Yakim Peled wrote:
kewlcanon wrote:
I've never owned a TS-E what else can it do ?. BIF ? Portrait ? Macro

TS is great for macro.

http://www.aobild.se/externalcontent/ts-e/guitar/tsdemo.htm

Actually, I was so impressed that I went through some ordeal to get it.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/743122/

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


Great examples Yakim. The TS-E 90 is definately an excellent lens, I love mine. I'll never figure out why it's not an "L", oh well.

That "macro" must mean macro photography or close-up photography, starts from 1:3 which is why every damn lens manufacturers can slap the word macro on their lenses with 1:3 magnification. Tamron even went as far as putting it on their 28-200mm with 1:4 mag. Not helping with the general misconception about macro.

Photomacrography itself (or "true macro" as I call it ) starts from 1:1 to 10:1 magnification.

Sorry about the rant.

globalkiwi wrote:
Not sure about the sweeping comparisons w/- the Zeiss 21mm. I haven't seem many samples from the ZE version as it's not in stores yet & AFFAIK, mint copies of the CZ version go for less than $1700 (which is still a lot but less than the new TS-E). I think the jury is still out on the ZE 21 vs. TS-E 24 II - for me at least.

didn't the CZ copies go for more ike $3000 for quite a while? before the ZE was announced?

skibum5 wrote:
globalkiwi wrote:
Not sure about the sweeping comparisons w/- the Zeiss 21mm. I haven't seem many samples from the ZE version as it's not in stores yet & AFFAIK, mint copies of the CZ version go for less than $1700 (which is still a lot but less than the new TS-E). I think the jury is still out on the ZE 21 vs. TS-E 24 II - for me at least.

didn't the CZ copies go for more ike $3000 for quite a while? before the ZE was announced?


Makes the current TSE crop look like bargains!

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Doug Ball wrote:
Check out this comparison with the 14-24. The 24 TS-E is in a different league.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/787618


Yes and as I said that 14-24 is not very good. I'm sure the 24 TS-E II is better, but the 14-24 has been shown to be sharp wide open, even in the corners on a 1Ds III. Go to www.16-9.net for comparisons. Only the Zeiss distagon 21 f/2.8 beat it up until now.

I thought Nikon didn't make "bad copies" of their lenses?

musclepics wrote:

I thought Nikon didn't make "bad copies" of their lenses?

Oh, that's right, user error!

skibum5 wrote:
didn't the CZ copies go for more ike $3000 for quite a while? before the ZE was announced?


My recollection was that their peak was in the low $2000's (2025?) max - but you may have a longer memory than I.

I think the interesting thing (besides the relative distortion) will be the price of the ZE 21mm when (if!) it hits the stores - the ZF (Nikon) version is $1490 at B&H. If the ZE is in that vicinity & it's optics are comparable to the TS-E, then we have real choice on our hands - & that's where the capability of the tilt-shift will really count.

globalkiwi wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
didn't the CZ copies go for more ike $3000 for quite a while? before the ZE was announced?


My recollection was that their peak was in the low $2000's (2025?) max - but you may have a longer memory than I.


Nope, they were getting pretty stupidly high there for a while. Used the time machine feature and went back to 2005/2006 and a quick topic search reveals many were sold for $2900 with prices creeping up to even the $4k mark as the year went on.

I remember that time well. There were a couple of FMers (who will remain unnamed) who were famous for pumping the lens up in the discussion boards and then selling copies in the Buy & Sell. Bet they made a killing...

Smart move digitalbean, I didn't think of that tactic! $4k is an absolutely ridiculous price - even for what is an admittedly amazing lens. On the up side, this is one of those rare cases where a good lens drops significantly in price (albeit from an artificial high). I read someone on the Nikon board commenting about the impact threads extoling the virtues of a particular lens had on the used price but thought to myself, people aren't that gulible. I stand corrected (on both counts!)

thedigitalbean wrote:
globalkiwi wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
didn't the CZ copies go for more ike $3000 for quite a while? before the ZE was announced?


My recollection was that their peak was in the low $2000's (2025?) max - but you may have a longer memory than I.


Nope, they were getting pretty stupidly high there for a while. Used the time machine feature and went back to 2005/2006 and a quick topic search reveals many were sold for $2900 with prices creeping up to even the $4k mark as the year went on.

I remember that time well. There were a couple of FMers (who will remain unnamed) who were famous for pumping the lens up in the discussion boards and then selling copies in the Buy & Sell. Bet they made a killing...


the one thing that has annoyed me with the B&S forum here is that people are allowed to post and sell up other people's lenses and prices, but if anyone dare mentions that the sell up and price are getting to well into blatant rip-off land then it is OMG how dare you, have you no shame, that is not allowed, get lost.

i could clearly see at times that some people had formed little cliques and would post on eachothers sales like "OMG folks I can't believe this man's lens is STILL not sold. Folks this is a ridiculously amazing lens, fully tested and confirmed for a truly BARAGIN PRICE! This lens has got to go soon. Better jump in FAST before it goes! And remember since this lens is used you KNOW it is a TOP copy! You are lucky to find such a tested lens!!!!!!"

and the damn lens maybe was one not known much for bad copies at all and the price would be like $2 less than B&H for a 10 year old lens and sometimes even $100 or $200 more!

i don't care about trying to get the most you can for a used lens, i hardly put my stuff on ebay at a low starting price, if someone wants to save only a tiny bit that is there call, but don't start getting friends to shill it for you and call it an astonishing, beyond belief bargain and hyping it like mad when you literally charge $5 less or maybe even $200 more on a $1200 new at B&H lens.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
musclepics wrote:

I thought Nikon didn't make "bad copies" of their lenses?

Oh, that's right, user error!