Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro  (Read 7342 times)
Slough
Guest
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2010, 03:59:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Hello Slough, long time no speak. I see some of your points, so I will try to respond:

...

Well I think no-once can say that you did not reply. In contrast War and Peace looks like a short essay. You said so much, and raised so many points, that it is hard to know how to reply. I won't address your response point by point which would be sterile but you should re-read my penultimate paragraph, which I quote below:

"But the real point I want to make is that there is more to a lens than the specs. The general IQ, including Bokeh, is in my opinion the key issue. Having used neither lens, I cannot comment on that aspect, but I bet the Zeiss is among the best. I will leave others to say whether or not it is better than the Canon. But I bet for most people the Canon is the better choice. "

Value is in the eye of the beholder. For most people the Zeiss is not good value. For some it might be. I found your assessment full of sweeping statements and you have not even used both lenses.  

You refer to reviews on sites such as dpreview and photozone as if they were the gold standard but they are neither accurate, precise nor objective. There is so much that they do not capture such as, oddly enough, close up behaviour.

Some of your reply seems rather confused. For record shots the Zeiss would be a totally inappropriate lens for that purpose, due to cost and weight. (Isn't that so obvious that it does not need saying?) The same could perhaps be said of the Canon lens. I know plenty of ecologists including at least one professional who uses a small digicam to record the rare insects and plants that they find.

You refer to IS useful for macro shots, but I have never seen an example of a GOOD close up photo taken using a handheld DLSR + macro lens in natural light with IS/VR. The examples I have seen are mediocre at best. I would be interested to see examples of GOOD close up photos using such technique.

Regarding Lloyd Chambers, you presented zero evidence for your criticism of him. And you said that "Well, you've been doing some speculating and betting in some of your assumptions, " I neither speculated nor betted.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2010, 06:21:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
Well I think no-once can say that you did not reply. In contrast War and Peace looks like a short essay.

No once? Did you mean no one?

Sorry I wrote too much for you Slough. I merely tried my best to address your points. I am sorry if you were troubled by reading more than a few lines, so I will try to keep it shorter for you here (although I do tend to be thorough).




Quote from: Slough
You said so much, and raised so many points, that it is hard to know how to reply.

Again, I am sorry if you have difficulty holding your attention to more than just one topic at a time, but in all fairness it was you who initially raised several topics. If what you’re trying to say is that you have no ammunition to rebut my points, then simply say this.




Quote from: Slough
I won't address your response point by point which would be sterile but you should re-read my penultimate paragraph, which I quote below:

"But the real point I want to make is that there is more to a lens than the specs. The general IQ, including Bokeh, is in my opinion the key issue. Having used neither lens, I cannot comment on that aspect, but I bet the Zeiss is among the best. I will leave others to say whether or not it is better than the Canon. But I bet for most people the Canon is the better choice. "

I guess what you’re saying is that you have nothing to rebut me with, so you agree, but it was just too tough for you to say this.




Quote from: Slough
Value is in the eye of the beholder. For most people the Zeiss is not good value. For some it might be. I found your assessment full of sweeping statements and you have not even used both lenses.  

That tirade itself was filled with sweeping statements, LOL, and you haven’t used any of these products either. If this forum were 'only' filled with statements and comments made by people who owned both products, it would be pretty devoid of conversation, don’t you think? So next time you want to throw stones, Slough, you might want to get out of that glass castle you’re living in.

The simple fact is, the Zeiss is NOT a good value … not according to anyone … but it is one helluva nice lens within a much more limited context than the Canon. Within its limited context, the Zeiss is universally-regarded to be stellar. But at $1800 it is not a good value, not according to anyone. It is simply a high-priced, high-precision instrument, without any extras to it at all, and for a price that is more than double the competition.




Quote from: Slough
You refer to reviews on sites such as dpreview and photozone as if they were the gold standard but they are neither accurate, precise nor objective. There is so much that they do not capture such as, oddly enough, close up behaviour.

No, I didn't refer to them as "the gold standard," I merely referred to them as entities that HAD used the lens in question. You made speculative statements about the Canon's bokeh, and IQ, and I provided you with actual evidence given by those who had performed tests. I could have quoted plenty of other sites, as well as other people’s discussions, etc., but I thought those would suffice to completely rebut your idle speculations. And I did.

If being rebuted and stymied doesn’t set well with you, that’s okay with me. It seems to me like you’re just trying to nitpick instead of simply agreeing.




Quote from: Slough
Some of your reply seems rather confused. For record shots the Zeiss would be a totally inappropriate lens for that purpose, due to cost and weight. (Isn't that so obvious that it does not need saying?) The same could perhaps be said of the Canon lens. I know plenty of ecologists including at least one professional who uses a small digicam to record the rare insects and plants that they find.

None of my reply was confused. In fact, it is this reply of yours that is confused, searching for “something” negative to say, just for the sake of whining and arguing, I guess. I too know a scientist also who used a digicam for his professional book. I have used them also. But the scientists shots were pitiful compared to the other photographic contributors to the work, who DID use top-level SLRs. As a matter of fact, that very scientist is asking me for recommendations to upgrade, so that his forthcoming book and lectures might have better documentation.

The simple fact is, you are agreeing with my point but you can’t just spit that out. While some scientists only use digicams, many others (who actually want their work to look good) use DSLRs. And in this capacity the Zeiss would be an over-heavy, useless piece of equipment in field conditions. This was precisely my point. By contrast, the Canon would be able to render Zeiss-quality photos with instant AF precision, making it the perfect marriage between fast convenience and outstanding quality … all for half the price.

That, my friend, is the definition of “Value.”





Quote from: Slough
You refer to IS useful for macro shots, but I have never seen an example of a GOOD close up photo taken using a handheld DLSR + macro lens in natural light with IS/VR. The examples I have seen are mediocre at best. I would be interested to see examples of GOOD close up photos using such technique.

Well, I don’t have a macro lens with IS/VR, so I can’t provide you with one.




 
Quote from: Slough
Regarding Lloyd Chambers, you presented zero evidence for your criticism of him.

I never said I had any “evidence,” genius. I have already said this was speculation on my part, so why do you keep beating a dead horse? I likened it to your own speculation---oh, but when you speculate that’s okay  

Hell, for that matter Slough, didn't you just commit the same crime? Didn't you just say DPReview and Photozone are "neither accurate, precise nor objective"? Where is your 'evidence' for this criticism, Mr. Hypocrite  




Quote from: Slough
And you said that "Well, you've been doing some speculating and betting in some of your assumptions, " I neither speculated nor betted.

You did speculate and bet on your first post, and here are your direct quotes proving this:

"So even with flash (which freezes the action) IS might be worth having. Not having used IS/VR in this way, this is speculation on my part, though I have done plenty of handheld macro shots with a macro flash."

"But I bet for most people the Canon is the better choice."

Now then, Slough, your attempts at rebuttal here have been pretty feeble, full of hypocrisy, and unnecessarily combative. But that's okay, this stuff is fun to me, so I hope you had a good time reading it as well  

Take care buddy,

Jack




.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2010, 06:48:45 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2010, 02:21:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Now then, Slough, your attempts at rebuttal here have been pretty feeble, full of hypocrisy, and unnecessarily combative. But that's okay, this stuff is fun to me, so I hope you had a good time reading it as well

[Slough's response uses unacceptable language. The response is deleted and the account suspended for 30 days]
EDIT [Member has requested removal of membership from Forum]
« Last Edit: February 27, 2010, 02:55:54 PM by Chris Sanderson » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad