nikon vs canon

Started Apr 4, 2013 | Questions thread
Guidenet Forum Pro • Posts: 15,748
Re: nikon vs canon

JamesRL wrote:

luisfgranada wrote:

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.

Well a quick trip to one of the local chains here shows that I can buy the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFD brand new  for $1149.  Yes the Canon 70-200 f4 non IS version is cheaper.

But there are alternatives and choices.

And the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 is a stop faster at f/2.8 and that's worth it's weight in gold.

With respect to the 17-40, there's the cheaper Nikon 18-35.

The point is they don't match up completely. The 16-35 f/4 has VR, while the Canon does not. Big deal but nothing is a perfect match. It's silly to claim one is cheaper than the other by hand picking a few miss matche examples.

-- hide signature --

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

 Guidenet's gear list:Guidenet's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 +31 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow