Shifting your arguments I see, you wrote that the 100/2.8 L has "as good or better resolving power as the Zeiss," and now you have to obviously abandon that argument. Now you want to argue that .15% barrel distortion is an issue on the 135/1.8? Perhaps you should be worried about the .98% barrel distortion on the 85/1.2 L. Bokeh on the 135/1.8 is outstanding and there is nothing to complain about there, and I never had a problem with AF using it either. Want to pay less? Sure, we all do, I've got a Sony 85/2.8 that is featherlight in my bag and works great on my A850 and it cost me $250. As for the weathersealing, I agree that's something Sony should address, but it's not a deal killer for me.
1. And you can't escape the argument that I could buy a Zeiss for my Canon, if I wish, while you canNOT buy a MPE-65 for your Sony if you wish
2. Outstanding bokeh isn't the BEST bokeh;
: you've agreed to settle for mediocrity.
Funny that you would say I "like to quote Photozone so much," since I only mentioned it once and you have proceeded to base almost your entire response to me on it. OTOH, since you seem to be the one fixated on Photozone and are now citing it extensively, I'll play along. To wit, Photozone says of the 135/1.8 bokeh that its qualities are "outstanding" and that its "blur is exceptionally smooth and uniform."
And, of the Canon 100mm f/2.8L, Photozone says, "The bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur) is a primary aspect for a macro lens and the Canon lens does truly shine here. Out-of-focus highlights are very uniform and perfectly circular till f/5.6. The critical focus transition zones are very smooth at max. aperture. It's one of the best lenses in this respect that we've seen so far."
So you lose again
It's not about one lens, it's about whether the system has the lenses to meet my needs or not. I mostly do landscapes with a lot of other stuff thrown in for good measure. I would be happy with Canon, Nikon, or Sony as all three meet my needs; you feel otherwise and that's your prerogative, but that is not a license to distort facts. For me Sony has been missing the T/S lenses, but some have been working around that with the Mirex adapter. I am currently getting outstanding results using my Nikkor 85/2.8 PC-micro with a non-optical adapter for close-ups and my Schneider 28/2.8 PC for architectural and landscapes, and I'm looking ahead to using the Schneider 50mm and 90mm T/S lenses when they become available and when I have the money to spend on them.
Exactly right. It's not about one lens, it's about the whole system
, and you just clearly articulated YET ANOTHER missing element in the Sony system (where Canon again
has the best to be had), which reinforces my position, not yours. You just gave me yet another
area where you've "settled" ... rather than chosen the best
Yep. And, once again, the Canon had BETTER field quality and
better mechanical quality ... the Zeiss just beat it on "price/performance" ...
Well, I've already written that Canon is the better choice for fast telephoto lenses, hardly the kind of thing a fanboy of another system would say.
In other words, you listed yet another area where Canon wins
As for being a fanboy, if I were primarily a landscape photographer I already said would own a Nikon
... not a Canon or a Sony ... so why do you call "me" a fanboy, when I freely admit the superiority of another system within certain contexts? What I said was, as a nature photographer (macro and, soon, telephoto) ... as well as for archetecture ... nothing matches the Canon system. So I am not a fanboy either. I just gave my reasons why I would NOT
choose Sony for a system ... regardless ... and all you have done so far is apologize and make excuses for what "you" have ...
Regarding Schneider not comparing in any way to Canon's T/S lenses, there are no accounts of that and you are fabricating that to bolster your argument that Canon is the best and greatest system ever.
It is universally-agreed that Canon has the best and widest-range of T/S lenses ... but if you want to argue this fact that is your choice ... yet it has nothing to do with reality.
As for the price of Sony lenses being too high relative to Canon (or Nikon for that matter), lets add it up:TRANSLATION
Sony 24/2 $1250 v. Canon 24/1.4 $1661 My verdict: I can live with f/2 and pocket the $400.
Sony 50/1.4 $369 v. Canon 50/1.4 $379 My verdict: No difference.
Sony 85/1.4 $1369 v. Canon 85/1.2 $2089 My verdict: I'll definitely pocket the $720 here, and that's a total savings of $1130 for these three primes using the Sony system.
16-35 Sony $1900 v. Canon $1614 My verdict: I'm not sure, Canon has a bad reputation in this category, if pressed I would look for other options for both brands and Nikon kicks butt here with their 14-24/2.8
24-70 Sony $1600 v. Canon $1329 My verdict: Canon saves you $271 here, but I am not a fan of this zoom range anyway even though many are.
70-200 Sony $1800 v. Canon $2374 My verdict: A lot of photographers use all three of these zooms in their kit, adding it up it's a dead heat in terms of overall price with both systems costing about $5300 for these three lenses.
: Canon has the better lenses across the board. Sony has "cheaper" lenses in 4 out of 6 cases, and inferior
lenses in every case.
100mm f/2.8 macros:
Sony $679 v. Canon $996 My verdict: I've seen the bokeh of the Minolta 100mm macro, and I regret somewhat not spending the extra $200 I saved buying the Sigma 105/2.8, but I solved that by buying the Sony 85/2.8, so in the end whatever works for you here. Personally, I prefer T/S for close-up photography (I'm not a macro shooter anyway), and Canon has that whereas I have solved this by using my Nikkor [see above in this reply], so given that the Schneider isn't here yet and is going to cost a lot, I would give this one to Canon or Nikon, but if you just want a good 100mm macro then there's nothing wrong with the Sony option.
Once again you vascilate and refuse to acknowledge Canon superiority. The Canon 100mm f/2.8L macro has 1) better resolution, 2) better AF, 3) better IS, 4) better bokeh, and 5) better weather sealing than the Minolta ... but (AGAIN!) all you can say is "you're willing to settle for less" ... while not actually stating any advantage
to your choice. All you can do is make excuses for your "settling" nature ...
I see you ran out of arguments Jack, just too many unstabilised lenses in the Canon line up and that's what we were discussing here. And who talks about "winning" or "losing", we're just trying to show that the Sony system isn't as bad or small as you want people to believe.
I haven't "run out of arguments," friend, I just haven't bothered to read this thread in awhile
I never said Sony was "bad" ... I stated why I personally wouldn't invest in the system ... which is the fact is offers virtually ZERO actual advantages
... yet carries with the commitment a whole host of DISadvantages. I have never said (or implied) that doesn't mean you can't take nice photos with the Sony system.
If Canon is better for you because it has advantages over other systems that's cool and I see you take some wonderful shots with it.
Yes it is
better for me and yes I have taken some wonderful shots. You too have taken some exceptional shots with your camera, that I have enjoyed viewing very much.
The argument here is overall value
within the system NOT
individual vision or artistry within the images.
However it's typical fanboy behaviour to bash the other brand with crazy and exagerated arguments just to bolster your own ego. Fine with me if you believe yourself, but I don't buy it.
Yes I did, thanks for the laugh
I have not "bashed" the Sony system ... I merely listed its REAL limitations ... which is WHY most
professionals have NOT invested with Sony. If you choose "not" to believe these realities, that is fine with me also, but that doesn't change the actual realities one bit.
Yes I did, thanks for the laugh
I really don't think you're laughing at all ... I think you're stuck with your decision and making the best of it. Don't get me wrong: again, I think you've shared some wonderful photos and I admire your work. I just don't think you've chosen the best (or most complete) system to work with.
That's because they're better made.
No, just kidding.
I do think the Nikon bodies like the D300, D700 feel a lot more solid than the Canon bodies such as the very good 5D Mk11.
Rubbish. The Canon 7D is by far the better body than the D300. Better ergonomics; better preformance across the board; better period.