If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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"? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE ! | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | March 6th 12 06:40 PM |
I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE ! | William Hamblen | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | March 4th 12 07:50 PM |