Canon vs. Canon

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:22:48 GMT, Archibald <Archibald.RemoveThis@spamhater.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:28:48 GMT, braceup.RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:48:45 -0800, "flambe" <fac187.RemoveThis@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>These lenses are designed with different primary usages in mind.
>>>If you know what you will be using the lens for then your decision should be
>>>clear.
>>>Which is more important: f2.8 or a longer zoom range?
>>>Do you intend to use this as the primary lens on your camera (why you would
>>>do that with a Canon 5d is up to you)?
>>>Do you have an issue where the IS is important for you at this zoom range (a
>>>genuine consideration for many users)?
>>>Its really not about sharpness or AF accuracy. In this digital world
>>>absolute measures of lens sharpness are far less significant because of the
>>>way the final output is created . . .
>>>
>>
>>I've been reading this newsgroup for a few weeks and noticed the heavy
>>criticism of Canon lenses. I was planning to buy the Olympus E3 but
>>saw the D40 at a price nearly $500 cheaper. And since I've only read
>>positive reviews of it I was considering the D40 over the Olympus even
>>though Olympus lenses are really decent. How are the Canon fixed
>>lenses for the D40? Thanks...
>
>I have the Canon 40D and some of the lenses: 10-22mm, 17-55mm/2.8, and
>70-300mm IS. The camera and lenses work great. The 10-22mm and 17-55mm
>are razor sharp and enjoy an excellent reputation. The 70-300mm is
>also great, a tad less sharp than the 70-200mm Canon lenses, but
>enjoys an additional 100mm of focal length, and is reasonably priced.
>
>The air here is poisoned against Canon because the recently released
>EOS-1D Mark III has a major problem with the autofocus. It's an
>expensive camera, and those affected by the problem have a right to
>complain loudly.
>
>But the other Canon bodies and the Canon lenses are obviously not
>affected by this problem.
>
>BTW, there is a new Canon 18-55mm lens with Image Stabilization that
>is reported to be extremely sharp. It is only about $100 if purchased
>with the body.
>http://tinyurl.com/265rm9
>
>Archibald

Thanks for the reply, I did mean the Canon 40D. Dyslexia occasionally
rears its ugly head.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

Archibald wrote:
> braceup DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> I've been reading this newsgroup for a few weeks and noticed the heavy
>> criticism of Canon lenses. I was planning to buy the Olympus E3 but
>> saw the [40D] at a price nearly $500 cheaper. And since I've only read
>> positive reviews of it I was considering the [40D] over the Olympus even
>> though Olympus lenses are really decent. How are the Canon fixed
>> lenses for the [40D]? Thanks...
>
> I have the Canon 40D and some of the lenses: 10-22mm, 17-55mm/2.8, and
> 70-300mm IS. The camera and lenses work great. The 10-22mm and 17-55mm
> are razor sharp and enjoy an excellent reputation. The 70-300mm is
> also great, a tad less sharp than the 70-200mm Canon lenses, but
> enjoys an additional 100mm of focal length, and is reasonably priced.

braceup,
Don't worry. I'm a big Nikon fan and in all honesty Canon gear is just
fine. If you want to spend many thousands on gear, there are some
arguments that Nikon has an edge but there's some Canon lenses I envy &
most are comparable.

> The air here is poisoned against Canon because the recently released
> EOS-1D Mark III has a major problem with the autofocus. It's an
> expensive camera, and those affected by the problem have a right to
> complain loudly.
>
> But the other Canon bodies and the Canon lenses are obviously not
> affected by this problem.
>
> BTW, there is a new Canon 18-55mm lens with Image Stabilization that
> is reported to be extremely sharp. It is only about $100 if purchased
> with the body.
> http://tinyurl.com/265rm9
>
> Archibald
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

* braceup.DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:22:48 GMT, Archibald <Archibald.DeleteThis@spamhater.com>
> wrote:
>
> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 35 lines snipped |=---]
>>
>>But the other Canon bodies and the Canon lenses are obviously not
>>affected by this problem.
>>
>>BTW, there is a new Canon 18-55mm lens with Image Stabilization that
>>is reported to be extremely sharp. It is only about $100 if purchased
>>with the body.
>>http://tinyurl.com/265rm9
>>
>>Archibald
>
> Thanks for the reply, I did mean the Canon 40D. Dyslexia occasionally
> rears its ugly head.

"I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your arse laminated."



--
Troy Piggins
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

Archibald <Archibald RemoveThis @spamhater.com> wrote:

> The 70-300mm is also great, a tad less sharp than the 70-200mm Canon
> lenses, but enjoys an additional 100mm of focal length,

Nothing that an 1.4x couldn't cure --- and with the right
70-200mm, you're still a stop faster ...

-Wolfgang
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:46:57 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcvgtt02 DeleteThis @sneakemail.com> wrote:

>Archibald <Archibald DeleteThis @spamhater.com> wrote:
>
>> The 70-300mm is also great, a tad less sharp than the 70-200mm Canon
>> lenses, but enjoys an additional 100mm of focal length,
>
>Nothing that an 1.4x couldn't cure --- and with the right
>70-200mm, you're still a stop faster ...

Yes, but at 2 to 3 times the cost.

Archibald
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:28:14 -0800, Paul Furman <paul- DeleteThis @-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>Archibald wrote:
>> braceup DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> I've been reading this newsgroup for a few weeks and noticed the heavy
>>> criticism of Canon lenses. I was planning to buy the Olympus E3 but
>>> saw the [40D] at a price nearly $500 cheaper. And since I've only read
>>> positive reviews of it I was considering the [40D] over the Olympus even
>>> though Olympus lenses are really decent. How are the Canon fixed
>>> lenses for the [40D]? Thanks...
>>
>> I have the Canon 40D and some of the lenses: 10-22mm, 17-55mm/2.8, and
>> 70-300mm IS. The camera and lenses work great. The 10-22mm and 17-55mm
>> are razor sharp and enjoy an excellent reputation. The 70-300mm is
>> also great, a tad less sharp than the 70-200mm Canon lenses, but
>> enjoys an additional 100mm of focal length, and is reasonably priced.
>
>braceup,
>Don't worry. I'm a big Nikon fan and in all honesty Canon gear is just
>fine. If you want to spend many thousands on gear, there are some
>arguments that Nikon has an edge but there's some Canon lenses I envy &
>most are comparable.

Thanks again; I'm generally shooting wide but not exclusively. I
would like to get a 24mm (35mm equiv.) and then something like a 35
or a 50mm. I would be happy with one or two fixed lenses, as I'm
assuming their quality generally surpasses that of variable focal
length lenses, at least that was the general rule with 35mm cameras. I
was originally thinking about Olympus since I have a C-8080 which has
a great lens, but I'm not happy with what I've read about the 510
although I do like its size and image stabilization but not its manual
focus, or the E3 which is a little pricey and has some of the same
problems as the 510. Everything I've read about the 40D has been very
positive and the price continues to drop, so I'm looking at it as a
solid option. I'm shooting manual most of the time and manual focus
as well so basic controls for me is enough.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

braceup.RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:28:14 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-.RemoveThis@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Archibald wrote:
>>> braceup.RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been reading this newsgroup for a few weeks and noticed the heavy
>>>> criticism of Canon lenses. I was planning to buy the Olympus E3 but
>>>> saw the [40D] at a price nearly $500 cheaper. And since I've only read
>>>> positive reviews of it I was considering the [40D] over the Olympus even
>>>> though Olympus lenses are really decent. How are the Canon fixed
>>>> lenses for the [40D]? Thanks...
>>> I have the Canon 40D and some of the lenses: 10-22mm, 17-55mm/2.8, and
>>> 70-300mm IS. The camera and lenses work great. The 10-22mm and 17-55mm
>>> are razor sharp and enjoy an excellent reputation. The 70-300mm is
>>> also great, a tad less sharp than the 70-200mm Canon lenses, but
>>> enjoys an additional 100mm of focal length, and is reasonably priced.
>> braceup,
>> Don't worry. I'm a big Nikon fan and in all honesty Canon gear is just
>> fine. If you want to spend many thousands on gear, there are some
>> arguments that Nikon has an edge but there's some Canon lenses I envy &
>> most are comparable.
>
> Thanks again; I'm generally shooting wide but not exclusively. I
> would like to get a 24mm (35mm equiv.)

A 14-15mm fixed is going to cost as much as the camera body! And in that
case a zoom will do better (see below). You'd be better off with a Canon
5D if you really need this. The Canon 10-22 is one lens I wish Nikon
had. I got a really excellent 16mm f/2.8 manual Nikkor for $300 but it's
a fisheye.

> and then something like a 35
> or a 50mm. I would be happy with one or two fixed lenses, as I'm
> assuming their quality generally surpasses that of variable focal
> length lenses, at least that was the general rule with 35mm cameras.

If you're willing to spend thousands per lens, zooms are better today
although fixed can be got faster than f/2.8. The old 28mm f/1.4 Nikkor
is stellar but costs $3,000 on ebay. The new 14-24 is a groundbreaking
achievement but is almost $2,000. The old manual 35/1.4 is a bargain at
$500 if you want low light hand held ability & a D200 or D300 is awfully
nice with full metering but it'll mount in stop-down mode on a Canon.
The D300/40D are a step up in image quality from the previous generations.

> I
> was originally thinking about Olympus since I have a C-8080 which has
> a great lens, but I'm not happy with what I've read about the 510
> although I do like its size and image stabilization but not its manual
> focus, or the E3 which is a little pricey and has some of the same
> problems as the 510. Everything I've read about the 40D has been very
> positive and the price continues to drop, so I'm looking at it as a
> solid option. I'm shooting manual most of the time and manual focus
> as well so basic controls for me is enough.

For manual shooting, a D200 has a lot to offer
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:06:59 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-.RemoveThis@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>braceup@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:28:14 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-.RemoveThis@-edgehill.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Archibald wrote:
>>>> braceup.RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've been reading this newsgroup for a few weeks and noticed the heavy
>>>>> criticism of Canon lenses. I was planning to buy the Olympus E3 but
>>>>> saw the [40D] at a price nearly $500 cheaper. And since I've only read
>>>>> positive reviews of it I was considering the [40D] over the Olympus even
>>>>> though Olympus lenses are really decent. How are the Canon fixed
>>>>> lenses for the [40D]? Thanks...
>>>> I have the Canon 40D and some of the lenses: 10-22mm, 17-55mm/2.8, and
>>>> 70-300mm IS. The camera and lenses work great. The 10-22mm and 17-55mm
>>>> are razor sharp and enjoy an excellent reputation. The 70-300mm is
>>>> also great, a tad less sharp than the 70-200mm Canon lenses, but
>>>> enjoys an additional 100mm of focal length, and is reasonably priced.
>>> braceup,
>>> Don't worry. I'm a big Nikon fan and in all honesty Canon gear is just
>>> fine. If you want to spend many thousands on gear, there are some
>>> arguments that Nikon has an edge but there's some Canon lenses I envy &
>>> most are comparable.
>>
>> Thanks again; I'm generally shooting wide but not exclusively. I
>> would like to get a 24mm (35mm equiv.)
>
>A 14-15mm fixed is going to cost as much as the camera body! And in that
>case a zoom will do better (see below). You'd be better off with a Canon
>5D if you really need this. The Canon 10-22 is one lens I wish Nikon
>had. I got a really excellent 16mm f/2.8 manual Nikkor for $300 but it's
>a fisheye.
>
>> and then something like a 35
>> or a 50mm. I would be happy with one or two fixed lenses, as I'm
>> assuming their quality generally surpasses that of variable focal
>> length lenses, at least that was the general rule with 35mm cameras.
>
>If you're willing to spend thousands per lens, zooms are better today
>although fixed can be got faster than f/2.8. The old 28mm f/1.4 Nikkor
>is stellar but costs $3,000 on ebay. The new 14-24 is a groundbreaking
>achievement but is almost $2,000. The old manual 35/1.4 is a bargain at
>$500 if you want low light hand held ability & a D200 or D300 is awfully
>nice with full metering but it'll mount in stop-down mode on a Canon.
>The D300/40D are a step up in image quality from the previous generations.
>
>> I
>> was originally thinking about Olympus since I have a C-8080 which has
>> a great lens, but I'm not happy with what I've read about the 510
>> although I do like its size and image stabilization but not its manual
>> focus, or the E3 which is a little pricey and has some of the same
>> problems as the 510. Everything I've read about the 40D has been very
>> positive and the price continues to drop, so I'm looking at it as a
>> solid option. I'm shooting manual most of the time and manual focus
>> as well so basic controls for me is enough.
>
>For manual shooting, a D200 has a lot to offer

Thanks again for this great information; I've been considering the
D200 since I have a Nikon FE with 5 fixed lenses from 24 to 200mm.
They are AI lenses and I think I read that they would work on the
D200... is that correct? It would save me a boat load of cash if they
did.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

In article <tf0us3pue2kfrb7dg92eukjajr1is5g03l.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
<braceup.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks again for this great information; I've been considering the
> D200 since I have a Nikon FE with 5 fixed lenses from 24 to 200mm.
> They are AI lenses and I think I read that they would work on the
> D200... is that correct? It would save me a boat load of cash if they
> did.

all of your lenses will work fine, including metering.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

Archibald <Archibald RemoveThis @spamhater.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:46:57 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Archibald <Archibald RemoveThis @spamhater.com> wrote:

>>> The 70-300mm is also great, a tad less sharp than the 70-200mm Canon
>>> lenses, but enjoys an additional 100mm of focal length,

>>Nothing that an 1.4x couldn't cure --- and with the right
>>70-200mm, you're still a stop faster ...

> Yes, but at 2 to 3 times the cost.

True. Stops cost much money. So does exceptional build quality,
weather sealing, non-extending, non-rotating front lenses, faster
AF and more light for the same, ...

But then, if I was infinitely rich, I would probably own and use
a 1D or 1Ds Mk III for every lens, and every lens that was good ...


-Wolfgang
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

<braceup DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tf0us3pue2kfrb7dg92eukjajr1is5g03l@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:06:59 -0800, Paul Furman <paul- DeleteThis @-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>>braceup@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:28:14 -0800, Paul Furman <paul- DeleteThis @-edgehill.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Archibald wrote:
>>>>> braceup DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been reading this newsgroup for a few weeks and noticed the
>>>>>> heavy
>>>>>> criticism of Canon lenses. I was planning to buy the Olympus E3 but
>>>>>> saw the [40D] at a price nearly $500 cheaper. And since I've only
>>>>>> read
>>>>>> positive reviews of it I was considering the [40D] over the Olympus
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> though Olympus lenses are really decent. How are the Canon fixed
>>>>>> lenses for the [40D]? Thanks...
>>>>> I have the Canon 40D and some of the lenses: 10-22mm, 17-55mm/2.8, and
>>>>> 70-300mm IS. The camera and lenses work great. The 10-22mm and 17-55mm
>>>>> are razor sharp and enjoy an excellent reputation. The 70-300mm is
>>>>> also great, a tad less sharp than the 70-200mm Canon lenses, but
>>>>> enjoys an additional 100mm of focal length, and is reasonably priced.
>>>> braceup,
>>>> Don't worry. I'm a big Nikon fan and in all honesty Canon gear is just
>>>> fine. If you want to spend many thousands on gear, there are some
>>>> arguments that Nikon has an edge but there's some Canon lenses I envy &
>>>> most are comparable.
>>>
>>> Thanks again; I'm generally shooting wide but not exclusively. I
>>> would like to get a 24mm (35mm equiv.)
>>
>>A 14-15mm fixed is going to cost as much as the camera body! And in that
>>case a zoom will do better (see below). You'd be better off with a Canon
>>5D if you really need this. The Canon 10-22 is one lens I wish Nikon
>>had. I got a really excellent 16mm f/2.8 manual Nikkor for $300 but it's
>>a fisheye.
>>
>>> and then something like a 35
>>> or a 50mm. I would be happy with one or two fixed lenses, as I'm
>>> assuming their quality generally surpasses that of variable focal
>>> length lenses, at least that was the general rule with 35mm cameras.
>>
>>If you're willing to spend thousands per lens, zooms are better today
>>although fixed can be got faster than f/2.8. The old 28mm f/1.4 Nikkor
>>is stellar but costs $3,000 on ebay. The new 14-24 is a groundbreaking
>>achievement but is almost $2,000. The old manual 35/1.4 is a bargain at
>>$500 if you want low light hand held ability & a D200 or D300 is awfully
>>nice with full metering but it'll mount in stop-down mode on a Canon.
>>The D300/40D are a step up in image quality from the previous generations.
>>
>>> I
>>> was originally thinking about Olympus since I have a C-8080 which has
>>> a great lens, but I'm not happy with what I've read about the 510
>>> although I do like its size and image stabilization but not its manual
>>> focus, or the E3 which is a little pricey and has some of the same
>>> problems as the 510. Everything I've read about the 40D has been very
>>> positive and the price continues to drop, so I'm looking at it as a
>>> solid option. I'm shooting manual most of the time and manual focus
>>> as well so basic controls for me is enough.
>>
>>For manual shooting, a D200 has a lot to offer
>
> Thanks again for this great information; I've been considering the
> D200 since I have a Nikon FE with 5 fixed lenses from 24 to 200mm.
> They are AI lenses and I think I read that they would work on the
> D200... is that correct? It would save me a boat load of cash if they
> did.

The AI (or AIS for that matter) Nikkors will work fine on the D200.
I'm still using my original Nikkor 50 f1.4 (AI converted, of course) that I
purchased with my first Nikon F, with great results. That same lens has
been in use on the F, F2AS, F3, F3HP, F4, F5, F100, D2H and D2X.
Bob
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[]
>
> But then, if I was infinitely rich, I would probably own and use
> a 1D or 1Ds Mk III for every lens, and every lens that was good ...
>
>
> -Wolfgang

... and employ an assistant to carry it all!

David
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon 

David J Taylor <david-taylor.RemoveThis@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

>> But then, if I was infinitely rich, I would probably own and use
>> a 1D or 1Ds Mk III for every lens, and every lens that was good ...
>>

> .. and employ an assistant to carry it all!

Just *one*???

-Wolfgang
 >> Stay informed about: Canon vs. Canon