jocau wrote in post #16627020
A non-crosstype AF point will only detect contrast patterns in one direction. That's a fact, just like a circle will always be round. Because of this there are situations where non-crosstype AF points will fail to achieve focus while crosstype AF points won't. I agree that there can be a difference between non-crosstype AF points in consumer cameras vs non-crosstype AF points in pro cameras. But you can never outrun the facts.
And the facts are also that not all non-cross type AF points are created equal. Which is why they work so poorly on cameras like the 5D2 and so well on the D700 or D3s. Can't change it.
The EF 35mm F/2 IS USM would allow me to take indoor shots of static objects during the evening with enough DOF and without using a tripod or (very) high ISO. That's why I like the concept of adding IS to wide-angle primes.
That is a situation I have never found myself. When I take indoor shots, I will light it more often than not, because I find that ambient light indoors is rarely what I would consider ideal.
It is indeed no lens for someone who is just starting with macro photography (or you need a lot of patience/determination). But those >500mm lenses are also designed for a niche market in my opinion (especially when you look at the price). But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be produced. More (quality) lenses = more choice = more chance you'll find something that fits you. As for extension tubes. It's a hassle and you need extra storage space. Plus you can also add them to the MP-E 65mm F/2.8 I believe, so you'll get even more than 5x magnification.
If you are doing scientific macro work, the MPE is pretty much your best choice.
I made my choice based on business and what would work best, and niche lenses that I would never use or entry level lenses that I would never use from either manufacturer never came into play for me. I know the Canon EF-S 17-55 is great and L quality, but I never really cared because I am not really a crop shooter. I think that Nikon has something similar, but I don't know a damn thing about DX lenses, because it isn't relevant to me shooting professionally.
I care about what professional lenses are available, what the performance of those lenses are and the cost of those lenses. I think Nikon fits my needs better with that criteria, with the exception of the 135L.
Canon also has a great 17mm TS-E, but I never looked into it and wouldn't have had a use for it. If I was an architectural photographer, obviously, that would be different.
The EF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II USM is a bit better than the Nikon equivalent (check dpreview). So "tend to be as good or better" is definitely not always true.
DXO has the Nikon version slightly higher. In any event, they are very close.
As for the Nikon 14-24. This lens will mostly be used for landscape photography. You don't really need AF for that so you can easily buy an adapter and put it on a Canon body. It doesn't work the other way around as far as I've heard.
Most Nikon wedding photographers I know use this lens religiously. Most like to get right into the action on the dance floor and get some cool perspectives. A lot of people use it for wide and environmental portraits as well. That adapter would prevent you from having AF. And unlike the MPE or the 17 TSE, this one isn't really a niche lens. It is a pretty common lens for landscapes, events and portraits.
Again, I care about the professional products I would use for events, portraits, sports and landscapes. Pretty general use.
I don't always get your way of thinking. When something from Nikon is superior (e.g. the Sony Exmor sensor they are using), you praise it because image quality is all that matters in the end. When something from Canon is better (e.g. the new 200-400 or the MP-E 65mm F/2.8) you find an excuse (e.g. too expensive, niche market etc).
Nikon could have had a brilliant 400mm 2.8 lens that is perfect in every way and weighs 3 lbs, but costs $25k. I wouldn't care because I think that price would be out of line. I think Canon made a great lens with the 200-400, but it is also double the price of the other lens out there with that focal range. When you shoot for a living, doubling the price on an already expensive lens has to be considered. I'm not a corporation that is issued gear. Every piece of gear I buy is something that comes out of my pocket AND is less that I have to save or invest.
Nikon has a 45mm tilt shift that rates higher than Canon's. I bought the Canon one because I thought it would be fun to get a few shots with. The Nikon is a better lens, but it is also double the price. For $900 or whatever I paid for the Canon one, I would consider it for the odd shot here and there. For $2k, not even going to consider it.
Nikon also has three different teleconverters, 1.4x, 1.7x and 2.0x. I think that is cool, but I never use TCs, so it didn't factor into my decision. Just don't care.
I think the Nikon 800mm lens is more expensive than the Canon 800, but again, how many people actually buy that? It just doesn't factor into my purchasing decisions. I used the Canon one and it was excellent, BTW.
I exclusively shoot in RAW, so it doesn't matter to me.
Call me old fashioned, but I believe getting the shot right in camera matters. I also know that getting it right in camera means less time to edit, which makes my life easier. Having the controls on the camera rather than going into a menu like I did on Canon makes my life easier.
It's true that Canon hits the wall earlier (especially regarding dynamic range at ISO100). But not everyone will experience that wall because of various reasons. Also when using high ISO Canon often beats Nikon when it comes down to dynamic range (although the difference isn't as big as the difference at ISO100).
Most of the time I really care about dynamic range is in portraits or landscapes, which are generally not shot at 3200ISO, for me at least. But what really did matter to me was being able to pull detail from shadows, as I like to dodge and burn. http://www.fredmiranda.com …dex_controlled-tests.html
Like in this test, if I tried to pull too much detail out, I got a green and magenta streaky mess from a 5D3, while I get actual detail from the D800. I care about that ability. Not everyone will.