CanoNikkor Lens Snobbery

[Mike Buckley]

Gee wiz, first time I have heard that people, not able to speak/write proper English are actually no good at technology and manufacturing good products...

As your emoticon indicates, you're confused. You didn't see that written in this thread.

[NorthernFocus]

...“Cheap” lenses are budget lenses and do not belong on good camera bodies...

Now THERE's some good snobbery. Thank you, Andre.

...Would like to see an off-brand, 300mm lens that would give the consistency that would allow my BIF series.

I would agree that telephoto primes are still the domain of the big two. And I have to admit, in general if I'm writing a check with four significant digits it's likely still going to be made out to Nikon.

[ajohnw]

Tokina and Sigma have made primes in the past but the market seems to have pushed them away from them as people want zooms. I sometimes wonder if this is down to F5.6 and they might have done better with F4 but the real problem is that the market for long primes is small which part goes down to explaining why they are so expensive. That brings the Olympus 4/3 300mm F2.8 lens to mind. Around 6,000 quid and maybe competitive with 600mm F2.8 on full frame if such a thing exists. It seems Olympus will sell one direct for $7000, not the $10,000 they want here but are currently out of stock. I'm mortified as I can't import one.

Some people use telescopes instead but bang goes AF. The only other difference really is length. Telephoto's by definiition are shorter or should be shorter than their focal length. Telescope aren't but converters of a sort can be bought for those as well. As most are high performance APO's F ratios range a bit short of 6 to around 8 and are fixed.

John
-

[ajohnw]

Why can't Canon or Nikon makes something useful like this, 300mm F4.5?

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Zenit_Photosniper

John
-

[Manfred M]

Why can't Canon or Nikon makes something useful like this, 300mm F4.5?

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Zenit_Photosniper

John
-

Likely because their analysis has determined that the market is not large enough to justify the investment in developing and rolling out a product with these specifications.

The lower end third-party manufacturers compete on "me to" products that will only sell if there is a price advantage over the OEM built lens or if it fits in a niche not covered by the competition. In the case of the Zenit; it looks like a civilian rollout of a military product; hence the military covered the development costs.

My f/6.8 400mm Leica Telyt has a similar gun-stock mount.

[RustBeltRaw]

Why can't Canon or Nikon makes something useful like this, 300mm F4.5?

Toss a 300mm f/4 and a Zacuto Marauder (or similar) on your camera, and you're pretty close. I do miss some of the slightly-batty, semi-custom camera gear from the old days.

[ajohnw]

I thought that at 28GBP the photosniper would make a good start and might even be usable for m 4/3. The canon nikon suggestion was tongue in cheek really.

It was an impulse buy off ebay and it turns out that the seller did use it on film. One serious problem using manual lenses is shutting down the diaphragm for taking the shot. These have a spring loaded preset and a few people have added an electronic camera trigger. Opinions on the optics vary so will have to see. My first slr was a Zenith and I never had the feeling that I wanted a better lens only a better camera. Mainly metering.

Do you ever use the Leica? I must admit that I have been curious about these things for rather a long time but have no idea how well the arrangement works out. I have done a lot of rifle shooting in the past and feel it might actually help.

On lens snobbery but on m 4/3 this is interesting and I feel shows the distinct difference between manufacturers. It's interesting that they show signs of some sense on the 300mm this time.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/02...-f4-pro-lenses

Believe it or not there are some 4/3 pro users. Colin shakes head in disbelief but afraid it seems to be true.

John
-

[chauncey]

Aah...there are a plethora of shoulder mount rigs out there. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...dslr&FORM=IGRE
And to help keep that flying bird within the viewfinder use this http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/c....aspx?a=691313

[ajohnw]

Aah...there are a plethora of shoulder mount rigs out there. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...dslr&FORM=IGRE
And to help keep that flying bird within the viewfinder use this http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/c....aspx?a=691313

They all look a bit poncey to me - not like a battle hardened Zenith and OTT like a lot of modern gear.

I have the Russian version version of the sight kicking about somewhere too - used with an air riffle in my sons younger days. On target rifles I prefer target type sights.

John
-

[AB26]

It's really simple: Tokina's web site is an embarrassment compared to Nikon's and Canon's web site. If you believe as I do that top management is aware of it and chooses to do nothing about it, and if you believe as I do that top management probably knows about other issues that are hidden from my view and is also doing nothing about them, you would feel compelled as I do to evaluate their products a lot more rigorously than their competitors' products out of fear of being burned.

If you don't care that a huge international company can't get its act together enough to simply publish a web site that is not replete with errors that are so egregious that they make the sentences difficult to understand, that's fine. I do care on many levels. That doesn't mean that I won't buy their products, but it does mean that I will think much more seriously before buying their products. That's exactly the opposite impact the CEO intends for the web site to have on prospective customers.

Mike, is that not prejudice?
If you have any doubt as to the ability of these companies to manufacture quality products, because they fail to write “proper” English, why not log on to the site written in their native tongue? Be it German, Mandarin or Japanese.

Reality is that Asian manufacturers will care less and less about using “correct English” as the future language of business world wide is Mandarin. In fifty years from now, Mandarin will be taught in all American schools.

[Colin Southern]

Believe it or not there are some 4/3 pro users. Colin shakes head in disbelief but afraid it seems to be true.

Micro 4/3 cameras are for children; here's the proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRzcCYSg_vA

[Colin Southern]

If you have any doubt as to the ability of these companies to manufacture quality products, because they fail to write “proper” English, why not log on to the site written in their native tongue? Be it German, Mandarin or Japanese.

You're still missing the point:

Again, it's about professional standards and customer perception.

Same reason as turning up in dirty jeans and a ripped T-Shirt for a job interview for a receptionist position at a legal firm isn't going to help your changes of being the successful candidate. It's a competitive world and the first thing you do if you want to succeed is make sure your ducks are all in a row. By choosing not to have their poor English translations re-written they're immediately at a disadvantage compared to those who present themselves to a consistently high standard.

Reality is that Asian manufacturers will care less and less about using “correct English” as the future language of business world wide is Mandarin.

It's their call, but they have to be prepared to accept the consequences if that's their attitude. What the future language of business might be is irrelevant; they're being evaluated in the present, not the future.

In fifty years from now, Mandarin will be taught in all American schools.

Maybe yes, probably no - but either way, again, that's irrelevant.

The bottom line is that since the population general aren't experts in lens design and manufacture - and since they don't have access to their design notes and manufacturing facilities - they have to make their buying decisions on other factors - and one of those (big) factors is their website. And like it or not - many people will think "how can I trust them when they're trying to convince me that they produce a product of exceptional quality when their website suggests that as a whole, they're not even concerned enough about quality to have their website translations checks by someone competent to do so". The less professional their website is, the less professional their products will be perceived to be -- that's just the way it works in business - and the less people will buy their products.

In my opinion that doesn't make the potential customer "prejudiced" - it's simply the seller shooting themselves in the foot. In business, presentation is everything.

[ajohnw]

Micro 4/3 cameras are for children; here's the proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRzcCYSg_vA

LOL a lot walked out of the door and then the silly man mentioned panasonic.

Given the likely price of those lenses they must be extremely rich children. There is a guy on luminouslandscape that has kitted himself out with an Oly camera for when he flies some where -baggage allowances - the idiots using some panasonic lenses. Probably because they use bigger plastic as Olympus did on 4/3.

John
-

[Colin Southern]

LOL a lot walked out of the door and then the silly man mentioned panasonic.

Given the likely price of those lenses they must be extremely rich children. There is a guy on luminouslandscape that has kitted himself out with an Oly camera for when he flies some where -baggage allowances - the idiots using some panasonic lenses. Probably because they use bigger plastic as Olympus did on 4/3.

John
-

I'll consider switching to M4/3 when Joe McNally does. Until then, it's the 1D X and 1Ds3 for me

[AB26]

And I have to admit, in general if I'm writing a check with four significant digits it's likely still going to be made out to Nikon.

Dan,

Writing a cheque is snobbery. Those whom know why they need CanoNikkor lenses pay for their purchases with a Black Card.

How difficult is it to understand that a Lotus Seven replica is not a Lotus Seven? How can the owner of an original Lotus Seven be accused of snobbism because he/she is the owner of the real thing.

Let’s face it Dan, you are suffering from post purchase cognitive dissonance. You are not sure you made the right choice, now you have to justify your purchase by “degradation” of the OEM product, accusing CanoNikkor-lens only, users, of snobbery.

[Mike Buckley]

Mike, is that not prejudice?

Nope, not at all. It would be prejudice perhaps if I didn't hold all companies including those whose native language is English to the same standard.

If someone builds a house that they are trying to sell to me and I see that the drywall tape is showing through the paint and the paint job itself is bad, I wonder what is constructed poorly inside the walls such as the plumbing and wiring that I can't see. Similarly, when someone constructs a web site because they are trying to sell something to me and I see that the quality of their communication is poor when it's very clear by the size of the company that they have enough money to pay for a quality web site, I wonder about the quality of their products and services. That's not prejudice; that's using the same criteria that I've held myself to during my entire sales career.

[Manfred M]

I'll consider switching to M4/3 when Joe McNally does. Until then, it's the 1D X and 1Ds3 for me

My M4/3 Panasonic GX7 should arrive today.

Is it going to replace the D800; well no, of course not. The D90, yes, it probably will.

What it will become is my travel camera for times that I have limited space in my luggage. We are planning a couple of backpacking trips later this year and I simply won't have the luggage space for the larger camera and lenses. I already own a couple of M4/3 lenses (14-140mm and 100-300mm) for the video camera, so going this format was the obvious choice.

I'll probably use it for street photography as well.

[AB26]

to have their website translations checks by someone

Is that selling yourself, or is it an honest language error?

I have been to the website of Tokina (the English one) and I do not find their (there) language use any worse than this.

[JR1]

Quote Originally Posted by AB26 View Post

...“Cheap” lenses are budget lenses and do not belong on good camera bodies...


makes you wonder what some class as a "good camera body !!!!!!!!

[Colin Southern]

Is that selling yourself, or is it an honest language error?

I have been to the website of Tokina (the English one) and I do not find their (there) language use any worse than this.

Their, not "there" is correct - so my only error was in the single spelling error. What's your point? Are you suggesting that posts written by an individual for a small website should be checked and double-checked to the same standard as the website of a global optics business, the standard of whose web presence is a deciding factor in how they're perceived to the world?

Anyway - whatever - I'm off to bed. Use their products if you wish; I won't be.