nikon vs canon

Started Apr 4, 2013 | Questions thread
luisfgranada New Member • Posts: 2
Re: nikon vs canon

Thanks Craig!

Guidenet wrote:

Luis, you've picked just about every spot where Canon makes something Nikon doesn't and where you chose a much more expensive substitute from Nikon to suplant it.

For example, Canon's excellent but very old 17-40 f/4 design. You said Nikon doesn't make the same but there was the 17-35 f/2.8 at twice the price. What you didn't say was there was the much more modern Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR which is not much more but does have vibration reduction and nano crystal coatings. It's a more modern design and considered quite a bit sharper. There's also a brand new 18-35 which is also looking like a real winner.

The Canon 17-40 f/4 I agree with you, it's an old design but excellent quality, it's about $836, the Nikon 16-35 f/4 which is more modern is about $1257 and although it has VR is more expensive and less focal range as well. In Nikon I don't have a cheaper choice and that's my point.

You then went on to compare the Canon 70-200 f/4 without vibration reduction to the Nikon 70-200 f/4 with it.

Again Canon has a cheaper lens available. The Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM and the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR are similar in price but in Nikon I don't have a non-stabilized cheaper version.

I understand that IS is important and it's better but some times is not needed (for example when shooting on a tripod) and if the lens does not come with it, it's cheaper, and Nikon does not offer that choice.

The truth is that the pricing is about the same across the lineup. When Canon releases a new model, the price is usually quite a bit more than the Nikon that's been available for a while, and the other way around. Moreover, the things like IS and USM play a role in pricing.

Agree with you

If you're constantly jumping ship from one to the other for lens pricing, you're really doing yourself a disfavor. Stick with one or the other and slowly build a good kit with either. Both have enough glass to satify even the most discerning glass collector. They both have lenses in almost every category you can think of, and usually more than one or two designs in each category.

Agree with you, but I have the kit Nikon D90 18-105 VR, that's why I want to be clear before buying some lenses as once I do that I'm sticking with that brand.

Right now, the difference between the two is more at the entry level or enthusiast level where Canon has been spending more time on video ability and Nikon on still photography. Canon might be the best choice for someone wanting to specialize in movies where Nikon has a better sensor with more dim light ability, dynamic range, and color depth as well as more megapixels.

At the professional and semi-professional level, I think Canon and Nikon area at near parity with no real advantage to either. I think Nikons are a little more feature rich and slightly less money right now, but that could change in the next round. I think Nikon caught Canon with their collective pants down a little with the D800 and D600 but we'll see over tme.


Nikon is one of two camera companies who make their own optical glass and have been in the lens business the longest. They are an optical company where Canon is a larger overal company into printers, office equipment and a lot more. Neither is better than the other.

The only issue I see is that Canon owners tend to wear pink tutus under their street clothing and have camel flea infestations, but some can live with that.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile



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