panos.v wrote:
Kerry, chill out. The fact is that Nikon\'s superteles got VR quite some time after Canon had IS in theirs. There is still no 300/4VR. There is no 17-55VR, like Canon\'s. There is no 24-105VR and there is none of the numerous 70-200 IS versions and so on. I\'m not saying that these lenses are necessarily \"professional\" or that they are needed at all, but Canon gives you the choice of making up your mind at that. Nikon doesn\'t. And a lot more Canon lenses have AFS/USM unlike Nikon, just look at the prime lineup, the first Nikon AFS prime shorter than 200mm was introduced just a few months ago with the 50/1.4 AFS. Canon has USM on anything but the older 15/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2 and 50/1.8.
The facts are the facts.
I don\'t dispute any of that. I simply don\'t see any reason to believe that it matters. How many supertele exotics do both companies sell? OTOH, how many \"normal\" lenses do they sell? Do you really believe that AF-S in a short prime makes a significant difference? I\'ve seen no evidence to suggest that it does, at least for the vast majority of applications. Lots of folks use MF on such lenses.
Regardless, the market gains and record profits that nikon has been posting since the introduction of the d70, tell all of the story that matters. If the \"problem\" lenses of which you speak make or break a company, why has nikon been recording record profits and market share gains since 2004? And why would you ignore the 200-400vr and 200 f/2, for example? Only nikon \"problems\" count?
The point is and always was, that there are differences between the 2 companies, both good and bad. Neither of them are perfect and nikon was never out of the game. For every \"problem\" you want to cite with nikon, an equal number of \"problems\" can be cited for canon, or any other company, for that matter. IMO, nit-picking minor details is a waste of time. Nikon has been producing some lots of lenses, every year and all of them are top notch for their intended market. Will they ever make every lens that will satisfy every user? not likely........
So, let\'s not pretend that canon is supreme and nikon is crap, because of these lenses, when the bottom line, profits and viability are what matters.
panos.v wrote:
Kerry, chill out. The fact is that Nikon\'s superteles got VR quite some time after Canon had IS in theirs. There is still no 300/4VR. There is no 17-55VR, like Canon\'s. There is no 24-105VR and there is none of the numerous 70-200 IS versions and so on. I\'m not saying that these lenses are necessarily \"professional\" or that they are needed at all, but Canon gives you the choice of making up your mind at that. Nikon doesn\'t. And a lot more Canon lenses have AFS/USM unlike Nikon, just look at the prime lineup, the first Nikon AFS prime shorter than 200mm was introduced just a few months ago with the 50/1.4 AFS. Canon has USM on anything but the older 15/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2 and 50/1.8.
The facts are the facts.
I don\'t dispute any of that. I simply don\'t see any reason to believe that it matters. How many supertele exotics do both companies sell? OTOH, how many \"normal\" lenses do they sell? Do you really believe that AF-S in a short prime makes a significant difference? I\'ve seen no evidence to suggest that it does, at least for the vast majority of applications. Lots of folks use MF on such lenses.
Regardless, the market gains and record profits that nikon has been posting since the introduction of the d70, tell all of the story that matters. If the \"problem\" lenses of which you speak make or break a company, why has nikon been recording record profits and market share gains since 2004? And why would you ignore the 200-400vr and 200 f/2, for example? Only nikon \"problems\" count?
The point is and always was, that there are differences between the 2 companies, both good and bad. Neither of them are perfect and nikon was never out of the game. For every \"problem\" you want to cite with nikon, an equal number of \"problems\" can be cited for canon, or any other company, for that matter. IMO, nit-picking minor details is a waste of time. Nikon has been producing some lots of lenses, every year and all of them are top notch for their intended market. Will they ever make every lens that will satisfy every user? not likely........
So, let\'s not pretend that canon is supreme and nikon is crap, because of these lenses, when the bottom line, profits and viability is what matters.
Mar 17, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Previous versions of Kerry Pierce's message #6845674 « The Canon Fallout »
