Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
Results 1 to 10 of 56

Threaded View

  1. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    The enormous cost of long lenses that exceed f/4 is utterly obnoxious and you are well aware of that. In fact, the raw size of a 400mm f/2.8 or even a 600mm f/2.8 is hard to appreciate until you try to stuff it in your lens bag. So, you are masking a lot of truth in your statement, but be that as it may ... the need to reinvent every lens for an APS-C body still seems rather pointless and kind of wasteful, in my opinion.
    Huh? What does this paragraph have to do with anything I have said? I thought you were saying 3.5-5.6 glass was somehow inferior, I guess you are saying that the manufacturers haven't been producing any 3.5-5.6 glass in FF versions. OK you are maybe partially right, but Sony, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron have plenty of older 3.5-5.6 designs that are FF, and these FF lenses will work fine on a crop sensor. They had to create more wide lenses because of the crop.

    I have no love for "digital" lenses, they are a waste for me. Everything except for the Tokina in my bag has always been FF. Some of that was in preparation for moving to FF one day, and some of that was in protest to Canon's leaving the 10D out of the EF-s lens line. I will NEVER buy any EF-s lens, I think Canon's exclusionary tactic with these lenses was wrong. All of the rest of the manufacturers got it right allowing their DI lenses to be mounted on a FF with a reduced image circle. I will, however, buy another APS-c body.
    Last edited by TenD; 10-24-2009 at 08:02 PM.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts