# Tokina 24-70 f/2.8 Pro FX Spotted



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 17, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15864"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15864">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Tokina showed off an AT-X PRO SD 24-70mm f/2.8 this past weekend at CP+ in Tokyo.</p>
<p>The new lens is expected until Photokina for an official announcement.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://photorumors.com/2014/02/16/new-tokina-at-x-pro-24-70mm-f2-8-sd-if-fx-lens-spotted-at-cp/">PR</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 17, 2014)

Well... that's an interesting move from Tokina. The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 has been received quite well.

Tokina has a number of very good PRO lenses... looking forward to seeing what they can offer here...

Competition is good (for us consumers!) 

PJ


----------



## traveller (Feb 17, 2014)

This lens would need to have excellent optics combined with a low price to compete against the current offerings, given that it looks like retains an out of date DC motor and clutch mechanism. I might be wrong, they could have incorporated an ultrasonic motor and retained a clutch type mode switch for retro appeal. In any case, I'm not keen on Tamrons and Tokinas because their rings tend to rotate the Nikon way round, which I find annoying when combined with a bag of Canon lenses!


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 17, 2014)

No stabilization? Not interested.

Bring on the Sigma 24-70/2 OS!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 17, 2014)

Tokina makes some lenses as tough as a tank. They do not have ultrasonic motor and Image stabilizer, but serve well for photographers old school style. I wish they come back to offer something like 16-50mm F2.8, which does a good job, and competes very well with Sigma and Tamron.


----------



## raptor3x (Feb 17, 2014)

traveller said:


> In any case, I'm not keen on Tamrons and Tokinas because their rings tend to rotate the Nikon way round, which I find annoying when combined with a bag of Canon lenses!



If you look at the photo you can see the zoom ring rotates in the Canon convention. Maybe they'll have the different mounts rotate in different directions for consistency with the OEM lenses.


----------



## RomainF (Feb 17, 2014)

What's the interest in coming out with the same old lens ? 24-70 2.8 ? We already have the best one ever in Canon lineup and a cheaper -and still good- alternative with Tamron. If it is better and cheaper than the Tamron one, why not, but i have my doubts.


----------



## traveller (Feb 17, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > In any case, I'm not keen on Tamrons and Tokinas because their rings tend to rotate the Nikon way round, which I find annoying when combined with a bag of Canon lenses!
> ...



I stand corrected, it's just Tamron (should have looked twice at the photo in the post!). 

I still can't see the point of this lens unless it has an ultrasonic motor. All the other major manufacturers have moved on (except for Zeiss and Leica, obviously) from this eighties arrangement. Who cares if it's built like a tank, I don't intend to use it to invade another country ;D.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> No stabilization? Not interested.
> 
> Bring on the Sigma 24-70/2 OS!



+100000000000000


----------



## raptor3x (Feb 18, 2014)

traveller said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...



Tokinas usually have the zoom ring rotating in the opposite (Nikon) direction as well, at least, that's the way it is on the 16-28.


----------



## duydaniel (Feb 18, 2014)

VERY NICE!!!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 8, 2014)

The Tokina lens has to be mind blowing or very cheap to compete in this focal range/aperture ... Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II is the undisputed king of the hill in that range/aperture, with Tamron also doing a fantastic job ... it'll be very tough for Tokina to sell their new 24-70 f/2.8 lens, unless it is very cheap or it has truly awesome image quality or both.


----------



## tron (Mar 8, 2014)

Excellent for young people who were not let down by older Tokina lenses not working even on a few years younger analog bodies.

My Tokina ATX 28-70 f/2.8 working on EOS 600 series (late 80s) and EOS1n (1994) cameras didn't work on my 50E (I believe 1996). So it is a nice paperweight. 

So if their new lens firmware is not upgradeable by the buyers feel free to risk your money to ... save some in the first place.


----------



## Rudeofus (Mar 8, 2014)

tron said:


> So if their new lens firmware is not upgradeable by the buyers feel free to risk your money to ... save some in the first place.


Fortunately these times are over now. Almost every programmable circuit nowadays uses flash memory for holding its firmware, and flash memory can be reprogrammed, usually with the circuit in place. As a result, Canon has not pulled another "we'll change the protocol a tiny bit so some third party lenses won't work with new camera models" stunt since 2003.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 9, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > So if their new lens firmware is not upgradeable by the buyers feel free to risk your money to ... save some in the first place.
> ...


I think Canon/Nikon do continue to pull stunts with firmware upgrades that mess around with the AF of third party lenses or third party batteries suddenly stop working/report errors etc ... I've had several Sigma, Tamron lens that had developed sudden change of behavior after a firmware update from Canon/Nikon. True they can be fixed by the lens manufacturer's service center (if your city or country has one ... unfortunately, the country I live in, does not have a service center for third party lens manufacturers).


----------



## tron (Mar 9, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Rudeofus said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


I do not think Canon has to care about third party lenses (unless there is a contract saying otherwise). Anyway if someone wants to risk with third party, it's their money. For me the actions of the past define the future. I have had my share with 3rd party lenses. Now I have sold anything Sigma and Tamron I had and I am left with a Zeiss.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 9, 2014)

I agree with Rienz, this lens has to offer a particularly good price/quality advantage to be competitive.

The Canon is super good and super expensive, with a rumored IS version coming up next.

The Tamron is outstanding in price/performance and also has VC.

Sigma eventually needs to refresh their f/2.8 zooms too.


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Rudeofus said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


+1 Having flash memory (if they indeed have flash memory) is NOT ENOUGH. It's their willingness to backup their lenses with GOOD SUPPORT. So, they have to MAKE the firmware to upgrade the one residing in ... flash memory... So, as I said feel free to spend your money and test good support later. And by later I mean many years actually as many as with Canon lenses. Because if someone gets an expensive lens with very good IQ they want to keep using it or ... sell it. Certainly not ditch it...


----------



## Rudeofus (Mar 10, 2014)

tron said:


> +1 Having flash memory (if they indeed have flash memory) is NOT ENOUGH. It's their willingness to backup their lenses with GOOD SUPPORT. So, they have to MAKE the firmware to upgrade the one residing in ... flash memory... So, as I said feel free to spend your money and test good support later. And by later I mean many years actually as many as with Canon lenses. Because if someone gets an expensive lens with very good IQ they want to keep using it or ... sell it. Certainly not ditch it...



You just brought up a great new idea: third party makers could add a USB connector to their flash devices or make a special USB dock for their lenses. This would make firmware upgrades really easy ....


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 10, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > +1 Having flash memory (if they indeed have flash memory) is NOT ENOUGH. It's their willingness to backup their lenses with GOOD SUPPORT. So, they have to MAKE the firmware to upgrade the one residing in ... flash memory... So, as I said feel free to spend your money and test good support later. And by later I mean many years actually as many as with Canon lenses. Because if someone gets an expensive lens with very good IQ they want to keep using it or ... sell it. Certainly not ditch it...
> ...


For several years now, Metz, (a German consumer electronic company) has been routinely providing firmware updates on their flashes (for customers to update on their own), to address compatibility issues with newer cameras. I still have the Metz 58 AF 1 flash (which I bought in 2008) and have updated the firmware at least twice, until the plastic hot shoe broke ... now it just sits in my cupboard to be used as a wireless flash once in a while. Also, Sigma has the USB dock for their newer lenses. I think in future we will see more and more manufacturers coming up with USB firmware updates for their lenses and flashes etc.


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

Sigma has a USB dock already. Has anyone used it? Any opinions on that ?


----------



## Rudeofus (Mar 10, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Rudeofus said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...





tron said:


> Sigma has a USB dock already. Has anyone used it? Any opinions on that ?



WTF. Did anybody bother looking at the links I provided in my posting ?????


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Rudeofus said:
> ...


The question was whether anyone used it. Not a simple reference to its existence!!! :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 10, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Rudeofus said:
> ...


Relax, we are not stealing your thunder, I did read and understand that you were already aware of their existence, I was merely stating my experience of having used Metaz flash and also having tried the Sigma USB dock ... so the credit for mentioning them first goes only to you   
Peace


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 10, 2014)

tron said:


> Sigma has a USB dock already. Has anyone used it? Any opinions on that ?


One of my colleagues bought the Sigma USB dock (along with the Sigma 35 f/1.4 lens), so I got a chance to hold it, but from what he tells me, he never updated anything with it yet (this was about 45 days ago) ... as pointed out by Kai (the crazy Digitalrev guy), the light to indicate, that it is working, is bloody under the USB dock, i.e. in a place where you cannot see while using it .. kind of a strange place to keep it ... and that's about what I know of the USB dock. If you haven't already seen it, here is the youtube video Kai had posted last October
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Hands-on Review


----------



## Rudeofus (Mar 10, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Relax, we are not stealing your thunder, I did read and understand that you were already aware of their existence, I was merely stating my experience of having used Metaz flash and also having tried the Sigma USB dock ... so the credit for mentioning them first goes only to you


Their existence is an old and well known fact, especially on a rumor site where new products are discussed in depth many weeks/months before their official announcement. My posting was deliberately sarcastic and aimed at people who perpetuate the "then Canon changes the protocol and my expensive third party accessory will be worthless" meme. These times are over, they have been over for over a decade AFAIK, and we should put that meme to rest already.


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Relax, we are not stealing your thunder, I did read and understand that you were already aware of their existence, I was merely stating my experience of having used Metaz flash and also having tried the Sigma USB dock ... so the credit for mentioning them first goes only to you
> ...



1. Put it to rest and spend your money. Then if something breaks wait for the 3rd party companies to really change the firmware... 

2. Plus, you were so busy being sarcastic regarding the Sigma USB dock that you failed to read the second part of the 1 line post: "Has anyone used it? Any opinions on that ?"

3. I do not recall reading about other 3rd party manufacturers doing the same as Sigma...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 11, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Relax, we are not stealing your thunder, I did read and understand that you were already aware of their existence, I was merely stating my experience of having used Metaz flash and also having tried the Sigma USB dock ... so the credit for mentioning them first goes only to you
> ...


Even though you know "their existence is an old and well known fact" you felt the need to post it, but when others also mention it you feel the need to be sarcastic ... how logical : 

Anyway, FYI my first DSLR was bought about 8 years ago and it was a Nikon D70 (and later on my first Canon was a 400D), at that time, other than the 18-55 kits lens that came with the camera, I had bought only Sigma & Tamron lenses, because I was not willing to spend more for OEM lenses ... and all of the third party lenses I had bought did a great job, until I upgraded to a new camera or updated the firmware. Since the past 8 years I have owned the following third party lenses:
Sigma 10-20 (Canon mount)
Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 (Nikon mount)
Sigma 17-50 f2.8 (non OS - Canon mount)
Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS (Nikon mount)
Sigma 18-200 OS (Canon mount)
Sigma 18-250 OS (Nikon mount)
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro (Non-OS - Nikon mount)
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro OS (Canon mount)
Sigma 50-500 (non OS - Canon mount)
Sigma 150-500 OS (Canon mount)
Sigma 150-500 OS (Nikon mount)
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 OS (Nikon mount)
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 OS (Canon mount)
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (Canon mount)
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro (Canon mount)
Tokina 11-16 (Canon mount)
Rokinon 24mm f3.5 T/S (Canon mount)
(I'm pretty sure I had a few more third party lenses, but cannot recollect all of them)

*Every single one of those lenses developed some issueor another* with AF or OS/VC after upgrading to a new camera or firmware, they would suddenly start hunting for auto focusing on a subject or the image stabilization would take longer to be activated and/or drain the battery with the OS/VC on even when they were not being used ... were they useless? absolutely not, coz I could still get great images with every one of them (except the Rokinon T/S, which was just a sh!tty lens from the beginning) but the issues they developed were annoying. I am sure a visit to the the third party manufacturers service center will fix those issues, but (as mentioned earlier) where I live there is no service center for third party lens manufacturers ... so I basically sell my third party gear whenever I upgrade to a new camera or new firmware ... luckily I have several friends and colleagues who are always willing to buy my camera gear ... the last 2 third party lenses I sold were the Sigma 150-500 OS & Tamron 24-70 VC about a few weeks ago. But I will still buy the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens for my Canon 70D (knowing full well that many people are reporting AF hunting issues) but I don't think third party lenses are "worthless".


----------



## Rudeofus (Mar 11, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Even though you know "their existence is an old and well known fact" you felt the need to post it, but when others also mention it you feel the need to be sarcastic ... how logical :


I posted these old news in reply to a posting which perpetuated the old "I won't get upgrades if Canon plays silly again" meme, and the sarcastic tone (stemming from the obvious contradiction between my praise for the other guy's invention paired with the links to already existing products implementing that very feature) was another futile attempt to put that meme to rest for good. Read tron's posting immediately before my first one in this thread and then mine to get the context.



Rienzphotoz said:


> *Every single one of those lenses developed some issueor another* with AF or OS/VC after upgrading to a new camera or firmware, they would suddenly start hunting for auto focusing on a subject or the image stabilization would take longer to be activated and/or drain the battery with the OS/VC on even when they were not being used ... were they useless? absolutely not, coz I could still get great images with every one of them (except the Rokinon T/S, which was just a sh!tty lens from the beginning) but the issues they developed were annoying. I am sure a visit to the the third party manufacturers service center will fix those issues, but (as mentioned earlier) where I live there is no service center for third party lens manufacturers



I admire your patience, but personally I would not invest big money in gear that is unsupported in my country. If Sigma/Tamron/whoever are unable or unwilling to provide adequate service for their equipment in your place, they don't deserve your money. Software upgrades aren't the only reason you need a service center.



tron said:


> 1. Put it to rest and spend your money. Then if something breaks wait for the 3rd party companies to really change the firmware...


Funny thing is all the pros I see rarely have brand new gear with them. It's usually wannabe amateurs who need the latest and greatest the minute it hits the market, when it is sold at a premium and hasn't received thorough testing yet.

With a few months of patience you can save 20+% on camera bodies AND can use cheaper third party accessories.


tron said:


> 3. I do not recall reading about other 3rd party manufacturers doing the same as Sigma...


[list type=decimal]
[*]Metz flashes come with a USB connector for firmware upgrades. My first post in this thread links to the relevant page
[*]Sigma received the most heat during the last decade, because in 2003 (release of the 10D) a long list of lenses in their lineup could no longer be used on Canon's latest and greatest, and Sigma decided to throw their customers under the bus. They seemed to have learned their lesson lately and want to be seen not as cheap alternative but as viable and well reputed alternative. Since that Err99 debacle is still in people's minds, Sigma had to come up with a viable option for simple upgrades.
[/list]


----------



## tron (Mar 11, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> I admire your patience, but personally I would not invest big money in gear that is unsupported in my country. If Sigma/Tamron/whoever are unable or unwilling to provide adequate service for their equipment in your place, they don't deserve your money. Software upgrades aren't the only reason you need a service center.


Then I cannot see how we disagree. I agree with this 100%. And judging by the companies behavior in the past we have the right to act accordingly in the future...


----------



## Rudeofus (Mar 11, 2014)

tron said:


> Rudeofus said:
> 
> 
> > I admire your patience, but personally I would not invest big money in gear that is unsupported in my country. If Sigma/Tamron/whoever are unable or unwilling to provide adequate service for their equipment in your place, they don't deserve your money. Software upgrades aren't the only reason you need a service center.
> ...



Sigma's behavior 10 years ago should make everybody cautious, but not hysterical. We might as well ditch Canon for their less than smooth FD-->EF mount transition. Forfeiting a whole range of purchasing options because of some misgivings a decade ago is certainly within your rights, but it doesn't sound smart or cost effective.

BTW Rienzphotoz' case seems very special, AFAIK Sigma, Tamron and Tokina do provide service in most countries with a significant photographic market.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 12, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Even though you know "their existence is an old and well known fact" you felt the need to post it, but when others also mention it you feel the need to be sarcastic ... how logical :
> ...


*1. *I did read what you posted and that's why I replied with a *how logical : *comment.
*2.* Patience had nothing to do with my purchase decision ... available funds and the ability to easily sell my used gear were the main reasons behind buying third party gear.
*3. *Camera/lens manufacturers *ALWAYS* get their gear used/tested by professional photographers first, before it is available for purchase ... maybe not the pro's you know but many pro's do "have the brand new gear" before, (who you refer to as), the "wannabe amateurs" get their hands on it. Most early adopters help the rest, reducing their purchase decision(s) to refer to them as "wannabe amateurs" smacks of arrogance and/or jealousy, those who buy the "latest & greatest" are doing so from their own hard earned money ... and how & how much they choose to spend should not be anyone's concern.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 12, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Rudeofus said:
> ...


When it comes to third party lenses, *"cautious"* is what people have been referring to, but somehow you came to the conclusion that it is "hysterical" ... hence this debate.



Rudeofus said:


> We might as well ditch Canon for their less than smooth FD-->EF mount transition. Forfeiting a whole range of purchasing options because of some misgivings a decade ago is certainly within your rights, but it doesn't sound smart or cost effective.


That argument is flawed, because:
*1.* Canon were forthcoming about changing their entire product line ... they did not say that that your FD mount lenses will auto focus on the new EOS line up of cameras nor did they say that the new EF lenses will mount on the FD mount camera. However, do you see third party lens manufacturers forth coming about any possible AF issues if the camera manufacturer updates their firmware? It is also worth noting that Sigma was sued by Nikon and won the case as well for copying Nikon's VR (Vibration Reduction / image stabilization technology). If a third party manufacturer (Sigma) can copy a patent from the camera manufacturer without their permission (i.e. stealing), I guess the camera manufacturer is justified in "tinkering" with firmware updates to cause issues with third party lenses. This by the way is not hysteria, it is a fact and something one should know about before buying third party lenses and that is the reason why Bryan Carnathan (of the-digital-picture) always has a standard disclaimer on every one of his third party lens reviews. 

*2. *Canon's change from FD to EF was long before the digital era ... whereas many of the third party manufacturers lenses, that were released in the past few years (i.e. well into a matured digital era) have developed AF issues after a firmware update ... so one should know about these issues and be cautious and prepared to handle/fix those issues. 

Also, one should know that it is not always necessary to update their camera firmware ... a colleague of mine and I bought the 7D + the Sigma 10-20mm UWA lens, (at the same time in early 2010), I updated the firmware (version 2.0 in August 2012) on my 7D, and my Sigma 10-20 (as well as a few other third party lenses) had developed issues with slower / hesitant auto focus (nothing that stopped me from making images) ... but, to this day, my colleague did not update his 7D and his Sigma works perfectly well without any issues whatsoever. Knowing that an issue exists and how to handle the issue only helps, but closing one's eyes that these issues do not exist and refer to it as "meme" also "doesn't sound smart".


----------



## flowers (Mar 12, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> I admire your patience, but personally I would not invest big money in gear that is unsupported in my country. If Sigma/Tamron/whoever are unable or unwilling to provide adequate service for their equipment in your place, they don't deserve your money. Software upgrades aren't the only reason you need a service center.



That's your right, but I don't see why a company that sells lenses has a responsibility to create hundreds of service centers in hundreds of countries just because the make a product. Or should it only be USA, UK and Australia? Then what would all the customers from other Western countries say? I think if it's a great lens, I can send it to another country to be serviced every once in blue moon (if it's a great lens it shouldn't need service more often than that). Personally I don't think it's a big deal as long as the manufacturer pays for the expedited shipping. It's a lot cheaper for a company to pay for international shipping than it is to open up new service centers.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 12, 2014)

flowers said:


> Personally I don't think it's a big deal as long as the manufacturer pays for the expedited shipping. It's a lot cheaper for a company to pay for international shipping than it is to open up new service centers.


Good idea ... it would be awesome if they can do that ... and it will provide great credibility to the third party manufacturers ... but I don't think third party manufacturers will be willing to pay international shipping costs.


----------



## Steve (Mar 13, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Anyway, FYI my first DSLR was bought about 8 years ago and it was a Nikon D70 (and later on my first Canon was a 400D), at that time, other than the 18-55 kits lens that came with the camera, I had bought only Sigma & Tamron lenses, because I was not willing to spend more for OEM lenses ... and all of the third party lenses I had bought did a great job, until I upgraded to a new camera or updated the firmware. Since the past 8 years I have owned the following third party lenses:
> Sigma 10-20 (Canon mount)
> Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 (Nikon mount)
> Sigma 17-50 f2.8 (non OS - Canon mount)
> ...



Hahaha this is some grade A tinfoil-bonnet, conspiracy theory nonsense right here. Yeah, Canon and Nikon are spending time and money tweaking firmware just to mildly annoy you, that certainly sounds plausible! Also, this was such a problem that you bought 17(!) third party lenses, including a fully manual tilt shift containing no electronics that somehow also developed problems after a firmware upgrade. I suspect user error.

If Canon was really interested in stopping people from using 3rd party lenses, they would bury the other mfgr's in an avalanche of lawsuits while engineering the mount to lock them out completely. Believe it or not, third parties add value to both Canon's and Nikon's system and make it so people feel comfortable buying into the mount knowing there are alternatives. Most people end up buying 1st party lenses, flashes, etc at some point no matter what because they are almost always better, if more expensive. Sigma and Tamron are not threats to Canon and Nikon.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2014)

Steve said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, FYI my first DSLR was bought about 8 years ago and it was a Nikon D70 (and later on my first Canon was a 400D), at that time, other than the 18-55 kits lens that came with the camera, I had bought only Sigma & Tamron lenses, because I was not willing to spend more for OEM lenses ... and all of the third party lenses I had bought did a great job, until I upgraded to a new camera or updated the firmware. Since the past 8 years I have owned the following third party lenses:
> ...


Read what I wrote before posting knee jerk reactions : ... I clearly mentioned: _"were they useless? absolutely not, coz I could still get great images with every one of them (except the Rokinon T/S, which was just a sh!tty lens from the beginning) but the issues they developed were annoying. "_. It is common knowledge that Rokinon 24mm Tilt Shift lens is a manual lens and that they would not have any AF issues, of course if one is a completely uneducated about manual & AF lenses or if they are just being idiotic to argue on childish/silly minor points, then that is a different story  : 
Canon and Nikon are not stupid to "bury the other mfgr's in an avalanche of lawsuits" if there is no merit in the case ... FYI, very recently Nikon did win a lawsuit against Sigma for copying Nikon's VC.


----------



## flowers (Mar 13, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I don't think it's a big deal as long as the manufacturer pays for the expedited shipping. It's a lot cheaper for a company to pay for international shipping than it is to open up new service centers.
> ...


Depends on the manufacturer and what language you use with them. But you're right, usually they don't pay for expedited shipping. But they should!
I think the best compromise would be if the manufacturer, after they've grown big enough, could open one service center per continent (so 4 service centers: America, Europe, Asia, Australia) and then the shipping would probably be faster and cheaper within one continent. But I don't know what's really cheaper  Maybe that's what you meant but since many manufacturers don't do that it must be too expensive. I think they should then offer expedited shipping. I think: 5000 lenses sent in and $100 for expedited shipping = $500 thousand. Probably costs a lot more than that to open a new service center on another continent and hire all those new people and train them.
I don't think there's any truth to upgrading firmware or body screwing up the AF. Nikon and Canon also have nothing against third party manufacturers, either way they make a lot of money, especially since there will always be people like you who complain when they find out there's no service center at their doorstep. Some of those people probably run out and buy the equivalent Nikon and Canon lenses hoping that they will be magically better, so Canon and Nikon get their money and so do the third party manufactureres. Forums like this get the emotional fallout.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2014)

flowers said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > flowers said:
> ...


It is in Canon/Nikon's best interest to tinker with firmware that messes up AF in third party lenses ... every year you will notice that batteries that used to work earlier in the camera suddenly stop communicating properly with in the same camera that used to work earlier, same goes for AF issues.
Many new photographers generally get a third party lens as their second, third or fourth lens due to budget constraints ... some of them get hooked to photography and upgrade, this is the best chance for the OEM to "encourage" them to buy their better/expensive glass, all it takes is a little firmware "upgrade" .and people buy new lenses ... both parties benefit. 
BTW, there is no "emotional fallout", but facts sometimes cannot be digested by a few people, so they have to have a come back line, so they choose terms used by shrinks, e.g. "emotional fallout" etc


----------



## flowers (Mar 13, 2014)

If it's not a fact and you insist on it, it's emotional. Do you have any proof of this? There are plenty of batteries out there that work on more than one model of Canon dslrs, and everyone who uses them is happy with them. Some people have different firmware versions. Between two different bodies there are many different firmware combinations. If everyone is happy with the 3rd party battery I see no evidence of what you said is happening. I have OEM and 3rd party batteries too, no difference, both work for me. Of course I keep my firmwares at certain versions for certain reasons but I'm sure you'd get the same answer from people who upgrade their firmwares indefinitely.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2014)

flowers said:


> If it's not a fact and you insist on it, it's emotional. Do you have any proof of this? There are plenty of batteries out there that work on more than one model of Canon dslrs, and everyone who uses them is happy with them. Some people have different firmware versions. Between two different bodies there are many different firmware combinations. If everyone is happy with the 3rd party battery I see no evidence of what you said is happening. I have OEM and 3rd party batteries too, no difference, both work for me. Of course I keep my firmwares at certain versions for certain reasons but I'm sure you'd get the same answer from people who upgrade their firmwares indefinitely.


OK sir, if that makes you happy than, "emotional" it is :


----------

