On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:52:15 -0800, Henning Wulff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>>fully automatically. Oh well, good luck to him recovering from his error. > > >HIS error??? Blaming the victim, right? Heh heh, yes. That's the way I see it. You see I can anticipate more trouble ahead even after he gets the new mounts after paying through the nose of course. He'll likely have focus problems, maybe loose mounts, who knows? My reason for calling it his mistake is because it could very well end up that way. I mean, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. As I said, EOS lenses work just fine as they were designed to on Canon cameras and they're used by top pros around the world. >With just a little investigation you would have found out that yes it >does work (when he does the job) and that many people feel that Canon >lenses are not the be-all end-all in a number of categories. Yes, >Canon have some first rate, close to or even best in class, but it's >hardly an even standard. I have a half a dozen L lenses and somewhat >more than that of non-L lenses, and both groups have some outstanding >lenses and some that I consider barely adequate. Contax and some >other manufacturers have some outstanding lenses in categories that >are Canon weak spots, so why not try to use your lenses? Indeed, why not convert one, maybe two lenses, but a whole slew of them? >I use Canon as well as other manufacturer's products for what they do >well, but if I find something that works better, I don't use blind >brand allegiance as my guide. I think more than brand allegiance, this is a case of sheer brand snobbishness. Some people actually think having a name like Contax on their lenses somehow makes them better, or look better, I don't know. Or maybe a case of someone with too much money and too much free time. There is no doubt that he can do with his money as he pleases and we can argue about whether it's wrong or right all day. I think it's an interesting option for perhaps some lenses. I just think doing a whole bunch of lenses is dumb. I gave up long ago worrying about small differences in lenses. If it's decent, it's good enough for pro work. A good example is the EF28-135 IS which has been used by many pros and published in all the best mags over many years. However, because this lens is so modestly priced many feel it's not good enough for them. I've seen what some 'snobs' do with their lenses and I have to chuckle to myself at times. Having been away from photography for the past year or so and busy with other work, I've been able to look more objectively at the hobby. Brand snobs are just so silly. I feel that many don't know what they're missing if they haven't used the Canon eqivalent of their own elite lenses, and in many cases I doubt they've even tried them. But that's ok, it doesn't bother me a bit. I've used many type of Canon lenses and found them excellent. I've tried other brands and some of them are pretty good too. But I'm kind of a system guy and since I have EOS bodies, I'm going to stick to EOS lenses until the time that I find a need for a lens Canon doesn't make. I doubt that will ever happen though considering the EOS lineup is the largest in the world and still growing. -- Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company: http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits, Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts. 1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. 1991 ST1100 in America. STOC#6327, IBMWR, KBMW * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
