Nikkor 300 f/2.8 VR II vs Canon 300 f/2.8 IS L II

Started May 6, 2012 | Discussions thread
SleeperSmith Forum Member • Posts: 75
Re: Nikkor 300 f/2.8 VR II vs Canon 300 f/2.8 IS L II

SergioSpain wrote:

I think the reason for the significant price premium on the Canon superteles (the 400 2.8 goes for about $12000, versus "only" about $8500 for the Nikon) is new, light weight material for the optics. But given that you're going to use these lenses on some kind of support anyway, I couldn't see paying 25-30% extra for something I would rarely, if ever, use.

As for the image quality, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between them, or between these and their 20-year old predecessors. After all, the physics of optics is what it is...

Still, I'm sure those who need to have the latest and greatest will justify purchasing it at any price (I know I do when it suits my needs, or rather, my desires!).

Actually, canon's weight loss comes mainly from just chopping off the protective element at front of the lens? But from looking at iso12233 charts (you guys know where to look, cbf posting link). Seems canon's extreme corner is slight better?

That and there's never a good comparison done anyway. (Using nikon-> canon adaptor?)

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow