You Have To Present Canon's Finest...?

By all means, I think the 35L "sets a standard". That's just it...you can't get anything comparable or better until you jump into the $3k+ range. That's saying something, if you ask me.

Canon EOS Rebel K2
Canon EF 75-300 F/4-5.6 III
Canon EF 28-80 F/3.5-5.6 II
Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 II

!THATS! how I roll.

Booyah.

Bill

400 F2.8
135 F2.0
16-35 F2.8

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2081329
By all means, I think the 35L "sets a standard". That's just it...you can't get anything comparable or better until you jump into the $3k+ range. That's saying something, if you ask me.

When you start talking state of the art, price is no longer much of a consideration. I was in my money-is-no-object category in any case. Leica stuff is always that much more expensive, but not always because it is better.

Has anyone used the 35/1.4 Nikkor? I haven't. I know it's a manual-focus lens, but I wonder if the Canon is significantly better. The price of it is quite a bit less than the Canon (certainly more than the cost of automation). Its reputation seems to be really excellent.

My statement was that Canon redefined the state of the art with their fast telephotos, which nobody had done well before they introduced the flourite lenses (there were good 300mm lenses at f/4, but none at 2.8), and not with their wides. By all accounts, they make an excellent 35/1.4, but it did not really break new ground.

Rick "noting that Canon has always been a follower rather than a leader with their wide-angle primes" Denney

Well, I think Canon is big for sports shooters, and personally, I think they've got the telephoto market pretty well locked down. As you noted earlier, the super tele's from Canon are the best of the best. Do I think they should work on their wide angles? Of course. However, I'm just fine with what they've got to offer now.