From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
frederick <lost(a)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> frederick <lost(a)> 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?

> Probably weak canon fluorite glass - the lens would break
> before the robbers head.

Slander, that, you should try it with a real robber, not
someone as hardheaded as you ...

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

> The Nikkor 85 f1.4 is very sturdy.

I ask for an apple and you say "This lemon is also a fruit".
Thanks, but I asked for an apple. Do you have only lemons?

> I forgot to mention the CA

What, half a pixel CA? You really go for the last dregs,
having run out of straws, inventing problems as you go.

You forgot to mention that the CA in the _slower_ f/1.4 Nikon
lens is the same. Actually a few hundreds of a pixel worse
below f/2, that is.
Are you that blind or do you have to work hard for these prejudices
and imaginary failings of Canon lenses of yours?

> and hunting for focus with the Canon lens

At complete darkness, you just forgot to mention that, right?

> - who needs f1.2 when it comes with so may problems.

Oh, oh, these sour sour grapes! I do not need sour grapes, if
I cannot get them! Are you really trying to out-penis-envy Rita?

>> 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.

> It vignettes a lot.

Fast lenses do that, and Nikon is not better, Nikon's
offering is _worse_, even though the lens is _slower_-

> I see the same reviewers who *love*
> (for some deluded reason?) trash inexpensive lenses because
> of vignetting, but because it's a $1300 lens, it's ok?

You wanted to show me a better offering from Nikon, right?
Failing that, you start complaining about gravity and other
physical laws? You are a poor luser[sic!].

>>> Only an 8 blade and non-rounded diaphragm.

>> "super-smooth bokeh" (

> Polygonal specular highlights when stopped down.

If I wanted to stop down, I could save a lot of money and buy
the 85mm f/1.8, or simply use one of the grand 70-200mm
lenses Canon offers.

With nine blades you get 18-bladed stars when stopped down.

>> "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." <<< |
>> +---------------------------------------------------------+
>> (

> exists almost solely as an outlet for
> frustrated fanboys to express their deep love for gear that
> they think nobody else loves.

I see. That must be why Nikon is so much overrepresented
there compared to the sales of their lenses.

Not to confuse and dazzle you with facts, if that was so, there'd
be no critical entries there, but there are, especially with
these poor, unloved bad lenses. Oh, yes, the 85mm f/1.2 does have
points of criticism, valid points, like being anything but cheap,
like not having a fast AF, etc.

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

And I see you are so deep in the Nile, that you forgot that
it's not only not just a river in Egypt, but it also has many
a crocodile swimming in it, hungry for blind fredericks.

>>> 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?

> An extra 100mm can really be very significant when you need
> it. Perhaps german girls are too polite to tell you what you
> lack.

Length matters: everything above 2.75 inch is OK, below it's
a micropenis. Circumference is a bit more important for pleasure.

But perhaps you, like 45% of men, are secretly afraid of having
too small a penis and fearing their partner(s) (if any!) are just
too polite. Projection is a very common psychological reaction.

While I don't see any

>>> 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

> They do too - seems a lot of consumer variable aperture
> zooms in that list. Guess that sums it up nicely.

I count 19 different lenses, *5* of which are variable aperture.
Go ahead and call the EF35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM a "consumer zoom".
Go ahead and call the EF28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM a "consumer zoom".

3 out of 19 is "a lot", Nikon makes a 85mm f/1.2 and the world
is flat.

Guess that sums up any fears you might know what you talk about.

>> 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.

> You're a marketer's dream.

Only if the marketer markets very good items for very good
prices. Now, there are things where you get way less than
you pay for, like that 50MPix subcompact point'n'shoot ...

>>> 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.

> Actually, I think all of the 85mm lenses are a waste of
> time. Nikon make good 70/80 - 200 f2.8 zooms that perform
> wonderfully at the short end, and have nice boket.

Now, there's a group of lenses to be proud of.

> Any of the 85s would be like a wasteful lump of lead in my camera bag.

Weeeellll ... either it's sour grapes, or you never do photography
in other than well lit conditions or on a tripod. And that at a
time when Nikon claims such superior ISO6400 performance, with
their "new leading sensor technology" ... sounds like 3 pounds
of sour grapes to me.

But then, I do a _lot_ available darkness photography.

From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
["Followup-To:" header set to]
Rita � Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04(a)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

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

> Why should they when the f/1.4 Nikkor kills Canon's 1.2 in every conceivable
> category? Oh, you like numbers? I will take a highlighter pen and put "1.2"
> on Nikon's 85/1.8 and it still will kill Canon's 85.

Unless you apply a sledge hammer to the Canon lens first, we
all know you're of the "whishful thinking" type. But sure,
I'd like to see the performance of your relabled lens,
especially at f/1.2 and f/1.4. You know, shallow DOF and all
that. I'll be waiting with bathed breath for your shots.