CANON stomps Nikon .... Again !!!

"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message
...

"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message
...
SNIP
To me, this year's announcements represent a retreat from that
position. It's possible, even likely, that both the original bet
and the current retreat were sound business decisions.

As for the recent announcements, I would have made the new lenses
backward compatible with the older 1.6x crop bodies. I would have
also introduced product aimed at the 1D and 1D Mark II owners, who
are probably feeling a little left out at this point.

The year is not yet over...
The Photokina, world's largest bi-annual photographic product
exhibition, takes off in 2 weeks
(http://www.koelnmesse.de/wEnglisch/photokina/index.htm). Rumour has
it that a new 16? MP DSLR will be introduced. We'll have to see if
that's all.

The latest rumor is an EOS 2D / 22MP:
http://www.photim.com/Arrive/Sommaire.asp
To be announced the 27th of tis month.

Bart

"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message
...

"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message
...
SNIP
To me, this year's announcements represent a retreat from that
position. It's possible, even likely, that both the original bet
and the current retreat were sound business decisions.

As for the recent announcements, I would have made the new lenses
backward compatible with the older 1.6x crop bodies. I would have
also introduced product aimed at the 1D and 1D Mark II owners, who
are probably feeling a little left out at this point.

The year is not yet over...
The Photokina, world's largest bi-annual photographic product
exhibition, takes off in 2 weeks
(http://www.koelnmesse.de/wEnglisch/photokina/index.htm). Rumour has
it that a new 16? MP DSLR will be introduced. We'll have to see if
that's all.

The latest rumor is an EOS 2D / 22MP:
http://www.photim.com/Arrive/Sommaire.asp
To be announced the 27th of tis month.

Bart

From: "Mark M"

Maybe God is like gravity. Doesn't matter if you believe in gravity ....
you're still subject to it's force and you still can't fly.

Hmmm...

There's a long, scary sermon in there somewhere...
I sense that you will soon don the robe and collar, Bret...
-Quick, throw some retardant on that brimstone!

My grandmother always thought I would become a preacher someday, and I guess in
some ways she was right.
I study the Canon.

I've considered becoming a Catholic priest.
Just for the sex, ya know.....

Maybe it's a Sigma ;-)

Nooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo


Life has ups & downs. Some people change for the better, some for the
worse. In the 60's nobody with a sane mind would buy a Toyota, look at
them nowadays. Anyway I find kind of sad, that the engineers at
Minolta-Konica, in a rush to bring out some "me too" in the DSLR
market, could'nt even design their own lenses. But then they maybe the
victims also, because their company's top-brass don't move their fat
asses fast enough. Look at Kodak who completely missed the boat with
APS. They assumed that consumer will settle for lower quality, and it
turned out to be a wrong one, and now they're in trouble.

Maybe it's a Sigma ;-)

Nooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo


Life has ups & downs. Some people change for the better, some for the
worse. In the 60's nobody with a sane mind would buy a Toyota, look at
them nowadays. Anyway I find kind of sad, that the engineers at
Minolta-Konica, in a rush to bring out some "me too" in the DSLR
market, could'nt even design their own lenses. But then they maybe the
victims also, because their company's top-brass don't move their fat
asses fast enough. Look at Kodak who completely missed the boat with
APS. They assumed that consumer will settle for lower quality, and it
turned out to be a wrong one, and now they're in trouble.

Magnus W wrote:

Alan Browne wrote in

Then I'll buy the ole 17-35 f/3.5


That's in a whle different price range though. Three times the price.

Probably worth it.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Magnus W wrote:

I'm not myself fully convinced that the 17-35 is a Tamron -- peolpe see=
m to=20
base this off similarity in design together with the somewhat=20
unusual aperture (2.8-4). But Sigma also makes such a lens, and all 17-=
xx=20
lenses are going to be damn similar, and the focusing ring on the Minol=
ta=20
does rotate the right (Minolta) way -- while the new 28-75 rotates the=20
wrong way, just like the Tamron 28-75 (that's a dead giveaway) AND the=20
Tamron 17-35. I mean, why should they have changed the direction of the=
=20
focusing ring on one Tamron design but left it on the other? That's jus=
t=20
stupid. That's why I'm not at all sure the 17-35 is a Tamron.

Maybe it's a Sigma ;-)

The Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 EX has a size =F882 filter thread, and haven't we
already determined that the pictured Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 has size =F877?

wgt len cost close fltr pZone photodo=
=20=20=20
Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 Di 440g 86mm $480 30cm =F877 ? ?=20=20
Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 EX 400g 83mm $479 50cm =F882 3.02 3.1
Minolta 17-35/3.5 G 594g 150mm $1550 30cm =F877 3.13 3.3
Nikon 17-35/2.8 ED 750g 103mm $1280 27cm =F877 3.08 ?=20=20
Canon 17-35/2.8 L 545g 98mm $1300 42cm =F877 3.26 3.2=20

John Smith wrote:

Maybe it's a Sigma ;-)

Nooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo



Life has ups & downs. Some people change for the better, some for the
worse. In the 60's nobody with a sane mind would buy a Toyota, look at
them nowadays. Anyway I find kind of sad, that the engineers at
Minolta-Konica, in a rush to bring out some "me too" in the DSLR
market, could'nt even design their own lenses. But then they maybe the
victims also, because their company's top-brass don't move their fat
asses fast enough. Look at Kodak who completely missed the boat with
APS. They assumed that consumer will settle for lower quality, and it
turned out to be a wrong one, and now they're in trouble.


There's nothing wrong with value decisions. Minolta are firmly
in control of their other lens designs. Farming out the lower
end, digital specific 17-35 to Tamron doesn't strike me at all as
a bad move.
As to the DSLR they have to start somewhere and a 6 MP is a
decent place to begin. Note that they went from 5 MP to 8 MP
along with A-S on the A1 - A2 within 1 year... hopefully that
pace of improvement will happen to the 7D (or perhaps a 9D spec'd
digital is in the works including higher res.)

Ya don't know 'til ya know.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Bill Tuthill wrote:

Magnus W wrote:

I'm not myself fully convinced that the 17-35 is a Tamron -- peolpe seem to
base this off similarity in design together with the somewhat
unusual aperture (2.8-4). But Sigma also makes such a lens, and all 17-xx
lenses are going to be damn similar, and the focusing ring on the Minolta
does rotate the right (Minolta) way -- while the new 28-75 rotates the
wrong way, just like the Tamron 28-75 (that's a dead giveaway) AND the
Tamron 17-35. I mean, why should they have changed the direction of the
focusing ring on one Tamron design but left it on the other? That's just
stupid. That's why I'm not at all sure the 17-35 is a Tamron.

Maybe it's a Sigma ;-)


The Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 EX has a size ø82 filter thread, and haven't we
already determined that the pictured Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 has size ø77?

wgt len cost close fltr pZone photodo
Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 Di 440g 86mm $480 30cm ø77 ? ?
Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 EX 400g 83mm $479 50cm ø82 3.02 3.1
Minolta 17-35/3.5 G 594g 150mm $1550 30cm ø77 3.13 3.3
Nikon 17-35/2.8 ED 750g 103mm $1280 27cm ø77 3.08 ?
Canon 17-35/2.8 L 545g 98mm $1300 42cm ø77 3.26 3.2


These are all good hints ... but it is possible that two lens
makers have similar rough numbers for a similar lens class...
having said that, I'd be less than shocked or offended to find
out that the lens *is* a Tamron design with the aperture ring
removed. (Which I guess they do with all their Maxxum compatible
lenses in any case).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Bill Tuthill wrote:

Magnus W wrote:

I'm not myself fully convinced that the 17-35 is a Tamron -- peolpe seem to
base this off similarity in design together with the somewhat
unusual aperture (2.8-4). But Sigma also makes such a lens, and all 17-xx
lenses are going to be damn similar, and the focusing ring on the Minolta
does rotate the right (Minolta) way -- while the new 28-75 rotates the
wrong way, just like the Tamron 28-75 (that's a dead giveaway) AND the
Tamron 17-35. I mean, why should they have changed the direction of the
focusing ring on one Tamron design but left it on the other? That's just
stupid. That's why I'm not at all sure the 17-35 is a Tamron.

Maybe it's a Sigma ;-)


The Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 EX has a size ø82 filter thread, and haven't we
already determined that the pictured Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 has size ø77?

wgt len cost close fltr pZone photodo
Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 Di 440g 86mm $480 30cm ø77 ? ?
Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 EX 400g 83mm $479 50cm ø82 3.02 3.1
Minolta 17-35/3.5 G 594g 150mm $1550 30cm ø77 3.13 3.3
Nikon 17-35/2.8 ED 750g 103mm $1280 27cm ø77 3.08 ?
Canon 17-35/2.8 L 545g 98mm $1300 42cm ø77 3.26 3.2


These are all good hints ... but it is possible that two lens
makers have similar rough numbers for a similar lens class...
having said that, I'd be less than shocked or offended to find
out that the lens *is* a Tamron design with the aperture ring
removed. (Which I guess they do with all their Maxxum compatible
lenses in any case).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--