Nikon or Canon lenses?

[richarddd]

I'm trying to decide which DSLR to buy and thought deciding on lenses would be a good step. Uses are primarily travel, nature, landscape, occasional wildlife.

Any strong preferences for one set over the other:

For Nikon:
- Sigma 10-20/4-5.6
- Nikon 18-200/3.5-5.6
- 80-400/4.5-5.6

For Canon:
- Canon 10-22/3.5-4.5 (or the Sigma)
- Sigma 18-200/3.5-6.3 OS
- 100-400/4.5-5.6

The longer lenses are much less important.

I'd probably get a D80 if Nikon or a 30D if Canon.

thanks

[wolfnowl]

Both companies make excellent equipment.  What will make the difference - for you - is how the camera feels in your hands, whether the controls and menu selections make sense, etc.  Things that you can only really determine by walking into a camera store and trying out both models and maybe others.  People can provide their own experience and insights, but no one else can tell you how something will look and feel for you.

A good camera store clerk will be willing to spend the time with you, answer your questions, let you try out both models, and may have questions or suggestions for things you hadn't even considered.  That's the way I used to sell cameras (okay, so it was 30 years ago, but anyway).

Mike.

[Don Libby]

Boy, this is very much like asking about Ford vs Dodge.  Both companies offer very good cameras and lens.  I've always shot with Canons having had Rebels, 20D, 5D, 1Ds and 1Ds II.  I only used Canon lens so can't speak about others.  My current kit includes a 5D and 1Ds II with lens going from 17-24 up to 300.  Of course I have a new love in my life, a Mamiya 645 AFD II with a Phase One P30 digital back; and there too if you ask folks about medium format you'll get and equal number of respones.  

Go with the kit that best suites you.  What feels better in your hand?  What feels better when you have it up to your eye?  Which is better for you when or if you wear glasses?  The most important aspect is money, what can you afford?  You can build a very nice kit with both Nikon and Canon.  Keep doing your research and visit camera stores.  Beware of those who bad mouth the others.

I was where you are now when I decided to move to medium format.  

GOOD LUCK!!!!


don

[dilip]

In many ways, you're the envy of the lot of us.

When I went digital, I had a legacy of Canon lenses, so the decision was pretty much made up for me.  You are a free agent.

Go to a good camera store.  Explain that you have a budget. Tel them that it is less than it actually is.

You're covering a really large range with the lenses (10-400mm).  You might not want to do it all at once.  Be willing to listen to suggestions on alternate lense selections (e.g. looking at a 24-70 and a 70-200 instead of the 18-200 and possibly sacrificing the 10mm wide for now).

Then play with the cameras.  See what feels good in your hands, and what looks good to your eyes.

Most of the world can't answer the question you're asking because we don't have both systems.  But I'm a little envious that you get to chose a system from scratch.

--dilip

[damien]

Nikon WIDE lenses are far better than Canon  in my opinion - I own a Nikon D200 with 17-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VR, 20mm f2.8, I also own a Canon 5D, 16-35 f2.8L USM11, 24-70 f2.8L, and 70-200 f2.8L.  The LONG zooms are of equal quality from my findings. The Canon is far better than the Nikon at making pictures. The Nikon is easier to use and has better ergonomics and is far cheaper.

Damien.

[Don Libby]

In many ways, you're the envy of the lot of us.

When I went digital, I had a legacy of Canon lenses, so the decision was pretty much made up for me.  You are a free agent.

Go to a good camera store.  Explain that you have a budget. Tel them that it is less than it actually is.

You're covering a really large range with the lenses (10-400mm).  You might not want to do it all at once.  Be willing to listen to suggestions on alternate lense selections (e.g. looking at a 24-70 and a 70-200 instead of the 18-200 and possibly sacrificing the 10mm wide for now).

Then play with the cameras.  See what feels good in your hands, and what looks good to your eyes.

Most of the world can't answer the question you're asking because we don't have both systems.  But I'm a little envious that you get to chose a system from scratch.

--dilip
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well said!

[richarddd]

Both companies make excellent equipment.  What will make the difference - for you - is how the camera feels in your hands, whether the controls and menu selections make sense, etc. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Very true, and I appreciate the response and the other similar responses, but I was asking about the difference in lenses, not the difference in camera bodies or systems.  The feel of the two bodies I'm considering is close enough that ergonomics is not the deciding factor for me.

[richarddd]

You're covering a really large range with the lenses (10-400mm).  You might not want to do it all at once.  Be willing to listen to suggestions on alternate lense selections (e.g. looking at a 24-70 and a 70-200 instead of the 18-200 and possibly sacrificing the 10mm wide for now).[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Coverage from 10-200 (or 10-400) is a large motivation for getting a DSLR. I can get 24-70 (36-105 35mm equivalent) with an advanced point and shoot, but I can't get 10-20.  

There are many ways to achieve that coverage, but a 10-20 and an 18-200 allows for a lot of coverage with low weight and high convenience, which is important for me, especially for general travel photography.  

I'd be more interested in other lenses if I needed faster glass or was concentrating on something that didn't require portability, such as sports or indoor concerts, or if I thought the image quality from these lenses would be unacceptable.

[richarddd]

Nikon WIDE lenses are far better than Canon  in my opinion - I own a Nikon D200 with 17-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VR, 20mm f2.8, I also own a Canon 5D, 16-35 f2.8L USM11, 24-70 f2.8L, and 70-200 f2.8L.  The LONG zooms are of equal quality from my findings. The Canon is far better than the Nikon at making pictures. The Nikon is easier to use and has better ergonomics and is far cheaper.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You have some great equipment there.

I'd imagine the 5D would have better image quality than the D200, because it is full frame.  Is IQ what you mean by "better at making pictures"? The D200 and 5D are too heavy for me (I was playing with a D200 yesterday).  

I agree with you regarding ease of use.  I prefer the ergonomics of the Nikons I've tried, but don't find such a big difference between the D80 and the 30D that ergonomics would be the deciding factor.  That's why I'm trying to concentrate on lens quality (and lens size, weight and convenience) rather than body quality.

[dseelig]

You have some great equipment there.

I'd imagine the 5D would have better image quality than the D200, because it is full frame.  Is IQ what you mean by "better at making pictures"? The D200 and 5D are too heavy for me (I was playing with a D200 yesterday). 

I agree with you regarding ease of use.  I prefer the ergonomics of the Nikons I've tried, but don't find such a big difference between the D80 and the 30D that ergonomics would be the deciding factor.  That's why I'm trying to concentrate on lens quality (and lens size, weight and convenience) rather than body quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128161\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One other thing if you like shooting avaible light then def go canon

[richarddd]

One other thing if you like shooting avaible light then def go canon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If I were shooting extensively at 1600 or 3200 I would definitely go Canon.  It would be rare for me to shoot above 100.  Are you talking about Canon's high ISO advantage or something else?

[jmboss]

I'm trying to decide which DSLR to buy and thought deciding on lenses would be a good step. Uses are primarily travel, nature, landscape, occasional wildlife.

Any strong preferences for one set over the other:

For Nikon:
- Sigma 10-20/4-5.6
- Nikon 18-200/3.5-5.6
- 80-400/4.5-5.6

For Canon:
- Canon 10-22/3.5-4.5 (or the Sigma)
- Sigma 18-200/3.5-6.3 OS
- 100-400/4.5-5.6

The longer lenses are much less important.

I'd probably get a D80 if Nikon or a 30D if Canon.

thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My personal preference would be the Canon 30D (or the new 40D later this year).

Hopefully, you have "real" photographic equipment store that's still in business and within a reasonable driving distance, that carries some or all of the lenses on your list and employs knowledgeable salespeople that can demo those products to you.

When you mention travel, it looks like you are into some architectural photography with the 10-22mm lens on your list. Since you are considering a Canon SLR with a 1.5x FOV, this lens is the only choice, IMHO.

For weight and travel considerations, the 18-200mm Sigma is just fine too. Maybe even the only lens you may need, except for those building interiors.

If you are not really into wildlife photography, and since 200mm is the equivalent of a 300mm focal length with the 30D, I would save the money for a good flash such as the 580EX II and forgo purchasing the 100-400mm lens.

All the best with your research,

Joe Bossuyt

[kaelaria]

(or the new 40D later this year).

...maybe   That's been said for over a year now...

[elkhornsun]

For the photography you mention being interested in I would not hesitate to recommend Nikon. I use both systems with the Canon Mark III for very low light wide angle photography using Canon 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, and 50mm f1.2 primes where it is superior to anything currently available from Nikon.

For normal lighting conditions or using zooms from wide angle to super telephoto the Nikon offerings are superior in several important regards. The Nikon lenses are better built and require less in the way of repairs. Read posts on dpreview for people who have had to send brand new lenses in for repair or have had to send the same lens in 2-4 time to get it repaired and you will notice that 99% of the time the post refers to a Canon lens. Nikon provides a 5-year warranty on all their USA lenses, Canon provides a 1-year warranty. Many wide angle zooms and supertelephotos can have problems through normal use. I would like to know that 3 years after I buy a lens if it starts to have focus or sharpness issues I only need to pay for the shipping to get it repaired.

Nikon flash is much better than what is provided by Canon and it also costs less. The Nikon CLS approach works very well for wireless flash and provides much more consistent flash exposures shot to shot. For macro the Nikon R1C1 setup is fantastic. Easy to do ratio lighting which really improves macro shots.

For wildlife photography the Nikon 200-400mm f4 VR lens is as sharp as primes within its range. I have produced sharp hand held shots at 1/30th with this lens. With any Nikon DSLR you have the picture angle equivalent of a 300-600mm f4 VR zoom.

Nikon produces a 1.7x teleconverter in addition to the standard 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. The 1.7x works in many situations that the 2x will not and yet provides a 75% boost over the 1.4x teleconverter in image magnification. Mate the 1.7x teleconverter to the 200-400mm VR and you have a very usable 1020mm f6.3 VR lens (FF equivalent picture angle - though still about 14x overall image magnification). Sitting in a blind you have the option of 200mm to 400mm and extending the reach with 1.4x, 1.7x, or 2x teleconverters with image quality that is far superior to the 100-400mm f4.5~5.6 Canon tele with the Canon 1.4x or 2x teleconverters. The 100-400mm IS is lighter for carrying around but that is the only real adavantage the Canon setup provides.

One thing that I think is a real plus is that any lens Nikon makes will work on any camera they sell (not always VR with all cameras). So any consumer or pro level lens will work on a D40 or a D2X. With Canon there are lenses that only work on the consumer bodies and not the Mark III or the FF cameras. And the FF 5D is limited both by its 3fps maximum capture rate and its lack of weather sealing.

[Deep]

Why limit yourself to Canon or Nikon?  If lenses are important, you really should consider the four thirds system (Olympus mainly).  For the money you are talking about spending you could get a E330/500 or even 510 or Panasonic L1 with purpose built glass.  Dredge through a few forums and look at the results people get with this system.  It could well broaden your horizons!  I moved from Canon to Olympus because I could not afford the Canon bodies needed to make the most of the better Canon lenses and I am in no huge hurry to move back!

Don.

[mahleu]

One thing that I think is a real plus is that any lens Nikon makes will work on any camera they sell (not always VR with all cameras). So any consumer or pro level lens will work on a D40 or a D2X. With Canon there are lenses that only work on the consumer bodies and not the Mark III or the FF cameras. And the FF 5D is limited both by its 3fps maximum capture rate and its lack of weather sealing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Only dx lenses will AF on the D40X. There are only about 5 EF-S lenses which only work on the lower end canons.

[dseelig]

If you are shooting low light go canon your lenses are slow so  would go canon just for the sake of better high iso .  David

Only dx lenses will AF on the D40X. There are only about 5 EF-S lenses which only work on the lower end canons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130994\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[elkhornsun]

I'm trying to decide which DSLR to buy and thought deciding on lenses would be a good step. Uses are primarily travel, nature, landscape, occasional wildlife.

Any strong preferences for one set over the other:

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For general purpose photography there are clear advantages to going with Nikon:
1) more reliable - check all the posts for problems with ERROR99, IS issues, etc.
2) all Nikon lenses will work on the D80 - with Canon the 10-22 will not work on a 5D, Mark III or 1Ds body
3) better flash system - especially with the CLS commander built into the D80/D200 cameras for wireless control over a SB600 flash - better macro flash with R1C1 setup
4) Crop factor means lighter lenses and a 200mm lens provides the picture angle of a 300mm lens - saves weight, space, and money.

I use Nikon and Canon (Mark III and L glass) and the Nikons are the only gear I would dream of taking out of the country where camera or lens repair is not an option.

Image quality is better if you shoot at ISO 1600 or higher and use the Canon 5D or Mark III cameras. Otherwise this is of no concern for 99% of the pictures you are likely to take.

For lenses for travel a good combination is a 12-24mm zoom and a 50-150mm or 70-200mm zoom with the Nikon 10.5 fisheye. The Nikon 18-200mm VR lens is a good travel lens as well but VR or Canon IS for lenses only helps when your subject is not moving.

[DarkPenguin]

IS issues?

Oh, and all canon lenses will work on the 30d, xti, etc.  If nikon releases the expected full frame (or near full frame) how well do you think the DX lenses will work on that?

Biggest single reason to go nikon is the flash system.  Canon's keeps getting better but is still not as good.  (Or at least harder to figure out.)

So how often is your canon gear dropping dead such that you can't take it out into the country?

For general purpose photography there are clear advantages to going with Nikon:
1) more reliable - check all the posts for problems with ERROR99, IS issues, etc.
2) all Nikon lenses will work on the D80 - with Canon the 10-22 will not work on a 5D, Mark III or 1Ds body
3) better flash system - especially with the CLS commander built into the D80/D200 cameras for wireless control over a SB600 flash - better macro flash with R1C1 setup
4) Crop factor means lighter lenses and a 200mm lens provides the picture angle of a 300mm lens - saves weight, space, and money.

I use Nikon and Canon (Mark III and L glass) and the Nikons are the only gear I would dream of taking out of the country where camera or lens repair is not an option.

Image quality is better if you shoot at ISO 1600 or higher and use the Canon 5D or Mark III cameras. Otherwise this is of no concern for 99% of the pictures you are likely to take.

For lenses for travel a good combination is a 12-24mm zoom and a 50-150mm or 70-200mm zoom with the Nikon 10.5 fisheye. The Nikon 18-200mm VR lens is a good travel lens as well but VR or Canon IS for lenses only helps when your subject is not moving.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[John Camp]

The output from both systems is roughly equal, though the details are different. I can tell you that the Nikon 18-200 IMHO is a terrific lens for the price -- I have one installed semi-permanently on a D2x. Given your brief outline of what you intend to shoot -- which suggests you'll be on your feet quite a bit -- I would suggest that you put down the equipment you would be buying with each camera, and figure out weights and lens speeds that you need. Nikon will be lighter, faster and cheaper for equivalent FOVs. You can cover the full frame equivalent of roughly 18-300 with two very good Nikon lenses, of decent speed, or 18 to ~500 if you add a (very small) extender.

Canon's strength is in low light shooting where your back is against the wall and you have no options -- you're shooting very expensive, very fast lenses wide open at 1600 or 3200. For moderate priced lenses, Nikons are often a bit faster in the same length (because they're in fact shorter for the same FOV), so the available darkness factor levels out a bit, and you may be shooting a Nikon at 800 against a Canon at 1600.

I have been told by people who work with both systems that in terms of absolute resolution in good light with the same FOV, the FF Canons are slightly better, although the superiority is most often seen in test prints, rather than real-world shots.

JC