Nikon versus Canon Lenses

[JeffColburn]

Check out this chart http://www.timothyarmes.com/blog/2010/09/a-comparison-of-the-canon-and-nikon-lens-line-ups/

Have Fun,
Jeff

[kpmedia]

Nice chart, that will be useful to many of us that shoot both bodies. 

But I'd have to say the "summary" is far too Canon fanboy-ish for my tastes.

• For example, this comment: "Canon’s range of primes is more up to date, with many more lenses using USM/SW motors than the Nikon equivalents." Nikon simply made quite a few of those lenses pre-AFI/AFS. Canon did USM for about a 10-15 years longer than Nikon. I'm actually quite pleased with Nikon's update schedule on lenses.
• Or this one: "Canon offer more options for the popular 70-200mm range." Yeah, but most of those are re-issues of the same lens length. Who honestly has the funds to "upgrade" $1K+ (then $1.5K, now about $2K) lens every time a minor addition is made? Not me, that's for sure.
• This too: "Nikon are more expensive." Not really. Lenses and bodies vary wildly between the companies, on items many of us would consider to be comparable. For every $100-less Canon piece, I can find another item that's $100 less from Nikon.

Ironic given how he's switching to Nikon: http://www.timothyarmes.com/blog/2010/09/switch-to-nikon-why-would-i-do-that/

[RazorTM]

Nice chart, that will be useful to many of us that shoot both bodies.  

But I'd have to say the "summary" is far too Canon fanboy-ish for my tastes.

• For example, this comment: "Canon’s range of primes is more up to date, with many more lenses using USM/SW motors than the Nikon equivalents." Nikon simply made quite a few of those lenses pre-AFI/AFS. Canon did USM for about a 10-15 years longer than Nikon. I'm actually quite pleased with Nikon's update schedule on lenses.

I would call this a keen observation on Nikons late jump into the game rather than fanboyism...

• Or this one: "Canon offer more options for the popular 70-200mm range." Yeah, but most of those are re-issues of the same lens length. Who honestly has the funds to "upgrade" $1K+ (then $1.5K, now about $2K) lens every time a minor addition is made? Not me, that's for sure.

The various 70-200 options from Canon give you the ability to choose where you want to save money when buying one of those lenses.  Want an f/4 lens with IS? Got it.  Want an f/2.8 lens but think IS is useless? Got that, too.  Want to save a ton of cash and go with f/4 and no IS?  Want all the features with no compromise? Well, there seems to be an option for everyone!

• This too: "Nikon are more expensive." Not really. Lenses and bodies vary wildly between the companies, on items many of us would consider to be comparable. For every $100-less Canon piece, I can find another item that's $100 less from Nikon.

Most of those lenses are very close in features/performance, and for the most part, the Canon equivalents are cheaper.

Ironic given how he's switching to Nikon: http://www.timothyarmes.com/blog/2010/09/switch-to-nikon-why-would-i-do-that/

I wouldn't call that ironic at all.  You don't have to be in love with something to realize that it has benefits over your preferred gear.  I, for example, have an iMac and a Windows 7 PC at my home. I mostly use the Windows 7 PC out of preference, but I realize that the iMac does some things better than my favorite of the two computers.  Mr. Armes is, from what I'm reading in that article, choosing Nikon simply because one of their cameras has features that he can only get by buying 2 bodies with Canon.  In other words, his need for a specific feature set is overriding his preference either way for gear.  This is how I would expect any professional to choose his gear.

[JohnKoerner]

Good post RazorTM.

I myself chose Canon for nature photography, for precisely the reason that the company simply offers more and better macro options as well as more and better telephoto options. The Canon 7D is the best APS-C camera available, with a 1.6x reach factor added to any lens, and coupled with Canon's variety of macro lens options simply made Canon the way to go for me. And, when I eventually build my telephoto lens gear up to where I want it also, Canon has more and better options there also. The only lens that Nikkor has that interests me is their 200-400mm telephoto, but I can just get a Novoflex adapter and stick that on the end of my 7D if I want.

However, if I wanted to shoot the finest FF camera for landscapes, and/or if I had had unusually stringent low-light needs, I would probably choose Nikon D3s/x and would probably slap the Nikkor 14-24 lens at the end of it.

I don't think Mr. Armes was being a fanboy at all, I think he was merely stating the facts of the current offerings from both companies, and I think he was honest enough to admit and see that, athough Canon has the overall best (and most) offerings, that Nikon had the best offerings for his purposes.

And that is how a professional should make his decisions, on the facts that best suit his profession.

Jack




.

[Ray]

Interesting comparison!

As an owner of both a Nikon system and a Canon system, I find a certain degree of frustration in the lack of Nikkor lenses to my taste which might persuade me to do a complete switch to Nikon.

There's no doubt that the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 is a lens which Canon cannot match, and there's no doubt that the D700 (which I bought to use with the 14-24) has some enhanced performance charcteristics compared with my old Canon 5D, such as autobracketing of up to 9 exposures with a 1EV interval, autobracketing of ISO, a higher base ISO of 200 with better DR, and better high-ISO performance.

The combination of D700 with Nikkor 14-24/2.8 beats by a wide margin my Canon 5D with Sigma 15-30, which was a combination I used frequently in the field.

Neither the Nikkor 14-24 nor Sigma 15-30 have image stabilisation, so that factor is absent from any comparative advantage. If it were possible to produce a lens (such as the Nikkor 14-24) with a VR II, without compromising image quality or raising the price significantly, then that would be fantastic. (Canon please take note!)

The problem for me is, where do I go from here, equipment-wise? The new Nikkor 24-120/F4 zoom with VR seems to fit the bill. Two high quality lenses that together cover from 14mm to 120mm sounds ideal. But the jury still seems to be out on this lens. There are confusing test results so far. The optical quality may be mediocre.

Another issue for me to consider is, after buying the Nikkor 14-24 and D700, Canon announced a couple of greatly improved T&S lenses, the 17mm TSE and the 24mm TSE. I'm thinking that a new Canon 5D2 with 17 & 24 TSE lenses would be fantastically useful.

I admit that I used to kid myself that a 14-24 lens, with the help of modern stitching software, might do everything that the shift feature on a TSE lens could do, with the help of a bit of free-transform & warp in Photoshop.

However, after some experimentation with my old 24mm TSE, with lousy edge performance on full frame at full shift, I see that hand-held shots stitch perfectly in CS3 or CS5. A stitched result from 3 shifted images from a 17mm TSE is far wider and less distorted than a single shot from the Nikkor 14-24 at 14mm.

At this stage, it looks as though this combination of D700 and Nikkor 14-24 is going to be a one-off. The bulk of my images will continue to be from Canon equipment because I'm about to buy a 5D2 with the latest TSE lenses (for well-considered reasons).

Please dissuade me from this excessive splurge on camera gear  .

[John Camp]

I don't wish to sound harsh, but the odds are great that none of you is a good enough photographer that a change in gear would make the slightest difference. Each system is used by large numbers of extremely talented, highly paid professional photographers and I doubt that anyone, looking at the images, could tell who uses which. Rather than spending large sums of money on this stuff, a modest investment in time (a few weeks off from a regular job, to focus on photography) would seem a better investment.

JC

[Ray]

I don't wish to sound harsh, but the odds are great that none of you is a good enough photographer that a change in gear would make the slightest difference. Each system is used by large numbers of extremely talented, highly paid professional photographers and I doubt that anyone, looking at the images, could tell who uses which. Rather than spending large sums of money on this stuff, a modest investment in time (a few weeks off from a regular job, to focus on photography) would seem a better investment.

JC

John,
That is a bit harsh. But never mind. I can be a bit harsh myself sometimes.

I think we all have to accept that there's a distinction to be made between an interesting shot with artistic merit, and a technically perfect shot which lacks universal appeal and is a bit boring.

However, I think it's true to say that photos which may appear uninteresting to some or even most of us, are probably interesting to the person who took the shots and/or the people who may feature in the shots, so it's reasonable for such photographers, or snap-shooters if you like, to be concerned about the sharpness of their images.

Ansel Adam's quotation, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept" does not quite make literal sense (although I can see it's meant to be a metaphor). There is something worse; a fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept.

In order of preference, in general terms (there are always exceptions), I would place the 'sharp image of the sharp concept' first, followed by the 'unsharp (or technically flawed) image of the sharp concept' second, followed by the 'sharp image of the fuzzy concept' third, and the 'unsharp image of the fuzzy concept' last.

It's clear that for those who are passionate about photography, the sharpness of lenses, the pixel count of the camera, the camera's dynamic range and tonal range have always been major concerns, and continue to be major concerns for very good reasons.

The camera (the technology) strives to capture reality. The concept that 'the camera never lies' has never been strictly true because lenses are not perfectly sharp and distortion free, and because cameras don't have unlimited dynamic range and unlimited pixel count.

I think it would be true to say that the camera lies to the degree that lenses are imperfect, and to the degree that cameras have limited DR, tonal range, color sensitivity and pixel density etc, although of course 'lie' is not really the correct word here. A lie is deliberate and implies a choice as to whether to lie or to be honest.

Now, to get back to the Nikon versus Canon situation. For most of us who wish to capture reality as faithfully as possible, or at least capture that first stage in our making of a photograph as faithfully as possible, before we impose on such capture our own subjective interpretation of that reality, we are not only concerned about such technical attributes as sharpness in the corners, and detail in the shadows, but the economic cost of such equipment, and its flexibility and ease of use in the field for our purposes.

For example, image stabilisation in lenses (or anti-shake sensors in cameras) are a tremendous technological innovation which has redefined the 1/FL rule. A lens without IS or VR seems like legacy equipment to me. The original Canon 70-200/F4 was a highly regarded lens with excellent sharpness, and because it was F4 maximum, it was significantly lighter and also more affordable than the equally good 70-200/F2.8.

However, for some considerable time there was a choice in this range only between the heavier and more expensive 70-200/F2.8 IS, and the non-IS, legacy 70-200/F4.

Some time ago, Canon remedied this situation and brought out a 70-200/F4 IS which is even sharper than the legacy zoom without IS. Nikon is clearly lagging behind Canon in this respect.

Now I know you can claim this is understandable because Nikon have only fairly recently started producing full frame DSLRs, and to be fair, they have given Canon a good whack regarding the performance with their first FX DSLRs, the D3, D3X and D3s, and they've also produced an excellent wide-angle zoom, the 14-24/2.8, but other FX lens developments seem a bit disappointing. The new 24-120/F4 with VR does not seem to be of the the quality of the 14-24/2.8. Okay! It's cheaper, but double the price and increase the quality, and it still would not be excessively expensive. I'm very disappointed.

(By the way, when 'shooting clothes' I think it's best to use a camera with an AA filter to avoid aliasing problems with the fabric  ).

[JohnKoerner]

I don't wish to sound harsh, but the odds are great that none of you is a good enough photographer that a change in gear would make the slightest difference. Each system is used by large numbers of extremely talented, highly paid professional photographers and I doubt that anyone, looking at the images, could tell who uses which. Rather than spending large sums of money on this stuff, a modest investment in time (a few weeks off from a regular job, to focus on photography) would seem a better investment.
JC

Perhaps you need to speak for yourself, but I've had the last 1.5 decades off from a "regular job," so what you said has nothing to do with me. I have spent, and will continue to spend, as many hours a day as I can trying to perfect my technique.

Although I agree that your point is well-taken (in that both systems offer excellent options and have produced excellent photos for countless people), the fact is Nikon's macro and telephoto options are limited compared to Canon's. Try shooting a 5:1 macro shot with a Nikon. (What tools do they have for this?) Try building-up a gear pile with each system, and see which costs more money to do so.

It's not just a question of "can each system produce good photos?" (to which the answer is "yes!"); it's more a question of which system is offers the best value for your needs? For my own needs, the answer was Canon. For a fellow like Bernard, the answer was Nikon. Both answers were right for each person.

Thus, while it's true anyone so inclined (and so able) can produce excellent photos with either system, it is also true that both systems are NOT equal in total available options, nor in cost to build-up a gear pile for each person's unique needs. Ergo, the intelligent person will first investigate which system best covers his needs, and which will do so for the best value-for-the-buck (and the answer will not be the same for every body).

Canon still offers a better value and a more complete system for most people, which is why they have the market share they do. Yet, poetically, the author of the described article had enough integrity to be able to say this with conviction ... AND to switch to Nikon in the same breath for his own personal needs, without contradicting himself in the least bit.

Jack




.

[RFPhotography]

Nice chart, that will be useful to many of us that shoot both bodies. 

But I'd have to say the "summary" is far too Canon fanboy-ish for my tastes.

• For example, this comment: "Canon’s range of primes is more up to date, with many more lenses using USM/SW motors than the Nikon equivalents." Nikon simply made quite a few of those lenses pre-AFI/AFS. Canon did USM for about a 10-15 years longer than Nikon. I'm actually quite pleased with Nikon's update schedule on lenses.

That would seem to indicate, to me, that Canon's lens lineup is more 'up to date'.

• Or this one: "Canon offer more options for the popular 70-200mm range." Yeah, but most of those are re-issues of the same lens length. Who honestly has the funds to "upgrade" $1K+ (then $1.5K, now about $2K) lens every time a minor addition is made? Not me, that's for sure.

You don't have to.  Last I knew, Canon offered 4 variants of the 70-200.  You can pick your poison in terms what you want.  IS/non-IS.  f2/8 or f4.  Those 4 lenses have been around for several years.  Sure, they may update one or another from time to time but Nikon does that too (i.e., 70-200 f2.8 VRI and 70-200 f2.8 VRII).  Doesn't mean you have to rush out and buy the newest.

• This too: "Nikon are more expensive." Not really. Lenses and bodies vary wildly between the companies, on items many of us would consider to be comparable. For every $100-less Canon piece, I can find another item that's $100 less from Nikon.

Yes, really.  Having made the switch earlier this year from Canon to Nikon, I can say that for the most part, compariing like to like, Nikon is more expensive than Canon.  And in some cases there isn't a like to like comparison available because, unlike Canon which offers f4 variants of several of its L-series lenses, until very recently Nikon didn't.  And even now that Nikon is, the prices are still ridiculous.

John, I'm not sure I saw anywhere in this discussion where anyone said one set of gear or the other would make anyone a better photographer.