Top tier Nikon Lens comparable to Canon L

[Ziad joseph]

Good day,

My question is:

If I were going with a Canon cam and say, the 24-105 F4L IS and the 16-35 F/4L IS or 17-40 F4L; for comparison purposes what would the Nikon Lenses be for similar quality IQ as those Canons listed? I keep hearing things about Nikon lenses not being up to scratch to Canon L or rather if you were to try to match a Canon L you may end up paying significantly more for the Nikon variant.

If moving to a Nikon Cam means I have to spend twice the amount I would have for a good L lens then i best stay with the seemingly old 6D and some cracking glass and have a lot of money still in my pocket. 3K USD could get me the 6D or 7D mkii and two great L Lenses. with the Starting price of a D750 being already 2k USD, i wondered how much it would cost me to get the glass I would have otherwise had with the Canon at 3K total all in.

Background:

I am seeking some input on Nikon Lenses for decision making criteria on a possible D750 purchase. I am a Canon user but not invested too heavily (don't own any L glass) and I am a enthusiast level user (i.e. I don't get paid...lol) I love Landscapes, travel and urbex. I previously used a t2i for 5 years and recently sold it to upgrade and push the boundaries of my captures with a potentially a FF cam and some L glass. I own a EFS 10-22 and 35mm F2 prime both Canon (these I have kept).

I initially intended on picking up the 6D and the 24-105 L bundle for 2K USD, for this price, the prospect of owning a FF cam and L glass I was blown away, or even as a 2nd option the 7DMKII and the same L bundle. Add another 1K and I have a quality landscape lens in the 16-35 L.

However the reviews and lacking features aside from the quality IQ in the 6D and the lacking IQ but quality focussing etc in the 7DmkII and have led me to believe I am short changing myself when I look at the D750 IQ and ahead of the game features. The D750 seems to have both the 6D and 7D's strengths however it is more expensive but within the boundary of my budget. I have decided the make or break is going to be the glass, I am familiar with Canon's L Lenses and the excellent offerings which exist which may not be L lenses, like my 35mm F2 which I love and gives great IQ and Sharp as a tack.

Kind regards all

Ziad

 

[Limburger]

Hi Ziad,

I'd try the Nikon (lens) forum.

Mind that there also some high quality third party lenses and "L" isn't always the be all and end all in lenses.

I can't specifically help you but this might be a reasonable start

--
Cheers Mike
Check

 

[Ziad joseph]

Thanks and appreciate it. Yes true, L is not the be all and end all, its a good point of reference for me regarding performance I am familiar with. Played with the lenses I mentioned and cross referenced with online reviews. I could go by reviews for the Nikons from slrgear.com etc but I like to cooroborate these with user experience from the community. The offerings are also so vast I don't know where to start.

I will give this a shot over at the suggested forum.

Kind regards

Ziad

 

[Ido Scharf]

If I were going with a Canon cam and say, the 24-105 F4L IS and the 16-35 F/4L IS or 17-40 F4L; for comparison purposes what would the Nikon Lenses be for similar quality IQ as those Canons listed?

24-105: Nikon has the 24-120mm f/4, the D750 and D810's "kit lens" (costs $1,300 on its own, but only adds $700 to the price of the camera if bought as the official kit). It is the direct competitor/counterpart to Canon's famous 24-105. There's also the Sigma 24-105mm f/4, which might be better optically, but the 24-120 should be great, too.

16-35: That's a gem in Canon lineup. I'd say the closest lens for Nikon FX is the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5—doesn't go as wide, and the build quality may be a lower-tier one, but if you only care about optical quality and price, the Nikon is on par optically and it's cheaper. Nikon also has a 16-35mm f/4 VR—that seems identical to the Canon—which is supposedly a very good lens, but it may not be quite as good as the Canon, and it's a little more expensive. Of course, you could also get the excellent Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC, but that's a much heavier lens.

17-40: Trade its good exterior for a better interior (better optical quality), and you get the Nikon 18-35 at a similar price point.

I keep hearing things about Nikon lenses not being up to scratch to Canon L or rather if you were to try to match a Canon L you may end up paying significantly more for the Nikon variant.

Hearing about image quality is quite twisted, don't you think? After all, you don't hear images, you see them, so use the proper sense to judge image quality. Find images shot with a certain lens, in the kind of settings you'd use it (no point in inspecting wide-open performance, when you only want to shoot at f/8–f/16) and your desired output media (no need to look at 50MP images at 1:1 view, when you don't plan on printing 36" × 24" images and looking at them under a microscope). That way, you'll get a better representation of what you may find if you bought it and used it yourself.

I know there are so many reviews out there, that it's much easier to just read and decide if something is good enough, but I've made that mistake myself—I bought an Olympus 9-18 lens when all reviews and reports I read stated it's a very good lens, and when I got it I saw a lot of chromatic aberration, too much in my opinion. Turns out that I could have always seen that, had I actually looked at images posted in those reviews and elsewhere, and also in test data.

 

[Ziad joseph]

Much thanks for the excellent contribution Ido S, what I am aiming to do is to assess if I make a switch if I will be pleased with my lens options in my budget and expectations. I know I will be happy with the cam but I believe the photographer, glass and then camera are the order of importance. Hence I could have the best cam but put crappy glass on it then it makes no sense switching, I am the only constant and my budget.

I referred to "hearing" with respect to feedback from users in the community who have expressed their desire to go to Nikon for example when dissatisfied with the tool for their need at Canon per se but no doing so because they found to get comparable IQ in glass they had to spend more money. Maybe a small selection of folk but it was just something I wanted to sift through before I decide as budget is my critical factor.

You have offered up a lot of good options here, as suggested I will "look" first and see fir myself. many thanks

Ziad

-

Ziad Joseph

Explore Ziad Joseph’s 822 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com