From: bongers@gto400.asd.sgi.com (Hans L. Bongers)
Subject: Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:52:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.002345.9996@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
|> In <1992Nov11.001842.12592@odin.corp.sgi.com> bongers@gto400.asd.sgi.com (Hans L. Bongers) writes:
|> 
|> [ Please format your text with a width of 80 columns!!! ]
|> 
|> > As long as you are going to buy a new body, you might try a Nikon F4S.
|> > The money you save over buying a canon 300/2.8 would more than cover
|> > the rental of a Nikon 300/2.8 or even a 600/4.0.
|> > 
|> I agree that the original poster should consider a body different from the
|> Elan, but for different reasons.
|> 
|> The Elan is the Canon "enthusiast" camera.  It is not designed to have
|> heavy lenses hanging off its lens mount.  The mount is seated in plastic
|> and may become misaligned if not handled properly.
|> 
|> If you are not interested in autofocus, then the F4 is an OK body to
|> have, but personally, I would go with the EOS-1.  Its AF is *much*
|> faster and more reliable, the user interface is much faster to use in
|> action situations, and metered manual is also much friendlier.  (Try
|> handholding the F4S with 300/2.8 while fiddling with the aperture ring!)
|> At the U.S. open, you see photographers just walking around with EOS-1's
|> with their 300/2.8L dangling unsupported.  Now *that's* a strong mount!
|> 

Autofocus (even one that operates in milliseconds) is just about worthless
when you are trying to capture a flying (sometimes very fast) raptor against
a relatively featureless sky.  The only time I use autofocus on the Nikon is
for relatively slow moving wildlife.  Since 35mm is soooo small to begin
with, one has to go to slow fine grain films to produce quality enlargements
which automatically limits the speed at which your subject can be moving.
Even feathers blowing in the wind on a perfectly still bird can be a problem.

My favorite combo is a 6x7 with an 800mm lens.  I can go to a faster film and
not loose the ability to probuce quality enlargements.

BTW, I walk around all the time with my 300mm hanging off my F4S with
no problem.  I have photographed everything from basketball to baseball,
auto racing, motorcycle racing windsurfing, etc. and have never felt limited
by my camera.  Then again, I never felt limited when all I was using was an
old (1971) Nikon F either.

I can handhold the F4 w/ 300/2.8 with no problem.  I am smart enough to
know that I don't have to "fiddle with the aperature" while trying to 
take a shot.

|> > I have the Nikon 300/2.8 and its a great lens.  I also have the 1.4x &
|> > 2x tele convertors.  IMHO, the 2x isn't worth the bucks but the 1.4x is
|> > OK.
|> > 
|> A while back there was some talk about a Swedish photo magazine testing a
|> large sampling of 300/2.8's with the following outcome:
|> 
|> 1.  Canon 300/2.8L
|> 2.  Leica R APO-Telyt 280/2.8
|> 3.  Canon 300/4L
|> 
|> The post made no mention of Nikon.

Maybe they didn't test it.


|> 
|> The only possible problem with USM lenses is that animals can hear them
|> even though you can't.  It might be worth investigating.
|> 
|> > The reason I suggest switching to a "real" body is two fold:
|> > 
|> > 1. It is usually easier to rent Nikon equipment
|> 
|> Again, this depends on whether or not you want AF.  Many places carry
|> manual focus Nikon stuff from years ago, and some carry Tamron with
|> Nikon mount, but I haven't found a place around here that will rent out
|> a Nikon 300/2.8 AF.  (To be fair, I haven't found a place that will rent
|> me a Canon 300/2.8L either! :-)

I have rented a 600/F4.0 Nikon lens

|> 
|> > 2. If you are going to spend 2.5-3K for a lens, it better fit on that body
|> >    they will come out with 10 years from now.  Canon has clearly
|> >    demonstrated their lack of commitment to the existing base of
|> >    lenses, whereas Nikon have retained compatibility (albeit somewhat
|> >    reduced functionality) for lenses built more than 25 years ago.
|> > 
|> Yes, it was a disappointment to see Canon abandon the FD mount.
|> However, for those with no initial investment if FD lenses, it
|> shouldn't be a factor.  The new mount now supports any reasonable
|> change in AF technology that the Nikon F mount might support.  The
|> breech mount mechanically stronger than the bayonet mount, but was too
|> fiddly for some people who needed to change lenses quickly.  So Canon
|> went with the bayonet mount that Nikon made so popular.
|> 
|> With a fully electronic interface to the lens, it seems that any new
|> feature could be accomodated with an expanded communications protocol.
|> (This is what they did with the upgrade of the 420EZ to the 430EZ with
|> flash exposure compensation.)  Finally, the EF-mount is larger, making
|> it easier to design better lenses.

Actually, the main reason Canon changed mounts (AGAIN) was to make
more money.  New body = $x, however, New body + all new lenses = $$$$$X.

|> 
|> > just my $0.02 worth
|> 
|> So, in summary:
|> 
|> 1. Buy an EOS-1 if you want to shoot with heavy lenses.  (I don't know about
|> 	the EOS-5/A2.  Haven't seen one up close.)  The Canon user interface
|> 	is very, very nice.  The AF is better than that of the F90, and 
|> 	*much* better than that of the F4s.
|> 2. Canon lenses tend to be more expensive, but give extra quality for the
|> 	money.
|> 3. If you're not interested in spending the big bucks (and chiropractic fees),
|> 	the EF 300/4L is a good value for the money (if you can afford
|> 	that 1 stop).
|> 4. If your subjects don't like the sound of USM lenses, then Nikon is a
|> 	good alternative.
|> 
|> For still photography, I think the Nikon system is much more complete
|> and quite nice.  Lots of finders, backs, and power packs.  For sports and
|> wildlife photography, however, I have to give the nod to Canon.
|> 
|> ACS
|

--- hans
Newsgroups: rec.photo