gdsf2 wrote:
OK, I'll ask. How do you capture a 3D image with these cameras? I must have the wrong type of camera. Each print I make is 2D don't matter what I do.. Also, who are these fat people taking revenge on athletes by taking pictures?
You buy two cameras.
You can also try with one camera, but the scene must be obviously still.
Kittyk wrote:
that is myth Rudolfo, Canon can also fit the whole market of older nikon glass that still fits Nikon cameras because Nikon didn't change their mount
Kitty, you're absolutely right.
I was thinking of older Canon glass not mounting on newer cameras, and missed the point you mention. My apologies.
The only lens you listed that I will want is 14-24. I will take 50L over 50G any day. Same goes for 85L and 135L. When it come to Nikon lenses the more I look, the less I see.
Technician wrote: Arka, your sarcasm missed the target. I enjoy my gear and know for certain how to get the best of it. Fast f/1.2 aperture will bring no advantages over tools which I have already. If it will in your world, then best wishes to you, heartily. No rant.
It's not sarcasm. Just an answer to your question. To say that an f/1.2 lens is able to do things that an f/1.8 lens can't goes without saying. Whether those added capabilities matter to you personally is a different question, but not the one you originally asked.
Technician wrote:
Again, whose flaw this is? Nikon's?
Joking aside, tell me, please, what your EF 50 mm f/1.2 L USM does that my Nikkor AF-S 50 mm f1.8 G can't do?
To start with my 50L focuses a lot faster than your 50g. Secondly your 50G can not shoot at 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6 and 50L bokeh is on a different league. Also your 50G feels like plastic compare to 50L. There is no comparison whatsoever.
Lastly I never knocked 50G but 50G is no 50L. I did not start my thread to bash Nikon in any way. I am looking forward to my D800. I was only surprised to find out how hard it is to find used Nikon stuff.
okafoja wrote:
To start with my 50L focuses a lot faster than your 50g.
Oh, really? This is complete ignorance. You have absolutely no clue what the hell you are talking about. Did you ever tried AF-S 50 mm f/1.8 G? Do not answer, I know what the answer is.
okafoja wrote:
Secondly your 50G can not shoot at 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6 and 50L bokeh is on a different league.
Sure, it can't go 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6, but given your crappy overexposed and oversharpened examples, you don't need that fast aperture anymore. Be fair, man, compare 50L to the yet not released AF-S 50 mm f/1.2 G next time. It will be released very soon.
okafoja wrote:
Also your 50G feels like plastic compare to 50L. There is no comparison whatsoever.
What do you expect from the $220 lens? If you gonna to measure the penis size (what do you do all the time in this thread), prepare to be beaten. 50L feels less sturdy compared to Nikkor 50 mm f/1.2 AiS and the venerable Noct-Nikkor 58 mm f/1.2. The first one is $700, so it is still twice cheaper than 50L and is twice sturdier. There is no comparsion whatsoever, indeed. One more time you presented complete lack of knowledge.
okafoja wrote:
I did not start my thread to bash Nikon in any way.
Yes, you did.
okafoja wrote:
I am looking forward to my D800.
Don't waste your money. You will likely be unsatisfied and then you'll start another "Nikon is shit" thread, which is epitome of uselessness, uninformativeness and offensiveness.
okafoja wrote:
Lastly I never knocked 50G but 50G is no 50L.
So why in the Earth you are arguing here? EF 50 mm f/1.8 is not the AF-S 50 mm f/1.2 G, so what?
okafoja wrote:
I was only surprised to find out how hard it is to find used Nikon stuff.
Life is shit. We're all gonna die. What a cruel world!
Technician wrote:
Oh, really? This is complete ignorance. You have absolutely no clue what the hell you are talking about. Did you ever tried AF-S 50 mm f/1.8 G? Do not answer, I know what the answer is.
Sure, it can't go 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6, but given your crappy overexposed and oversharpened examples, you don't need that fast aperture anymore. Be fair, man, compare 50L to the yet not released AF-S 50 mm f/1.2 G next time. It will be released very soon.
What do you expect from the $220 lens? If you gonna to measure the penis size (what do you do all the time in this thread), prepare to be beaten. 50L feels less sturdy compared to Nikkor 50 mm f/1.2 AiS and the venerable Noct-Nikkor 58 mm f/1.2. The first one is $700, so it is still twice cheaper than 50L and is twice sturdier. There is no comparsion whatsoever, indeed. One more time you presented complete lack of knowledge.
Yes, you did.
Don't waste your money. You will likely be unsatisfied and then you'll start another "Nikon is shit" thread, which is epitome of uselessness, uninformativeness and offensiveness.
So why in the Earth you are arguing here? EF 50 mm f/1.8 is not the AF-S 50 mm f/1.2 G, so what?
Life is shit. We're all gonna die. What a cruel world!
OP, have you tried looking at KEH? They have several 17-35's for sale. Also B&H, KEH, and Adorama all have the 24-120/4. I don't know how it works in Canon-land, but with Nikon, you just have to wait until one shows up, then you snag it quickly. It takes patience, but Nikkor lenses are well worth the wait
DontShoot wrote:
OP, have you tried looking at KEH? They have several 17-35's for sale. Also B&H, KEH, and Adorama all have the 24-120/4. I don't know how it works in Canon-land, but with Nikon, you just have to wait until one shows up, then you snag it quickly. It takes patience, but Nikkor lenses are well worth the wait
Always cheaper to buy from individuals than stores like B&H but that might be a good idea for Nikon stuff. I was offered $950 for 16-35VR. I'm not sure if it is a good price. I saw one go for $850.
Technician, you need to go chill somewhere --you've turned FM into near DPR
in c/rudeness. And my read of the OP concurs in his not intending to bash
Nikon, contrary your inflamed & gratuitous defence (hardly needed, here);
rather, he was frustrated in some aspects that differed from his experience
elsewhere. Yours was a hell of a non-welcome from the dark side --a *dark*ness
unwanted.
As for the charges against someone's liking the (non-"pro") new 24-120,
that comes in stark contrast to the acceptance of it over on GetDPI by
some folks used to MFormat systems and very good glass (Leica, Zeiss, Schneider);
and this is from testing it out on the D800.
[ cf http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/34666-what-lenses-d800-5.html ]
SNIP:
24-120 VRii: This lens is just so versatile, I expect it to be on the camera 80% of the time.
//
Zooms
1) 24-120. No brainer. Everyone seems surprised by how well it does.
//
what I find most interesting is there have been more and more reports of certain lenses (and not always the top tier ones) that were found to perform just OK on the D700 but excellent on the D800. The 24-120 f4 comes to mind, since there were very mixed opinions on that one (on a D700/D3, including my own experiences), but a fair # have said when they tried the lens on their D800, its performance seemed to be considerably better. I've heard from one other that the same lens improvement was observed on his D800 with regards to his Nikon 70-300.
//
I'd love to understand the theory that can back those observations up.
//
...believe me, so would I! My initial thought was that some of these new D800 owners never shot with anything above maybe 12-21MP and upon opening the file (especially at 100%), were excitied by what they saw (especially with equipment that they had in their own hands and subjects they knew quite well)
//
Maybe it's pixel wonderment at work. ...Show more →
Whatever it is, it's satisfaction in the results --that they seem better,
and not noticeably worse, as many rumors have lenses getting with
the newer cameras. And the "pixel wonderment" surely doesn't apply
to the fellows accustomed to shooting IQ160 / 180 DBacks, btw.
