Richard G T
Senior Member
Apples and oranges people. Both camps have their winners and loosers.
I chose Nikon because it felt better in my hands. That's it.
I chose Nikon because it felt better in my hands. That's it.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Don't flame me....but....Nikon vs. Canon glass?
- Thread starter Mike Danahy
- Start date
You're absolutely correct. And, the Nikon 18-55 has as good an IQ as I've ever seen on a zoom lens regardless of price.
My point is just that "ED" doesn't mean the same thing as "L." I had forgotten about the gold ring, probably because mine don't have it.
macgruder368977
Member
Yeah, Michelangelo and da Vinci used to argue about brushes all the time.
K
Kreitmann
Guest
Not about brushes, but those famous painters used to talk about the colors, dys and pigments all the time. Some colors chance their tone when time goes by (some months, not centuries), shade or fade away. Just ask an art historian, if you have the chance.
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
Best regards
Richard
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
Best regards
Richard
O5iris
Leading Member
I don't agree with those 'black-on-white' conclusions. Canon glass better than Nikon's? HAH! AS IF! The contrary would be just as silly. Of course there will be single cases in which a brand will be better than the other but let's not generalise.
Nikon has fantastic lenses, so does Canon.
In my opinion Nikon is a bit better because of the overall quality/durability, flash system, ergonomics.
What's your gear history? Nikon? Stick with it and be happy!
Nikon has fantastic lenses, so does Canon.
In my opinion Nikon is a bit better because of the overall quality/durability, flash system, ergonomics.
What's your gear history? Nikon? Stick with it and be happy!
Full time manual overide on the AF-S lenses for fine tuning which the USM does not have.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?
Put an AF lens on a Pro body with a CAM 1300 or CAM 2000 to drive it and you'd hardly notice focus speed difference.
Jason
--
http://www.pbase.com/jchue
Cultured Vulture
Veteran Member
No need for white. No worries with thermal shock to any of the ED elements like you have with flourite. You ought to correct B&H. In their latest catalog for Digital Photography they state that the older Canon's have 1-2 stops of IS. I've never tested them, so I'll take your word for them having 2 stops.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.
Regards,
JR
Well, when you consider that the 200-400 covers that entire range in one lens, and is sharp enough to replace equivalent primes, it's not quite so expensive. Having the convenience of a zoom as opposed to carrying multiple lenses is also nice.although the 200-400 f4 sounds nice.. it's quite pricey( ~$5k) and
when you think of
200@f4 = nothing special
300@f4 = ok still nothing special
400 @f4 = ok now we are talking, but I still prefer F2.8
--
Jeff Kohn
Houston, TX
http://www.pbase.com/jkohn
http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
Dan Nikon
Senior Member
Canon 15 is just as good
Nikon has the only lens in that range, but you can not protect the front.
Canon's 16-35-II blows away my Nikon 17-35.
Who needs it? That is for the strange DX cr@p.
Nikon?
Canon's is a staple.
50 macro is one of the sharpest I own.
Canon 85 1.2 is in a different league man.
Canon has a 90
Nikon's is a tad better
Awesome lens
I would say it is a draw on the long glass. Canon's stuff is incredible as is Nikons.
Dan Nikon
Senior Member
False. I have adapted two Nikon 17-35's to my 5D and the 16-35-II blows it away in the corners.
Dan Nikon
Senior Member
The Nikon 28 F/2 AIS is fantastic. The new Zeiss 28 will be even better.
That said, I am not getting rid of my fabulous 24L, Nikon really does not have anything than can touch it...yet.
Not even close. The look alone of the 85L shot wide open is incredible. Don't get me wrong, the Nikon 85 is nice, but the Canon is outrageous in it's corner sharpness and light gathering.
I just got my 70-200 VR so I am not sure. I don't go on dpreview hearsay so I can not comment yet.
Cultured Vulture
Veteran Member
Why would you need to?
You've been at the wacky weed again.
Not even as good as the 28-70mm
The league of slooow focus. Only advantage being a stop faster. With a D3 you make up that stop.
All of Nikon's new long glass has 4 stops of VR vs IS on Canon's being 2 generations older and having up to 2 stops.
AGREED
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.
Regards,
JR
anotherMike
Forum Pro
ah, true, I was thinking of the many comparisons with the 16-35 version I.
Canon finally got the 16/17-35 series right with the II version. Only took them, what, 8 years to catch up?
-m
Canon finally got the 16/17-35 series right with the II version. Only took them, what, 8 years to catch up?
-m
Jake Loves Good Glass
Senior Member
What lenses are you talking about?
I would argue that it depends on what you are doing. In long telephotos I would give the prize to Canon until Nikon gets more VR and updated lenses.
As far as wide angle to mild telephoto (85-135mm range) I would give the prize to Nikon.
It is such a subjective thing to try and figure out which company has better lenses. Just look at what you want and go there.
When it really gets down to it, the two are the camera equivalent to Honda and Toyota. Brand loyalty will lead you one way or another, but when it gets right down to it, buying either system equals a good one.
I would just tell them to figure out which body does what they want for the price they want at the moment and not look back. As long as they have a Nikon or Canon they are sure to have a good product and be investing in a good product line. To say otherwise is pure fanboyism/troll bate.
I would argue that it depends on what you are doing. In long telephotos I would give the prize to Canon until Nikon gets more VR and updated lenses.
As far as wide angle to mild telephoto (85-135mm range) I would give the prize to Nikon.
It is such a subjective thing to try and figure out which company has better lenses. Just look at what you want and go there.
When it really gets down to it, the two are the camera equivalent to Honda and Toyota. Brand loyalty will lead you one way or another, but when it gets right down to it, buying either system equals a good one.
I would just tell them to figure out which body does what they want for the price they want at the moment and not look back. As long as they have a Nikon or Canon they are sure to have a good product and be investing in a good product line. To say otherwise is pure fanboyism/troll bate.
In my experience, Canon's L-glass and Nikon's Pro-glass are pretty well matched.. Each has a few unique lenses and a few really great lenses in their favor, but most are so close that, if based on standard-sized printed images, you'd never be able to pick between.. I felt the lenses were so comparable that I based my camera decision on how well I liked the body design and functionality (and obviously, Nikon won)..
Canon IMO has a better selection of lens lengths and ranges than Nikon.. Except for the 18-200, my perception is that Nikon keeps making things in ranges I have absolutely no use for, many of which are virtual duplicates of a previous lens.. In reality, if you look at their lens catalogs, both companies are equally guilty of the practice (releasing near-variants of existing lenses), but Canon at least seems to have lenses in the range I'm interested in, and also the features (IS, USM) that I want..
As with others here, I can't stand Canon ergonomics, so having used them before and seen the Nikon light, there's no way I'd go back to a Canon body, but they definitely have more lenses in lengths that I would use than Nikon.. For example, I'm a zoom-o-phile, I make no secret of it: the bigger the range, the better.. I maybe take a hundred shots a year at the wide end, virtually everything else is mid-range to long, which is why I love zooms, but to give an example of what I like about Canon's range: the Nikkor 18-200 VR is excellent and I use it a lot, but as I said, I seldom use the 18mm end (and it's rather unsharp and distorted at this end as well, so I'm better off changing lenses anyways), but I'd love that extra bit of reach at the long end, so if Canon's 28-300IS could be adapted for use on Nikons, I'd buy it in a second.. Another example, Nikkor makes a great 85mm, but it's screw drive, no VR and a rather dated design where Canon has had an USM/IS offering in that space for years..
Of the two, Nikkors also tend to have a higher price tag though (My question is why?? Surely the cost savings from using ED glass vs. fluorite should make the Nikkor lenses more economical to manufacture), but I feel that the big difference between the companies is in the consumer-grade lenses- there aren't many Canon non-L lenses that I'd touch, but on the other hand, Nikon makes a lot of high bang-for-the-buck consumer grade lenses, some of which have image quality pretty darned close to what you'd get from pro-glass.. For example, if you took away my 70-200VR and told me that I had to use the 70-300VR from now on, I'd complain a bit, but not too much as it really is an excellent lens.. I wouldn't even miss the wider aperture because that's not the kind of photo I take: no razor-thin DOF for me; I want my subject in focus, and in low light, I'll use a flash and high ISO, just like I do with the pro-lens.. If you do other types of photography, you might have a different opinion and one company's respective lens offerings might suit you better than the other's..
The last thing that Nikon has in its favor are an absolutely huge number of "legacy" lenses (AI, AIS), some of which are just amazing optically and dirt cheap these days, but just don't find favor with photographers who demand AF functionality.. Some of these lenses are so good that the Canon users are picking them up and using them on adapters (which I guess points out the one major Nikon flaw IMO- the fact that their lens mount, while great in so many other ways, makes using non-F-mount lenses nearly impossible)..
Canon IMO has a better selection of lens lengths and ranges than Nikon.. Except for the 18-200, my perception is that Nikon keeps making things in ranges I have absolutely no use for, many of which are virtual duplicates of a previous lens.. In reality, if you look at their lens catalogs, both companies are equally guilty of the practice (releasing near-variants of existing lenses), but Canon at least seems to have lenses in the range I'm interested in, and also the features (IS, USM) that I want..
As with others here, I can't stand Canon ergonomics, so having used them before and seen the Nikon light, there's no way I'd go back to a Canon body, but they definitely have more lenses in lengths that I would use than Nikon.. For example, I'm a zoom-o-phile, I make no secret of it: the bigger the range, the better.. I maybe take a hundred shots a year at the wide end, virtually everything else is mid-range to long, which is why I love zooms, but to give an example of what I like about Canon's range: the Nikkor 18-200 VR is excellent and I use it a lot, but as I said, I seldom use the 18mm end (and it's rather unsharp and distorted at this end as well, so I'm better off changing lenses anyways), but I'd love that extra bit of reach at the long end, so if Canon's 28-300IS could be adapted for use on Nikons, I'd buy it in a second.. Another example, Nikkor makes a great 85mm, but it's screw drive, no VR and a rather dated design where Canon has had an USM/IS offering in that space for years..
Of the two, Nikkors also tend to have a higher price tag though (My question is why?? Surely the cost savings from using ED glass vs. fluorite should make the Nikkor lenses more economical to manufacture), but I feel that the big difference between the companies is in the consumer-grade lenses- there aren't many Canon non-L lenses that I'd touch, but on the other hand, Nikon makes a lot of high bang-for-the-buck consumer grade lenses, some of which have image quality pretty darned close to what you'd get from pro-glass.. For example, if you took away my 70-200VR and told me that I had to use the 70-300VR from now on, I'd complain a bit, but not too much as it really is an excellent lens.. I wouldn't even miss the wider aperture because that's not the kind of photo I take: no razor-thin DOF for me; I want my subject in focus, and in low light, I'll use a flash and high ISO, just like I do with the pro-lens.. If you do other types of photography, you might have a different opinion and one company's respective lens offerings might suit you better than the other's..
The last thing that Nikon has in its favor are an absolutely huge number of "legacy" lenses (AI, AIS), some of which are just amazing optically and dirt cheap these days, but just don't find favor with photographers who demand AF functionality.. Some of these lenses are so good that the Canon users are picking them up and using them on adapters (which I guess points out the one major Nikon flaw IMO- the fact that their lens mount, while great in so many other ways, makes using non-F-mount lenses nearly impossible)..
DoF?
I don't think either lineup has a hole in them...Canon or Nikon.
It's not like either side has to worry about a 2x crop factor.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen
I don't think either lineup has a hole in them...Canon or Nikon.
It's not like either side has to worry about a 2x crop factor.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen
Actually, 1.2 vs 1.4 is only a third of a stop faster. If the best shutter speed with the 1.4 is 1/60, then with the 1.2 you'll be able to get 1/80. Not much of a difference.
--
Yukon Territory / Canada
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoshq
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum