From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:59:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.215216.4214@odin.corp.sgi.com>, bongers@gto400.asd.sgi.com (Hans L. Bongers) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.002345.9996@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
> |> 
> |> 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.
> 

If you are going to have autofocus, then it might as well be fast. Can't think
of any reason I would get a SLOW autofocus lens (unless of course I was stuck
with a Nikon and had no choice :-). I have a series of shots of arctic terns
taken while visiting a nesting area which had only the birds swooping down
against a grey sky. The AF shots are very crisp. If I'd had to focus, compose,
wind etc. I would have missed a lot of the shots that AF got me. There are
times when AF is inferior to MF, but if you have AF it might as well be fast.

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

Please let us all know how you know this. Talking with Canon technical reps
left me with the impression that the new mount was introduced so that
technical advances in lens design could be incorporated into the new line
of EOS lenses. Of course if you are stuck with the old and limited Nikon
mount, this might be a bit tough to swallow :-)

If you like Nikon (and they make great cameras and lenses) then by all means
stick with them. Some of the best optics in the world are made by Nikon.
However, don't knock Canon for being technically inovative. They have had
focusing motors in the lens for years now and Nikon are only just getting
there in a few, expensive lenses. Note that all EOS lenses work on all EOS
camera bodies with no loss of features. The new, high end Nikon lenses do
not retain full functionality on their low end bodies. In my opinion, unless
you have a collection of old Nikon lenses, the Canon EOS system offers more
for the money than the equivalent Nikon systems. Given the efforts by Canon
to take the "high ground" of 35mm photography, things will probably get even
more interesting over the next few years.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================