Flaming/whining about the 14-24 on DX

Status
Not open for further replies.

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
In the immortal words of Rich Hall, no you fuckin' didn't!

:p
 

BerserkerCatSplat

Hormone Induced
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
9,686
Location
Alberta, Canada
Car(s)
The Jeep of Theseus, Angry Wagon
Meh, he said in his last post he'd "leave me be," so assuming that's true, this is already over. If he wants to continue, I'll just split the threads to clean up the Camera Equipment one.
 

markryder

Active Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
305
Location
oslo, norway
OH NOES THEY DISSIN' MAH LENSES
But, since you seem to enjoy being the butthurt victim here, [bla...bla...bla]

You're such a sensitive fairy that you actually spent time reading old posts and found something you could totally take out of context and get personal about?? Hahahahahaha!! I had doubts about your intelligence, but I had no idea its on the level of a 5 year old. Awesome. Two thumbs up for mr.idiotic statments.

The comment about IS was made because of a question by some one on the value of IS on a lens. I think it was a discussion about the 70-200 with and without IS or something. Anyways... As I rightfully explained, from several years of experience shooting with IS (oh shit, I had something with IS before I bought the 70-200 - I must be a wizard or something), that if you come home with steady shots all the time there's no need for IS. But if you've got shakey hands and struggle with hand held pictures then IS is invaluable (from my experience)

Now, just as some one with a DX body can't buy a 14-24 because you have the mental capacity of a turd, you're now saying that its bad advice to suggest IS to some one who's having a hard time getting sharp shots??

Seriously, you're THAT dumb? Well, I shouldn't act surprised seeing as you're calling me butthurt, but you're the one spending hours digging into old posts to find something to take out of context and try to make it as dumb as yourself. And you even fail at that. Sad, just sad.
 

markryder

Active Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
305
Location
oslo, norway
Ramseus said:
by the way, other than not being super wide, the 14-24 is still a waste of money for a crop body.

Oh, this should be good...

Ramseus said:
Past the resolution of the camera's sensor it doesn't matter how sharp a lens is because you gain nothing except an increasingly large hole in your wallet which could've gone to other things - even if you've won the lottery and don't care about how much things cost, the money still could've gone to something more useful.

Show me something that's as sharp in the corners as in the center that'll cover the 14-24 range, with the same optical quality (CA's etc) as the 14-24, that costs less, and I'll agree with you that the 14-24 is a waste of money.

Ramseus said:
The Tamron 70-200 can out resolve sensors easily, so by your logic it must be the second best lens you could possibly get, bollocks to you if the range isn't useful you should still get it because it's the second best lens you can possibly get.

Where did I write that lenses that out resolve the sensor is the best thing on earth? Read my posts before you write something in reply. All I've said is that the zoom range suited my needs perfectly, and that the 14-24 is the absolute best choice because of its optical quality (not counting any zeiss or whatever expencive "exotica" I don't know anything about). Again, if you know of something cheaper that's better, feel free to share because I bet there's a bunch of people that'll want to know about it.

Ramseus said:
All I'm saying is your precious is massive overkill. Overly overkilling massive killing overkill.

Well, that's your personal opinion and not a fact. Going around concerning yourself with how others spend their money really isn't a healthy thing.
 

Ramseus

Have you been high today?
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
5,605
Location
Derpronto
I so don't care how you spend your money, and your overkill isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of overkill.

butthurt2.jpg
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
I know you're from Canada, and you're stealing our Cold-Country-Cred, but that picture's so dick-dasterdly it's worth a +1..
 
Last edited:

BerserkerCatSplat

Hormone Induced
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
9,686
Location
Alberta, Canada
Car(s)
The Jeep of Theseus, Angry Wagon
You're such a sensitive fairy that you actually spent time reading old posts and found something you could totally take out of context and get personal about?? Hahahahahaha!! I had doubts about your intelligence, but I had no idea its on the level of a 5 year old. Awesome. Two thumbs up for mr.idiotic statments.

Awww, muffin, did the big, mean Internet hurt your feelings? Why would I spend time reading old posts? Anybody could pick one of your posts at random and tell that you're a moron. That one I happened to remember because it was so monumentally stupid.

The comment about IS was made because of a question by some one on the value of IS on a lens. I think it was a discussion about the 70-200 with and without IS or something. Anyways... As I rightfully explained, from several years of experience shooting with IS (oh shit, I had something with IS before I bought the 70-200 - I must be a wizard or something), that if you come home with steady shots all the time there's no need for IS. But if you've got shakey hands and struggle with hand held pictures then IS is invaluable (from my experience)

Now, just as some one with a DX body can't buy a 14-24 because you have the mental capacity of a turd, you're now saying that its bad advice to suggest IS to some one who's having a hard time getting sharp shots??

No, you dumb choad, the question was whether an F4 with IS or a 2.8 without was better for a situation where you'd need to freeze action. It had nothing to do with "shaky hands" or "unsharp results", it had to do with "markryder bought some new gear and now thinks everyone should use what he has, regardless of whether it makes sense.". You're still wrong, you're still an idiot, and that's an end to it. You buried your head in the sand the first time I called you out on it, and here you've done it again.


Seriously, you're THAT dumb? Well, I shouldn't act surprised seeing as you're calling me butthurt, but you're the one spending hours digging into old posts to find something to take out of context and try to make it as dumb as yourself. And you even fail at that. Sad, just sad.

Hahaha, looks like I cut you pretty deep if that's the best you can come up with. ZOMG I NOT DUM UR DUM. What are you, a child in kindergarten? Grow the fuck up. You've somehow managed to tie your emotional self-worth to a piece of expensive gear you bought, and that's the real pathetic thing here. I have never said you were wrong to use the 14-24 on DX, I have never said it was a poor lens, and yet you continue to ramble on like you've been attacked. Any negative comments towards you have been brought on by you and you only. Being so incredibly concerned over what some people on the Internet think about a piece of metal, glass and plastic that you happen to own is just incredibly, pitiably sad. And frankly, I feel sorry for you, being that emotionally fragile. Maybe you should just stay off the Internet if it's that traumatic for you.
 
Last edited:

Clockwerk

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
5,263
Location
Awesomelahoma
I.....I.....like my camera equipment....it suits me fine....:)
 

BerserkerCatSplat

Hormone Induced
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
9,686
Location
Alberta, Canada
Car(s)
The Jeep of Theseus, Angry Wagon
Well, I've cleaned up the original thread and I'm closing this one before the flamewar gets stupider than it already has.

Mark, as I've said many times here, if you enjoy the 14-24, that's fantastic. I have never, nor will I ever, attempt to tell you otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top