Arcimboldo

Could you substantiate that with a few images? I love the FE 24-105, but I'm always interested in how other manufacturers do. Personally, I'd suspect that you don't see a significant difference on ...

I don't quite get it: Why don't you blame Canon? You mean they have to do what everyone else does to stay competitive? Not true, on at least two levels.

You mean like in 'technical quality level'? Hm, I don't have much of a particular problem with that, except maybe when it's really dark or I want some cotton candy effect on water falls. As far as ...

Okay, then let me put it in a more precise way: A 20 mm lends itself too much to an exaggerated perspective for my taste, because it lets you "get so much in". Of course, perspective is dependent ...

Interesting - I feel quite differently. Since my large-format days, I love the combination of a 24 mm and a 35 mm (on 4x5 this would have been a 90 mm and a 120 mm, the latter actually proving a ...

Keep calm: No lens will make the world more contrasty than it is. Not even as contrasty, even if it is a contrasty lens.

Thanks for your advise :) However, this is exactly what I did: Photograph the manufacturer's name on a solar collector about 30 m away - a subject where you think: "What could possibly go wrong, a ...

Mid may. But anyway: I doubt that it's a perception thing - there are images that are really sharp (but as I said only about 10% of them), so how do you explain that difference in perception all ...

Unfortunately, my second specimen has the exact same problem and I'm just about to return it (to a well-reputed dealer). Of course, I started to wonder whether the problem is not with the lens but ...

My previous copy was often slightly fuzzy, but it was a problem with the focussing - when it focussed it was tack sharp at all focal lengths and apertures.

As you can tell from my gear list, I'm fully committed to ML and have no interest whatsoever in the longevity of SLRs, but except for the compactness of wide and super-wide lenses, the claimed...

Franz, as you wrote, the Nikkor Z 70-200 does not use this possibility at all - there is quite a bit of 'air' between the mount and the rearmost lens element. And still, if it lives up to the...

@MikeRan I think the same as you, on both topics. But despite it being off-topic: I wasn't claiming that vinyl is superior - but 'they' do. There is a prevalent opinion in certain audiophile...

So, Franz, according to your profile, you work as an astronomer. In that case you should know enough about optics to understand that mirrorless does not significantly change the way superteles are...

@MikeRan In that case you don‘t know the same audiophiles as I do. Mostly everyone of them who still listen to vinyl claims that‘s because of its sonic superiority. Not that I do, despite my...

@ Max Iso You wrote "Feel free to mention the people by name who said this, otherwise it just looks like troll designed rhetoric". No need for that - anyone who followed the forums re. Canon,...

People who are doubtful of their own choice and therefore have to dismiss others... I couldn't care less ;)

@NikonD80Es Makes total sense, thanks!

Of course, once you decided for a system you will have to live with what's available. Still, I wonder what's the use case of a 120-300/2.8 in the digital age other than also being able to use it...

This 70-200/2.8 surely is going to be a nice lens, but the Canon RF equivalent with its incredible size looks much more interesting to me. The IQ of the Nikkor is probably state of the art -...