Canon - Nikon Observations

"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:

There's a technical reason for the color of the BWLs.
And that is?


I'm going to stick my neck out here and posit a guess:

because they get less hot in the sun

Doug McDonald

We've got a winner!

In article , David J
Taylor wrote:

Fluorite is rather fragile, isn't it? Nikon has their own
extra-low-dispersion glass - look for "ED" on the lenses. They use ED
glass even in lenses I can afford, ones without the "L" for Luxury label.

yes it is fragile, which is why you'll never see flourite glass as the
front or rear element. and yes, nikon has ed glass in plenty of lenses
(even for the coolpix line).

But if what is most important to you is having big white lenses, then you
have the option of buying Canon.

nikon has white lenses too:

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/im...zoom/af-s_vr_z
oom70-200mmf_28g_if/index.htm

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

So you admit that you were talking out your bunghole.

should be quite obvious by now.

SMS wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

See "http://tinyurl.com/jfgirpd".

So you admit that you were talking out your bunghole.

Since you want to know the answers, which have been repeated
probably
1000 times in this newsgroup and on the web, you can find it out
yourself.

You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it.
If you make it and then fall back on "DAGS" then you end up looking
like a jackass.

Here's how to do it. Go to Google and type in the question you want
answered, i.e. "why are some canon lenses white" and then click on
"I'm Feeling Lucky." Your answer will appear.

If you want to learn about why fluorite is better than extra
dispersion (ED), type in "fluorite advantage extra dispersion" and
click on "I'm Feeling Lucky." Your answer will appear.

The lens mount question is a little more complex. You can start by
searching for an AF 50mm f1.2 lens for both Canon and Nikon, and by
investigating why Nikon lenses tend to cost more for the same focal
length and speed.

plonk

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it.

I'm not arguing, I'm just stating incontrovertible facts that no one
could possibly dispute.

Larry Thong wrote:

Why would Nikon want to go backwards in optical technology? How many Canon
lenses went into space?

So that's your criteria for choosing lenses, which ones will work in space?

Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. Canon lenses have a nasty
habit of the fluorite delaminating when tested under cold and low pressure
as in high altitude or the vacuum of space.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I plan a vacation or business trip
into space.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:26:36 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:

Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't
paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to choose
from, particularly at the very long end.

Nikon hasn't been able to make any Fluorite element lenses, which
greatly limits them in certain market segments, i.e. sports. And of
course the Nikon lens mount precludes them from making certain lenses.

Actually, Nikon does quite well with sports now that they have figured
out how to make low noise high ISO bodies. You're seeing more and
more big white lenses being replaced by non-attention-getting black
Nikkor lenses at sporting events.

How is the lens mount significant with regard to making certain
lenses?



As in all things in life, you usually get what you pay for. Pro
level Nikon glass is amazingly good, it just doesn't call attention to
itself with the embellishment of a "luxury" label and a different
color.

There's a technical reason for the color of the BWLs.

Theoretically to reflect heat. Then again, it can be argued that the
Nikkors don't need that because they don't have to rely on those
fragile fluorite elements to achieve their image quality.

Nikon basically invented ED glass as an alternative to fluorite. It
seems that more and more lens makers are using ED because it has some
big advantages.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:54:40 -0800, SMS
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it.

I'm not arguing, I'm just stating incontrovertible facts that no one
could possibly dispute.

I think the point is, SMS, is that just because you can look something
up on Google doesn't make it an incontrovertible fact. Flourite has
advantages and disadvantages. Another incontrovertible fact is that
Nikon does quite well with their professional line in spite of the
lack of fluorite.

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:54:40 -0800, SMS
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it.
I'm not arguing, I'm just stating incontrovertible facts that no one
could possibly dispute.

I think the point is, SMS, is that just because you can look something
up on Google doesn't make it an incontrovertible fact. Flourite has
advantages and disadvantages. Another incontrovertible fact is that
Nikon does quite well with their professional line in spite of the
lack of fluorite.

Yes, the ED glass is good, but it isn't as good as the Fluorite.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:03:41 -0800, SMS
wrote in :

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:54:40 -0800, SMS
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it.
I'm not arguing, I'm just stating incontrovertible facts that no one
could possibly dispute.

I think the point is, SMS, is that just because you can look something
up on Google doesn't make it an incontrovertible fact. Flourite has
advantages and disadvantages. Another incontrovertible fact is that
Nikon does quite well with their professional line in spite of the
lack of fluorite.

Yes, the ED glass is good, but it isn't as good as the Fluorite.

Zero support (as usual). Just because you say so? LOL

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others