon doesn't make a WA zoom for DX that
is worth using?

Oh, they don't? How comes?

Because there's no future in DX.

Hmmm, correct me if I am wrong, but there are *only* crop frame
digital cameras available from Nikon, aren't there? So all
current DSLRs from Nikon never will have a future? All are
born, aeh, build, to be discarded ASAP? Boy, I'd plain hate
to be a Nikon body ...

Canon is so piss poor with WA that their lenses aren't even an
option.

Says you. Proof you have none, again, I presume?

What more proof you want other than the infamous 16-35/2.8L and the
16-35/2.8L II that was to correct the previous versions shortcomings?

Fancy that, you are asking "have you stopped beating your
wife" questions again.

So the 10D was terrible, the 20D was terrible (it replaced the
10D and is replaced by the 30D --- now with spot metering), the 1D
MkII is utter crap (it's shortcomings are corrected by the new 1D
MkIII), ... Nikon never updates bodies, like, say, D40 to D40x ...

Canon at least tries to improve their products over the time ---
taking that as "proof" is completely stupid, dastardly, perfidious
and conniving. You either have never improved any skill (i.e. you
were born and never learned a thing since then) or I must take
your improvement as proof that you are "piss poor" in all your
skills, as I can point out that you were even worse before.


BTW, where is the 16-35 from Nikon? Oh, they only have a 17-35?
Well, Canon upped from a 17-35 to the 16-35 ... and I thought that
Nikon was the place to go for specialty lenses, like UV lenses,
medical lenses, etc. pp.! Can't Nikon compete?

I know you are smart enough to not own a 16-35/2.8.

Replace "smart" with "poor".
Anyway, the 16-35 is not marketed as landscape lens (where high
resolution and contrast are most important), but as a reporting
lens for low light. And Canon has the full frame bodies to reach
real 16mm, too. (Oh, I usually don't do reporting, so there.)

The only way you get WA is to use the world famous 17-35/2.8 Nikkor
on a 5D. Even Canon's new 16-35/2.8L II isn't holding up well when
used with the 5D.

If you were discerning, you'd be using e.g. the 21mm Zeiss
Distragon on your alleged 5D.

The 17-35/2.8 Nikkor blows it away

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylens.jsp
says differently --- the Zeiss performs better. has much less
distortion and is colour neutral (in contrast to the Nikkor),
though slightly more flare prone.

And no, you will have to find a serious webpage saying
different, just naysaying won't work.

and is much more versatile.

Such is the fate of any fixed focal length lens versus a
zoom. However, a 18-250 mm is much more versatile than your
puny 17-35, so go use one exclusively.

Strangely enough you are indirectly and unintentionally proving my
point that most shooters would prefer to use lenses other than Canon
on their EOS bodies.
Why is that?

Oh, the old suggestive question trick! Have you stopped beating
your wife? (See, I don't ask you if you do beat your wife,
I suggest it as the truth!)

Actually, what I pointed out is that a good prime lens can still
beat most zooms --- a price must be paid for versatility --- and
that *some* (not most, not even many!) shooters may prefer the
higher resolution of said good prime lens versus the versatility.

Since you paint yourself as "the best lenses aren't nearly good
enough for me", I asked you if you really meant that. You don't.
You just are a wannabe-best-lens-snob, which _is_ pathetic compared
to the real McCoy.

You'd be using a Nikkor if you have any notions of being that
discerning.

Why should I use a Nikkor without AF when I can keep my Canon
_with_ AF and get exactly that? Give me one good reason to
shell out more money for less!

I thought you claimed you are very particular about great image
quality?

I am particular about image quality, but I understand that for some
people, there are also other qualities in any given photograph,
like composition, emotional impact or a pleasant memory.

Well yes, but that doesn't mean much when you can't produce a useable image
with substandard equipment.

*I* can produce a useable image with substandard equipment.
That's what makes a photographer --- knowing the gear and
knowing how to get most out of it --- because any gear is
substandard by a future point of view.

If you need a camera & lens with infinite resolution, a motiv
bell and an Ansel-button to get that image, I do pity you indeed,
but any gear that does not have that must be substandard to the
gear that has these features.

My mistake. Having AF and piss poor image quality simply isn't an
option for me.

If I was you, I'd knee-jerk tell you not to use Nikon. As I am
not you, I simply point out that I have no problems with the AF
and do get good image quality.

If you would stop using AF as a crutch you might exponentially increase your
number of quality keepers.

And if I played the lottery weekly, I might win USD 10M some day.
Or not, as the case may be. The average return of investment
is better if I stash the money under my pillow than playing the
lottery, though.

BTW, who died and made you omniscient so you know exactly how
many keepers I have and how many more I had with "perfect focus"?

Since you cannot coax Canon gear to provide that for you and
others can, the fault must be yours.

Canon bodies gives some of the best images out there when the proper glass
is used. Sadly, the best images aren't being made with Canon glass.

Next time, look at the idiot box when they sweep over the assorted
photographers and paparazzi. Count the number of white lenses
versus the rest. Go tell me so many professionals have it
all wrong, when their livelihood directly depends on getting
marketable images.

I stand by my word: if you cannot get good images out of Canon
lenses, you are doing something wrong.

How does one find a "known good" Canon lens? I mean other than
sampling through a half dozen of a single model?

Don't buy the cheapest "white ring" lenses. I understand in
Nikon-land it's the same.

That's why buying DX lenses for any other purpose than to complete a
collection is foolish.

Because Nikon will switch to full frame exclusively tomorrow,
right?

Good point! I think Canon, like the aircraft industry, should
certify users to recover from AF stalling and backfocus backfires.

The aircraft industry certifies planes, not pilots. If you gonna
drag in a screaming and kicking metapher by it's hairs, at least
try to abuse it the orthodox way.

The results are the same, crash and burn. Blaming the pilot is no longer a
valid excuse.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the 9/11 planes crashed into
the towers and the pentagon because it was the plane's fault,
not someone crashing them?

BTW, other people's tests of the MK III don't show problems
even with very fast (100+ MPH) objects ... not more than the
MK II tested next to the Mk III, side-by-side. Makes one
wonder ... maybe the extra traffic was good for all the google ads?

Wrong trainging, not enough reading (OK, Canon should provide
that reading stuff!)

No, just a product that is fully tested prior to its release would
be ample.

Well, _my_ guess is that the Mk III works fully to it's
specifications, but these specifications are quite different
from the Mk II.

Then it should work better,

Should it?
The first jet engines really didn't like you to suddenly push
to full thrust --- they'd burn, burn, burn. They also lasted
maybe 40 hours. Still, with the right training (you climb
shallow in a jet plane, till you reach rather high speeds,
for example, very unlike a prop plane), jet fighters flew
rings even aroun the Mosquito, the fastest plane up to then.

Yes, jet planes worked better, but very, very differently.
Handle them like a prop plane and you die.

but it isn't.

You happen to have a Mk III? Thought not so.

You mean like having them work as promised?

Who promised that the AF was going to be identical?

Who wants an identical AF system in a newly released camera?

Thanks for proving my point.

Of course they do want an AF system that somewhat works.

The AF works very well, from what I read.

So go ahead and order it, with a 300mm f/2.8 IS on the side.

Why, when the 300/2.8 VR Nikkor is superior?

Unproven claim.

Prove it then. I'm satisfied with the results.

Prove you are not a terrorist.

Why?

Because Guantanamo is just one email away.

It's better to keep you guessing.

I don't worry nor guess about terrorists, I kill (or maim)
them when they come across me. And anyone is a terrorist until
proven innovent.

Anyway, the 300/2.8 VR Nikkor is obviously not superior, as
you fail to prove your claim, and you are most probably a
terrorist.

You owe me a 1D Mk III, a 5D, and a 50mm f/1.0. (Prove you
don't, or send them over soon!)

Just make a wish list.

Naah, I don't make _wishlists_, I write _orders_. And you will
write cheques, and be glad for it.

-Wolfgang
.

Loading