View Full Version : Canon vs Nikon glass
cuthbert
12-07-2010, 12:20
i've just discovered that the digital picture have got some lens comparisons for nikon lenses too. this is pretty interesting because it's possible to compare lenses from both canon and nikon under the same controlled conditions - the results are actually pretty interesting:
Canon EF 1.4 vs Nikon 1.4D AF-S
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=637&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=0
It's clear from this that the Canon lens suffers from less CA and is sharper at all apertures - the difference is less noticeable as you stop down.
Canon 85 1.8 vs Nikon 85 1.8D AF
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=642
The Nikon lens shows significantly more CA wide open (and is softer), becoming less apparent as you stop down.
Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro vs Nikon 105mm 2.8G AF-S VR Micro
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=107&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=645
here you can see the Nikon again shows more CA and is softer wide open than the Canon. The Canon at f2.8 seems to have better centre sharpness than the Nikon at f4. i know the focal length isn't quite the same, but it's the closed match i could find.
Canon 135mm f2 vs Nikon 135mm f2 AF-DC
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=646
the Canon 135 blows the Nikon away wide open and the Nikon shows more CA across the aperture range.
Canon EF 24-70 vs Nikon 24-70
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=618&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&Lens=101
the Nikon is noticeably sharper across the focal range and at all apertures.
Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L II vs Nikon 70-200 f2.8G AF-S VR
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0&LensComp=621&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLI=3&API=0
wide open it's pretty tricky to tell them apart at the wider end of the focal range, but heading towards 200mm the Canon is definitely sharper.
Canon EF 300mm f2.8 vs Nikon F2.8G AF-S VR II
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=705
The Canon is much sharper wide open, at f4 the difference is minimal at the centre of the frame but still softer in the corners on the Nikon.
So a pretty mixed bag, but is this because the methodology is flawed, ie comparing consumer lenses with high end lenses (i'll be the first to admit that i don't know what some of the letters mean on the nikon lenses).
however, looking through the lens comparisons it does show that when it comes to zooms, there isn't that much between the two - some are sharper from Nikon, some from Canon. it's quite hard to compare some lenses exactly because there are differences in aperture and focal length with may account for the performance difference.
nevertheless, it seems to me that when it comes to primes being used wide open, canon lenses seem to be shaper across the board.
so, is this an apples vs oranges comparison?
the thing which really surprised me the difference between the 85mm and 135mm lenses - common lengths for portraiture - is quite stark wide open - these i thought would be lenses which the manufacturer would try their very best to make sharp and as free of CA as possible - or are there better lenses out there for Nikon which are just not listed in the comparisons ? I'm really only able to aperture as a guide here?
Does it tell you somewhere how the samples were made? Eg don't Canon have more sharpening of jpegs by default so will appear sharper?
trencheel303
12-07-2010, 12:25
While I enjoy reading the-digital-picture reviews, the lens comparisons raise a lot of questions for me.
When I compared the 50mm f/1.2 and f/1.4, for instance, the f/1.4 showed up better in almost every respect. I also compared the 28-135 and the 24-105, and if I recall correctly, there was virtually nothing at all in it except for the 24-105 having a bit more contrast, and practically no CA in the middle of the range. Otherwise, the results just didn't add up to what most people say about the lens.
Most folk on here, and other places, highly reccommend the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. The-digital-picture's review of it is pretty damning as are the test charts.
Most of what I've compared on there has been absolute polar opposites to pretty much what I read on the rest of the Internet, and quite often on here, so I take the test charts on there with a big pinch of salt.
Good finds those, although I must admit that I really don't care as long as my images are acceptably sharp to me...lol
desantnik
12-07-2010, 13:14
Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L II vs Nikon 70-200 f2.8G AF-S VR
Try comparing like with like there - the VR II is the equivalent...
To be fair, Nikon have a fraction of the R&D and production money of Canon and people forget that. They also remained committed to their customers when Canon flushed their's down the crapper a few years back.
So what you are looking at is largely a generation of kit that's far from new.
Except the Nikon "holy trinity", which demonstrates what Nikon are capable of if they have the money... Quite frankly these coupled with the likes of the D3 lay waste to pretty much everything else and cover most of what the serious professionals need..
Turning into a Canon vs Nikon thread.... hmmm how *did* that happen.
Kaouthia
12-07-2010, 13:15
I'm with Grum, I'd like to see exactly what settings they used on the cameras in order to produce these images. Especially given that it's an obviously Canon-biased site, I'd be inclined to believe that the settings were tweaked to show in favour of the Canon in, apparently, all circumstances.
trencheel303
12-07-2010, 13:17
Except the Nikon "holy trinity", which demonstrates what Nikon are capable of if they have the money...
you could say the same for Canon 200/2 and 85/1.2
<snip>
so, is this an apples vs oranges comparison?
<snip>
Yes, not quite apples and oranges perhaps, but granny smiths vs golden delicious, with a couple of lemons thrown in.
I don't think you can accuse that site of Canon/Nikon bias (they get money from advertisers) but in presenting things in the way they have you need to take a fair few factors into account. The main thing is they are not testing them on the same camera, obviously. That makes a big difference, and then there is the post processing which may or may not suit one brand more than the other.
To see what kind of difference the camera makes (a lot!) load up the same lens, focal length and f/number etc and swap the cameras around, although some lenses are only tested on one body.
As a general comment I don't trust their tests of short focal length lenses, particularly shorter lenses with low f/numbers. You just can't do that reliably using a flat test target shot at very close distance. They kind of acknowledge this problem if you check the small print of their methodology (eg Canon 17-55 2.8) but there is a lot more to their reviews than just the test chart crops. I think they're very good for longer lenses.
Bottom line is that if Canon lenses were significantly better than Nikon acrosss the range, which I certainly don't believe they are, nobody would use Nikon. Simple as really.
Kaouthia
12-07-2010, 13:46
I don't think you can accuse that site of Canon/Nikon bias (they get money from advertisers)
The big "Canon News" link at the top, the fact that these comparisons are in a "Canon Lens Reviews" section, and that all his "Recommended shopping resources" link to Canon glass would imply otherwise.
As you say, shooting these lenses on a single body throughout would produce fairer results. Many of the people I know who shoot video on the 5DMk2 and 7D actually do so with Nikon glass.
desantnik
12-07-2010, 13:51
Many of the people I know who shoot video on
the 5DMk2 and 7D actually do so with Nikon glass.
Because Canon dumped the aperture ring with the FD mount.
If you want AF and an aperture ring (for focus pulling), a (older) Nikon lens is the perfect solution.
Kaouthia
12-07-2010, 13:53
You don't need to adjust the aperture while shooting anyway. Can you not pre-set the aperture on the Canon bodies before you start recording? They didn't seem to have a problem shooting the House finale with all-Canon glass.
You don't use an aperture ring for focus pulling. You use the focus ring for focus pulling (the clue's in the name). You wouldn't want to be using autofocus while shooting serious video anyway.
And many current Nikon lenses still have an aperture ring (50mm f/1.8D or 300mm f/4 AF-S, for example).
desantnik
12-07-2010, 13:58
Hmmm its definitely something to do with having the aperture ring that they are wanted.... don't ask me what it seems though :D
(this moving picture thing will never catch on ;-))
Do all Nikon users have an inferiority complex? You can shoot video with a bottle bottom anyway :D
cuthbert
12-07-2010, 14:01
As a general comment I don't trust their tests of short focal length lenses, particularly shorter lenses with low f/numbers. You just can't do that reliably using a flat test target shot at very close distance. They kind of acknowledge this problem if you check the small print of their methodology (eg Canon 17-55 2.8) but there is a lot more to their reviews than just the test chart crops. I think they're very good for longer lenses.
Bottom line is that if Canon lenses were significantly better than Nikon acrosss the range, which I certainly don't believe they are, nobody would use Nikon. Simple as really.
i agree 100% undoubtedly this is true and as trencheel303 says, this is perhaps one of the reasons why the af aspect of the sigma 50 1.4 gets a mediocre review on the site - the pictures on flickr from this lens are awesome and if i was in the market for a 50mm prime, i'd certainly give that lens some serious consideration.
nevertheless, and sharpness aside, it does seem that some of the nikon prime lenses do suffer from high levels of aberration wide open. whilst the camera body may have some bearing on this, i can't see it would be to the extreme that can be seen on the 85mm and the 135mm lenses which i think would probably make them unusable wide open in many situations.
desantnik
12-07-2010, 14:01
Do all Nikon users have an inferiority complex?
For sure, we are a persecuted minority :help:
i agree 100% undoubtedly this is true and as trencheel303 says, this is perhaps one of the reasons why the af aspect of the sigma 50 1.4 gets a mediocre review on the site - the pictures on flickr from this lens are awesome and if i was in the market for a 50mm prime, i'd certainly the that lens some serious consideration.
nevertheless, and sharpness aside, it does seem that some of the nikon prime lenses do suffer from high levels of aberration wide open. whilst the camera body may have some bearing on this, i can't see it would be to the extreme that can be seen on the 85mm and the 135mm lenses which i think would probably make them unusable wide open in many situations.
Nikon's 85mm f/1.8 isn't widely regarded as the best thing they've ever made, it's true...
Which is why you should buy the f/1.4 version...lol
cuthbert
12-07-2010, 14:04
Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L II vs Nikon 70-200 f2.8G AF-S VR
Try comparing like with like there - the VR II is the equivalent...
although i missed out the 'vr ii' legend in my caption, the chart comparison is indeed with the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8G AF-S VR II lens.
cuthbert
12-07-2010, 14:13
Nikon's 85mm f/1.8 isn't widely regarded as the best thing they've ever made, it's true...
Which is why you should buy the f/1.4 version...lol
i considered adding that one to the list - wide open performance isn't fantastic - if you compare it with the canon 85 f1.2, the canon has less chromic aberation at f1.2 than the nikon does at f1.4. with both lenses at 2.8 corner sharpness seems poorer on the nikon whilst centre sharpness is pretty equal as far as i can see.
i guess it surprised me that with several of the fast key focal length primes performance wide open is pretty average. stopped down as you can see, they then become equal:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3&LensComp=641&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=4
i agree 100% undoubtedly this is true and as trencheel303 says, this is perhaps one of the reasons why the af aspect of the sigma 50 1.4 gets a mediocre review on the site - the pictures on flickr from this lens are awesome and if i was in the market for a 50mm prime, i'd certainly the that lens some serious consideration.
nevertheless, and sharpness aside, it does seem that some of the nikon prime lenses do suffer from high levels of aberration wide open. whilst the camera body may have some bearing on this, i can't see it would be to the extreme that can be seen on the 85mm and the 135mm lenses which i think would probably make them unusable wide open in many situations.
Okay, maybe Canon do have a few more plums to Nikon's odd lemon ;) But when it comes to the key lenses - the ones that have been recently designed or updated, the ones that 90% of us use - Nikon can make as good a lens as anybody.
The only other lens review site that I have any consistent respect for is www.dpreview.com They have tested Nikon, Canon and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 in a convincing manner and the Sigma came top - by some margin as I recall. Which, if you only feel the weight and read the price, is only to be expected. Sigma can make top class lenses too, just that they generally choose to make cheaper ones.
cuthbert
12-07-2010, 18:01
Okay, maybe Canon do have a few more plums to Nikon's odd lemon ;) But when it comes to the key lenses - the ones that have been recently designed or updated, the ones that 90% of us use - Nikon can make as good a lens as anybody.
The only other lens review site that I have any consistent respect for is www.dpreview.com They have tested Nikon, Canon and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 in a convincing manner and the Sigma came top - by some margin as I recall. Which, if you only feel the weight and read the price, is only to be expected. Sigma can make top class lenses too, just that they generally choose to make cheaper ones.
interestingly, the dpreview site did share the findings observed on the digital picture with regards to the 50mm nikon lens, which it describes as "Broad blue-coloured halation at wide apertures"
but if we take a look at the Nikon Holy Trinity, things are certainly better:
the Nikon 24-70 is noticeably sharper than the Canon equivalent over the entire focal length wide open.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=618&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
the Nikon 70-200 is very sharp but i think the canon edges it (especially at the longer end) - and it seems to have less CA than the Nikon across the range wide open.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=621&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
the Nikon 14-24... this lens is sharp, incredibly sharp. there is no directly comparable lens in the canon range to this so i chose was the 16-35 and this lens is softer over the entire range wide open, the difference varies along the range (and the corners are fairly soft on both) but overall the nikon takes it).
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
so i agree, with zoom lenses which cover the most common focal lengths, there is little to choose from in real word shooting between the canon and nikon, but it has to be said... if you shoot with primes and there isn't a 3rd party sigma which covers you, it seems canon has the better performing lenses?
desantnik
12-07-2010, 18:20
the Nikon 70-200 is very sharp but i think the canon edges it (especially at the longer end) - and it seems to have less CA than the Nikon across the range wide open.
CA isn't a problem on D300/D700/D3 bodies... so I'd be surprised if you can find any at all if you shoot with those... :thinking:
CA isn't a problem on D300/D700/D3 bodies... so I'd be surprised if you can find any at all if you shoot with those... :thinking:
Haha, good answer! :D
Gary Coyle
12-07-2010, 19:11
doesnt consider slight variations in lens examples, my Nikon 300mm is way, way sharper than my Canon 300mm ever was wide open
cuthbert
12-07-2010, 19:14
CA isn't a problem on D300/D700/D3 bodies... so I'd be surprised if you can find any at all if you shoot with those... :thinking:
according to the digital picture site, the crops were taken with a Nikon D3x... btw regarding the nikon lens the review on dpreview does say that: "Chromatic aberration remains low on FX, with just-visible red/cyan fringing at 70mm, and blue/yellow fringing at 200mm. Again it diminishes on stopping down at 70mm; but in contrast to DX, at 200mm it becomes a bit more visible in the extreme corners at small apertures"
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vrii_n15/page5.asp
compared with the dpreview for the canon: "Chromatic aberration is exceptionally low - there's a tiny bit of fringing measurable at each end of the zoom range, but really nothing you're ever likely to see."
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/page5.asp
i'm not saying for a second you'd notice the ca on either lens in real world shooting, in my experience even lenses which are reported to have quite significant ca only really show it in certain situations - it's just that if i was having to choose which one i thought was the better performer as in the case here where both lenses are very good indeed, i had to nit pick and split hairs.
ian in lancs
12-07-2010, 19:28
Nikon's 85mm f/1.8 isn't widely regarded as the best thing they've ever made, it's true...
Which is why you should buy the f/1.4 version...lol
Tosh!
according to the digital picture site, the crops were taken with a Nikon D3x... btw regarding the nikon lens the review on dpreview does say that: "Chromatic aberration remains low on FX, with just-visible red/cyan fringing at 70mm, and blue/yellow fringing at 200mm. Again it diminishes on stopping down at 70mm; but in contrast to DX, at 200mm it becomes a bit more visible in the extreme corners at small apertures"
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vrii_n15/page5.asp
compared with the dpreview for the canon: "Chromatic aberration is exceptionally low - there's a tiny bit of fringing measurable at each end of the zoom range, but really nothing you're ever likely to see."
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/page5.asp
i'm not saying for a second you'd notice the ca on either lens in real world shooting, in my experience even lenses which are reported to have quite significant ca only really show it in certain situations - it's just that if i was having to choose which one i thought was the better performer as in the case here where both lenses are very good indeed, i had to nit pick and split hairs.
I think Desantnik was referring to the automatic CA correction that those Nikon bodies can apply to JPEGs - basically a software cheat. It's a rather cruder in-camera version of Canon's lens aberration suite in their DPP Raw processor.
It's another can of worms altogether, but a very interesting one. And we're surely going to see much more of it in the future. The new MILC cameras from Panasonic/Olympus/Sony/Samsung are full of software lens enhancements.
Martyn...
12-07-2010, 19:45
Fact is Nikkor optics are better ... I read it somewhere ;)
Tosh!
er...no...it isn't...
It's not bad, it's just not the best they've ever made. Look it up if you don't believe me.
That is a statement of fact, not an opinion.
the fact of which lens is better is irrelavent since Nikon lenses are ugly :|
I do love these Nikon verses Canon threads, at last the canon users have something to celebrate:D now if canon made bodies like Nikon do, we would all be jumping ship :lol:
I do love these Nikon verses Canon threads, at last the canon users have something to celebrate:D now if canon made bodies like Nikon do, we would all be jumping ship :lol:
Oh No we wouldn't....:lol:
Oh No we wouldn't....:lol:
I can't honestly imagine going back to canon either. The only thing I seriously miss is the 100-400.
malla1962
13-07-2010, 17:19
I can't honestly imagine going back to canon either. The only thing I seriously miss is the 100-400.I am still with Canon but the 100-400 is not a lens I miss.:D
So as someone thinking about buying a DSLR, who likes to shoot with primes wide open (low light gigs etc), does this actually mean I would be better off with Canon? :)
desantnik
14-07-2010, 09:41
Yes and no... Canon's glass might be more modern in certain areas (although I am not sure the likes of the short primes are one of them) but Nikon still owns the night both in terms of noise and an AF system that eats carrots :D
Best solution? Always been the same, fit Canon glass to a Nikon body... hmmm shame that mechanically can never happen.
Who cares :cool:
Shoot with what you want or can afford. Too much rubbish talked about which camera/ lens or better :bonk::bonk:
Sits back ans waits for the flak :nuts:
trencheel303
14-07-2010, 10:57
but Nikon still owns the night both in terms of noise and an AF system that eats carrots :D.
I LOL'd
About Canon's short primes, as far as I know most of them are based on archaic designs from way back in the film days. When it comes to the 50mm primes at least, all the major camera companies are using outdated designs. The focus (excuse the pun) seems to be on f/2.8 and f/4 zooms now, because the ISO performance of newer bodies is way beyond what film could ever achieve, so having a super fast lens is no longer a priority. I might be wrong but fast primes were probably much more necessary on film because of the limitation in ASA speeds and also reciprocity failure. I guess that's why most of them have not been updated in a long time.
Martyn...
14-07-2010, 11:05
I LOL'd
About Canon's short primes, as far as I know most of them are based on archaic designs from way back in the film days. When it comes to the 50mm primes at least, all the major camera companies are using outdated designs. The focus (excuse the pun) seems to be on f/2.8 and f/4 zooms now, because the ISO performance of newer bodies is way beyond what film could ever achieve, so having a super fast lens is no longer a priority. I might be wrong but fast primes were probably much more necessary on film because of the limitation in ASA speeds and also reciprocity failure. I guess that's why most of them have not been updated in a long time.
Fair point, also worth remembering that optical design is basically the same as it was decades ago, the main improvement being exotic glass, which in truth only makes a small difference to lens performance.
Unlike the bodies themselves, which are basically computers, which is a field where technical advances happen at a quicker pace, and with a more noticeable effect on performance.
I LOL'd
About Canon's short primes, as far as I know most of them are based on archaic designs from way back in the film days. When it comes to the 50mm primes at least, all the major camera companies are using outdated designs. The focus (excuse the pun) seems to be on f/2.8 and f/4 zooms now, because the ISO performance of newer bodies is way beyond what film could ever achieve, so having a super fast lens is no longer a priority. I might be wrong but fast primes were probably much more necessary on film because of the limitation in ASA speeds and also reciprocity failure. I guess that's why most of them have not been updated in a long time.
It depends on what you want from your glass, these days sharpness (apparent) and contrast seem to be in vogue, whereas in say the 50's it was more for colour/B&W 'softness' and 'warmth' ability and a low(ish) contrast lens was where a lot of effort went but one that had great build qulaity etc. There's nothing wrong with either lens if viewed in relationship to what it was designed to do.
Comparing Nikon to Canon to Zeis to Pracktika (sp?) etc is pretty meaningless when talking about lens of virtually identical IQ and looking at test charts, real life is much more demanding. For instance I have a 85mm 1.8 FD lens, it truly is a thing of great beauty and I love using it, it happens to have very good IQ but if it was a fraction worse (or better) it would not detract (or add) to my love of it.
Matt
.
To be fair, Nikon have a fraction of the R&D and production money of Canon and people forget that. They also remained committed to their customers when Canon flushed their's down the crapper a few years back.
Can we kill this bogey once and for all, assuming you're referring to the change of lens mount. ;)
Canon changed the lens mount from the old breech lock system to the present one - because they had no choice. They knew AF and the rest of the electronics was coming, and there was nowhere on the existing lens mount to fit the contacts needed. It's true they peed a lot of people off, but it was totally unavoidable if Canon wanted to incorporate the impending technology.
On the other hand, while it's great that you can still fit any old lens to a Nikon camera, the fact is there was sufficient room on the face of the lens mount to take the elecrical contacts needed, and it was sheer good luck for Nikon and for their customers - nothing more - that they didn't have to change the mount.
Kaouthia
14-07-2010, 11:48
Nikon camera, the fact is there was sufficient room on the face of the lens mount to take the elecrical contacts needed, and it was sheer good luck for Nikon and for their customers - nothing more - that they didn't have to change the mount.
"good luck"? Some might consider it planning and forethought on the part of Nikon. :)
"good luck"? Some might consider it planning and forethought on the part of Nikon. :)
I'd love to agree here, but even I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that the Nikon boffins predicted AF and Digital way back in 1959 and designed the lens-mount accordingly...:lol:
Kaouthia
14-07-2010, 11:57
Yeah, but Rob, they shoot Canon, they're dumb enough to believe it. Now you've gone and ruined it. ;)
"good luck"? Some might consider it planning and forethought on the part of Nikon. :)
LOL. I knew that was coming, but given that Canon and Nikon designed the mounts when AF and the present electronics in cameras couldn't have even been dreamed of, I don't think you have much of a cse with that argument.
The howl of protest at the time was horrendous, and you could really feel for those with big money invested in Canon glass. I bet the Canon top brass burned the midnight oil a lot before they decided they had no other choice left to them but to change the mount.
trencheel303
14-07-2010, 12:04
well, you never know. I mean would it take a genius to realise that electronics would eventually make their way into cameras?
:shrug:
I LOL'd
About Canon's short primes, as far as I know most of them are based on archaic designs from way back in the film days. When it comes to the 50mm primes at least, all the major camera companies are using outdated designs. The focus (excuse the pun) seems to be on f/2.8 and f/4 zooms now, because the ISO performance of newer bodies is way beyond what film could ever achieve, so having a super fast lens is no longer a priority. I might be wrong but fast primes were probably much more necessary on film because of the limitation in ASA speeds and also reciprocity failure. I guess that's why most of them have not been updated in a long time.
True this, unless you go "L", which are slightly better all the short primes (20, 24, 28, 35) are all mediocre compared to the new zooms, pretty much all released at or near the release of the EF system...
As for that Sigma 50 f/1.4, Photozone (who I use in conjunction with the digital picture most of the time) say it's not a spectacular lens either. Whenever I've been looking at lenses both sites seem to broadly say the same thing so I'd be inclined to trust both of them (bearing in mind just because a lens is popular and has people raving about it doesn't mean it's necessarily better than "competing" lenses)..
well, you never know. I mean would it take a genius to realise that electronics would eventually make their way into cameras?
:shrug:
I think it would have taken a genius -or a prophet. Printed circuit boards were just about starting to replace bundles of wires and valve driven radios etc, but the silicon chip when it evetually came changed the world forever - for everyone.
Grumpy_Git
14-07-2010, 12:35
If you look at the level of electronics/ computers in 1959, yes thats a massive leap to assume they would be in cameras, the transistor was only revealed to the world in 1947 and computers were low powered and building sized!
Most computers were still valve based.
Nick.
ps: see THIS (http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/IBM-1401.htm) for absolute state of the art in 1959
Can we kill this bogey once and for all, assuming you're referring to the change of lens mount. ;)
Canon changed the lens mount from the old breech lock system to the present one - because they had no choice. They knew AF and the rest of the electronics was coming, and there was nowhere on the existing lens mount to fit the contacts needed. It's true they peed a lot of people off, but it was totally unavoidable if Canon wanted to incorporate the impending technology.
On the other hand, while it's great that you can still fit any old lens to a Nikon camera, the fact is there was sufficient room on the face of the lens mount to take the elecrical contacts needed, and it was sheer good luck for Nikon and for their customers - nothing more - that they didn't have to change the mount.
The complete change that Canon made going from FD to EF lens mount has proved to be a much better one in the long term.
How many changes have there effectively been to the Nikon lens mount, even if the basic bayonet-fitting stayed the same? I can think of at least four - with all that fiddling about with aperture couplings to Photomic heads and stuff that they kept changing, and then AF.
The so-called backwards compatability of old Nikon lenses on new bodies is actually a red herring. Even now there are lots of current Nikon lenses that won't auto-focus on the entry-level bodies.
SamuelHearn
14-07-2010, 16:29
Oh no! My lens has 0.001% more CA at 50mm than the canon equivalent when wide open :( I guess I'll just go and sit in the corner of a dark room and cry a bit, it is evident that my life is now over..
fracster
14-07-2010, 16:46
Oh no! My lens has 0.001% more CA at 50mm than the canon equivalent when wide open :( I guess I'll just go and sit in the corner of a dark room and cry a bit, it is evident that my life is now over..
Post of the thread, bloody well said.........:clap:
The so-called backwards compatability of old Nikon lenses on new bodies is actually a red herring. Even now there are lots of current Nikon lenses that won't auto-focus on the entry-level bodies.
I wouldnt call that a red herring. Just something that isnt 100% true.
Kaouthia
14-07-2010, 19:47
The so-called backwards compatability of old Nikon lenses on new bodies is actually a red herring. Even now there are lots of current Nikon lenses that won't auto-focus on the entry-level bodies.
That would be more limiting the functionality of lower end bodies than a lack of backward compatibility. That's not a backwards compatibility issue, that's a "let's make the cheap cameras work with cheap lenses so we can sell them cheaper to the customers" issue.
Beside zeiss glas, nothing compares to the build quality and IQ of canons L glass. However, the price will be steep.
NIKON makes some comparable lenses, but you don't pay as much for them.
I guess it depends on your priorities.
Is the quality difference enough to justify the price difference? That's up to the individual.
Aside from the actual test results, which appear fairly unbiased, there's some outrageous b******s being spouted in this thread and masquerading as 'fact'...lol
I'm seeing precious little hard evidence to back up some of the claims here...
trevorbray
15-07-2010, 08:45
Technology...Test Charts...Other users experience are all valid considerations when making a purchase.
My wifes favourite picture is of our Grandson at 5 minutes old taken by my Daughter on her Blackberry.
It's all about perspective...isn't it ?
desantnik
15-07-2010, 08:47
It's all about perspective...isn't it ?
Get your submission in here:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=224074
(quick plug for my thread! :wave:)
Beside zeiss glas, nothing compares to the build quality and IQ of canons L glass. However, the price will be steep.
NIKON makes some comparable lenses, but you don't pay as much for them.
I guess it depends on your priorities.
Is the quality difference enough to justify the price difference? That's up to the individual.
I'm a Canon user and that simply isn't true. Nikon makes some superb glass and their bodies feel robust and they seem to have the edge in high ISO amongst other things. People are even modifying the Nikon 14-24mm to fit Canon bodies and I'd love to see a Canon 200-400mm f/4 IS II.
Don't get too hung up on 'L' glass thinking it is the be all and end all.
trencheel303
15-07-2010, 10:04
Aside from the actual test results, which appear fairly unbiased, there's some outrageous b******s being spouted in this thread and masquerading as 'fact'...lol
I'm seeing precious little hard evidence to back up some of the claims here...
You are more than welcome to correct said 'b******s'.
I've shot with both and this is how I see it.
Nikon's bodies: D700, D3, D3s beat the Canon equivalent's in terms of how much they can do.
Their lenses: 24-70 nikon is better, 70-200 about the same. 14-24 is blatantly amazing BUT I wouldn't use it due the front element making it unusable in any dodgy situations.
Primes Canon absolutely destroys Nikon with it's L series 24,35,50,85L's (I wouldn't include the 24 1.4 Nikon as its 2k compared to 1k for the old Canon).
Oh and fast lenses are essential to some people - they want greater DOF control so high iso doesn't have any impact on this. I use my primes when I want to use an aperture higher than f/2.8 for creative purposes.
Aside from the actual test results, which appear fairly unbiased, there's some outrageous b******s being spouted in this thread and masquerading as 'fact'...lol
I'm seeing precious little hard evidence to back up some of the claims here...
You're not usually one for irony Rob. :D
You are more than welcome to correct said 'b******s'.
No... I'd say that was more the responsibility of those making the claims.
If you make a claim, then get called on it, then you have a responsibility to prove it. Otherwise I'll just call BS...
I did say aside from the test results linked to in the OP, so don't go back there either.
trencheel303
15-07-2010, 11:13
Well if you called BS on some people making claims, you must know why they are wrong and so presumably know the correct answer. I'd like to hear the correct answer. I'm interested to know.
Well if you called BS on some people making claims, you must know why they are wrong and so presumably know the correct answer. I'd like to hear the correct answer. I'm interested to know.
So would I.
People are making sweeping statements, saying Nikon lenses are generally poorer that the equivalent Canon optics and I'm asking to see some more proof...
Or are you back to being deliberately thick again? I thought you'd grown up a bit recently...?
trencheel303
15-07-2010, 11:20
Or are you back to being deliberately thick again? I thought you'd grown up a bit recently...?
Asking you to qualify your post is hardly being thick is it.
FYI, I've reported your post.
I have an idea. Hows about we all go and take some photos instead with our nice cameras. I suspect that is what the sony and olly owners are doing. Wearing disguises whilst doing it of course.
Stop pixel peeping and obsessing about brands!!!!
Asking you to qualify your post is hardly being thick is it...
Get back to the schoolyard, trench - I ask for someone to qualify a generalised, sweeping statement and then you pen a post asking me to qualify my statement...:cuckoo:
Herro? :shrug:
...that's pretty effin' thick in my book...
Beside zeiss glas, nothing compares to the build quality and IQ of canons L glass. However, the price will be steep.
NIKON makes some comparable lenses, but you don't pay as much for them.
This is complete and utter nonsense, but it's disturbing as some people are likely to actually believe it. No mention of Leica glass here, which is in most cases the equal of Zeiss and in some cases better. Some of the sharpest lenses ever made were in fact the old Pentax Takumar lenses, while their 60mm macro is one of the sharpest, if not the sharpest of it's type.
The truth is that there are lenses from many manufactures which individually are stellar performers, but sweeping generalisations like this are ridiculous and I don't bame the Nikon guys for getting out of their prams.
Kaouthia
15-07-2010, 12:25
Some of the sharpest lenses ever made were in fact the old Pentax Takumar lenses, while their 60mm macro is one of the sharpest, if not the sharpest of it's type.
I've been on the lookout for some M42 Super Takumars at the right price for a while now. Legendary lenses.
Oh dear another post going south with loads of silly comments about which lens manufacturer is better :'(:'(
Now wheres the popcorn smiley :lol:
I don't think the brand makes much difference TBH. There aren't any optical secrets left, and you can buy very exotic glass off the shelf, if you can't make it yourself (though I think Canon's home-grown fluorite is unique to them and pretty special).
Just about all manufacturers have a few gems in the line, and a few lemons.
As an observation, Zeiss lenses are made by Cosina, to fit both Nikon and Canon. Some of them I believe are very good indeed, others distinctly average :shrug:
Canon vs Nikon, nooooo.
It's too much like Apple vs Microsoft.
I do love these Nikon verses Canon threads, at last the canon users have something to celebrate:D now if canon made bodies like Nikon do, we would all be jumping ship :lol:
:):)
Christ, reading this thread is like being a kid again, being witness to a fight unfold in the schoolyard.
What's the point in the heated debate about which is better than which. If you're happy with what you're using, be happy about it, no need to go around shouting that what other people are happy with is worse. Jesus...
Canon vs Nikon, nooooo.
It's too much like Apple vs Microsoft.
:):)
What, we have some of those?!?!?! ;)
... the results are actually pretty interesting:
Canon EF 1.4 vs Nikon 1.4D AF-S
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=637&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=0 ...Wooh! A few nerves have been touched out there, so I'll stick to pointing out a typo. Following the link above takes me to a comparison using the Nikon 1.4D AFno -S. For a comparison with the latest Nikon f/1.4G AF-S lens follow this link (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=636).
Christ, reading this thread is like being a kid again, being witness to a fight unfold in the schoolyard.
What's the point in the heated debate about which is better than which. If you're happy with what you're using, be happy about it, no need to go around shouting that what other people are happy with is worse. Jesus...
:agree: ... but if it keeps them happy and off the streets ...
malla1962
15-07-2010, 15:05
I have an idea. Hows about we all go and take some photos instead with our nice cameras. I suspect that is what the sony and olly owners are doing. Wearing disguises whilst doing it of course.
Stop pixel peeping and obsessing about brands!!!!I think this is the best reply I have seen on this post.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.