Hacker News Reader

Comment by influxed | Hacker News Reader

Ease of use is what hooked me in the early 2000s with the Rebel, so I stayed with it during the switch to digital SLR a few years later.

It's interesting that while autofocus is what captured a lot of the market, Canon's current manual-focus lenses are what keep me firmly locked in.

Their TS-E line (tilt/shift) can't autofocus, yet is everything I want and more from photography. They iterate more and have more to offer than Nikon's equivalent lens line, PC-E (perspective control).

I use my phone to take pictures more often than my DSLR, but "DSLR equivalent" or "DSLR quality" are just silly phrases for a phone until they can shift the focal plane or have super telephoto ability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_control

View on HN

Yeah, to me Canon has the edge in lens library which really matters more than the body(unless you're shooting sports).

Lenses like the 35/1.4, 85/1.2, 135/2, TS-E family and others just can't be found else where(although some of the Zeiss stuff comes close).

I've heard similar comments about the 1.2 stop lenses before, but not one person making them ever used them when they said it. In these cases it is probably the "high end bias" at work: X makes a very good premium Y, therefore I assume their low/mid-range Z is good as well. We see this frequently with CPUs and GPUs: X has the performance crown, therefore for performance, buy X, regardless of price segment.

So the 85/1.2L is somewhat of a specialty lens(much like the TS-E series) you'll find it's more used for portraits and the like.

I've rented it and it's a legitimately an incredible piece of glass(esp considering the problems the 50/1.2L has), I just didn't shoot things enough where I could justify laying out ~$2k for a single lens.

I do however own both the 35/1.4L and 135/2L which are both amazing lenses. The 35L is wide enough to be incredibly versatile and the bokeh rendering is sublime. The 135L has awesome reach and one of the fastest focusing lenses short of the big white L lenses which cost 4-5x. Only the 85/1.2L and 200/2L are better at obliterating backgrounds but they each have their own drawbacks.

I've also rented the 200/2L and that is also amazing(with a pricetag to match at ~$5k) but Nikon has an equivalent so it's not much in the argument of Canon vs Nikon.

I don't quite see the special thing about the 135, though? Nikon has had excellent lenses in that range for a long time (105/2.5, the AF 105/2 and 135/2), I think almost every lens maker does.

Well it's 50% the cost of the Nikon and looks like there's a fair number of AF problems with the 135/2 DC.

Also, the 135 DC looks like it has really poor chroma aberration[1].

[1] https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample...

This is longitudinal aberration; visible even in the center, so the test chart isn't actually in focus.

No, that's chroma aberration(of which longitudinal is a type), the Canon 100/2 exhibits the exact same purple fringing on high contrast areas. I know because it's what I moved from when I got my 135L.

If that was out of focus you'd see a clean transition from black->grey on the edges and a lot more of the detail would be lost.

It is longitudinal aberration, but that just means that you can't actually get all colors in focus.

It can be nice for portraits but in general is a flaw.

I worked for a small photography studio way early in my career. The studio owner was definitely a Canon guy. I guess he was on the right track, heh. He lauded the variety of their lenses for many things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com