Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: NickJB on April 09, 2009, 01:36:18 pm
-
The eternal question, Nikon or Canon - in this case the D3X or MkIII? (Actually I really want a Hassy H3D 50, but thats going to have to wait for another year or two).
I shoot people and locations. Portraits and environmental portraits, mostly keeping within the normal range of lenses, so probably looking at the 16-35mm f2.8 on the Canon and 14-24 2.8 on the Nikon as the absolute widest and then 200mm on the longer end for both makes. If I need longer lenses, I'd be renting.
So I'm looking at a wide angle, normal and short telephoto zooms to cover me from 14/16mm up to 200mm, all at 2.8, then maybe a fast wide/normal lens and a couple of faster portrait lenses (85/105mm) and a good macro.
I'm looking for top quality lenses. I'd love to get some thoughts on best lenses to consider for each camera in the range I'm looking at (and the use I'm looking at) plus any thoughts on relative costs of either set-up.
many thanks.
nick
-
Hi Nick,
I shoot with a canon 1DS Mrk3.
Just to give you a quick overview without getting into every lens:
Nikon wide pro zooms are currently better than Canon's offerings. Especially the 14-24mm
Standard primes, macro and short pro telephoto primes. Both Canon and Nikon make good lenses in this range.
70-200mm f2.8 Canon leeds the way here.
Cheers
Dave
The eternal question, Nikon or Canon - in this case the D3X or MkIII? (Actually I really want a Hassy H3D 50, but thats going to have to wait for another year or two).
I shoot people and locations. Portraits and environmental portraits, mostly keeping within the normal range of lenses, so probably looking at the 16-35mm f2.8 on the Canon and 14-24 2.8 on the Nikon as the absolute widest and then 200mm on the longer end for both makes. If I need longer lenses, I'd be renting.
So I'm looking at a wide angle, normal and short telephoto zooms to cover me from 14/16mm up to 200mm, all at 2.8, then maybe a fast wide/normal lens and a couple of faster portrait lenses (85/105mm) and a good macro.
I'm looking for top quality lenses. I'd love to get some thoughts on best lenses to consider for each camera in the range I'm looking at (and the use I'm looking at) plus any thoughts on relative costs of either set-up.
many thanks.
nick
-
Perfect! Thanks Dave. That's the quick info I needed.
If I was looking at 2.8 zooms right now for the Canon, what would you think, 16-35mm 2.8L; 24-70mm 2.8L: 70-200 2.8L then the 85mm 1.2 for portraits?
A lot of the primes out there by both companies are just beautiful, but the way commercial styles are moving these days (fast moving lifestyle), zooms are just so much more usable than primes.
Nikon wide pro zooms are currently better than Canon's offerings. Especially the 14-24mm
Standard primes, macro and short pro telephoto primes. Both Canon and Nikon make good lenses in this range.
70-200mm f2.8 Canon leeds the way here.
Cheers
Dave
-
Perfect! Thanks Dave. That's the quick info I needed.
If I was looking at 2.8 zooms right now for the Canon, what would you think, 16-35mm 2.8L; 24-70mm 2.8L: 70-200 2.8L then the 85mm 1.2 for portraits?
A lot of the primes out there by both companies are just beautiful, but the way commercial styles are moving these days (fast moving lifestyle), zooms are just so much more usable than primes.
That's a good choice and it's pretty much what I shoot with. The 70-200 2.8L and the 85mm 1.2 are both great lenses. I expect Canon will improve it's wide angles over the next couple of years. Already the new 24mm f.1.4 is getting good reviews so the technology is there.
-
Unless you need the speed. I would go with the 24-105 f4 over the 24-70 as the 24-70 is just too damm heavy. Get the new 16-35 mk 11 over the original. David
-
Nikon has a new 70-200 in the pipeline,designed for the full frame D series.
Also the current Nikkor 24-70 is a lot smaller than the Canon 24-70,plus it's not that horrible off white.
My pet hate with Canon.
-
There's also older lenses if you're looking at primes. Canon has the edge on wide and fast primes by a bit - IF you can afford it, that is.(50mm f/1.2 USM for instance) If that's not critical - pushing that last stop or two, then it's a coin toss. I personally like Canon's feel and features a bit more than the Nikon.
-
It's interesting that price was mentioned, regarding Canon. I just did a rough price comparison of a D3X with 2.8 zoom lenses (shooting people and editorial, a necessity as well as a visual style choice) from 14 to 200mm for the Nikon and 17-200 for the Canon, plus the fastest 85mm portrait lens they have (all priced non imports at B+H) and the Canon came in at $13,210 and the Nikon at $14,630. Quite a difference. The Canon would have been even cheaper, but the Canon 85mm 1.2 was $1870 versus the Nikon 85mm 1.4D at $1230. That was of course with the Mk III at $7G and the D3X at $8G
(if you're interested, that was choosing in the Canon line up - all L series 2.8's - 16-35 ; 24-70 ; 70-200 (plus the 85 1.2) / Nikon line up - all G ED 2.8's - 14-24 ; 24-70 ; 70-200 (plus the 85 1.4)).
In 35mm I've been always been a Nikon user and I much prefer their hand feel to the Canons, plus the SB on camera flash units are unbeatable, but with things like NX software (way too slow for any high volume pro application) and having to pay for Camera Control Pro just to tether the camera, it might be time to jump ship.
The Nikon 70-200 lens is another major issue. Why release a camera like the D3X and not have a pro 70-200 2.8 available for it? I've used it with the D2X and it was fabulous, but I've heard horrible things about it on the full frame sensor.
So, if I'm going to go Canon and want to stick with 2.8 or faster (which I do) for zooms, would there be any other lenses I should look at apart from the L series 16-35 ; 24-70 ; 70-200?
Thanks for your help guys. Much appreciated!
nick
-
Remember you can mount a Nikkor lens on a Canon body but you can't mount a Canon lens on a Nikon body. I have a 5DII w/Nikkor 14-24, and the rest Canon lenses 24-105IS 4.0. I started with the 24-70 2.8 but found the "IS" more important than the 2.8 and both equally sharp. I had a 70-200IS 2.8 and now have the 4.0 version because it is a tad sharper and much lighter.
Marc
-
So I'm looking at a wide angle, normal and short telephoto zooms to cover me from 14/16mm up to 200mm, all at 2.8, then maybe a fast wide/normal lens and a couple of faster portrait lenses (85/105mm) and a good macro.
The primes are a pretty obvious choice, but let me describe what I think are the most basic and common zoom configurations for Canon:
A. Light weight, extreme range.
24-105 f/4 IS
100-400 f/4 IS
B. Ultra wide angle, higher quality, still light weight.
17-40 f/4
70-200 f/4 IS
C. Typical wide aperture zoom
16-35 f/2.8
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8 IS
-
Perfect! Thanks Dave. That's the quick info I needed.
If I was looking at 2.8 zooms right now for the Canon, what would you think, 16-35mm 2.8L; 24-70mm 2.8L: 70-200 2.8L then the 85mm 1.2 for portraits?
A lot of the primes out there by both companies are just beautiful, but the way commercial styles are moving these days (fast moving lifestyle), zooms are just so much more usable than primes.
You can save a bunch of money without giving up too much quality by going with Canon's dirt-cheap 85 mm f:1.8; it's not officially an L-lens, but it's extremely sharp and very light. Wide open it goes soft in the corners, but that's actually a nice look for a portrait lens. The 135 mm f:2 L is simply a fantastic lens; scary sharp, light enough to handle easily, great bokeh. I actually like the working distance for tight portraits.
Canon's original 16-35 f:2.8 L is pretty bad in the corners with distortion, color fringing and poor sharpness. The 16-35 f:2.8 II is a lot better, but still no match for Nikon's 14-24.
-
The 16-35 f:2.8 II is a lot better, but still no match for Nikon's 14-24.
Agreed - but then again.. the Canon 24mm F1.4L MKII makes the Nikon 14-24 look like mush.
All depends on what sort of quality you want vs. convenience.
For ultimate image quality - Go primes at the wide end.
-
Hi!
I have some reservations about that. The way I'm shooting there is often little choice of vantage point, so we either frame or crop. Zooms allow for optimal framing. Single focals may be better than zooms but most of the advantage may be lost if you need to crop.
Best regards
Erik
Agreed - but then again.. the Canon 24mm F1.4L MKII makes the Nikon 14-24 look like mush.
All depends on what sort of quality you want vs. convenience.
For ultimate image quality - Go primes at the wide end.
-
i use a D3X, 5D2 and a Contax 645+DB. oddly, i end up using the 5D2 (initially purchased as a back-up) the most as it is the lightest and i care less about knocking it around.
you could just get the lighter 5D2 with one or two wide primes (zeiss nikon mount recommended) until you are ready to spend the dough on MF digital. unless you are a sports photographer and/or need robust design and weather proofing, differences in image quality are questionable (i.e. between the 5D2 and 1DSM3). the D3X's sensor is better than that of the 1DSM3 - the extra $1600 you cited is worth it.
-
Remember you can mount a Nikkor lens on a Canon body but you can't mount a Canon lens on a Nikon body. I have a 5DII w/Nikkor 14-24, and the rest Canon lenses 24-105IS 4.0. I started with the 24-70 2.8 but found the "IS" more important than the 2.8 and both equally sharp. I had a 70-200IS 2.8 and now have the 4.0 version because it is a tad sharper and much lighter.
Marc
Thanks Marc,
I didn't think of that.
What's needed to mount a Nikon onto a Canon (1Ds MkIII in this case)? Do I lose any functions of the lens (auto focus, aperture settings etc) or do I need to jump into the menu settings to set up the lens (can be problematic on a fast paced shoot)?
Thanks!
nick
-
I'd have a hard time imagining a better setup for your uses than the A900 with Zeiss 16-35, 24-70, 85, 135 and the Sony 70-200 2.8...plus you could buy a backup body as well. I shoot primarily portraits/editorial myself, and I wouldn't trade that setup for any other 35mm option, regardless of price. Just food for thought.
-
Thanks Marc,
I didn't think of that.
What's needed to mount a Nikon onto a Canon (1Ds MkIII in this case)? Do I lose any functions of the lens (auto focus, aperture settings etc) or do I need to jump into the menu settings to set up the lens (can be problematic on a fast paced shoot)?
Thanks!
nick
I ended up with a Nikkor 14-24 and a 16:9 lever adapter, focus and aperture control manual only, no menu selections needed, great for landscapes and liveview not good for speed, the 17-40 used is cheap enough so I would use that for fast shooting and the Nikkor when IQ is more important. The Canons are great for the rest of your needs.
Marc
-
It's interesting that price was mentioned, regarding Canon....
So, if I'm going to go Canon and want to stick with 2.8 or faster (which I do) for zooms, would there be any other lenses I should look at apart from the L series 16-35 ; 24-70 ; 70-200?
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm (http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm)
Like I said, $1400 kind of puts a damper on it real quick... OTOH, the 50mm 1.4 is nearly as good at a paltry $300 or so.
My point is that Canon IS expensive if you get into specialty lenses, pretty quickly. But thankfully, there are so many to chose from that you can almost always get the same results for a fraction of the cost(though your lenses might not all say "L" on the side - heh)
I like primes. Never really got into zooms, though as others have mentioned, they are nice to adjust the framing with. A short-range high quality zoom is also a good choice. Of course, a T/S lens is a valuable tool as well.
-
The Sony's are very interesting and in a couple of years I'd be more open to considering them seriously, but right now they aren't supported in the rental houses. On the other hand I can rent Nikon/Canon/Hassleblad/Profoto etc just about anywhere in the world. I think if I was going to save some coin on the bodies, I'd be more inclined to look at the 5D MII, which is what I'm doing right now. The build quality is not like the 1Ds MkIII, but at $4300 cheaper.........
-
Well, if Minolta is in the mix as well, yes, there are hundreds of older Minolta lenses out there that will work on the A900. Yes, they are all used, but used isn't a deal-killer in my book. My own preference was always Minolta in the old days of film.
-
Given what your needs are you seem to be the perfect candidate for Sony Alpha 900 with Carl Zeiss zooms and 85mm/135mm ultrafast glass and Minolta/Sony G lenses to fill the other needs. The look of all this glass is unique and helps discern from the competition that will be using Canikon 90% of the time. All your lenses will have image stabilisation and everything you mention to be needing will be available at very high quality, on par with Nikon or even exceeding it. (On the wide end Canon cannot really compete.) Have a look at this sample from Minolta 35mm f1.4 G lens, shot with available light at iso 400 and aperture f2.2:
[attachment=12911:Minolta_35mm_1.4_G.jpg]
I'll take a further look at the Sony and Zeiss glass, but I've heard differing opinions on the Zeiss lenses - mainly about at least some of the lenses being 3rd party built, by the same company that made the old Vivitar lenses. Of course the D3X is really just the Sony A900 in a different body........
I'm leaning towards the Canon, with a medium and 70-200mm zooms, but primes at the wide end rather than a zoom - maybe even Nikons or Zeiss.
All this talk of top quality lenses is just making me lust after the H3D more and more..... I was looking at some shots taken with the 28mm on the H3D 39 the other day - just stunning quality. Hopefully the 35mm manufacturers will start to move their attention from the pixel wars now and start to put more R&D into lens development to take advantage of the new sensors. That's where I could see Nikon making inroads into the Canon market again.
-
Seems like you are somewhat poorly informed. Zeiss glass in Minolta/Sony A-mount is made under direct supervision of Zeiss, by Zeiss trained people, with special Zeiss equipment and Zeiss quality control. Such lenses have two serial numbers: a Zeiss number for the glass and a Sony number for the entire product. These Zeiss designs have been made newly and are exclusively available to Sony. So they are not the same as some designs available in other mounts and of course they are AF/IS. Of the cheaper Sony lenses there are some that appear to be the same as Tamron, but these are not interesting to you, based on your demands. The lenses you would need are apparently all made by Sony -former Minolta- in their own factory. Minolta used to have their own glass production which allowed them to design very exclusive lenses, like the 35mm from which I showed you a picture.
Regarding the quality of the Hasselblad 28mm: it is not an extraordinary design at all. It's just that Hasselblad has incorporated specific digital corrections through software. If you want really outstanding glass for medium format then you should look at Zeiss lenses as they were made for Contax or Rolleiflex, or have a look at Schneider lenses for Rolleiflex if you want to be in lens-heaven.
Interesting. That's the thing with the web, lots of information out there, but trying to sort the wheat from the chaff is not easy. And forget the days of having a nice leisurely chat about equipment with your local friendly photo dealer, they're all on the phone doing eBay and web sales.......
You are probably right about the Zeiss glass (I really don't know), but for me the problem is how much time do I invest in researching out the equipment and then sourcing a couple of pieces to test, when I know that both Nikon and Canon have equipment used and tested by pros around the world. Nikon and Canon are the industry standards, just as Hassy and Phase One are standards in MF, Sinar in LF and Profoto in lighting. That's why I think the Sony's will become a much stronger brand worth considering (for me) in a couple of years time. Personally, I'm not ready to be an early adopter, it doesn't work with my business model (which requires access to rentals and backup gear thru CPS etc). When this recession turns around, maybe I'll get one as a backup camera to test, but not right now.
Contax lenses, oh yeah. I loved the Contax 645 and a Phase back set-up. Beautiful. For me some of the best lenses for that intangible feel in MF are still the RZ's though - technically people can crap all over them, but they have a feel on film that is - IMO - unmatched. It's such a pity they can't be used with a digital back without losing that quality (which needs to be seen frame edge to frame edge), but that's a whole other discussion........
-
Well,
The Zeiss ZF lens line is built by Cosina with QA from Zeiss. Lloyd Chambers has some extensive testing on them and he likes them mostly. He has seen a significant sample variation on ZF-lens line. The ZA lenses for Sony come with a QC tag signed of by a gentleman working for Zeiss. I happen to have two of those lenses the 16-80/3.5-4.5 Vario Sonnar for APS-C and the 24-70/2.8ZA, both are good lenses but need to be stopped down for good corner sharpness. Sharpness in the central part is OK at all apertures. Both ZA lenses have some issues with corner sharpness at the shortest focal length.
If you compare MTF curves provided by Hasselblad for the H and V series it is quite obvious that the Fuji-lenses for H cameras have better MTF than the Zeiss lenses for the V series. All that data is available on Hasselblad's site.
Regarding lenses they are sort of individual. Makes may have certain characteristics but lenses vary, some designs are very good and others less so. There are some design traits common to certain lenses like the relatively high central sharpnessof the Zeiss lenses.
I have some samples of some of my lenses on PBase: http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_test (http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_test)
These pictures were shot quite soon after I bought my A900 and before I made microfocus adjustment.
BTW, Michael Reichmann who is the owner of Luminous-Landscape is using the A900 as a long term test equipment and seems to be quite satisfied with both camera and lenses.
Here are some comprehensive tests of lenses for the Sony Alpha: http://www.newcamerareview.com/lens_reviews_id21.html (http://www.newcamerareview.com/lens_reviews_id21.html)
Best regards
Erik
Seems like you are somewhat poorly informed. Zeiss glass in Minolta/Sony A-mount is made under direct supervision of Zeiss, by Zeiss trained people, with special Zeiss equipment and Zeiss quality control. Such lenses have two serial numbers: a Zeiss number for the glass and a Sony number for the entire product. These Zeiss designs have been made newly and are exclusively available to Sony. So they are not the same as some designs available in other mounts and of course they are AF/IS. Of the cheaper Sony lenses there are some that appear to be the same as Tamron, but these are not interesting to you, based on your demands. The lenses you would need are apparently all made by Sony -former Minolta- in their own factory. Minolta used to have their own glass production which allowed them to design very exclusive lenses, like the 35mm from which I showed you a picture.
Regarding the quality of the Hasselblad 28mm: it is not an extraordinary design at all. It's just that Hasselblad has incorporated specific digital corrections through software. If you want really outstanding glass for medium format then you should look at Zeiss lenses as they were made for Contax or Rolleiflex, or have a look at Schneider lenses for Rolleiflex if you want to be in lens-heaven.
-
but for me the problem is how much time do I invest in researching out the equipment and then sourcing a couple of pieces to test, when I know that both Nikon and Canon have equipment used and tested by pros around the world. Nikon and Canon are the industry standards, just as Hassy and Phase One are standards in MF, Sinar in LF and Profoto in lighting.
I'd consider Minolta to the also part of the industry standard. Or at least it was. Sony took over Minolta pretty much in name only and the same factories are making the cameras and lenses. Their real problem, though, was no full-frame camera for the last 3-4 years, so it kind of stalled their use for pro work, since the generation of older lenses couldn't be used very well. It was really a waiting game by pros to see if/when a full frame model would be made. Which Minolta/Sony pretty much lost. They just waited too long and almost everyone bought a Canon or Nikon.
But it's still a viable third choice. I guess It's like in MF - I'd also add Leaf and a couple of others as serious contenders as well. And sometimes there are good values to be had. At $2199(body only), the A900 is also not so bad a deal. It's at least worth taking the time to consider. Either you love it or it'll reinforce your decision about one of the other two.
-
Hi,
Nikon was DX only for a long time, makes sense that designed their optics for the sensors they had. But than they suddenly decided they needed FX after all. With Canon you also have the option of going with the 5DII. Having two bodies may be nice in some situations, especially if one of them fails.
There are a lot of lens test, unfortunately not that many on full frame.
There are some reservations about the 16-35/2.8L, it seems that corner performance is far from optimal on the short end, if pixel peeping in the corners is not your cup of tea it simply may not matter for you.
Best regards
Erik
It's interesting that price was mentioned, regarding Canon. I just did a rough price comparison of a D3X with 2.8 zoom lenses (shooting people and editorial, a necessity as well as a visual style choice) from 14 to 200mm for the Nikon and 17-200 for the Canon, plus the fastest 85mm portrait lens they have (all priced non imports at B+H) and the Canon came in at $13,210 and the Nikon at $14,630. Quite a difference. The Canon would have been even cheaper, but the Canon 85mm 1.2 was $1870 versus the Nikon 85mm 1.4D at $1230. That was of course with the Mk III at $7G and the D3X at $8G
(if you're interested, that was choosing in the Canon line up - all L series 2.8's - 16-35 ; 24-70 ; 70-200 (plus the 85 1.2) / Nikon line up - all G ED 2.8's - 14-24 ; 24-70 ; 70-200 (plus the 85 1.4)).
In 35mm I've been always been a Nikon user and I much prefer their hand feel to the Canons, plus the SB on camera flash units are unbeatable, but with things like NX software (way too slow for any high volume pro application) and having to pay for Camera Control Pro just to tether the camera, it might be time to jump ship.
The Nikon 70-200 lens is another major issue. Why release a camera like the D3X and not have a pro 70-200 2.8 available for it? I've used it with the D2X and it was fabulous, but I've heard horrible things about it on the full frame sensor.
So, if I'm going to go Canon and want to stick with 2.8 or faster (which I do) for zooms, would there be any other lenses I should look at apart from the L series 16-35 ; 24-70 ; 70-200?
Thanks for your help guys. Much appreciated!
nick
-
Interesting that's he's seeing the 1ds mkIII viefinder misalignment, I thought that had been fixed in newer models?
-
Thanks!
As you said, interesting!
Best regards
Erik
If you can read German, here is a direct comparison of the D3x, 1DsIII and A900, all three with their respective 24-70 2.8 zooms:
http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Flaggschiffe-im-Vergleich (http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Flaggschiffe-im-Vergleich)
Interesting read.
-
This should clear up the 'who makes the ZAs' question. Sony Japan videos of lenses being assembled at the Sony EMCS Corp facility. We see the 24-70 ZA in those videos, I would guess the others come from the same place.
http://www.sony.jp/dslr/products/tech-lab/...ml#Content_Area (http://www.sony.jp/dslr/products/tech-lab/index.html#Content_Area)
(Click 'Plant Tour' and then get clicking through all the links)
This still leaves open the question of where the actual components are made, but does this matter? Maybe to some.
-
The 16-35 f:2.8 II is a lot better, but still no match for Nikon's 14-24.
Agreed - but then again.. the Canon 24mm F1.4L MKII makes the Nikon 14-24 look like mush.
All depends on what sort of quality you want vs. convenience.
Speaking of convenience, a point that is usually overlooked in the 14-24+24-70 Vs 16-35+24-70 comparison is the the fact that if you shoot at 20-30mm a lot [as I do], then the Nikon combination will be more annoying to use, as you will be constantly be swapping back and for between two lens.
A sharper 16-35 would be nice, as would a F1.8 aperture.
-
It is quite common that the 16-35II gets bashed a bit for its corner performance.
The strong curvature of field is unfortunate for lens tests, for people it actually helps to keep distortion of heads and so on under control. If you use it for reportage or the wedding kind of stuff you are going to be happy with it. It' s sharper, weights less and focuses faster than the Nikon equivalent and is probably more useful than the exc.14-24mm. For people stuff I very much doubt that there is anything better out there than the Canon lens.
-
Thanks to everyone for their input. Very useful. I decided to go the 5D Mk II route with the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 lenses. I'll probably add a couple of primes as needed.
Reason for my choice - price, availability of rental lenses, CPS, potential additional income from video, ease of reselling equipment once economy turns around and I can get into MF DB's - or I can keep equipment because a decent 35mm option is always useful. I mean, $2700 US for a semi-pro quality 21 Mp camera?? Canon are almost giving away the camera if you buy their lenses......
If it wasn't for the huge investment required for the D3X and the added price of Nikon glass, I would have gone that route. But really, I was spending that much money, I'd rather invest in MF - probably the H3D.
Thanks again for everyones input. Just because I didn't go with your recommendation doesn't mean it's not a legitimate choice for your business or needs and that I didn't consider it.
Cheers!
nick
-
You can save a bunch of money without giving up too much quality by going with Canon's dirt-cheap 85 mm f:1.8; it's not officially an L-lens, but it's extremely sharp and very light. Wide open it goes soft in the corners, but that's actually a nice look for a portrait lens.
I second that opinion. Nice sized and very responsive. Has a good look wide open, though I get some color fringing around highlights from time to time.