File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Great lens or greatest lens?
>> Anonymous
Very awesome on a full frame
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
superior
>> Anonymous
>>180686
Prove it with your awesome noisy sensors.
>> Anonymous
Chances are that the difference between the various brands are small enough that the photographer's skill will make VASTLY more of a difference for anyone on /p/ (or for that matter just about any other photographer who isn't the cream of the crop).
>> Anonymous
>>180693
Idiot. It's the camera, not the photographer.
>> Anonymous
>>180693
True. I've often said that whatever little optical superiority there is between brands is heavily displaced by the user's ability. You'll ruin more shots yourself than your optics' faults will.
>> Anonymous
canon 24-70 = $1,200
nikon 24-70 = $1,700
zeiss 24-70 = $1,750

i think we know why canon is cheaper
>> Anonymous
>>180696
Unless you use a Sigma wwwwwwwwww
>> Anonymous
>>180697
>nikon 24-70 = $1,700
>zeiss 24-70 = $1,750
Cause Nikon and Sony overprice their shit? Look at other Sony lenses, you'll see that they sell their 70-200 2.8's, for example, hundreds of bucks more expensive than their nikon and canon counterparts.
>> Anonymous
>>180697

Because Nikon is the Apple of the camera world.

Market your product to Joe Average and charge more for it because it looks cooler.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>180707
Nikons don't even look cooler.
>> Anonymous
>>180707

says the poor fucker living in the shed
>> Anonymous
ok before we all get at eachothers throats about what brand is better, ( this battle will never end )
may i be a noob and ask wtf would you use a 24-70mm lens for, i mean ok portrait i use a 50mm 1.7 lens with the 1.5 conversion for nikon digital and a 12-24mm lens for Landscape
>> Anonymous
>>180711
They don't, but Sony lenses do.

>>180713
Feel free to pay more than you need to for a nametag, richfag.
>> Anonymous
>>180713
A fool and his money are soon parted.
>> Anonymous
>>180718
>im not a nametag rich fag i just don't see why you are saying cannon is better than nikon,
>> Anonymous
>>180717
24 for landscape
70 for portrait

Everything in between for daily/general/standard use. On a fullframe at least.

On a crop, a 24-70 provides the exact same range you'd get on a compact 3x zoom camera, which is pretty useful too, possibly suitable for photojournalism as well.
>> Anonymous
>>180717may i be a noob and ask wtf would you use a 24-70mm lens for,

You can use it for just about anything that doesn't require a long lens.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>180700

I use sigma and I'm still sane.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:11 06:47:57Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length42.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>180724
Didn't say it's better, just saying nikon overprices stuff.
You'll get the same performance from either in common use.

If the optical quality difference is marginal (considering the user factor in) the reason to pay hundreds of bucks more for relatively equal performance becomes moot.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>180711Nikons don't even look cooler.

they do look cooler, see

hell, they even got a red slit on all their camera bodies and get giugiario to design the d3

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:12 22:43:25Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width423Image Height546
>> Anonymous
>>180726
so, its just a good general lens not great at any thing? but does every thing? like im pretty new at photography and heard that it is much better to get a lens that is designed for something other than a lens that is designed for every thing, because of less glass in the lens also means clearer shot.

is this true?
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>180733
You sure didn't convince me. I still think the Canon lens looks better.
>> Anonymous
>>180734

I'm a poorfag so I don't have money to spend on 10 different lenses. I have a Tamron 18-200 lens that I got when I got the camera, and then I bought one of these.

Unless I wanna go out and shoot sports or something, chances are I have all the lens I need.

I wouldn't mind having a true macro lens though.
>> Anonymous
>>180733
Awesome. That's a nice D3 you're using too! Where can I get mine?

>>180734
It is true that it's better to get a lens that's designed for a specific focal length (prime) or a zoom for a certain range.

That argument is usually used to explain why superzooms such as 18-200 lenses suck (they have lots of optical aberrations, are slow, and overall arent sharp).

This 24-70 is really good for its range, which is reasonably limited. It's pretty much a standard zoom lens.

An 18-200 used within the 24-70 range wont ever give you the same results as the lens designed for that range. Just like it wont give you the same results as a proper 70-200 telephoto lens.
>> Anonymous
>>180733
I like the canon better too.
>> Anonymous
>>180733
Sure the Nikon's look cooler but Canon's are manlier and more rugged which is what I like! Kinda ironic considering Nikon's newer bodies and Canon EOS bodies look like handbags and Nikon had the F4.
>> Anonymous
>>180740
>>180736

When you make your livelihood, you don't choose the brand that offers an equivalent, even similar system, you choose the brand that is a trustworthy and time-tested tool. Thus, Nikon. There are always distinctions to be made between Nikon and Canon, but I've often heard this statement, and I believe it: Canons are the best cameras made by engineers, but Nikons are the best cameras made by photographers. It's a generalization, but that feels very true to me.
>> Anonymous
>>180738
>>180737
Thanks guys for your help explaining this to me, i was just wondering because i have a 50mm 1.8 lens and i want to get a 12-24mm lens for landscape,

Nikon lens's are fucking expensive and i have heard this one is pretty much the same
http://photo.net/equipment/tokina/12-24-f4/
for the 12-24mm lens half the price ( although the pictures they took with the lens LOOK like total shit house, )
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>180745
So, you're very experienced with both systems and have chosen Nikon, or you're just basing it on what you've heard?

It's just opinion. If I had gone with Nikon, it would not have made an ounce of difference.
>> Anonymous
>>180745

Best copypasta ever.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
     File :-(, x)
>>180752
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
Aww fuck, they got me ;_;
>> Anonymous
>>180752
Just copypasta, originally said by a hardcore nikon fanboy.

>>180748
No prob. I've heard that lens is good, but I cannot confirm myself. I've read more about Sigma's 12-24, and I suggest you also take a look at it. It's not constant aperture, but I've read good things about it (plus it'll fit full frame if that's important to you).
>> abphoto
>>180713

There are a lot of photographers doing that.
>> Anonymous
>>180737
Unless you're something exceptional, you only need three or four lenses. Say, a wide, a normal, and a medium tele, and then some sort of tele zoom. That'll do you for almost anything.

>>180748
If you can find a wide prime, get it. Superwide zooms (with some expensive exceptions) tend to have a lot of distortion. Primes will be better-corrected.

Unfortunately, I can't think of a ultrawide prime for a crop DSLR. Then again, I haven't looked much at all, because ultrawides aren't my thing at all.

Primes do deliver better quality, but that's generally not the reason to use them. They're smaller, usually faster (let in more light), and they train you to compose better. See this article:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/the-case-against-zooms.html
>> Anonymous
>>180752

I can't speak for the post you're replying to, but I personally have used both systems and ended up choosing Nikon. I shot with Canon for about ten years and had a variety of mid-range and eventually high-end film and digital bodies and lenses. In 2005 I decided to give Nikon a try for a variety of reasons, and I can say without a doubt that it's a better system for me. Image quality is fine across the board, but Nikon's ergonomics are vastly better, my Nikons are built better and have been more reliable than my Canons, and I really like the fact that I can use manual focus AIs primes with my camera natively. The only, and I do mean only, thing that Canon has that I wish Nikon had is an equivalent to the 70-200mm f/4L- it's so much lighter and smaller than the f/2.8 version but still packs all the image quality. I think I'm going to give the 18-200mm Nikkor a try, but it's a little slower and I'd be surprised (but very happy) if it was as sharp or distortion free.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>180745
10/10
>> Anonymous
autofocus with nikon makes me want to kill myself, canon all the way

it's like sniping in CS 1.6 vs. CS:S, it's just wrong
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>180767
In my experience the Sigma 12-24 sucks and I'd only ever use it because it works on FF. But then I hear sample variation is all over the place.
>> abphoto
>>180745
This still does not justify the premium they force people to pay. Functionally, they are no better than Canon and still cost more.
>> Anonymous
>>180788
Agreed.

>>180786
Really? Guess Sigma's plague comes into play there. : [
>> Anonymous
>>180788
I'd argue it does. Nikon is a smaller company than Canon, with less revenue sources to fund R&D. A small premium on the lenses isn't egregious when you take that into account. It's like buying from a local store versus a chain: the chain's cheaper because it's got more sources of revenue and a larger scale of operations. If the local store offers something someone wants and it needs to charge slightly more to stay in business because it's smaller, that's fine.

(I don't shoot Nikon, before that comes in, and saging for the worst damned kind of gear thread: the non-troll that's just as stupid and does the same thing.)
>> wtf??? !GW.CDqIo6A
Okay, this thread has confused the fuck out of me, prospective buyer looking into a system to invest in.

>>180697

How come the Canon version is $500 less than Nikon?

>>180745

Is that true? About the real photographers part? Kind of makes sense because Nikon only makes cameras.

>>180781Nikon's ergonomics are vastly better, my Nikons are built better and have been more reliable than my Canons

Is that only for old cameras or is this true for the modern ones?
>> Anonymous
um sorry to bother you, i have a nikon D80 and while we are on this topic does any one know how to turn on the 3 frames per second, i have tried for ages
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
I'm all about the 17-40.
>> Anonymous
>>180794
Nikon and Canon ergonomics are different. Neither is better. Pick the one you *like*.

Neither is more rugged today. The XSi will take as much as the D60, and the D3 will take as much as the 1D Mk. III.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>180798I'm all about unsharp mask

fixd
>> Anonymous
>>180792
Justifiable by company size, but that's not supporting what nikonfags that say it's because their gear is better. It just means they charge more for the same stuff, as we've been saying. Doesnt make it better gear.

>>180794

How come the Canon version is $500 less than Nikon?

>>180745

>Is that true? About the real photographers part? Kind of makes sense because Nikon only makes cameras.
Not true. Not everyone in either brand is going to be a photographer, but I assure you that most people in both companies are fucking engineers. That argument is moot.

If anything, it means that Canons have better systems "under the hood", which, coupled with better sensors works out even better than comparable lenses with noisy SONY sensors.

>Nikon's ergonomics are vastly better, my Nikons are built better and have been more reliable than my Canons
>Is that only for old cameras or is this true for the modern ones?
Modern ones have better ergonomics than the lowest end canons (40D and up are good as far as ergonomics go). The thing about build only applies to old cameras vs old cameras. Modern high end cameras on both brands are built the same.
>> Anonymous
>>180794

That is old copypasta you are replying to.

Nikon also make microscopes and stuff too, BTW.
>> Anonymous
>>180804
It is better, for them. They're speaking from that point of view. They're not wrong, they're just generalizing their subjective point of view too far. It's a fact that Nikon is better *for them*, but not that Nikon is better for everyone, and they're confusing the two when they say that. To put it properly, they should say something like, "I don't mind paying the extra cost of Nikon equipment because I'm getting just as much or more out of it, because I work better with it than I would using Canon/Pentax/Sony/Olympus/whatever."
>> Anonymous
>>180794Is that only for old cameras or is this true for the modern ones?

It's a matter of personal preference, but to give you an example the specific cameras I have extensively used and compared are the Canon EOS A2, 20D, 1N and 1D versus the Nikon F4s, D200, D1x, and D2x in no particular order. In my opinion Nikon's ergonomics are so much better that I wouldn't even shoot with a Canon camera if I were paid to do so. On the other hand, the low end Nikons (anything below D200/D300) have pretty bad ergonomics as well.

>>180794Is that true? About the real photographers part? Kind of makes sense because Nikon only makes cameras.

I think it is, lost of people (most of whom shoot Canon) would disagree.

>>180794How come the Canon version is $500 less than Nikon?
For several reasons. Reason 1, they can charge 500 more for it and people will still pay. Some other factors may be that Canon has always, since they first started competing with Nikon in the 1950s, tried to price their gear a little lower than Nikon. It was necessary to compete with Nikon's reputation and it's probably the only reason Canon ever survived to be as successful as it is today. The size of the company and available R&D budget is probably another part of it. Bottom line, different companies charge different amounts for different things.
>> Anonymous
>>180811
That's true. The problem with such opinions, though, is that they keep spreading around as if they were some sort of absolute truth. People will hear "this is better than that", and if they're ignorant on the subject, they'll learn it. Nothing can be done about it I guess, but thanks for reminding me of it.
>> Anonymous
>>180814It was necessary to compete with Nikon's reputation and it's probably the only reason Canon ever survived to be as successful as it is today.

sounds like an acute case of nikonfag
>> Anonymous
>>180816
Agreed. What needs to be spread around, generally, is the idea that with most any tool, including cameras at the same level, it's the subjective experience that makes it better or worse, like when we tell people coming in saying "Should I buy a D60 or XSi" to go to the store and try them out, alongside the A200 and K200D and E-420. (Did I cover everybody there?)
>> Anonymous
>>180814
>It's a matter of personal preference... In my opinion Nikon's ergonomics are so much better that I wouldn't even shoot with a Canon camera if I were paid to do so.

Perfect example of>>180811.
>> Anonymous
>>180823
/signed
>> Anonymous
>>180822
No, it's the truth. Canon has a well established brand name now, but they didn't fifty years ago. Had they not appealed to customers by price, they never would have even made it out of the starting gates.

>>180824
Actually it's a bad example, because I have no confusion about whether it is better for me or for everyone. Hence the use of words like "personal preference" and "my opinion."

>>180823
This is the truth.
>> Anonymous
This is just another idiot troll. Ignore it.
>> Anonymous
>>180833Had they not appealed to customers by price, they never would have even made it out of the starting gates.

Serenar might be able to enchant you with a tale about this but price was never "the only reason Canon ever survived to be as successful as it is today."
>> Anonymous
>>180833
I meant it as a good example of the sort of positive thing I pointed to there.
>> Anonymous
ITT Canikon war ended quietly/peacefully. Sage now.
>> Anonymous
>>180945
Even if their cameras were good, that doesn't mean they didn't need clever marketing to survive against the reputations of Leica, Contax and Zeiss, and Nikon, with the epic pimping DDD did for Nikkor lenses' reputation in the early 50s. Look at right now: the four smaller manufacturers (Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic) make DSLRs with features not found on any Canon or Nikon models, but if they tried to compete price-to-price with them, they'd die.
>> Anonymous
>>180951

Pentax, Sony and Olympus are trying to play catch up, they have to offer more for less.

Nikon and Canon were neck and neck and it's not like Canon went, "HEY! Let's lower our prices and we'll win!"

No, that's not what happened.
>> Anonymous
ITT: sage is meaningless
>> Anonymous
>>180692
canon fag here

why is this the only insult that people ever throw at Sony?

Has anybody actually seen a iso 400/800/1600 shot from the new a200/300/350?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSLR-A350Camera SoftwareDSLR-A350 v00Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationLeft-Hand, BottomHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:02:15 14:41:56Exposure Time1/13 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating3200Brightness-1.8 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width4592Image Height3056RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
sorry canonfags

if you want to play great lens / greatest lens

best you forget canon and nikon
you need to go way the fuck back to

leica/zeiss/pentax

im, no pentax fag - but there are a lot of people who think the pentax 31mm is the best autofocus lens ever made.
>> Anonymous
>>180966
Lovely smudge style NR overprocessing. Enjoy your noise.
>> Anonymous
>>180969
Those lenses arent made for modern cameras, let alone full frames.
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
     File :-(, x)
<3

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:01:17 09:06:30Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating3200Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length105.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width4368Image Height2912RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>180969
is probally meaning this
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml

However, you cant really put primes against zooms....

of course that prime 31mm is going to win. Pentax Limited glass is $$$$$$$$

>>180976
um yeah...you fail
its a FA-Limited - its fullframe
>> Anonymous
>>180988
still a fucking prime
>> Anonymous
>>180966

A little bit over NR'd, but a raw file would fix that.

>>180969
Please. The 31mm is very, very good, but there are other autofocus lenses made by other companies (including Canon and Nikon) that are just as good. The 35/1.4L and the 28/1.4 Nikkor, and, yes, even the Sigma 30/1.4 (an underrated classic in the making, IMO) come to mind as fairly direct competitor that are also great lenses. You can prefer the 31mm Pentax (I probably would, too) but that doesn't make it better than other great lenses.

All companies make good lenses, from Leica to Tokina. Companies tend to have distinct looks, coming from a passed-on design philosophy. The classic famous example of this is Leica favoring microcontrasty designs with "pop" and Zeiss favoring high-resolution designs with "bite," but there's more to it than that, of course. Some people prefer one look to another, or find that it suits their work better, or whatever. But all companies have made great lenses, and there are autofocus lenses that equal the 31mm Pentax, and it's stupid to confine the discussion to autofocus glass unless making a buying recommendation to someone with a bad viewfinder or who doesn't manually focus.

TL;DR appreciate great glass, but don't be a brand snob, and don't confuse what you like with what is good or best.
>> Anonymous
another Canon vs Nikon vs Everything else shit fight.

Hoorah
>> Anonymous
>>180976
Also, it doesn't matter if a lens isn't "full-frame." It doesn't cover a 36x24mm sensor, okay, so what? Do you whine at a Leica M lens because it doesn't project a large enough image circle to be used on a 4x5? Or a 4x5 lens that won't cover 8x10? No, you don't.

The lens in question does cover a 36x24mm sensor, but even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter.
>> Anonymous
>>181001
It's about the ability to use a good lens on more than just a crop camera, that's why it's important.
>> Anonymous
>>181007
So, in the 1930s-1950s, when people were creeping towards 135 film from 120 (as opposed to the rapid adoption of digital formats smaller than 135 film), lenses for 135 should've been made to cover 120?

Most people shoot only one format on a given mount, and if a lens can be made smaller or better (or both) by making it cover a smaller format, so be it.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
     File :-(, x)
>>180987
oh hai

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70Camera SoftwareVer.2.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern824Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mmSerial Number200159d4Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:13 18:52:25Exposure Time2.5 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceTungstenFlashNo FlashFocal Length35.00 mmCommentCopyright 2008 Patrick BridgmanColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height681RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownISO Speed Used200Image QualityFINEWhite BalanceINCANDESCENTImage SharpeningNORMALFocus ModeAF-SFlash SettingNORMALFlash Compensation0.0 EVISO Speed Requested200Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EVAE Bracket Compensation0.0 EVTone CompensationCSLens TypeUnknownLens Range20.0 - 35.0 mm; f/2.8Auto FocusSingle Area, Center Selected, Top FocusedShooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffColor ModeLandscape sRGBLighting TypeNATURALNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations15653Image OptimizationCUSTOMSaturation 2NORMAL
>> Anonymous
>>181013
Allow me to correct myself then: it's important to -me- at least, as I shoot both full and crop, and I consider it an important feature.
>> Anonymous
>>180994Leica favoring microcontrasty designs with "pop"

what's microcontrast?
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
     File :-(, x)
>>181015
sup

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:01:17 10:11:00Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/10.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length105.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1500Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>181028

needs more DOF
>> Anonymous
>>181022
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/lens-contrast.shtml

This article explains it better than I can, especially at 3:19 in the morning.
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
     File :-(, x)
>>181029
MORE?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:01:17 10:22:21Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/1.4Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1500Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
     File :-(, x)
>>180945
Wish I could. I wasn't actually alive then so I can't say anything about 60's marketing, but I can say that on paper Canon's offerings were pretty strong back in the day, and that I'd use a classic Canon rangefinder over its Nikon contemporary anyday. Nikon was just really on the ball with the SLR - they weren't the first to make them (that'd be Ihagee Dresden) or even the first Japanese to make them (Pentax ;_;) but if you don't think the F whipped the shit out of the Canonflex and the Spotmatic you're an idiot.

Have an old Nikon/Leica comparison as consolation for my lack of info.

Oh also Nikon's camera business isn't that significant to them as a company - their primary business is in industrial chip fabrication machines and whatnot. In fact that goes for a lot of the photo companies - Fuji is considering dropping the film and camera business and going into medical tech, and Leica is only a camera/telescope company because it span off its microscope and surveying divisions a while back.
>> Anonymous
>>181040
Interesting the way the M was marketed, versus how we perceive today having to (to an extent) focus on some technical details as being a positive part of the all-manual camera experience.

If only somehow an M3 and dual-range Summicron went for $495 today...
>> Anonymous
>>181052
Well it was state of the art back then. Can you imagine that for a time (up to the M3) Leicas were high tech?

Though I do love the "with new technology, you're free to focus on photography!" way of pitching the new features, because these days it's "well Holga's don't have controls so they're more arty"
>> Anonymous
When you are prattling on about "bite" and "pop" it is time to kill yourself or start taking pictures with a Holga until you learn to appreciate photography rather than masturbating over idiot gear topics.

What a crock of shit.
>> Anonymous
pro tip : nikon will be out of business in a few years. . sorry nikon lovers
>> Anonymous
>>181065
thats not a pro tip, thats a bunch of ass shit.
especially how it has the financial backing of the Mitsubishi Group of Companies.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>181066
Speaking of which, this is a pretty good read:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=24315311
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>181065

fuckin lol... that's what was said when Canon changed lens mounts... and it's been said about Pentax Olympus... etc etc

... Obvious troll is obvious

...still I lol'd... the second largest manufacturer of DSLRs (by a margin less than 4%) going out of business.

LOL
>> Butterfly 200% sarcasam !xlgRMYva6s
>>181087
With the competition they face from sony they could very well be in trouble...
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>181090

LOL...

Cause it's butterfly i should leave it as it is...

but people might actually take the comment seriously.

So please butterfly, substantiate your claim.

How does a company which shares half of 82% of the DSLR market with Canon lose ANYTHING to a new fledgling DSLR competitor?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>181092

just to substantiate my own view, Thom Hogan says it a little bit better than i could.

____________________________________________
The Problem of Innovation in a Mature Market
Feb 6--Post PMA we're getting a lot of the same emails and forum posts. Basically, they go something like this: "Watch out Nikon and Canon, Sony's new Live View (or fill-in-the-blank's new fill-in-the-blank) is going to blow you out of the market."

Such "observations" are not really observations, but wishful thinking. The problem for all smaller-share players in a market dominated by legacy players is simple: how do you take market share and hold it? It's not as simple as coming up with a new feature (even a useful one). Sony's approach to Live View (viewfinder CCD) is one that Olympus pioneered, and it didn't win Olympus any new market share. Indeed, in that last sentence you see the problem: if Olympus and Sony can use the same approach, what's going to stop Nikon, Canon, Pentax, et.al., using the same approach down the line?

You might think that patents are the answer, but that hasn't proven to be the case in the past. First, there are too many cross-licensing agreements in place amongst these companies to keep new technology to themselves. Second, there are always ways around patents. Worse still, some of the underlying patents aren't in the hands of the player making use of them, which means licensing to others is possible. Finally, there's the patents themselves: they simply may not be enforceable (viewing via a viewfinder sensor were discussed in public well prior to their actual design; indeed, the Nikon F5 had "live view" via Photo Secretary back in the 1990's, and I've been asking since the beginning of the digital era where that capability went).
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>181093

It takes a disruptive technology to make significant inroads against established players, and even then you don't always win. In SLRs we have the case of Minolta, who jumped first on phase detecting autofocus technology (and violated Honeywell's patents in doing so). Minolta managed to climb into the top tier of SLR makers for a short time, at one point taking about a third of the market. But note that Nikon and Canon both adopted phase detection technology very quickly, essentially negating the upstart's seeming technology advantage. Some say that the distraction of the Honeywell suit crippled Minolta--and it most certainly slowed them--but in the end little performance aspects count, such as shutter lag, 100% viewfinders, frame rates, and much more. At least amongst serious photographers. You have to deliver it all, not just a new feature, and you have to do it across an entire line of products, not just a handful.

It's true that marketing is one key element to all this. Sony and Pentax, for example, seem to be trying the "check box" approach to features: got IS, got sensor cleaning, got live view, got...well, you get the idea. The problem is that their check boxes are at most a generation ahead of the big competitors they wish to unseat, and they're running low on useful ammo. The only real drawback to the new Nikon D60 vis-a-vis the new Sony Alpha 350 is lack of Live View. How much do you want to bet that the next consumer DSLR introduced by Nikon has Live View?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
I'm impressed by Sony's efforts. They certainly are pressing forward hard and showing that they want that third spot very badly. The technology problem-solving they're showing is also impressive. But short of a true disruptive technology that the others can't easily reproduce, it's not going to be as easy as they seem to think to topple the leaders. Will Sony and Pentax/Samsung bite off some market share from the leaders? Probably, though it's going to be expensive to do (either through bigger advertising presence, shelf-space incentives, and/or consumer pricing). Will Nikon and Canon sit quietly while others take any market share from them? Not a chance.

Game on; but not over.
>> Butterfly. wtf! !xlgRMYva6s
>>181092
Holy crap Jeremo just read my name will you! Ofc i dont mean it seriously!
>> Anonymous
That was some text wall, Jeremo.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Not even the Jews could march around that wall of text, Jeremo.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>181119

yeah i got a bit carried away. sorry :D
>> Anonymous
Back on the non-religious war topic, it's an awesome lens on a full-frame camera at least. Tried it once or twice on an XT before slapping it onto a 5D and it's on there for 90% of what I do.

It actaully kinda screwed up my initial work with the 70-200 2.8L because I was spoiled by the 24-70 and expected to be able to count eyelashes and pores at 2.8 like I can on the 24-70. The thing is razor sharp at 2.8, or at least the one I have it. In fact, at anything below 60mm I'm pretty sure it's sharpest at 2.8, though I haven't sat there and tried to shoot calibration screens to be sure.

I can't comment across brands, but it's my walkaround workhorse for portrait work that isn't headshots. If it fell off a cliff and didn't survive I'd be at the store buying a new one the next day. If you've got a Canon and like the range then it's a great buy. Heard good things about the 24-105 but unless you really need the extra length and don't care about F2.8 at all go for the 24-70.

Never used a similar lens on a non-Canon system, so no idea what they're like, so this is more fanboying the lens than the brand. Canon does make lots of crap too...
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
If you have a crop body then the 17-55 2.8 IS is pretty much the EF-S equivalent and gives you the same sort of comfortable FOV to work with.
>> Anonymous
>>181149
16-50's closer, especially on Canon crop.
>> Anonymous
Is there a noticeable difference between 18-55mm EF-S 3.5 and 17-40 EF 4.0?

I'm not trolling, but I'm curious how much of a different image the two lenses will yield, being that there's almost a $600 price gap.
>> sebastian !QzrU9Y5.76
>>181159
The 17-40 is an L series lens; the build quality is much better, the optical quality is better, etc.

Also, the 17-40 is f/4.0 throughout the entire range of the lens, while the 18-55 can be restricted to f/5.6 once you start zooming in.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>181158

Canon doesn't make a 16-50 that I know of. I presume you're talking about Tokina, Sigma and so on? I'd rather not sacrifice IQ and utility just for that mm so I can be "closer" to another lens. Canon do make an excellent 17-55 though, so it's a good choice for many.

I care more about the relative performance of the lens than perfectly matching the FOV and the 17-55 does all that well enough to make it worth considering.
>> thom
>>181093
>>181095
>>181096

I don't mind that you use my articles to prove a point but I would appreciate it if you would use quotation marks on the whole of the article. ;-)
>> Anonymous
>>181167
So, basically I won't see much of a difference at 17/18?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>181146Heard good things about the 24-105 but unless you really need the extra length and don't care about F2.8 at all go for the 24-70.

The extra 35mm is really minuscule. People get the 24-105 because it's smaller, lighter and has magical IS.

It's also brand new so it's arguable that it's a tad more useable wide open.

>>181170the 17-55 2.8 IS is pretty much the EF-S equivalent

Busting out my trusty Photozone chart. The 17-55 2.8 IS tops out every single lens Canon has minus a select primes because it can't match the aperture.

>>181198So, basically I won't see much of a difference at 17/18?

It's not just about aperture. The 17-40 has that magical "pop" many people talk about that other lenses simply don't have.
>> sebastian !QzrU9Y5.76
>>181198
You'll still see a difference.

Comparing the standard lenses to the L series lenses is like comparing a 40" HD TV to a 28" standard def TV. They both do the same thing, sure, but the 40" HD one does it a whole load better.
>> Anonymous
so i keep seeing these threads on forums about people asking why they would buy a $600 17-40 vs. a $175 18-55 IS

okay, i understand built like a tank, weather sealed (with a filter only), zOMG L, constant f/4 and full frame compatible

but what's that magical pop people say, contrast?

or is it just 17-40 owners lying to themselves because a $175 lens is better than their L
>> Anonymous
>>181229
That's what I'm curious about. You can make colors "pop" with a little photoshop adjustments, so good, in fact, I'm sure some people wouldn't tell the difference between the two lenses.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
     File :-(, x)
Maybe this picture shows the "pop"? I don't think it would look as good with any other lens.

EF 50mm f/1.4 @ f/2.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DPhotographerTom ConteMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:14 00:29:37Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>181229
I've shot with both, and i can say there's a huge difference. The L lens is just so much sharper and has amazing colors that the kit lens just can't reproduce.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>181205Busting out my trusty Photozone chart. The 17-55 2.8 IS tops out every single lens Canon has minus a select primes because it can't match the aperture.

I'm not surprised from what I have heard and seen with my own use. The more I use it the more amazed I am with it. Best IQ from a zoom I've had.
>> Anonymous
>>181250EF 50mm f/1.4 @ f/2.

well yeah, obviously a prime will always looks better than a zoom

17-40 vs. 18-55 IS, i have yet to see that "pop" people talk about
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>181251

I'd agree with this. The 17-40 is a very nice lens and worth the money for what you get.

The newer 18-55 IS is also a great lens, considerably better than its predecessor and worth the money too.

You've really got to pick the one that suits your budget. In that aspect they do not overlap and slot nicely into their own niches.
>> Anonymous
>>181255
you're not looking hard enough.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2488402741_aa1df96047_b.jpg 17-40mm
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Sigma 18-50 EX vs. Canon 17-40 L

"Here the EX is stellar while the L struggles a bit. Note the L has some CA-red fringing in the edge crops. The Sigma shows why it should be a serious consideration for 1.6x owners. Overall, I found that the EX produced MORE SATURATED images when viewing the image as a whole; this was somewhat surprising to me knowing it was going against the well-loved L. The USM of the L is a boon and produced fast and quiet AF every time."

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution150 dpiVertical Resolution150 dpiImage Created2005:04:07 14:08:00Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1115Image Height1078
>> Anonymous
>>181260you're not looking hard enough.

photo is unavailable

but that doesn't prove anything, any idiot can make the picture look better

take the same scene with both lenses, i'll be surprised if there's that magical "pop"
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>181255

If you don't see the difference then the choice for you is obvious, no? May as well get the cheaper option.
>> Anonymous
>>181264

i'm a skeptic with money let's say
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>181266

A sensible attitude. I am serious and not just being dismissive though. If you honestly see no difference and there are no features that interest you then you may as well get the cheaper option. Even the "cheap" one is pretty good and better than the compact digital cameras. If you have no reason to spend the extra money on the other lens then you can put it towards other things that will help you or you will enjoy much more instead. You could get a flash or something.
>> Anonymous
i use my current 18-55 as my standard zoom along with my 580 but i need to be at f/8 to have good quality

which is laughable

i want to replace the 18-55 and not break the bank, which means no 24-70, 24-105 or 17-55

tamron's 17-50 sucks shit for AF so that leaves me with the 18-55 IS or 17-40
>> Anonymous
>>181270
I'm kinda in the same predicament myself, except that I have enough for the 17-55 or the 24-70 nikon f2.8. I tend to shoot landscape but the 17-55 has a bit too much distortion and I am wondering if 24 is wide enough...
>> Anonymous
>>181485
Why don't you get a wide angle to go along with a 24-70?
>> Anonymous
>>181505
that is going to cost me $3,000 or $4,000
unless I get the other from tamron or a kit lens.
>> Anonymous
>>181521
>>181521
excessive overestimate is excessive.
>> Anonymous
>>181521
If you're buying the Nikkor 14-24 maybe. Just get the Tokina/Sigma 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 and you'll be happier than with any 17-55.
>> Anonymous
>>181485I am wondering if 24 is wide enough...

so what, you don't have any any standard zoom that goes down to 24?

put kit lens at 24 and profit
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>181197
Thom Hogan reads /p/? He's even older than ac!

>>181270
How's the Sigma 18-50? That has HSM, doesn't it?
>> Anonymous
>>181596

for the Nikons, yeah

it's a DC motor for everyone else
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>181621

lol what's going on guys, just chillin'
>> Anonymous
>>181626
The results of the .95 look really nice when it's used on the M8.
>> pskaught !zkraGArAss
     File :-(, x)
I'm not a fan of gear threads, but this is what I want all my lenses to look like.
>> Anonymous
>>181626

having one of those motherfuckers

you can be like Bullet Tooth Tony in Snatch saying the Desert Eagle point five oh speech.

Now, dicks have drive and clarity of vision, but they are not clever. They smell pussy and they want a piece of the action. And you thought you smelled some good old pussy, and have brought your two small mincey faggot balls along for a good old time. But you've got your parties mangled up. There's no pussy here, just a dose that'll make you wish you were born a woman. Like a prick, you are having second thoughts. You are shrinking, and your two little balls are shrinking with you. And the fact that you've got "Canon EF 50mm f/1.8" written down the side of your gun...

Bullet Tooth Tony: And the fact that I've got "Canon 50mm f/0.95 Made in Japan" Should precipitate your balls into shrinking, along with your presence. Now... Fuck off!
>> Anonymous
>>181626
I forget, can those be converted to ltm or just to M?
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>181637
Just to M, but you should really just use the Canon 7 because it's awesome too.
>> Anonymous
>>181648
lol @ Canon 7. I'll stick with my Bessa.
>> Anonymous
>>181626
you sir, have brillant taste
i got one of these babys for $3 in mint condition at a op shop
>> Anonymous
>>181653
I hate you so much. Or this is a troll.
>> Anonymous
>>181653
...i'm jealous.
>> Anonymous
>>181524
I was talking about the Nikon G lenses
the 24-70 G f2.8 = $1,900
the 17-55 G f2.8 = $1,200
I don't know what you are talking about...
>> Anonymous
>>181821

>>181563If you're buying the Nikkor 14-24 maybe. Just get the Tokina/Sigma 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 and you'll be happier than with any 17-55.