Nikon or Canon glass??

[tshort]

Inasmuch as I am starting "from scratch", in terms of building my 35 mm digital system, I am free to to choose either Nikon or Canon.  

All the buzz has been about Canon for quite a while, due to their full-frame sensor on their 1D series cameras, while Nikon has seemed to refuse to offer anything like that so far.  

Let us assume that at some stage that will change, and Nikon will in fact put out something with a full frame CMOS in it.

Forgetting ergos, menu systems, etc, if one were to consider only the quality of lenses each system has to offer, does anyone have any data or opinions based on experience that would make them lean more toward one than the other?  My gut keeps telling me that Nikon glass would be better (old school thinking?  I started on 35mm film (Pentax) about 30 years ago). But there are plenty of "nikon vs canon" threads around that seem to say that Canon's USM/IS combination is better than anything Nikon offers.

On the Canon side, I'm leaning toward the 20D as the "starter" camera, and building my lens selection around f/2.8 L zooms (16-35, 70-200), and maybe the odd prime (50 mm f/1.4).  My work is in portraits and documentary/street shooting, with the odd soccer or hockey game thrown in (kid shots - teleconverter).

I don't know as much about Nikon glass in terms of specific lenses, but I'd guess they have lenses that are comparably spec'd.  Question is, which would be the better platform, for the long haul?  Any thoughts??

[panzer]

Longevity

When I was at the point you are now, though I had a Nik and a few lenses, I had decided to go with Can as I thought their AF system to be better.

However, whilst I was thinking about it, Can CHANGED THEIR LENS MOUNTS. I thought - hummmm: and went with Nik.

A few years later, Can CHANGED THEIR LENS MOUNTS AGAIN. Now it has been awhile since they did that (? ten years) - but I simply do not trust that they will not do it again.

I have 10 Nik bodies and a dozen lenses. With few exceptions, the newest lens will work with the oldest body and vice-versa.

It is arguable that Nik has paid a price for maintaining backwards compatibility but I simply cannot afford to replace that much equipment every few years: most of the cost is in the lenses - and it is the lenses that are important in capturing the light.

[tshort]

Longevity

[snip]

It is arguable that Nik has paid a price for maintaining backwards compatibility but I simply cannot afford to replace that much equipment every few years: most of the cost is in the lenses - and it is the lenses that are important in capturing the light.

Which is exactly why I'm asking the question - I, too, believe lenses are indeed the key.  Great points on longevity of the system, vs. cost to existing users of improving it.  Just the sort of input I'm looking for.  Thank you.

Anyone else?

[Hank]

We had a 30-year collection of Nikon lenses at about the time Canon brought out the D30.  I was mad at Nikon over other issues at the time, so rather than picking up the D1X I bought the D30 and four lenses for the same price.  Over the next couple of years I picked up a few more lenses and learned to really love them.  Both my wife and I shoot professionally and she wasn't ready to move on to digital, so we maintained the Nikon system for her continued use with film.  I also shot the Nikon during the same period, so I had a two year opportunity to use them more or less interchangeability.

In my experience it was a lot like comparing Ford and Chevy- both serviceable, but with adherents and marketing moguls muddying the waters.  The situation gets worse when you move from lenses to DSLRs and the land of the measurebaters and pixel peepers.  

The biggest practical differences I found boiled down to the tone or "feel" of the resulting images and to gaps in the respective lines.  In general Canon glass isslightly "warmer" than Nikon glass, roughly the equivalent of adding a very slight warming filter- even less than an 81A.

As for holes in the line, Nikon suffers for lack of tilt/shift lenses and Canon's WA lenses suffer in comparison to Nikons. Canon lenses feel a little more substancial and rugged than Nikons, but I can't say I've had trouble with either in really rugged use.  Canon has taken their lens line much futher down the IS path than Nikon has yet managed with their VR, but Nikon is slowly making strides.

For our uses the deciding issue was the poor performance of Canon strobes compared to Nikons, rather than any practical differences in lenses.  For "nature" shooting that is probably not a big issue, but for us it was a deal breaker.

I dumped the Canon gear several years ago, and frankly the only lenses I miss are the T/S models. If your shooting needs create an important niche for T/S lenses, I would certainly go with the Canon.  If not, then look carefully at other lenses in their lines that will be most useful to you, then make your choice based upon them.  

I don't think you will be unhappy with either line.

[BobMcCarthy]

I too was orphaned in the FD fiasco. Like Hank, a number of years tends to collect a system of lenses that work for your needs.

I stayed film longer than most, and stuck my toe in the water with the 10D. Then Canon orphaned that camera with its new edition of APS-C. I came to the conclusion that Canon likes to throw technology at the digital marketplace with (too) frequent updates and revisions.

I decided to tread water again. When the nikon D2 camera had a way to seamlessly use older AIS lenses I cast off the mass of my Canon FD & digital gear, and bought into the Nikon system. F5 and D2x, AF normals and tele's, AIS stars, DX wide zooms. The AIS stats are the 20/4, 28/2.0, 85/1.4 and 50-135 (equavalent to 70-200 in FF at 1/3 the size and weight.

The lens systems are really fine from both companies. I always settled on using the best lenses so my comments may or may not be correct on the consumer end of the lineups. I see very little difference in the capability of teles within the range I use (up to 400mm FF - Dx equivalent to 600/800).

As for wides, I'm using the 17-55& 12-24 Dx's and at present, are superior to the Canon equivalents as Canon currently delivers consumer lenses in their reduced format lenses. Canon wants pros to use their full frame camera/lens setup.

This could all change tomorrow.

Bob