Steezus wrote:
Sorry, but you come off as a Canon troll in this forum after seeing your many, many, many postings in the Canon forums about how Canon bodies are actually better at high ISO if you do x, y, and z-- ad nauseum.
Have you actually bothered to take the time to understand what he says regarding comparing images from high density sensors to those from low density sensors? What he says should be rather obvious, but it doesn't seem to be since so many people make the same stupid mistake over and over and over again. Furthermore what he says applies as much when comparing the D3x to the D3 as it does when comparing the 5D2 to the D3. He has never disparaged Nikon bodies and has always framed his posts in the context of high ISO IQ for sensors of differing sensel density. Furthermore, he has been quite vocal in his criticism of Canon's decision to leave the AF on the 5D2 untouched from its predecessor.
There may be a lot of labels one could apply to Richard (pedant comes to mind ) but troll definitely isn't one of them.
brainiac wrote:
You're accusing the wrong person of brand propaganda, I'm afraid.
Valorin wrote:
Yeah, all you do is spread the truth.
brainiac wrote:
No, I share my opinion, just like you do. My opinion isn't formed by brand, and my current kit bag typically contains gear from at least four different brands. My opinions about the relative usefulness of the 17-35 AF-S, 14-24, 16-35L2, 17-40L come from actually using all those lenses.
LeifG wrote:
Obviously you have access to the truth unlike others here.
As I have said, I share my opinions. Dismiss them at your leisure.
> To be serious, you have used perhaps one sample of each, as have many here. You might thus have an unrepresentative sample of any particular lens.
I have owned 3 copies of the 17-35 AF-S. I have owned 3 copies of the 17-40. I tried 3 copies and selected one of the 16-35L2. I have used one copy of the 14-24 and hold it to be as good as the Contax 21, i.e. essentially as perfect as could realistically be hoped. I have never experienced copy variation, even when choosing the 16-35L2.
Regarding my earlier comment at the argument in which you were engaged, irrespective of who started it, frankly it does look like a pissing contest to me.
Which argument? I think I was involved in a discussion. People have a right to be skeptical about the origin of the opinions of others, and it's perfectly fair to challenge me about why I have any particular opinion.
Jammy Straub wrote:
No Leica prices are insane , Nikon prices are just higher than Canon for lenses. Canon can have lower profit margins because their other product lines are cash cows. Given their resources, R&D and manufacturing costs might be lower as well.
Canon is not Nikon, I don't understand why everyone expects them to be. They are different manufacturers, they will have different features and price points. Like Volkswagen and Honda or Samsung and Sony.
kinconorb wrote:
how would it be $1100 when the Canon 24/1.4 is $1700
idk $2200 seems high but if people are willing to pay it. Its still cheaper than a used very old 28/1.4 but as it stand thats $500 more than the canon model which seems about right canon 24-70 is $1200ish while the nikon is $17 almost 1800
I also think it is a logical price for this lens. I used to use Canon gear, and except for the 135 /2.0, every single Nikon lens is better than its Canon competitor. So it is not strange to see a premium for Nikon lenses
I really like the look of the lens in those sample images, but I would probably rather spend money on a 24mm PC-E if I wanted to buy a 24 mm lens.
But resisting a AF-s 35/1.4 would be very difficult as long as the price is 1500- 2000$
brainiac wrote:
As I have said, I share my opinions. Dismiss them at your leisure.
I have owned 3 copies of the 17-35 AF-S. I have owned 3 copies of the 17-40. I tried 3 copies and selected one of the 16-35L2. I have used one copy of the 14-24 and hold it to be as good as the Contax 21, i.e. essentially as perfect as could realistically be hoped. I have never experienced copy variation, even when choosing the 16-35L2.
Which argument? I think I was involved in a discussion. People have a right to be skeptical about the origin of the opinions of others, and it's perfectly fair to challenge me about why I have any particular opinion....Show more →
I won't intersperse your posting with my comments, because such pedantry annoys me. Anyway, I have had my say. However you are lucky not to suffer sample variation. My Nikon 12-24mm AFS F4 lens was unusable at the wide end.
Flappie wrote:
> I used to use Canon gear, and except for the 135 /2.0, every single Nikon lens is better than its Canon competitor. So it is not strange to see a premium for Nikon lenses
35L? 24TS mk2? 14L2? I'm not sure it's as simple as all that. They both have winners.
brainiac wrote:
35L? 24TS mk2? 14L2? I'm not sure it's as simple as all that. They both have winners.
That is usually the litmus test I use to identify a fanboy (and hence the value I place on that individual's opinions). One who can recognize that the relative strengths of merits of both systems is usually not a fanboy. One who makes blanket statements about the absolute superiority of one system to another is almost always a fanboy, whether its Nikon or Canon.
This is merely an observation and is not meant to label any particular individual.
ISO1600 wrote:
Avi, it is TWoK and myself that hate G/AF-S lenses.
I also would much rather have a 35 or 28 than a 24. If this was a 35 or 28, i could consider putting up with the AF-S and G features.
I hate them as well because i can only use them on my new camera's and a mirid of other reasons.
I use my 28 2.8d all the time traveling and was shooting with it today in Esjberg, Denmark. I would have loved to have had a 24 or 28 1.4 but with the size of the lens I think It takes some of the appeal to shooting with primes on the strret for me.
Maybe this lens will make the 28 1.4's affordable and I'll get one of those instead lol.
I really wish the 17-35 2.8 would have been upgraded to vr instead of the 16-35 f/4 vr the 16-85 is good enough for the money and at 1 stop slower on the long range it's not a big deal.
brainiac wrote:
35L? 24TS mk2? 14L2? I'm not sure it's as simple as all that. They both have winners.
Well I wanted to write 'every single lens I had both from Canon as Nikon"
I had the TS-E 24 mkI and it was total rubbish (not sharp, chromatical abberations,...). The 16-35 mk I wasn't really that good either, I decided to purchase a sigma 12-24 for WA angle instead because that was simply better.
EF L 24-70 was OK but not on par with 24-70 AF-s. And I was totally underwhelmed with the 24-105 IS (way too much distortion).
And I only compare lenses that I had in both systems... 35L was a nice lens, that's why I say I want a Nikon version of it.
85L was great but never tried 85 /1.4
thedigitalbean wrote:
That is usually the litmus test I use to identify a fanboy (and hence the value I place on that individual's opinions). One who can recognize that the relative strengths of merits of both systems is usually not a fanboy. One who makes blanket statements about the absolute superiority of one system to another is almost always a fanboy, whether its Nikon or Canon.
This is merely an observation and is not meant to label any particular individual.
Canon system has it's merits, in general a larger range of lenses, great set of portrait lenses but most wide angle lenses are not so good (not those I used).
I switched over two years ago, and would never go back (I did not switch towards Nikon, I did ran away from Canon after the 5 or 6th defect and the particulary poor service (my first 580EX was twice in service for about 6 months before I could use it ...-)
Like I mentionned above, a part of my phrase was missing
phatnev wrote:
I'll be happy to pay $2200 for a Nikon made 24 1.4.
Why don't you just switch to Canon and get a 24mm f/1.4L II for $1600? In fact, you could get an XSi body (or a used 40D body) with the money you would save.
Well, I enjoyed the lens discussion here but not the rest of it.
In my experience, with over 25 years of shooting, wide open is crappola to me on most hi-speed lenses. I had the Nikon 24mm F2 AIS, and various Nikon 50mm Ais F1.2 and F1.4 Ais and AFD lenses along with the Nikon 35mm F1.4 Ais. The overall flare/lack of contrast/unsharpness wide open and my inability to achieve precise focus wide open made them worthless to me at max aperture. The only benefit I realized was the brighter look thru the viewfinder for focusing and the so called "snob appeal" of "owning the best". What a waste of money for me as I think back on it now.
F2 lenses suit me just fine. I feel good about my 105 DC F2 and 35mm F2 AFD when used wide open. I was pleased with my 85mm F1.8 and 50mm F1.8 AFD when used at F2. With these lenses, wide open is always there if I need it. Also, I can see thru the viewfinder very well, thank you, at F2.
I don't give a damn about F1.4 lenses now for the above mentioned reasons and the fact that the front end is so wide. I like compact primes with no flare.
williamkazak wrote:
Well, I enjoyed the lens discussion here but not the rest of it.
In my experience, with over 25 years of shooting, wide open is crappola to me on most hi-speed lenses. I had the Nikon 24mm F2 AIS, and various Nikon 50mm Ais F1.2 and F1.4 Ais and AFD lenses along with the Nikon 35mm F1.4 Ais. The overall flare/lack of contrast/unsharpness wide open and my inability to achieve precise focus wide open made them worthless to me at max aperture. The only benefit I realized was the brighter look thru the viewfinder for focusing and the so called "snob appeal" of "owning the best". What a waste of money for me as I think back on it now.
F2 lenses suit me just fine. I feel good about my 105 DC F2 and 35mm F2 AFD when used wide open. I was pleased with my 85mm F1.8 and 50mm F1.8 AFD when used at F2. With these lenses, wide open is always there if I need it. Also, I can see thru the viewfinder very well, thank you, at F2.
I don't give a damn about F1.4 lenses now for the above mentioned reasons and the fact that the front end is so wide. I like compact primes with no flare....Show more →
I love mine ( 35 1.4 Canon) even open but when stopped down till f2 it still beats every f2 prime regarding "everything".
You might disagree but you actually "see" the difference.
( and off course when ya NEED f1.4 it's there !)
The better when one is happy with his/hers f1.8 or f2 but there's more then "snob appeal" going on !
I have been thinking about this quite a bit the last day or so as i have been shooting a ton with my 28 2.8d.
The things I like about it are the size for travel etc, doesn't look ridiculous out on the street etc and it was cheap. I have however noticed that As much as I use this focal length and wished it was faster a bunch of times i don't think 2200 is feasible for me at this focal length.
I think it it was smaller i'd like it more, most of the time i'm shooting with the 28 i'm trying to look as inconspicuous as possible.
Perhaps a 28 f/2 would fit my need better if they could keep it around the size of the other short primes but being that the 1.8 is huge as well i doubt it.
90 5.0 wrote:
Perhaps a 28 f/2 would fit my need better if they could keep it around the size of the other short primes but being that the 1.8 is huge as well i doubt it.
Canon makes a 28/1.8 that is the slightly bigger than the 28/2.8. So I don't see why they cannot make one, if they want to of course. But I think it is quite clear that the mid-price, wide and fast prime market is not a priority for Nikon right now.
gerikson wrote:
Earlier the cry was "Nikon needs fast wide primes!".
Now we need to amend that to "Nikon needs fast wide *affordable* primes!".
When people cried about there not being a 28 or 24 1.4 i pointed out that no one bought the 28 1.8 ages ago and that's one of the reasons it was discontinued. Funny all of the people crying they'd pay any amount haven't posted that they have ordered it know that it's here.
Same with hordes of uses claiming they'd pay a premium for a 400 5.6 vr, yet they don't own any long lenses as it is. Sure they'd sell some and I would more than likely be interested in it but they wont fly off the shelves like the requisite 2.8 zooms or consumer lenses do.
) but troll definitely isn't one of them.
Anyway, I have had my say. However you are lucky not to suffer sample variation. My Nikon 12-24mm AFS F4 lens was unusable at the wide end. 
time to start posting some nice 16mm and 24mm shots guys.