From: Kinon O'Cann on

"John Smith" <JohnSmith(a)aol.com> wrote in message
news:DTxGi.64215$xZ2.55036(a)newsfe10.phx...
> If you've never used either of them, how can you have a preference?

None of the Nikons will fit my Canon 5D. So I'd prefer to have a lens that
fits my camera.

:-)


From: Kinon O'Cann on

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87642dypl2.fld(a)apaflo.com...
> "John Smith" <JohnSmith(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>If you've never used either of them, how can you have a preference?
>
> Weight. He was going to throw it at "Rita"...
>
> I'd chose the Canon one for that purpose myself.

That's a great reason, but if I were going to throw something at Rita,
whoever he is, I'd prefer a huge rock. I want that Canon lens because if
fits my Canon camera.


From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Rita � Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04(a)aol.com> wrote:

> The amazing part about all of these Nikon bokeh machines and most other
> Nikkors is they use a 9-blade aperture. I think Canon's insistence with
> staying with 8-blades on their L glass is what is optically crippling them.

Interesting --- if you want bokeh, you shoot wide open (or nearly
so), so the aperture blades do not even come into the equation.
Though if you are used to having tostop down for acceptable
image quality I'd understand why you'd harp on the blade number.
Using Canon L glass, you actually can shoot wide open, so ...
try it.

> I realize Canon has more QA and design issues with their pro lenses other
> than a questionable aperture design.

Which is because they sell so many more lenses than, say, Nikon,
that the absolute number of problems will still be higher,
even assuming their QA and design is better than Nikons. Or,
in other words: there are less people dying per year in Rolls
Royce cars than your average commuter car simply because there
are so many less Rolls Royce around. Using that fact to claim
Rolls Royce cars are inherently safer is a na�ve fallacy.

-Wolfgang
From: Floyd L. Davidson on
Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote:
>["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
>Rita � Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The amazing part about all of these Nikon bokeh machines and most other
>> Nikkors is they use a 9-blade aperture. I think Canon's insistence with
>> staying with 8-blades on their L glass is what is optically crippling them.
>
>Interesting --- if you want bokeh, you shoot wide open (or nearly
>so), so the aperture blades do not even come into the equation.

Except as soon as you said "nearly", you lost that
distinction.

Absolutely wide open, yes. 1/3rd of an fstop closed
down and it *does* make a difference. Hence usually it
is relevant. It also makes a difference because one has
an even number of blades and the others have an odd
number (which is better).

>Though if you are used to having tostop down for acceptable
>image quality I'd understand why you'd harp on the blade number.
>Using Canon L glass, you actually can shoot wide open, so ...
>try it.

That's true with the Nikkor lenses too, but sometimes
that is *not* what you want. The wonder of those great
lenses like the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 is that you get
great bokeh at f/1.4, at f/2.0 *and* at f/4.0 or
*wherever* it is that you want the depth of field to be.

And note that the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 not only has 9
blades in the diaphram, they are rounded too.

>> I realize Canon has more QA and design issues with their pro lenses other
>> than a questionable aperture design.
>
>Which is because they sell so many more lenses than, say, Nikon,
>that the absolute number of problems will still be higher,
>even assuming their QA and design is better than Nikons. Or,
>in other words: there are less people dying per year in Rolls
>Royce cars than your average commuter car simply because there
>are so many less Rolls Royce around. Using that fact to claim
>Rolls Royce cars are inherently safer is a na�ve fallacy.

Got any real numbers to support what you are saying?

Just like the abuse of numbers in the top part of your
commentary, I question this last part too...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Rita � Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04(a)aol.com> wrote:
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

>> And note that the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 not only has 9
>> blades in the diaphram, they are rounded too.

> Yep, an added bonus at no additional cost. Seems Nikkors are a bargain at
> any price. Now if Canon can add an extra blade and round the edges they
> might have something.

You should never look at a Canon lens, lest your prejudice be
hampered by facts.

-Wolfgang