October 01, 2014, 11:22:48 PM

Author Topic: Canon may be expensive but...  (Read 21266 times)

TexPhoto

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 935
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2013, 10:41:11 AM »
"Originally trialed and tested under the demanding conditions of the 2012 summer games, the AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR maintains...."

Interesting.  Did nobody spot one of these because the Canon 200-400-560 were getting all the looks?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2013, 10:41:11 AM »

ChilledXpress

  • Guest
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2013, 10:43:44 AM »
WWOOOOOWWWWWWW!  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Did you guys see the MTF chart on the Nikon???

Nikon without TC:


Nikon with TC


Borderline perfection!!


Here's the Canon to compare:


This must be why no respectable sports/wildlife photographer would ever be caught shooting Canon teles!!!  ::)

preppyak

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2013, 10:53:39 AM »
And I was wondering what the other lens they were announcing would be.  I knew the 18-35 was being redone, but the 800 was a surprise.
Seems like that price point for that lens drives the nail in the coffin of any "update the 17-40" efforts. The going rate of an entry wide-zoom seems to be $750-$850, and I doubt they go cheaper.

EYEONE

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2013, 10:56:14 AM »
WWOOOOOWWWWWWW!  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Did you guys see the MTF chart on the Nikon???

Nikon without TC:


Nikon with TC


Borderline perfection!!


Here's the Canon to compare:


You can't compare Canon MTFs to Nikon MTFs. It's not a valid comparision.

you can not come with assumption like that with out explaining what you meant

we dont know if this is estimated MTF, Canon and Nikon has a predilection to exhibit estimated MTF results  to impress

Yes I can.


Canon 5D Mark III w/BG-E11, Canon 7D w/BG-E7: EF 24-70mm f.2.8L, EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, EF 40mm f2.8 Pancake STM, Speedlite 430EXII + 430EXI, Canon EOS 3

kubelik

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
    • a teatray in the sky
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2013, 10:56:33 AM »
And I was wondering what the other lens they were announcing would be.  I knew the 18-35 was being redone, but the 800 was a surprise.
Seems like that price point for that lens drives the nail in the coffin of any "update the 17-40" efforts. The going rate of an entry wide-zoom seems to be $750-$850, and I doubt they go cheaper.

I don't know, if Canon can update the 17-40 f/4, and possibly add IS ... it would be wider on the wide end, longer on the long end, a fixed max aperture, and have IS. then they could definitely justify pricing it above this quirky Nikon UW zoom.

EYEONE

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2013, 11:16:33 AM »
WWOOOOOWWWWWWW!  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Did you guys see the MTF chart on the Nikon???

Nikon without TC:


Nikon with TC


Borderline perfection!!


Here's the Canon to compare:


You can't compare Canon MTFs to Nikon MTFs. It's not a valid comparision.

you can not come with assumption like that with out explaining what you meant

we dont know if this is estimated MTF, Canon and Nikon has a predilection to exhibit estimated MTF results  to impress

Yes I can.


Ok , tell me

Hey man, I really don't give a crap. I actually meant that I can come with an "assumption" if I want to.

The way I understand MTFs is that they are not comparable between brands because the the info is not gathered the same way. There are no standards.

If you want links, I have zero desire to find them for you. But I doubt you need them as you seem to be way-super-smart.
Canon 5D Mark III w/BG-E11, Canon 7D w/BG-E7: EF 24-70mm f.2.8L, EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, EF 40mm f2.8 Pancake STM, Speedlite 430EXII + 430EXI, Canon EOS 3

ishdakuteb

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 365
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2013, 11:21:55 AM »
WWOOOOOWWWWWWW!  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Did you guys see the MTF chart on the Nikon???

Nikon without TC:


Nikon with TC


Borderline perfection!!


Here's the Canon to compare:


1. well... do i trust given information from nikon? not really.  why?  because of this:  they claim this image is taken with nikon d5200, but take a look into metadata

sample image 3:  http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d5200/img/sample01/img_03_l.jpg

update note:  recently download the image to ensure the same image that i downloaded before.  check metadata and it is now d5200, not d800e anymore, not sure if it is the same image since i do not remember, but it should be the same scene.  ONE THING THAT I MIGHT HAVE A GUT TO SAY THAT "NIKON MARKETING TEAM IS ON CANONRUMORS CHANEL "

LOL

2. it is so bummer when comparing old design and old technology to new one.  use your brain please

Quote
In Sweden the Nikon 600/4 is almost 5000USD cheaper than Canons 600mm
Why on earth do you think  the street price will be higher on the Nikon 800mm than the Canons?

New design with new technology always much more expensive and this has been proven from time to time right :)  I guess next Canon 800mm will be about the same price, depending US dollars... will probably not be cheaper than nikon though :)
« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 12:59:39 PM by ishdakuteb »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2013, 11:21:55 AM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3468
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2013, 11:48:39 AM »
#not impressed. :\

OK


Are you  buying pro gears and traveling a lot  I can recommend Profoto from Sweden, used them since first Pro1

Profoto is top-notch equipment but Its not what I'll be needing. Love the Modifiers for them.

4x PCB Einsteins are my current plan.

preppyak

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2013, 11:54:29 AM »
I don't know, if Canon can update the 17-40 f/4, and possibly add IS ... it would be wider on the wide end, longer on the long end, a fixed max aperture, and have IS. then they could definitely justify pricing it above this quirky Nikon UW zoom.
Right, my point is more than the cheapest wide-zoom available isnt going to go below $750. Some people, in the wake of the new 24-70 f/4L IS release were saying Canon could make a $4-500 lens, and clearly neither Canon or Nikon are super interested in that.

I also hope Canon wouldn't put IS in a 17-40 lens just to boost the price. For a lens whose primary use is on a tripod, that would be silly

kubelik

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
    • a teatray in the sky
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2013, 12:43:41 PM »
I also hope Canon wouldn't put IS in a 17-40 lens just to boost the price. For a lens whose primary use is on a tripod, that would be silly

I hear you there. but their current trend of releases tends to suggest that, if they do update the 17-40, it will most likely have IS built in.

that being said, I'd dispute the fact that the majority of its buyers use it on a tripod. I know lots of people that use the 17-40 specifically as a wide-angle walk-around (or hike-around, rather), and would love to not have to bring their tripod along.

garyknrd

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Birding
    • View Profile
    • Bird photography
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2013, 09:03:15 PM »
You will see more of there 800 mm lenses sold I think than the 600 now. That MTF is unreal. Much better than Canon now. But it is rumored that Canon will announce the 800 II soon. I bet that bad boy will be lighter and just as sharp.
Live between Thailand and Texas, USA

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14537
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2013, 09:27:51 AM »
MTF tests from Nikon, Canon, Leitz, Zeiss , Hasselblad are real MTF tests and of the lens only

Actually, most of those published MTF curves are not real MTF tests, i.e. the manufacturers are not actually measuring the resolution of a real lens.  Canon's and Nikon's published MTF curves are theoretical MTFs (as are Sigma's, Tamron's, etc.) - they are calculated curves, generated by a computer algorithm based on the optical design of the lens.  AFAIK, Zeiss is the only lens manufacturer that published MTF curves that are empirically measured on a real production lens (not sure about Hasselblad). 

Since neither Canon nor Nikon make public their algorithms for generation of theoretical MTF curves from the lens design, it's not really valid to compare them to one another, nor to Zeiss' real measurements.  Comparing within a brand is fine. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

charlesa

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
  • I shoot with my eye!
    • View Profile
    • 16 stops to Heaven
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2013, 11:37:50 AM »
Less MTF... more time shooting!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2013, 11:37:50 AM »

sandymandy

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #28 on: January 31, 2013, 11:45:51 AM »
I think people with a normal income dont even think about getting the highend tele lenses anyway :) I just like Canon no matter what Nikon does. Im fine with my gear and so should u!

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14537
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2013, 03:18:29 PM »
I have already answer that, go back to page 2, BUT Canon, Leitz , Hasselblad Nikon  etc  has real MTF equipments and measuring of the lenses  , not to be mixed by Photozone and others "MTF" tests .
There is no problem to measure a Canon lens at Hasselblad MTF lab in Gothenburg and compare that to others

I do not see an answer.  Are you saying that the MTF curves published on Canon's (and Nikon's) websites represent real, empirically measured data?
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2013, 03:18:29 PM »