vojislav_mileti__263_

<blockquote>

<p>Joseph:limits their ability to make the sort of compact, high quality lenses we're seeing in EVIL systems like NEX</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You say that, but Sony's own 16mm NEX lens is extremely poor. We're not really seeing any high quality compact lenses out there, other than normals which we already had for many years.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Joseph: What is it about this thread that's bringing out the nastiness</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It's a topic about gear, Joseph. Whenever you're questioning myths (and shooting them down!) about someone's favorite gear, there's gonna be nastiness.</p>

<p>Banding is very obvious in the 1st picture. Less so in the other 2 pictures, but if you do a slight shadow/highlight adjustment in PS it becomes visible.</p>

<p>You're not the first person to report this on the net, and there have been lengthy discussions about this. High ISO, high contrast - your shots are just about the ideal condition to produce this effect.</p>

<p>It's her stockings.</p>

<p>24mp<br>

lower noise<br>

more cross type AF points<br>

video<br>

bigger viewfinder<br>

optional focus screens<br>

and make some new F/1.4 primes to go with it..</p>

<p>You're not gonna get what you want, your wishes are not very realistic, and not really needed in the Canon lens lineup.</p>

<p>I think you can forget about aperture rings.<br /> 28/1.4 AFS would be nice.<br /> 58/1.2 AFS would be nice as well.</p>

We're living in sad times, if megapixels are all photographers think about.

One thing to consider, though. While Nikkors are generally more expensive (for no reason, really, probably just a bigger markup), newer Canon lenses are extremely overpriced as well - check out the prices for 14/2.8II and 200/2IS and compare them to Nikkors 14-24/2.8 and 200/2VR. Absurd.

New 28/1.4 sure would be sweet. Just, forget the VR, it's not needed in a 28mm lens.

Supply and demand + rich people who dont know what to do with their money..

 

Btw, I dont buy the "hard to design" theory - Canon 24mm F/1.4 brand new, today, costs around 1,100$.

Again, I dont see what 14-24 has to do with the need for fast primes. One other thing I dont understand is why people who dont need fast primes, say Nikon shouldnt bother making them at all. I dont need a 400mm F/2.8 but you wont hear me talking about how that lens is useless and completely unnecessary cause we have a slow zooms like 200-400mm and ISO 25,600 now.

 

If you dont want it, then why care? Believe it or not, there are some of us who do want fast lenses.

Fast lenses are always needed. ISO 25,600 doesnt change that.

I've bought (local camera flea market) my Yashica Mat 124G for 25 euro, so it's not impossible to find one I guess. Works perfectly.