I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
 

On 5/03/2012 2:34 AM, Annika1980 wrote:
On Mar 1, 12:11 am, tony wrote:

You've formed a Tennessee Ashton Kutcher fan club. Shame!

It's worse than that. I put a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G lens on my FAB 5D2.
I feel so dirty!

Here are a few pics I've taken with that combo in the past 3 days.
http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photo...1767869_vdPZhq

It was said in Popular Photography when Canon first introduced
streamline 35mm bodies way back when A1's ruled that if you could use
Nikon glass on a Canon body, you'd have the perfect camera.

Chloe

I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
 

Chloe wrote,on my timestamp of 7/03/2012 8:00 AM:


It was said in Popular Photography when Canon first introduced streamline 35mm
bodies way back when A1's ruled that if you could use Nikon glass on a Canon
body, you'd have the perfect camera.

I remember that one! But nowadays I'm kinda partial to the old Canon FD200/2.8
mounted on a Oly EPL1. What a bokeh machine!

I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
 

On 08 Mar 2012 in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, Noons wrote:

But nowadays I'm kinda partial to the old Canon FD200/2.8
mounted on a Oly EPL1. What a bokeh machine!

I had one of the FD200/2.8s. It went to my niece a few years back when
she was taking a (chemical) photography course and we had gone all
digital. I told her that it was a "long-term loan".

My all-time favorite was the FD100 f/2.8 - it was my walk-around lens for
a long time.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
 

On 2012-03-09 03:39:30 +0000, Annika1980 said:

On Mar 8, 3:45*pm, Bruce wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
That may have been true back in the day, but not now. *The Nikon 14-24
is the only lens that bests anything that Canon offers.

Nonsense. *Try the 16-35mm f/4, the 17-35mm f/2.8 (still available
new), the 24-70mm f/2.8, the 24mm f/1.4, the 35mm f/1.4, the 105mm
f/2.8 macro (Micro-Nikkor), the ...

Without taking all evening, there are plenty of Nikon lenses that are
far better than their nearest Canon equivalents. *But when you get to
focal lengths above, say, 180mm, their ranges are about equal. *Nikon
probably has its strongest advantage over Canon in wide angle lenses.

I see the Nikon fanboys are still active.

Don't forget the DC-Nikkors: they are for people who would rather take
pictures than edit backgrounds.

I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
 

On 9/03/2012 3:36 AM, Annika1980 wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:00 pm, wrote:
On 5/03/2012 2:34 AM, Annika1980 wrote:

On Mar 1, 12:11 am, tony wrote:

You've formed a Tennessee Ashton Kutcher fan club. Shame!

It's worse than that. I put a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G lens on my FAB 5D2.
I feel so dirty!

Here are a few pics I've taken with that combo in the past 3 days.
http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photo...1767869_vdPZhq

It was said in Popular Photography when Canon first introduced
streamline 35mm bodies way back when A1's ruled that if you could use
Nikon glass on a Canon body, you'd have the perfect camera.

Chloe

That may have been true back in the day, but not now. The Nikon 14-24
is the only lens that bests anything that Canon offers. My advice is
to rent this lens for a few days and watch your photography improve
immediately. Then cry your eyes out as you drive to the UPS store to
send it back.

Here's the news flash mate...
I've owned one since 2009. Any Nikon shooter working full frame needs
one of these for real estate or inside event shots. The only way to
stand in a corner and get the whole room in without it looking like
you're in a fish bowl.

Serious Annika. No working professional (well not unless you call
wedding photographers professionals) can do without one. Ditto that for
a 24-70 f2.8 and 70 -200 f2.8. There's a few fixed length lenses I've
got for preference with head shots but these are the essential glass I
never leave home without and Canon have no answer for.

Chloe

I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
 

On 9/03/2012 1:39 PM, Annika1980 wrote:
On Mar 8, 3:45 pm, wrote:
wrote:
That may have been true back in the day, but not now. The Nikon 14-24
is the only lens that bests anything that Canon offers.

Nonsense. Try the 16-35mm f/4, the 17-35mm f/2.8 (still available
new), the 24-70mm f/2.8, the 24mm f/1.4, the 35mm f/1.4, the 105mm
f/2.8 macro (Micro-Nikkor), the ...

Without taking all evening, there are plenty of Nikon lenses that are
far better than their nearest Canon equivalents. But when you get to
focal lengths above, say, 180mm, their ranges are about equal. Nikon
probably has its strongest advantage over Canon in wide angle lenses.

I see the Nikon fanboys are still active.

Don't be such a chauvinist. There's Nikon fangirls too buddy!

Chloe

I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
 

On 2012-03-09 16:56:10 +0000, Annika1980 said:

On Mar 9, 9:12*am, Chloe wrote:
On 9/03/2012 3:36 AM, Annika1980 wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:00 pm, *wrote:
On 5/03/2012 2:34 AM, Annika1980 wrote:

On Mar 1, 12:11 am, tony * *wrote:

You've formed a Tennessee Ashton Kutcher fan club. * Shame!

It's worse than that. *I put a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G lens on my FAB 5D2.
I feel so dirty!

Here are a few pics I've taken with that combo in the past 3 days.
http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photo...1767869_vdPZhq

It was said in Popular Photography when Canon first introduced
streamline 35mm bodies way back when A1's ruled that if you could use
Nikon glass on a Canon body, you'd have the perfect camera.

Chloe

That may have been true back in the day, but not now. *The Nikon 14-24
is the only lens that bests anything that Canon offers. *My advice is
to rent this lens for a few days and watch your photography improve
immediately. Then cry your eyes out as you drive to the UPS store to
send it back.

Here's the news flash mate...
I've owned one since 2009. Any Nikon shooter working full frame needs
one of these for real estate or inside event shots. The only way to
stand in a corner and get the whole room in without it looking like
you're in a fish bowl.

Serious Annika. No working professional (well not unless you call
wedding photographers professionals) can do without one. Ditto that for
a 24-70 f2.8 and 70 -200 f2.8. There's a few fixed length lenses I've
got for preference with head shots but these are the essential glass I
never leave home without and Canon have no answer for.

Chloe

Well I guess if you don't count the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and the
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L II IS, both of which trounce anything that Nikon
offers. Stick with your Nikon, sweetie. It's a nice little starter
camera. When your photography improves you'll want to make the jump up
to Canon.

As in "The canons of fair play" or "Cannon fodder"?

I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
 

On 2012-03-09 17:24:24 +0000, Bruce said:

Annika1980 wrote:

On Mar 9, 9:33*am, Bruce wrote:
Chloe wrote:
Serious Annika. No working professional (well not unless you call
wedding photographers professionals) can do without one. Ditto that for
a 24-70 f2.8 and 70 -200 f2.8. There's a few fixed length lenses I've
got for preference with head shots but these are the essential glass I
never leave home without and Canon have no answer for.

Canon has just announced a new 24-70mm f/2.8. *let's hope it is better
than the old one.

As for the 70-200mm f/2.8, I think there is very little to choose
between the latest Nikon and Canon versions. *The first version of the
AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR was slightly behind the Canon version.

Translation: The Nikon sucks in comparison.


Sucked. Past tense. Version II is optically as good as the Canon but
the Nikon's VR performs better than the Canon's IS, typically offering
a stop more in terms of stabilisation.

Sucks to be a Canon owner, I guess, especially if you cannot afford to
switch brands.

It just his standard way of presenting an object (objective lenses, even):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_form

I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
 

On 2012-03-09 18:56:02 +0000, Bruce said:

Pete A wrote:
On 2012-03-09 17:24:24 +0000, Bruce said:
Sucks to be a Canon owner, I guess, especially if you cannot afford to
switch brands.

It just his standard way of presenting an object (objective lenses, even):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_form


Perhaps Bret expects to be "canonized"?

Easily done...

I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
 

On 2012-03-09 18:57:12 +0000, Bruce said:

Pete A wrote:

As in "The canons of fair play" or "Cannon fodder"?

Or something closely approximating to "a loose Canon". ;-)

I'm not sure if it's the owner or the camera that's shot to bits -
something is causing the looseness.