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:
>> 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.

Facts that you would have listed, if they had existed.

Has Canon ever made a single lense with 9 blades? The
best they can do at 85mm is their f/1.2L which is
otherwise fine but has 8 blades and a diaphragm that is
round only when wider than f/4.0. (Why does Canon
insist on an _even_ number of diaphragm blades???)

For Canon users, a better deal would be the Jupiter-9
85mm f/2.0 in a Pentax M42 screw mount, with a 15 blade
diaphragm. Less than $50, and the M42 screw mount
adapter shouldn't be much.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Annika1980 on
On Sep 16, 6:56 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> I don't know what Nikon was thinking, VR on a macro lens is totally wrong.

Why?


From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
frederick <lost(a)sea.com> wrote:
> Annika1980 wrote:

>> Perhaps you could enlighten us about some of the "glaring flaws" of
>> the 85 f/1.2L. This oughta be good.

> It weighs over 1kg.

Doing double duty as a lens and a missile against robbers is
bad, because?

Oh, and please show me the 85mm f/1.2 from Nikon that is
as sturdy as the Canon variant and is lighter.

What, Nikon doesn't even offer a f/1.2? Not even a
lightweight plastic one? Fancy that.

> It vignettes at wide apertures even on crop sensor cameras.

Any lens vignettes, and Nikons, 85mm f/1.8 D vignettes worse
at f/1.8 than Canon's 85 f/1.2.

> Only an 8 blade and non-rounded diaphragm.

"super-smooth bokeh" (photozone.de)


"The 85/1,2 can not be compared to any other lens. the bokeh
at 1.2 is not from this world. Its like floating in a dream."
"Legendary bokeh"
"Bokeh is fantastic."
"Best bokeh I ever seen at all apertures"
"Out of this world bokeh"
"heavenly bokeh"
"incredible bokeh"
"Fabulous bokeh"
"Out of this world BOKEH - you won't believe it until you see it."
"The bokeh is amazing. Smooth and creamy."
"unmatched bokeh"
"Wonderful bokeh"
"Amazing Bokeh"
"the bokeh is fantastic"
"Bokeh that is nothing short of amazing"
"The bokeh is excellent."
"Bokeh.....come again....this 85'er invented the term Bokeh"
"Bokeh that sets a standard that spoils you against other fast lenses."

.... and lots of repetitions of that ... and, here it comes:

+---------------------------------------------------------+
| >>> "Better than the Nikon AFD 85 f1.4 in bokeh." <<< |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
(fredmiranda.com)

That tells me you are beating a dead dead dead horse.

> Doesn't focus closer than 0.95m

The difference between 0.95 and 0.85m is indeed world
shaking, far larger than 50% (half a stop) more light.
Right?

> Stupid 72mm filter thread instead of 77mm.

Canon uses 72mm, so there:
- 20mm f/2.8
- 20-35mm f/2.8
- 24mm f/3.5 TS
- 28-80mm f/2.8-4
- 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
- 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (non USM and USM)
- 35mm f/1.4
- 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6
- 45mm f/2.8 TS
- 50mm f/1.0
- 50mm f/1.2
- 80-200mm f/2.8
- 85mm f/1.2 I and II
- 135mm f/2
- 180mm f/3.5 Macro
- 200mm f/2.8 I and II

Of course, calling a thing stupid does not make _you_ look
intelligent --- not that it would matter any more.

> It costs a fortune.

You get what you pay for, and it's worth two fortunes.

> Can't be used with the new leading sensor technology from Nikon.

I wonder where Nikon leads to, terminal stupidity?
By your posts, it sure does.

Anyway, it's just badly supressed penis envy, since Nikon
only manages a f/1.4 lens.

-Wolfgang
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Rita � Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04(a)aol.com> wrote:
> Annika1980 wrote:

>> Perhaps you could enlighten us about some of the "glaring flaws" of
>> the 85 f/1.2L. This oughta be good.

> The first clue is the 72mm filter threads. No pro lens from any
> manufacturer comes with anything less than 77mm threads.

The first clue is the name "Rita". No intelligent life form on
any planet comes with anything less than 6 letter first names.

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

>> 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.

> Totally wrong on all counts and not even worth an explanation.

In other words, you don't have any arguments once one does
not sheep-like follow your twisted paths of fallacy and blind
hatred.

>>> 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.

> What about the Ford Pinto?

Trying anecdotal proof again?

-Wolfgang