Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon 17-40L envy...Which Nikkor Counterpart?

Go to last post
S

Scott Simon

Well-known member
Messages
248
Reaction score
1
Location
New Orleans, LA, US
Hello All...

I have finally come to the conclusion that I'm completely insane! I just sold all my Nikon only to come back to Nikon! Long story...anyway...I was briefly looking at Canon and I've decided to stick with Nikon and buy a D70s at a great price no less!

I still have my Tamron 28-75 2.8 and a Nikkor 28-85 3.5.

I fell in love with some of photos I've seen of the Canon 17-40L Lens and I was wondering if you all could recommend a lens at the same price level and image quality?

Is ED glass the Nikkor to Canon L eq.? Just curious. Thanks in advance!
 
The Nikon 17-35 2.8 beats every wide angle zoom on the market. It's just a plain known fact.

The fact you like 17-40 Canon images is probably due to the photographer, though.
 
According to many the 18-35mm is a very capable lens, and is easily comparible...
--

 
there're 17-35, 18-35, and 17-55...
 
Nikon's ED designation is not the same as Canon "L" designation.

Canon labels it's more expensive lenses as "L" lenses usually and they often contain better glass.

Nikon's ED designation is just an indicator that a particular glass is used in the lenses.

Regards,
Przemek
Scott Simon said:
Hello All...

I have finally come to the conclusion that I'm completely insane! I
just sold all my Nikon only to come back to Nikon! Long
story...anyway...I was briefly looking at Canon and I've decided to
stick with Nikon and buy a D70s at a great price no less!

I still have my Tamron 28-75 2.8 and a Nikkor 28-85 3.5.

I fell in love with some of photos I've seen of the Canon 17-40L
Lens and I was wondering if you all could recommend a lens at the
same price level and image quality?

Is ED glass the Nikkor to Canon L eq.? Just curious. Thanks in
advance!
Click to expand...
 
all I ever hear is "L" this and "L" that. It works too. I almost bought a 20d instead of the D70 (I'm sure I would have been very happy with it). And to go along with it I was dead set on the two f4L's (17-40 and 70-200).

No reason except that they were the cheapest "L" lenses.

Nikon would have been smart to do the same thing at some point in time. Maybe Nikon could have had "R" or "A+" lenses.

Then we could do the same thing they do on the canon side. "Ohhhh but, it's not an A+ lens is it?"

instead we get this crazy [AF-S VR ED N G] lens......huh? Of course I know what it all means (now) but, there is nothing that I can identify with there.

ohh well, I'll step down off the soap-box now.

Ian
--
http://www.ianz28.smugmug.com

 
Canon is all about marketing.

But notice, the new Micro 105mm, is labeled "N". Perhaps we will see more Nikon lenses labeled "N" in the future.

Regards,
Przemek
ianz28 said:
all I ever hear is "L" this and "L" that. It works too. I almost
bought a 20d instead of the D70 (I'm sure I would have been very
happy with it). And to go along with it I was dead set on the two
f4L's (17-40 and 70-200).

No reason except that they were the cheapest "L" lenses.

Nikon would have been smart to do the same thing at some point in
time. Maybe Nikon could have had "R" or "A+" lenses.

Then we could do the same thing they do on the canon side. "Ohhhh
but, it's not an A+ lens is it?"

instead we get this crazy [AF-S VR ED N G] lens......huh? Of
course I know what it all means (now) but, there is nothing that I
can identify with there.

ohh well, I'll step down off the soap-box now.

Ian
--
http://www.ianz28.smugmug.com

Click to expand...
 
The »L« stands for »Low Dispersion«. It is in fact comparable to Nikons »ED« (»Extra-low Dispersion«).

--



Equipment in Profile
 
--

 
it costs twice as much as the 17-40L and i don't see any difference between the images of mine.
--
max
 
yes.
--
max
 
D2X, D200, 5D, 1DS, 1DSMK11. canon for buisiness, nikon for pleasure and because i am a nikon man since 1956.
--
max
 
I used two and both didnt set me on fire.

Then again i was spoiled by a stunning copy of the sigma 18-50DC, dont ask me why but the sigma was sharper in test.

I've not compaired the 18-35 vs the 17-40 directly but i'm liking the 18-35 alot.

--

 
I had a 17-40L briefly with my Rebel XT. I was NOT impressed by it.

On the wide end, sharpness falls off rapidly on the crop sensor so the corner look blurry, even on XT's crop sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top