Don't flame me....but....Nikon vs. Canon glass?

[Mike Danahy]

....I've aways thought that no other line of SLR lenses really topped the Nikkor line in either quality or versatility. (especially the gold band labels) Recently though, Canon friends have said the I ought to check the specs and ratings. Their view is that Canon has really emerged as number one.

I apologize in advance for another Nikon vs Canon thing. But for those of you in-the-know, I would appreaciate your comments. I have to offer some guidance to some new DSLR purchasers who will likely purchase 4 or 5 "pro" lenses

(I'm a faithful Nikon user...D100, D2x, D80.....and much glass. Will probably try for a D3 in the Spring when availabilty has improved.) )

Thanks...

--
Mike Danahy
'In the land of the blind...the one-eyed man is king.'
http://deeply-cool.com/photos/mike/best/

 

[rahul sood232614]

Well, I'm on the same boat. Huge Nikon fan (love the cameras) -- but looking at the glass there is no question that Canon are better. Of course the photographer and composition is everything, but when you really look at it, the glass is the investment for life. A body is $1200-$1800 bucks for something amazing. A 40D is $1200 -- you can dump it after a year and get something better.

I'm really sold on Canon glass, but still waffling. I just sold all my old D70 gear, and now I'm sending back some lenses to B&H tomorrow and making a decision.

--
rs

 

[Boris]

Yes you guys should definitely go with canon...like it makes any difference.
Boris
--
Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
http://www.pbase.com/borysd

 

[Albert]

Is there a piece of glass that Canon makes that you can't find a substitute for in Nikon?

Here's my take on glass; there are diamonds, and there are coke bottles..

Take a Canon 28~XXmm consumer lens, and it's like a coke bottle. Don't laugh yet, same thing on the Nikkor side.

There are gems on the Nikon side (60mm F2.8 macro for example) that just is the stuff legends are made of; and there's stuff on the Canon side (80~200mmF4 being one that I wish Nikon would make) of which nikon has no answer..

But having used both, I cannot stand the ergonomics of all the Canon DSLR's.. and I use to own only non-nikkor lenses until I bought a 105mm F2. My other lenses were Tamron and Sigma.

Forget the brand.. LIST YOUR LENSES YOU'D LIKE, and unless there is something you absolutely could not get on the Nikon side, then switch..

But if you already own nikkor lenses, it is really silly to switch..

A $99 Nikon 50mm f1.8 will beat pretty much almost all zooms on the Canon side. Just like a a Canon 50mm f1.8 will pretty much beat almost all the zooms on the nikon side..

So your definition of "great glass" is subjective at best.. pick your needs, and use that as the ONLY criteria and you'll do fine.

 

[ThomasMiller]

Nikon 70-200vr is not matched by the Canon version. I've used both.
NIkon 85mm 1.4 is not matched by the 1.2 Canon version. I've used both.

But guess what? Canon has some glass that beats Nikon. I dig their fast 50mm for example.

Now that the D300 and D3 are out are all Canon DSLRs no good anymore? Have the 14-24mm and 24-7mm new lenses also made older lenses suddenly sub-standard? C'mon, kids.

The best of Canon and Nikon glass are fantastic. At the moment I feel Nikon has taken the lead for glass and DSLRs, but Canon will strike back!
And we all benefit.

Thomas

 

[Greg Nut]

I've used both. I don't think one is consistently better than the other, and both are generally very, very good.

One thing Canon does, though, is clearly identify their pro line with the "L" designation. Nikon has ED, which is just a kind of glass, and is present even on many entry-level lenses.

Another difference is that Nikon has a greater commitment to crop-sensor cameras. Nikon didn't have a full-frame DSLR until the D3, so they have a lot more high-end DX lenses. Canon, on the other hand, has had FF for years and even a mid-range FF model, the 5D. So, fewer crop-sensor lenses.

If you're going to choose based on lenses, look for differences in what they offer. For instance, Canon has no equivalent to the Nikon 18-200. On the other hand, Nikon has no equivalent to the Canon 17-85IS (Nikon's 18-70 lacks VR/IS). Both have differing selections of exotic lenses (Canon 50mm f1.0/Nikon 6mm Fisheye).

But, as others have posted, look at the bodies. Many people (like me) don't like Canon's ergonomics. Nikon's wireless flash system is superior. And, many Nikon's can use 50 year-old manual focus lenses. On the other hand Canon does have the 5D--full-frame at less than half the price of the D3.

 

[RBFresno]

Rahul stated:
"but looking at the glass there is no question that Canon are better".

Hi Rahul,
Help me with this a little.

Which Canon lenses are there, in these focal lengths, where there is "no question" that their Canon counterparts are better:

10.5
14-24
17-35
17-55
18-200VR
24-70
60 micro
85 1.4
85 PC
70-200VR
200-400VR
105 DC
200 macro
200VR
300VR
400VR
500VR
600VR

BTW, it would be just as idiotic to say that, "looking at the glass there is no question that Nikon are better". In skilled hands, both systems provide a wide range of useful lenses.

RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

 

[rahul sood232614]

Sorry, I should have qualified -- for low light photography I am of the opinion that there is no better glass than Canon at this time. I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

--
rs

 

[sfnikon]

Canon clearly beats Nikon in fast primes 10mm to 135mm - except for the Nikon 85/1.4 and Nikon 105/2.

Nikon bests Canon in zooms whether they be consumer zooms like 18-70 or 18-200 or pro zooms like 17-55, 17-35, 70-200, 200-400. The new 14-24 and 24-70 are said to be amazing and only further extends Nikon's lead. The only exceptions may be Canon's excellent 10-20 and 70-200/4 where Nikon has no equivalent.

Up till very recently Canon had a big edge in pro tele lenses. Now Nikon's line whether the simply incomparable 200/2 to the 600/4 seem exceptional up and down. My 'guess' is they stack up well to the canon lineup now. Do any sports photographers have an opinion on this?

The ONE lens I envy in the canon lineup (I wish I could have for myself) is the 135/2L. The Nikon version very good but falls a bit short compared with the canon.

Overall both systems have some outstanding optics and I'm sure you could build a great collection with either system. It would be foolish to generalize and say categorically one lineup is better.
--
Jake

 

[rahul sood232614]

That is the other reason I am leaning towards Canon - because of the full frame support on their lenses. If I'm going to spend a ton on glass I want to make sure they are FF ready for when I dump the $1200 body.

--
rs

 

[anotherMike]

Which lenses?

I'm a bit lost - low light photography is usually shot at hi ISO - which (until the D3) Canon was better in terms of bodies - nothing to do with lenses. But as for the lenses - the Nikon stuff and Canon stuff is pretty much equal - in a few areas the Nikon glass is superior (17-55/2.8 wide open on Nikon wins, 17-35/2.8 stopped down, Nikon wins, 70-200/2.8 AFS, Nikon wins, 2002/ - oops, Canon doesn't have their 200/2 out yet). And a few areas Canon stuff is superior (50/1.2 L, 135/2 L). But I don't think there's a clear superiority just for low light usage - unless you are talking about the differences between 1.2 and 1.4, which isn't much. If anything, right now, I'd say Nikon has the edge in lenses. Back when I got my D2X and 200/2, I had the cash to easily be able to switch systems if I had wanted to. I didn't - because in everything I saw, I preferred the Nikon glass. And I still do.

And honestly, from a lens perspective, low light/hi-ISO work DESTROYS resolution - if you doubt me, prove it to yourself: buy a test chart and shoot it with your favorite Nikon or Canon body, and go from ISO 100 through 3200. Watch how amazingly quickly the resolution drops - no matter whose body you use, and then you'll see where I'm coming from.

-m

 

[anotherMike]

You aren't making a lot of sense.

In what way is Nikon not supporting their FF body with their lenses?

BTW, you DO realize there are a significant number of Canon FF shooters who adapt a 1999 designed Nikkor 17-35/2.8 AFS on their Canon bodies because it's superior to Canons wide zooms, right? How's that for Nikon lenses not supporting FF ???

Everything you are posting doesn't appear to be based upon any sound logic or realization of where the manufacturers are at. If you choose Canon - that's fine and I have no qualms with that at all, but make sure you choose it for correct reasons, not misinformed ones. And honestly, you should be making your choice between systems based upon ergonomics and feel, not lens systems, unless there is a very specific NEED (not want or improperly identified due to advertising or marketing pressure) for a specific feature in a Nikon or Canon body.

I'm not trying to be hard on you - but everything you've said sounds illogical. My opinion is that you haven't adequately thought things through yet, and/or are seriously misinformed about the capabilities of the Nikon system. Do a bit more research, rent if neccessary, before making a choice based upon insufficient or incorrect information. And then go take some great pix, with whatever gear you buy...

-m

 

[rahul sood232614]

Yarrrg!! You're pulling me back in! I still prefer Nikon, I really really want to stay!

A few questions though;

What does Nikon have that compares to the Canon 24mm 1.4?

Would you say Nikons 85mm 1.4 is better than Canons 85mm 1.2?

What about the 70-200VR is better than the Canon 70-200 2.8L II?

--
rs

 

[rahul sood232614]

I think you're right Mike - I haven't thought this through fully. I am still researching. Those questions I asked are questions, not statements. Can you answer them? I'm not arguing here, believe me, I'd rather stay with Nikon as I still have my preference on their ergonomics.

A few questions (as above)

What does Nikon have that compares to the Canon 24mm 1.4?

Would you say Nikons 85mm 1.4 is better than Canons 85mm 1.2?

What about the 70-200VR is better than the Canon 70-200 2.8L II?

--
rs

 

[Grevture]

Overall, Canon and Nikon make very good lenses, and both have a good selection of lenses.

In many cases I would tend to think sample variation within a model of lens would be a bigger factor then differences between similar lenses from the two brands. Comparing the 70-200/2,8 offerings could be such and example.

Add to that the fact that some lenses just happen agree with some peoples way of photography. What is a wonderful lens for some photographers is a rather dull lens for others. You could call that user sample variation ...

These two factors together very often make it rather pointless to compare systems of (generally speaking) high quality optics. Sample variation, both in the actual lenses and in the way they are utilized play a bigger role then what system you choose to favor.

Now, I am a Nikon owner myself, but there are a couple of things I really do belive Canon does better then Nikon in terms of lenses:

1) Selection. Just look at the 70-200 area, where Nikon has two offerings, the 70-200/2,8 VR and the 80-200/2,8 (close enough) Canon has four: 70-200/2,8 with and without IS, 70-200/4,0 with and without IS. Overall Canon very often offer three or even four models where Nikon offers one or two models. Some of Canons "extra" models might seem a bit redundant, but they do give more choice.

2) AF-S/USM. Canon has been more consistent in making USM lenses available where Nikon by comparison a bit slow in upgrading their lenses to AF-S. Where is my AF-S 85/1,4 and AF-S 135/2,0?

 

[Pradipta Dutta]

I think you're right Mike - I haven't thought this through fully.

I see. On one hand you say that you haven't thought this through while on the other hand you make general statements that Canon lens is definitely better than Nikon lenses. Just for your information, both Canon and Nikon have their strengths and weaknesses. It would be quite wrong to say one is definitely better than the other.

A few questions (as above)

What does Nikon have that compares to the Canon 24mm 1.4?

There is none is the current Nikon lineup.

Would you say Nikons 85mm 1.4 is better than Canons 85mm 1.2?

That's what many-many people say about the image quality. However, the Canon lens is a bit faster to focus and has a wider max aperture. But it also is a lot pricier.

What about the 70-200VR is better than the Canon 70-200 2.8L II?

Most definitely. Even though the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS is a very-very good lenses, the Nikkor compares very positively in every department of lens usage for this lens.

--
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

 

[Boris]

rahul sood

You are starting to sound like a troll, you know darn well that Nikon has no 24f1.4 so why ask the question over and over?
Boris
--
Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
http://www.pbase.com/borysd

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

• on an identical 10 and 30 lpm.

For almost all comparable lenses the MTF are so close as to point to only one conclusion - as regards sharpness and resolution there is no obvious performance difference between Nikon and Canon.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Whilst the camera and lens can be important the photographers skill and imagination are much more important in achieving good pictures.

 

[nino518772]

i don't know the nikkor 85 1.4 but just hear good about it,

what i konw the canon 85 1.2 is great, the 50 1.2 isn't but the 50 1.4 canon breaks really easy! i have a really wierd broken one at home!

the 70-200 IS canon isn't as sharp as the non IS

and the 70-200 Vr nikon is crazy!

 

[rahul sood232614]

Sorry Boris, that wasn't my intention. As I said, this was a serious question - I was wondering if there was anything "comparable" - not exactly the same. Maybe from another company like Zeiss.

--
rs