Jack, I forgot to mention that there have been some pretty strong rumors that Sony has an all new, Sony/Zeiss 200mm macro lens coming, which may peak your interest a little bit, although Im sure that sucker won't be cheap. Regardless, I think you're right that Sony has the possibility of bringing a down. On the opposite end of the spectrum from my A900, Sony has an A200 which is very good and very cheap, and it outspecs the Nikons in it's price range (lenses not withstanding.)
Heh heh, I had commented on that in an earlier part of this thread.
It actually brings up the issue of "quality versus value" yet again, but from an opposite end. Generally, it is best to get "the most you can get for the least money spent," and that has been the central theme here. However, if a particular lens (or camera) is
so good, in such a unique way, that directly reflects your own personal passions in such an extreme way, than buying that piece (even if it means spending more money) will represent the best "value" to you. For instance, while many have posted "Nikon is on crack" regarding the D3x, it is clear our friend Bernard has been in blissful heaven ever since he purchased his copy
The value that this camera represents to him, for his particular photography, was clear.
I myself chose Canon because I get more of what I want, for less money spent ... but when it comes to my particular passion of macrophotography, and when I opt to move up to a 200 mm macro, you can pretty much bet your last dollar that I too will be spending the extra $$$ on the Zeiss 200mm, because the value of this particular piece of glass will affect my own personal passion for macro profoundly enough to justify the extra expense. I didn't get their 100mm, because it wasn't a true 1:1, but I will most defnitely dig a little deeper in my own pockets, because the value of the what a Zeiss-caliber 200 mm macro can do for my own deepest interest in photography will justify the extra expense, in that instance.
For telephoto, Canon already is the leader. For 5:1, Canon is already the leader. For the smaller macro lenses, Canon already offers top caliber for the least money. For wides, it is not a deep enough passion for me to justify going Nikon or Zeiss, so I can pass on these lenses and be satisfied with the 10-22mm Canon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hi,
I see your point. I'd just add that I essentially always carry two bodies, just in case a body would fail. Having a cross platform mix you would not be able most of your lenses on the backup body if your main camera failed.
I'm also somewhat skeptical about all this discussion about value. Most of us have a lot of legacy stuff and you simply go on with what you happen to have, this may admittedly not always the smartest. IMHO there is also a bit to much Canon bashing for wide angles, it seems to be true that none of the full frame Canon extreme wides are top notch, but Nikon has also only one top notch lens, the 14-24/2.8 and before the D3x no really demanding camera to put it on. AFAIK the Canon 10-22 is a very good lens and so is the 24-105/4.
Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
Actually, I was thinking about this yesterday as I was driving up to South Carolina. The 10-22 mm option was the final icing on the cake that made me buy the 50D. I do not particularly think about wide-angle shooting much, but it would still be something I would like to be able to do well if I had the occasion to do so. The new Photozone review on this lens on a 50D, as well as Michael's own here on this site, pretty much was unanimous that the 10-22 mm was an excellent wide lens, especially for the money. I believe Michael said something like,
"I would not hesitate to use this lens for any professional application." So that's good enough for me.
So while there are some wides that are better,
to me the difference isn't worth the added expense. To someone else, who competes with other professionals, and whose livelihood depends on wides, it might be worth that extra expense. Still, there are plenty of pros who use the 10-22 successfully, so the fact I can pick one of those up and put it on the end of my 50D for only $700 adds to the value of why I chose my own system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe once you have taken some photos with a DSLR and macro lenses you will understand some of the points I made. Until then I don't think you know what you are talking about.
What I understand, after reading your posts, is that you are still a little sore at me over my comments about your photo. Honestly, it is unbecoming for a full-grown man to hold a grudge over something this trivial.
Regarding this subject here of value and product comparisons, I actually have taken many, many, many macro photos. I also feel qualified to discuss the subject of "value for the money," as I have been shopping, pricing, and comparing lenses and product systems for almost 2 years now. I finally made a purchase decision just over a month ago
precisely based on this value for the money issue. So almost all of these considerations are fresh on my mind, much more so that some pro who bought his system 4 years ago. Naturally, as has been discussed, "my" value system decision was predicated on the type of photography I am most interested in, so it might not apply to others' purposes.
Therefore, I am not "having trouble" understanding your points, you are simply wrong in all your points. The Canon macro system equals, is comparable to, or surpasses the Nikon macro system, on every level, and does so
for far less expense. The only exception would perhaps be the 180 mm vs. 200 mm, where the prices are about equal, but where the Nikkor lens is considered noticeably superior. But, here again, I am going to ignore both companies' offerings and in all probability go with the Zeiss. However, I have also heard rumors of Canon coming out with a 180mm MkII ... so we will see ... but right now my 100mm lens is simply wonderful and fulfills my purposes perfectly, and it succeeds in doing so for less money than any other offering by any other company.
It is you who needs understand that the Canon 100 mm macro is almost universally-regarded as
the best value in 100mm macro photography, offering terrific AF, outstanding sharpness, and superb bokeh for less than $450-$490.
In closing, I am sorry if my comments about your photo hurt your feelings that bad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't know why you felt this condescending post was necessary. John has posted numerous times from his makro shots, made with DSLR; where are yours?
Gabor, I think he posted one awhile back that I wasn't impressed with, so apparently he is still wounded and holding a grudge ...
Jack
.