there's no need to "play down" other makers' lenses. there's no overriding superiority of any maker's products and that's why we still see so many makers around. The top 4/3 lenses are not cheap, just like the top "35mm" lenses.
Four Thirds vs 35mm Legacy....
- Thread starter sulhan
- Start date
- Status
mpenza said:
The love for gear and equipment to a certain extend is subjective. Honestly speaking if you dun like it obviously there is a reason for it. I just find voicing it even though with valid reasons will still get back fired for it.
Honestly speaking if I get a chance I would like to try out Oly's 4/3 but the reason why it is putting me off is its aspect ratio of 4:3 (2x effective FL) which to begin with I "PERSONALLY" find it small for my liking.
jumbocrab said:
View it this way, its always a comparison. You have to see what gear he is currently using. Sometimes its good but it does not mean its good enough. Good enough as compared with his existing gear and good enough for the way it is being used.
Just to give you an example, many say that the Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 is as great as primes (and it is). But I did not get rid of my 24mm. Because, it is still "a little" sharper, the distortion control is better and most importantly I have a habbit of visualising and shooting with 24mm.
what icarus quoted was not basically just from his POV but many "same brand" users as well. There is certainly no denying about that.
about pricing wise will depend on whether u think it is worth that price or not. It might be a new technology in which they price it higher for pioneer adapters.
one thing to note about Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8.... is that the lens is not meant for digital, period. the images produced are abit soft in 100% cropped.
btw i am not a brand conscious type of person but a photo quality critic. if there is a better photo producing technology by other brands, i will definitely jump.
about pricing wise will depend on whether u think it is worth that price or not. It might be a new technology in which they price it higher for pioneer adapters.
one thing to note about Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8.... is that the lens is not meant for digital, period. the images produced are abit soft in 100% cropped.
btw i am not a brand conscious type of person but a photo quality critic. if there is a better photo producing technology by other brands, i will definitely jump.
litefoot said:
the Nikon 24/2.8 is good, its a pity Nikon did not make a DX version for that lens...
Would love to see a prime DX like AF 16mm F2 DX from nikon soon (maybe if they are good, they can even make a 16mm f1.4 DX)
:lovegrin: :lovegrin: :lovegrin:
- Status
Similar threads
