Pretty sad when your own lens-line is such s--- someone can sell a $400-$700 adapter for it just so you can use someone else's...

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:36:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Poor Sony. No respect.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/076082...-mount-cameras

The lack of decent and affordable glass has kept me from buying into
that system. Even their Zeiss/Sony 24-70 f4 zoom is a true dog. While
capable of decent quality, a zoom that expensive should be good across
the board. Sony has always concentrated on the bodies instead of the
lenses and it shows.

Adapters suck. I want nothing to do with them.

On 1/25/2017 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:36:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Poor Sony. No respect.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/076082...-mount-cameras

The lack of decent and affordable glass has kept me from buying into
that system. Even their Zeiss/Sony 24-70 f4 zoom is a true dog. While
capable of decent quality, a zoom that expensive should be good across
the board. Sony has always concentrated on the bodies instead of the
lenses and it shows.

Adapters suck. I want nothing to do with them.


One of my friends uses an adapter for his Nikon glass. His results are
quite good.

--
PeterN

On 1/26/2017 1:49 AM, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 23:44:33 UTC-5, peterN wrote:
On 1/25/2017 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:36:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Poor Sony. No respect.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/076082...-mount-cameras

The lack of decent and affordable glass has kept me from buying into
that system. Even their Zeiss/Sony 24-70 f4 zoom is a true dog. While
capable of decent quality, a zoom that expensive should be good across
the board. Sony has always concentrated on the bodies instead of the
lenses and it shows.

Adapters suck. I want nothing to do with them.


One of my friends uses an adapter for his Nikon glass. His results are
quite good.

--
PeterN

You mean he uses Nikon glass on Sony's? You can adapt any lens to their mirrorless cameras, pretty much and how they work is a function of how good they are. But, unless it's the EOS stuff for the moment, no AF. It shows how bad Sony glass must be (aside from "some" of the Zeiss-named stuff and the 90mm macro which somehow they got right, apparently) if a maker was willing to go to the lengths of making Metabones adapters to fit Canons to Sony bodies.


my comment was in response to the poster who claimed there was
degradation from using adapters. They don't cause degradation, unless
their is glass involved. Even then the amount of degradation will vary
from barely perceptible to horrible.

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 1/26/2017 1:49 AM, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 23:44:33 UTC-5, peterN wrote:
On 1/25/2017 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:36:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Poor Sony. No respect.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/076082...-four-new-adap
ters-for-attaching-canon-lenses-to-sony-e-mount-cameras

The lack of decent and affordable glass has kept me from buying into
that system. Even their Zeiss/Sony 24-70 f4 zoom is a true dog. While
capable of decent quality, a zoom that expensive should be good across
the board. Sony has always concentrated on the bodies instead of the
lenses and it shows.

Adapters suck. I want nothing to do with them.


One of my friends uses an adapter for his Nikon glass. His results are
quite good.

--
PeterN

You mean he uses Nikon glass on Sony's? You can adapt any lens to their
mirrorless cameras, pretty much and how they work is a function of how good
they are. But, unless it's the EOS stuff for the moment, no AF. It shows
how bad Sony glass must be (aside from "some" of the Zeiss-named stuff and
the 90mm macro which somehow they got right, apparently) if a maker was
willing to go to the lengths of making Metabones adapters to fit Canons to
Sony bodies.


my comment was in response to the poster who claimed there was
degradation from using adapters. They don't cause degradation, unless
their is glass involved. Even then the amount of degradation will vary
from barely perceptible to horrible.

Two of those adapters are so called speedbosters and are an expensive
way to make good glass suck... Wired adapters work fine if the are on
the dumb side and just relay from the lens to camera and back like the
EOS EF2EF-M do and not tries to translate data between systems. EF2EF-M
adapters can be had for US20 and my third party Meike works fine just
like the OEM that came with the camera...
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 1/26/2017 1:49 AM, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 23:44:33 UTC-5, peterN wrote:
On 1/25/2017 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:36:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Poor Sony. No respect.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/076082...-four-new-adap
ters-for-attaching-canon-lenses-to-sony-e-mount-cameras

The lack of decent and affordable glass has kept me from buying into
that system. Even their Zeiss/Sony 24-70 f4 zoom is a true dog. While
capable of decent quality, a zoom that expensive should be good across
the board. Sony has always concentrated on the bodies instead of the
lenses and it shows.

Adapters suck. I want nothing to do with them.


One of my friends uses an adapter for his Nikon glass. His results are
quite good.

--
PeterN

You mean he uses Nikon glass on Sony's? You can adapt any lens to their
mirrorless cameras, pretty much and how they work is a function of how good
they are. But, unless it's the EOS stuff for the moment, no AF. It shows
how bad Sony glass must be (aside from "some" of the Zeiss-named stuff and
the 90mm macro which somehow they got right, apparently) if a maker was
willing to go to the lengths of making Metabones adapters to fit Canons to
Sony bodies.


my comment was in response to the poster who claimed there was
degradation from using adapters. They don't cause degradation, unless
their is glass involved. Even then the amount of degradation will vary
from barely perceptible to horrible.

Two of those adapters are so called speedbosters and are an expensive
way to make good glass suck... Wired adapters work fine if the are on
the dumb side and just relay from the lens to camera and back like the
EOS EF2EF-M do and not tries to translate data between systems. EF2EF-M
adapters can be had for US50 and my third party Meike works fine just
like the OEM that came with the camera...
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 1/26/2017 1:49 AM, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 23:44:33 UTC-5, peterN wrote:
On 1/25/2017 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:36:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Poor Sony. No respect.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/076082...-four-new-adap
ters-for-attaching-canon-lenses-to-sony-e-mount-cameras

The lack of decent and affordable glass has kept me from buying into
that system. Even their Zeiss/Sony 24-70 f4 zoom is a true dog. While
capable of decent quality, a zoom that expensive should be good across
the board. Sony has always concentrated on the bodies instead of the
lenses and it shows.

Adapters suck. I want nothing to do with them.


One of my friends uses an adapter for his Nikon glass. His results are
quite good.

--
PeterN

You mean he uses Nikon glass on Sony's? You can adapt any lens to their
mirrorless cameras, pretty much and how they work is a function of how good
they are. But, unless it's the EOS stuff for the moment, no AF. It shows
how bad Sony glass must be (aside from "some" of the Zeiss-named stuff and
the 90mm macro which somehow they got right, apparently) if a maker was
willing to go to the lengths of making Metabones adapters to fit Canons to
Sony bodies.


my comment was in response to the poster who claimed there was
degradation from using adapters. They don't cause degradation, unless
their is glass involved. Even then the amount of degradation will vary
from barely perceptible to horrible.

Two of those adapters are so called speedbosters and are an expensive
way to make good glass suck... Wired adapters work fine if the are on
the dumb side and just relay from the lens to camera and back like the
EOS EF2EF-M do and not try to translate data between systems. EF2EF-M
adapters can be had for US50 and my third party Meike works fine just
like the OEM that came with the camera...
--
teleportation kills

On 1/26/2017 9:14 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 1/26/2017 1:49 AM, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 23:44:33 UTC-5, peterN wrote:
On 1/25/2017 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:36:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Poor Sony. No respect.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/076082...-four-new-adap
ters-for-attaching-canon-lenses-to-sony-e-mount-cameras

The lack of decent and affordable glass has kept me from buying into
that system. Even their Zeiss/Sony 24-70 f4 zoom is a true dog. While
capable of decent quality, a zoom that expensive should be good across
the board. Sony has always concentrated on the bodies instead of the
lenses and it shows.

Adapters suck. I want nothing to do with them.


One of my friends uses an adapter for his Nikon glass. His results are
quite good.

--
PeterN

You mean he uses Nikon glass on Sony's? You can adapt any lens to their
mirrorless cameras, pretty much and how they work is a function of how good
they are. But, unless it's the EOS stuff for the moment, no AF. It shows
how bad Sony glass must be (aside from "some" of the Zeiss-named stuff and
the 90mm macro which somehow they got right, apparently) if a maker was
willing to go to the lengths of making Metabones adapters to fit Canons to
Sony bodies.


my comment was in response to the poster who claimed there was
degradation from using adapters. They don't cause degradation, unless
their is glass involved. Even then the amount of degradation will vary
from barely perceptible to horrible.

Two of those adapters are so called speedbosters and are an expensive
way to make good glass suck... Wired adapters work fine if the are on
the dumb side and just relay from the lens to camera and back like the
EOS EF2EF-M do and not try to translate data between systems. EF2EF-M
adapters can be had for US50 and my third party Meike works fine just
like the OEM that came with the camera...


your comment was posted three times

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 1/26/2017 9:14 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 1/26/2017 1:49 AM, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 23:44:33 UTC-5, peterN wrote:
On 1/25/2017 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:36:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Poor Sony. No respect.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/076082...es-four-new-ad
ap
ters-for-attaching-canon-lenses-to-sony-e-mount-cameras

The lack of decent and affordable glass has kept me from buying into
that system. Even their Zeiss/Sony 24-70 f4 zoom is a true dog. While
capable of decent quality, a zoom that expensive should be good across
the board. Sony has always concentrated on the bodies instead of the
lenses and it shows.

Adapters suck. I want nothing to do with them.


One of my friends uses an adapter for his Nikon glass. His results are
quite good.

--
PeterN

You mean he uses Nikon glass on Sony's? You can adapt any lens to their
mirrorless cameras, pretty much and how they work is a function of how
good
they are. But, unless it's the EOS stuff for the moment, no AF. It
shows
how bad Sony glass must be (aside from "some" of the Zeiss-named stuff
and
the 90mm macro which somehow they got right, apparently) if a maker was
willing to go to the lengths of making Metabones adapters to fit Canons
to
Sony bodies.


my comment was in response to the poster who claimed there was
degradation from using adapters. They don't cause degradation, unless
their is glass involved. Even then the amount of degradation will vary
from barely perceptible to horrible.

Two of those adapters are so called speedbosters and are an expensive
way to make good glass suck... Wired adapters work fine if the are on
the dumb side and just relay from the lens to camera and back like the
EOS EF2EF-M do and not try to translate data between systems. EF2EF-M
adapters can be had for US50 and my third party Meike works fine just
like the OEM that came with the camera...


your comment was posted three times

No it was not. I merely corrected a couple of typos with the supersede
feature. No multiple postings or cancelations. I don't think that that
part of the NNTP protocol has been implemented in the otherwise rather
well featured free Usenet reader Thunderbird that you use.

If you can see more than one reply then your Usenet server is broken.
--
teleportation kills

On 1/26/2017 10:04 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 1/26/2017 9:14 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 1/26/2017 1:49 AM, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 23:44:33 UTC-5, peterN wrote:
On 1/25/2017 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:36:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Poor Sony. No respect.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/076082...es-four-new-ad
ap
ters-for-attaching-canon-lenses-to-sony-e-mount-cameras

The lack of decent and affordable glass has kept me from buying into
that system. Even their Zeiss/Sony 24-70 f4 zoom is a true dog. While
capable of decent quality, a zoom that expensive should be good across
the board. Sony has always concentrated on the bodies instead of the
lenses and it shows.

Adapters suck. I want nothing to do with them.


One of my friends uses an adapter for his Nikon glass. His results are
quite good.

--
PeterN

You mean he uses Nikon glass on Sony's? You can adapt any lens to their
mirrorless cameras, pretty much and how they work is a function of how
good
they are. But, unless it's the EOS stuff for the moment, no AF. It
shows
how bad Sony glass must be (aside from "some" of the Zeiss-named stuff
and
the 90mm macro which somehow they got right, apparently) if a maker was
willing to go to the lengths of making Metabones adapters to fit Canons
to
Sony bodies.


my comment was in response to the poster who claimed there was
degradation from using adapters. They don't cause degradation, unless
their is glass involved. Even then the amount of degradation will vary
from barely perceptible to horrible.

Two of those adapters are so called speedbosters and are an expensive
way to make good glass suck... Wired adapters work fine if the are on
the dumb side and just relay from the lens to camera and back like the
EOS EF2EF-M do and not try to translate data between systems. EF2EF-M
adapters can be had for US50 and my third party Meike works fine just
like the OEM that came with the camera...


your comment was posted three times

No it was not. I merely corrected a couple of typos with the supersede
feature. No multiple postings or cancelations. I don't think that that
part of the NNTP protocol has been implemented in the otherwise rather
well featured free Usenet reader Thunderbird that you use.

If you can see more than one reply then your Usenet server is broken.


I guess I will have to live with that

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 1/26/2017 10:04 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 1/26/2017 9:14 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 1/26/2017 1:49 AM, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 23:44:33 UTC-5, peterN wrote:
On 1/25/2017 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:36:17 -0800 (PST), RichA

wrote:

Poor Sony. No respect.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/076082...ches-four-new-
ad
ap
ters-for-attaching-canon-lenses-to-sony-e-mount-cameras

The lack of decent and affordable glass has kept me from buying into
that system. Even their Zeiss/Sony 24-70 f4 zoom is a true dog. While
capable of decent quality, a zoom that expensive should be good
across
the board. Sony has always concentrated on the bodies instead of the
lenses and it shows.

Adapters suck. I want nothing to do with them.


One of my friends uses an adapter for his Nikon glass. His results are
quite good.

--
PeterN

You mean he uses Nikon glass on Sony's? You can adapt any lens to
their
mirrorless cameras, pretty much and how they work is a function of how
good
they are. But, unless it's the EOS stuff for the moment, no AF. It
shows
how bad Sony glass must be (aside from "some" of the Zeiss-named stuff
and
the 90mm macro which somehow they got right, apparently) if a maker was
willing to go to the lengths of making Metabones adapters to fit Canons
to
Sony bodies.


my comment was in response to the poster who claimed there was
degradation from using adapters. They don't cause degradation, unless
their is glass involved. Even then the amount of degradation will vary
from barely perceptible to horrible.

Two of those adapters are so called speedbosters and are an expensive
way to make good glass suck... Wired adapters work fine if the are on
the dumb side and just relay from the lens to camera and back like the
EOS EF2EF-M do and not try to translate data between systems. EF2EF-M
adapters can be had for US50 and my third party Meike works fine just
like the OEM that came with the camera...


your comment was posted three times

No it was not. I merely corrected a couple of typos with the supersede
feature. No multiple postings or cancelations. I don't think that that
part of the NNTP protocol has been implemented in the otherwise rather
well featured free Usenet reader Thunderbird that you use.

If you can see more than one reply then your Usenet server is broken.


I guess I will have to live with that

Misunderstandings of protocol and of how things are done have got more
than one casualty through history...
--
teleportation kills