Why are no Canon lenses rated on photozone as high as the nikon lenses

Are Nikon lenses that much better across the board? (the Nikon 2.8 series lenses are very highly regarded there)

Yes, they are much much better.

In fact, when you think of it, Canon doesn't have any good lens and only sub par bodies...

You should buy Nikon, I really can't see any other way for you to express you talent.

Jere

Jerislav said:

Yes, they are much much better.

In fact, when you think of it, Canon doesn't have any good lens and only sub par bodies...

You should buy Nikon, I really can't see any other way for you to express you talent.

Click to expand...

Canon makes better printers!

Ken

Canon 1d Mark III, 1D Mark IIn, XTi, EF 17-40L, EF-S 17-85 IS, 100-400L IS, 400 5.6L, 500 4.0L IS
Panasonic FZ20 & FZ50
http://ken.smugmug.com/

Travelinbri_74 wrote:
-snip-

Thk you Rick

when i have seen photozone, i am looking at comparing sigma with canon or with tamron.
Since you buy a canon body, i dont see the need to compare to nikon lenses.

As for sigma and tamron, they are rated higher i think becuase thier price/performance is better. But when price is irrelavent, i think cannon performs slightly better
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41942460@N04/sets/

Hi

The ratings depends on what sensor (camera) was in use.

A higher megapixel camera give higher lens ratings.

Can only compare the ratings with the same camera, not different brands with different sensors.

"Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems! This does also apply for the new EOS tests based on the EOS 50D because of differences in the sensor system (e.g. AA-filter) as well as different RAW-converters.""

From http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

Best regards from Sweden

Omar Brännström

--
http://sydnet.net/omar

Yes, the camera/sensor used affects the MTF numbers. And the numbers aren't the whole story.

Certainly the Canon 70-200 F/4 IS got about as a rave review on photozone as any lens tested.
--
http://www.ronhartman.net

With normal to long lenses absolute resolution doesn't worry me much. On the wide side, where I really care, Nikon usually has the upper hand. The 14-24mm is a great example of their lens design prowess. However Nikon doesn't have the excellent 24mm F1.4 II lens and their tilt shifts are bettered by Canon's latest offerings. At least this is true from what I have read.

Travelinbri_74 said:

Are Nikon lenses that much better across the board? (the Nikon 2.8 series lenses are very highly regarded there)

Click to expand...

please define photozone's emperical across platform MTF weighting system.

messner said:

Hi

The ratings depends on what sensor (camera) was in use.

A higher megapixel camera give higher lens ratings.

Click to expand...

Not quite as simple. As was discussed in a forum entry in photozone,
when the new tests started on FF with the 5D II, and the high-res APS-C (50D),
the ratings were also changed to reflect the higher demands of the higher MPs.

Thus the top rated 70-200 f4 IS only managed now 4 points, instead of the previous 5 points. The idea being that lenses have to live up to a more rigorous standard now, and I guess it was supposed to leave headroom for lens improvements for high-res sensors, but perhaps to hope for super improved lenses is a bit overoptimistic.

messner said:

Can only compare the ratings with the same camera, not different brands with different sensors.

"Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems! This does also apply for the new EOS tests based on the EOS 50D because of differences in the sensor system (e.g. AA-filter) as well as different RAW-converters.""

From http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

Best regards from Sweden

Omar Brännström

--
http://sydnet.net/omar

Click to expand...

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

I don't really feel like puffing up my chest or whatnot, I am certainly not a pro, or even really a very advanced shooter, I've been shooting for a lot of years, with DSLRs for more than a couple. Read my posts and I always ask legit questions.

I was going through some of the different lens reviews on photozine and noticed over and over that canon zooms were getting low optical quality marks, even favorites like the 24-70, 16-35 II, and 24-105 were not blowing away the people at photozine. I thought perhaps they were tough graders, etc, so I started looking over other lens ratings (Pentax, for instance, had pretty low scores across the board). However, when I got to Nikon, their new 2.8 series had excellent grades.

For the same reason many of you don't, I don't look too hard at nikon lenses usually, except for occasional 14-24 envy, but I found this interesting and put it out for discussion.

Feel free not to answer, but the only trolling I see is people who open up questions just to write a snide remark without addressing them. "Go buy a nikon" "Troll lurks." Neither helpful nor especially bright. In my opinion it makes you look like fanboys, "Who dare question canon lenses?!?"

Anyway, still interested, I'll rephrase the question:

"Are nikon wide to normal range zooms that much better than canon's?"

I think the 24-105 is an excellent lens, but wide open I think the 70-200 f/4L is better.

Thus, for the "blown away category, I'm reserving that for the 70-200L.

I can't comment on the Nikon lenses, because I have never tried them.

Travelinbri_74 said:

I don't really feel like puffing up my chest or whatnot, I am certainly not a pro, or even really a very advanced shooter, I've been shooting for a lot of years, with DSLRs for more than a couple. Read my posts and I always ask legit questions.

I was going through some of the different lens reviews on photozine and noticed over and over that canon zooms were getting low optical quality marks, even favorites like the 24-70, 16-35 II, and 24-105 were not blowing away the people at photozine. I thought perhaps they were tough graders, etc, so I started looking over other lens ratings (Pentax, for instance, had pretty low scores across the board). However, when I got to Nikon, their new 2.8 series had excellent grades.

For the same reason many of you don't, I don't look too hard at nikon lenses usually, except for occasional 14-24 envy, but I found this interesting and put it out for discussion.

Click to expand...

--
Everything Apple - http://everythingapple.blogspot.com/

Travelinbri_74 said:

I don't really feel like puffing up my chest or whatnot, I am certainly not a pro, or even really a very advanced shooter, I've been shooting for a lot of years, with DSLRs for more than a couple. Read my posts and I always ask legit questions.

Click to expand...

Ok

And your post on the Pentax forum you refer to photozine...which is it photozine or photozone?

I will take it as being photozone.

travelinbri_74 said:

I was going through some of the different lens reviews on photozine and noticed over and over that canon zooms were getting low optical quality marks, even favorites like the 24-70, 16-35 II, and 24-105 were not blowing away the people at photozine. I thought perhaps they were tough graders, etc, so I started looking over other lens ratings (Pentax, for instance, had pretty low scores across the board). However, when I got to Nikon, their new 2.8 series had excellent grades.

Click to expand...

If it IS photozone, what Pentax lenses had low scores across the board?

The ones I looked at all had three stars or more for optical quality except for the discontinued FA 24 f2 but then maybe i am being selective...I only looked at the first 13 primes listed and the 50-135 2.8 zoom.

The Fa 31 1.8 had 4.5 stars for optical quality, another 4 lenses got 4 stars and another 4 got 3.5

Their rating system states that 3 stars is good/average in the true sense. So to me any lens of 3 or more is ok and 3.5 or higher is a lens I would be very happy with.

I only looked at a few Nikon ratings and the few aI looked at had ratings similar to pentax....IE The new Nikon 35 1.8 had the same scores as the Pentax 35 f2 for Optical, mechanical and price/performance.

The Pentax 14 2.8 got scores of 3, 4.5 and 3 the Nikon 14 2.8 got 3, 4.5 and 2.5

travelinbri_74 said:

For the same reason many of you don't, I don't look too hard at nikon lenses usually, except for occasional 14-24 envy, but I found this interesting and put it out for discussion.

Feel free not to answer, but the only trolling I see is people who open up questions just to write a snide remark without addressing them. "Go buy a nikon" "Troll lurks." Neither helpful nor especially bright. In my opinion it makes you look like fanboys, "Who dare question canon lenses?!?"

Click to expand...

Given the above, you are sounding like a troll....and your Pentax forum post (Pentax lenses are being trashed on photozine??) How is THAT not a troll post?

Or are you REALLY looking to buy a K7? I somehow doubt it (and aplogies if you do actually buy one.)

neil

freshly extruded, packed with fiber .



ed rader

--
my galleries:

http://erader.zenfolio.com/

I suppose I am just going to make this go on by explaining myself when I should really only worry about addressing replies to the question I was asking. As I have said before, any look up of my history will see I am not a professional, but far from a troll.

Photozone is the site I was referring to.

As stated earlier, I am looking at wide to normal zooms. None of the pentax zooms in that range were particularly well received. When some lenses get 5 stars, such as the nikons, 3 stars, while perhaps fine, fails to impress.

The Nikon wide and normal 2.8 zooms got incredibly high scores. For example:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/361-nikkor-af-s-14-24mm-f28-g-ed-n-test-report--review?start=2

The canon scores were mediocre for lenses I have always been lead to believe are very good (the 17-40, 16-35, 24-70, and 24-105).

I do mostly travel photography, the K-7 weathersealing came up in another post as I was wandering the canon forums and I decided to look back into it, most of my lenses that I spent serious money on are Ef-s and since I want to eventually upgrade to FF, I am at a point where I would consider buying into another system. Since Canon wasn't putting out affordable weather proof bodies, the Pentax was interesting (no, I don't think I will change to pentax, but the interest was real), and of course I am hoping for a canon answer to the ruggedness of the D700 (perhaps a 3D body). The possible toughness of the 7D, and the usefullness of a wide zoom such as the 15-85, if it turns out excellent optically, has me again considering putting off the move to FF. I already own the 10-22 and 17-55 2.8 among others, so I have a decent start if I stay with canon cropped.

I suppose I only egg you guys on by replying to your own, mostly uninformative posts, so you'll continue to troll and post pictures of feces on these forums. In general I find that unhelpful.

canon5Dshooter said:

On the wide side, where I really care, Nikon usually has the upper hand. The 14-24mm is a great example of their lens design prowess.

Click to expand...

Good. Now, can you name another great Nikon wide angle lens? You admitted it yourself that Canon has a better wide angle T&S selection and the venerable 24mm f/1.4L II.

You need at least two lenses to "usually" have the upper hand, and to me it seems that with the single exception of the 14-24/2.8, Canon usually has the upper hand in wide angle lenses.

Kind regards,

• Henrik

--
And if a million more agree there ain't no great society
My obligatory gallery: http://www.iki.fi/leopold/Photo/Galleria/

Travelinbri_74 said:

I don't really feel like puffing up my chest or whatnot, I am certainly not a pro, or even really a very advanced shooter, I've been shooting for a lot of years, with DSLRs for more than a couple. Read my posts and I always ask legit questions.

I was going through some of the different lens reviews on photozine and noticed over and over that canon zooms were getting low optical quality marks, even favorites like the 24-70, 16-35 II, and 24-105 were not blowing away the people at photozine. I thought perhaps they were tough graders, etc, so I started looking over other lens ratings (Pentax, for instance, had pretty low scores across the board). However, when I got to Nikon, their new 2.8 series had excellent grades.

For the same reason many of you don't, I don't look too hard at nikon lenses usually, except for occasional 14-24 envy, but I found this interesting and put it out for discussion.

Click to expand...

It's not to difficult to see what is going on. The same as with Phil here on dpreview.

Photozone has nice objective measurements for all the lenses. Sure you have to realise that the sensor plays a big role in the final numbers, but if you compare the 8MP and 15MP figures, you can even get a pretty good estimate on how the Nikon lenses compare to the Canon lenses.

But instead of using their measurements to rate the lenses, they (and many others) add subjective marks, like "optical quality".

What is that supposed to mean? The optical quality should be clear from the measurements!

I'd forget about those "marks" and stick to the measured data.

it is because Nikon attracts people who also buy mac, Toyota, route for the Leafs, purebred pets, have perfect posture, flowery excrement, organic gardens, and perfect children.

they love to talk about whatever they have, and how much better it is than whatever you have.

you know the people.

you do.

just go look at the Nikon forums for a little while.

Sub in Canon for Nikon and you almost have me pegged but - I don't cheer for any sports teams (despite living in the burbs of hog town and it being a cardinal sin to not cheer for the leafs).

Don't know why a Canon shooter can't enjoy a superior computer, a reliable car and have great posture/kids and fresh smelling organic emittance...