02-14-2011, 05:05 PM
[quote name='ThomasD' timestamp='1297700392' post='6109']
Bjorn Rorslett likes the new Nikon 35/1.4 a lot. But he is very enthusiastic about nearly every new lens, I think. Nevertheless, I judge his opinion highly, because it is not only based on sharpness tests.
It is good to here an opinion that the Canon is better. Reviews seem to be quite mixed, but in the end it isn't sharpness in the borders what you have an f/1.2 lens for.
Is there anything but live view that lets you choose the Mk.II over the Mk.I of the 5D?
Overall, there seems to be nothing really leaning towards Nikon in your post.
Thanks.
[/quote]
I find bjorn rorslett a very silly figure, really. Seems to be looked at by many as authority, but his opinion is not based on very much. He only looks at Nikkors, he says weird things at times, and I trust what he writes online less important than what even Ken you know who writes. The 35mm f1.4 may be a lovely lens, but i won't take bjorn's word for it! I remember how he described the 85mm f1.4 bokeh just a few months ago...
Judge the 50mm f1.2 by what photographers say about it, and by what they do with it. Not a lens to judge on measurements, they do not convey the important things (contrast, colour, rendering). The 50mm f1.4 from Nikon is not bad, though!
Well, the live view is most important to me, difference wise. And if I would upgrade, the higher resolution would be welcome too (as I make images that are at its best printed in big formats). The very good movie mode... not for me, as I will not shoot video. And they share the most important feature for me: the Canon EF mount.
Bjorn Rorslett likes the new Nikon 35/1.4 a lot. But he is very enthusiastic about nearly every new lens, I think. Nevertheless, I judge his opinion highly, because it is not only based on sharpness tests.
It is good to here an opinion that the Canon is better. Reviews seem to be quite mixed, but in the end it isn't sharpness in the borders what you have an f/1.2 lens for.
Is there anything but live view that lets you choose the Mk.II over the Mk.I of the 5D?
Overall, there seems to be nothing really leaning towards Nikon in your post.
Thanks.
[/quote]
I find bjorn rorslett a very silly figure, really. Seems to be looked at by many as authority, but his opinion is not based on very much. He only looks at Nikkors, he says weird things at times, and I trust what he writes online less important than what even Ken you know who writes. The 35mm f1.4 may be a lovely lens, but i won't take bjorn's word for it! I remember how he described the 85mm f1.4 bokeh just a few months ago...
Judge the 50mm f1.2 by what photographers say about it, and by what they do with it. Not a lens to judge on measurements, they do not convey the important things (contrast, colour, rendering). The 50mm f1.4 from Nikon is not bad, though!
Well, the live view is most important to me, difference wise. And if I would upgrade, the higher resolution would be welcome too (as I make images that are at its best printed in big formats). The very good movie mode... not for me, as I will not shoot video. And they share the most important feature for me: the Canon EF mount.