: i'm no expert on this issue but i thought the below comment might be of : interest to you (snagged from : http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2208): : : my opinion is quite simple and though it could be flawed, i always say match : the lense with the camera. so buy the canon for the canon. the reason i : lean this : way is that i figure a company knows its own camera best and therefore can : make the best lens for its camera. this is just my old school thought but : i wonder : what other people think about this mindset. : well, some Nikon lens engineers abandoned Nikon way back to form the company Tokina as they were p*ssed off at Nikons lack of desire to advance their lens range, so that company at least has a good footing. there are other great lens makers who never bothered to make cameras seriously or at all, who produce fine glass - schneider, rodenstock etc - then clambering to the top of the heap there's angineaux. Seriously expensive aftermarket glass. I have a very nice 40-400:5.6 taylor-cook which I'm led to believe cost in the order of 40,000 pounds in the 50's when it was made - I doubt it's a lesser lens than any of my others ;) Having said all that, I don't think your argument is flawed - and at the other end of the spectrum there's plungercam! karl
