traylorc wrote:
Still trying to understand why this was posted in the Nikon forum.....
Well believe it or not, some Nikon users like to know what new Canon bodies and lenses come out. Just the same as some Canon users like to know the same about Nikon, hence why you are free to post Nikon info on the Canon Forum.
Imagemaster wrote:
Well believe it or not, some Nikon users like to know what new Canon bodies and lenses come out. Just the same as some Canon users like to know the same about Nikon, hence why you are free to post Nikon info on the Canon Forum.
The built-in teleconverter looks to be a cool new feature that Nikon doesn't offer. If the rumored price is true, though, it puts it into a different league than the Nikon.
binary visions wrote:
You guys are so focused on Nikon that you can't conceive of being interested in what's offered by the photographic market at large?
binary visions wrote:
You guys are so focused on Nikon that you can't conceive of being interested in what's offered by the photographic market at large?
We all have Nikon cameras already. Does Canon sell this lens with a Nikon mount? No. Then the only people who would look at this are clearly not focused on actual photography, but something else. This information is easy to find, no need to post it here.
I keep a general interest on photo gear and was aware of this latest addition in the Canon collection but it is bad manners of the topic starter to be a straight up troll to post something like this in a part that is dedicated to Nikon gear. My 2 cents.
Vinnie_VdB wrote:
Don't get the point of this post :confused:
I keep a general interest on photo gear and was aware of this latest addition in the Canon collection but it is bad manners of the topic starter to be a straight up troll to post something like this in a part that is dedicated to Nikon gear. My 2 cents.
Well boohoo on me for upsetting the Nikon crowd. So much for trying to be helpful for simply pointing out a comparison between two different 200-400 lenses.
And the last time I looked, a troll was not someone simply trying to point out something.
If you don't like it, don't read it. I'm pretty sure the subject says Canon.
And for those that seem to be ignorant of the fact, there are actually Nikon users that said they would change to Canon gear based simply on the performance of this lens.
Imagemaster wrote:
Well boohoo on me for upsetting the Nikon crowd. So much for trying to be helpful for simply pointing out a comparison between two different 200-400 lenses.
And the last time I looked, a troll was not someone simply trying to point out something.
If you don't like it, don't read it. I'm pretty sure the subject says Canon.
And for those that seem to be ignorant of the fact, there are actually Nikon users that said they would change to Canon gear based simply on the performance of this lens.
+1
I don't shoot Canon (and don't plan on changing any time soon), but appreciate the info . . .
Imagemaster wrote:
Well boohoo on me for upsetting the Nikon crowd. So much for trying to be helpful for simply pointing out a comparison between two different 200-400 lenses.
And the last time I looked, a troll was not someone simply trying to point out something.
If you don't like it, don't read it. I'm pretty sure the subject says Canon.
And for those that seem to be ignorant of the fact, there are actually Nikon users that said they would change to Canon gear based simply on the performance of this lens.
The fact that you just posted a Canon lens review link with no context or comment. Doing the same on the Canon site with a Nikon lens review would garner a similar response. It just has the appearance of trolling.
The attitude here is not based on naive ignorance of other makes. I, like many others, check out the Canon forum at least once a week. There are many from that forum who check us out and contribute to the discussions. But generally, we don't start new "look at us" posts.
Imagemaster wrote:
Well believe it or not, some Nikon users like to know what new Canon bodies and lenses come out. Just the same as some Canon users like to know the same about Nikon, hence why you are free to post Nikon info on the Canon Forum.
I actually found that people in Nikon forum very open minded and positive towards Canon as well as other non-Nikon gear. Many times they recommend Canon gear and try to convince others not switch to Nikon in certain cases.
However, IMO you should at least provide a context or commentary explaining why you think this post is of interest to Nikon shooters in particular. If someone posts in the Canon forum a link to a sharpness test of the Nikon 14-24 without any commentary or context what do you think the response would be?! Do you seriously believe all would appreciate the "photographic knowledge"?
+1
It's a Nikon forum, yes. But I appreciate the info, and it's good to know what other interesting gear is popping up from other makers/brands/manufacturers. Competition and comparison is what drives advancement. Now, I'd like to see Nikon update their 200-400 with a built-in tele-converter, and perform better at farther distances.
(add that to a long long list of Nikon wishes, including an updated/outdated 80-400, and many more)
However, I could see the post being better received if there was a short body of text to go with the link - like why is it is something of interest for Nikon shooters? But really, people... simmer down. If you don't like the post, just ignore it, and it will die off to the second page.
Chestnut wrote:
However, I could see the post being better received if there was a short body of text to go with the link - like why is it is something of interest for Nikon shooters?
Why should I have to provide any "short body of text'? The subject says "Canon's 200-400 competitor".
You are either interested in viewing the link or not. I could care less.
God forbid that I should make any comment on a Canon lens on the Nikon Forum. I would be tarred and feathered for expressing such views.
Archive 2013 · Canon's 200-400 competitor
