Your numbers have changed since I replied...Originally you counted 10 primes. I don't find your manipulation of your count amusing at all. Also, 24mm is midwayish between the diagnonal of the 1.6 sensor (i.e. "normal") and 35mm equiv, which is traditionally where "wide" starts. Including them is pretty marginal.JustAnEngineer wrote:The numbers are not random and the groupings are industry standard. They are facts. I counted only 24mm and wider lenses in my tally, as you could see from the links that I included.mattsteg wrote:I wouldn't really call 35mm wide, nor would I call 28mm wide on a crop body. It's rather silly to include them when we're not talking about full frame cameras.
Your random numbers and arbitrary groupings are rather meaningless. "Number of lenses" is kind of pointless, as is calling a 56mm 35mm equiv field of view "wide".
More dubious still is your categorization of 85mm (135mm equiv!) as a "normal" focal length. Even on a full frame body that's a mild tele. Also, you've apparently counted 35mm as wide in your nikon count but not in your (revised) canon count.
Arbitrary? Absolutely yes. Factual? Only if you define whatever you choose as "fact". I'm also terribly unamused by your quick edit that you're apparently trying to cover up.
Yeah, they're limited, but at the same time for their target market they're quite sufficient. There are plenty of sub-thousand dollar bodies that work with what, in the overall schem of things, are rather specialist lenses. The absence of fast wide primes is a weakness, but canon only has 1 fast wide (on crop) prime, so it's hardly a dramatic strength of theirs. The rest of their wide primes are no faster than Nikon (and canon) zooms, and are probably all matched or exceeded in image quality by the Nikon 14-24 alone (which I've seen reputed as the best wide angle lens, image quality-wise, period by some sources) and for practical purposes by other lenses as well. Yes, the weight is more, but you're not losing anything in quality or speed. The real weakness is more in the midrange where there are more fast primes available and more need for them. Canon's lineup has an advantage there, regardless of what Nikon camera you have.JustAnEngineer wrote:Truly, no-one needs five dozen different auto-focus lenses to have a complete kit. However, one does notice the absence of large-aperture wide-angle and standard prime lenses from Nikon's AF-S lineup.
If you are going to invest enough money to buy half a dozen really good Nikon lenses, then you can certainly afford the $1625 Nikon D300 camera body, which has more functionality with the old mechanically-driven lenses. That brings us back to my original point about the Nikon line. If you spend the money to get the mid-range or high-end camera bodies, Nikon offers excellent cameras and lenses. The entry-level D40 and D60 are just rather limited.