I have taken the bait...

[EdinburghGary]

I feel like an immature prat for even asking, but I may as well as its bugging the hell out of me. A friend of mine is claiming Canon L lenses are superior to all other lenses, and Nikon have no "L range" and therefore can't compete etc etc.

So I suppose the question is, have Nikon missed the marketing boat by making it difficult to spot their "pro" lenses? Or is he right, in terms if quality, Nikon CAN'T match the L lenses?

Gary.

[EdinburghGary]

Oh to add, he also said any equivalent from Nikon if it did exist, would be twice the price...as Canon are always way cheaper?

[superstat]

:gag:

Nikon, compete with Canon? HA

*edit*

Thats unhelpful......I think your right....you've took this hook line and sinker......

[EdinburghGary]

:gag:

Nikon, compete with Canon? HA

*edit*

Thats unhelpful......I think your right....you've took this hook line and sinker......


I know that, but the problem is he is semi pro and I am a complete amatuer. What come back do I have? :help:

[Yv]

:lol: I think you definately fell hook, line and sinker for that one Gary....whilst Nikon may make their lens names a bit more tricky to understand, anything with a gold ring around it is easily a match for the equivalent L glass and dont let any Canon owner tell you otherwise. ;)

[EdinburghGary]

whilst Nikon may make their lens names a bit more tricky to understand

Understatement!!! :)

[NorthernNikon]

The facecious answer would be that Nikon don't make crap lenses so don't need to identify the not so crap ones with an 'L'.

The sensible answer is that Nikon make some of the finest rated glass in the photographic world. So do Canon. Now the Nikor 70-200 AF-S VR f/2.8 beats the Canon equivilent hands down. There will be a Canon lens which will beat it Nikon equivilent hand down.

Your mate sounds like a fan boy. If anyone chooses a camera system solely because the lens range has an 'L' in it they are a first grade pillock.

[dod]

I can just see him now ;)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/clinton.jpg

[EdinburghGary]

The facecious answer would be that Nikon don't make crap lenses so don't need to identify the not so crap ones with an 'L'.

The sensible answer is that Nikon make some of the finest rated glass in the photographic world. So do Canon. Now the Nikor 70-200 AF-S VR f/2.8 beats the Canon equivilent hands down. There will be a Canon lens which will beat it Nikon equivilent hand down.

Your mate sounds like a fan boy. If anyone chooses a camera system solely because the lens range has an 'L' in it they are a first grade pillock.

I complimented some pics he took recently, and said "Hard act to follow, well done"....

I got...
"Well it's not fair, me using an L lens"...

And like I said, being 1000 miles beneath him in terms of experience and technical ability, I just clamped my lips and smiled. Anyone who has seen John Cage's "Smile Therapy" will know what I mean!! ;)

[PsiFox]

Remember when Canon started selling cameras who made the lenses for them


NIKON that's who

Nippon Kogaku actually produced all of Canon's lenses up to mid-1947; therefore all prewar and early postwar Canons came with Nikkor lenses.

http://www.nikonhs.org/history.html

[Chillimonster]

I think it's he who has the inferiority complex needing to justify his 'white-whales' :D

I think that some of the Canon 'L' stuff is overrated and overpriced compared to other brands. The ZD range of lenses on the Oly series, especially the 'top-pro' line are a good match, if not exceeding the canon equiv lenses (but Oly, like Nikon don't feel the need to shout about it by painting them white! ;) )

[EdinburghGary]

Remember when Canon started selling cameras who made the lenses for them


NIKON that's who



http://www.nikonhs.org/history.html


Surely nor relevent when it comes to my particular debate - I don't like fanboyism, but would like to be able to say..."well actually...you will find"...

:)

[EdinburghGary]

I think it's he who has the inferiority complex needing to justify his 'white-whales' :D

I think that some of the Canon 'L' stuff is overrated and overpriced compared to other brands. The ZD range of lenses on the Oly series, especially the 'top-pro' line are a good match, if not exceeding the canon equiv lenses (but Oly, like Nikon don't feel the need to shout about it by painting them white! ;) )

I thought the white was something to do with heat or light / some other technical aspect? isn't it the RED RING which is the L indicator?

[PsiFox]

Surely nor relevent when it comes to my particular debate - I don't like fanboyism, but would like to be able to say..."well actually...you will find"...

:)

I know not strictly relevant but a nice fact to drop in to the conversation perhaps..

As others have said some lenses from Canon will be better than the Nikon equivalent and vice versa.

It will never end and is a subject that could be debated until the end of the world

[EdinburghGary]

I know not strictly relevant but a nice fact to drop in to the conversation perhaps..

As others have said some lenses from Canon will be better than the Nikon equivalent and vice versa.

It will never end and is a subject that could be debated until the end of the world

I guess my problem is being able to say....well yes your L 400 is nice, but the Nikon Equiv....which is *insert model here please :D* is also very nice!

[PsiFox]

I think it's he who has the inferiority complex needing to justify his 'white-whales' :D

I think that some of the Canon 'L' stuff is overrated and overpriced compared to other brands. The ZD range of lenses on the Oly series, especially the 'top-pro' line are a good match, if not exceeding the canon equiv lenses (but Oly, like Nikon don't feel the need to shout about it by painting them white! ;) )

Nikon do a nice Tropical Grey version of some lenses

[EdinburghGary]

For example, Nikon have NO answer to this

http://www.digital-cameras.com/pic/300x300/17/89/canon_eos_lens_ef_24105mm_f4_l_is_usm_1970.jpg

F4 , 24 to 105 L

[Yv]

of course another facetious answer would be 'only bad photographers need better lenses' :whistling:

[dod]

Not sure on the pricing but here's a Nikon 300mm F4 that seems to have better resolution than the Canon F4L. You could also point him at the D3 which appears to be king of the hill just now. :)

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/228-nikkor-af-s-300mm-f4d-if-ed-review--test-report?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/171-canon-ef-300mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1

[EdinburghGary]

of course another facetious answer would be 'only bad photographers need better lenses' :whistling:

Ahh but he is very good which sucks! :)

[NorthernNikon]

For example, Nikon have NO answer to this

http://www.digital-cameras.com/pic/300x300/17/89/canon_eos_lens_ef_24105mm_f4_l_is_usm_1970.jpg

F4 , 24 to 105 L

No, but until the D3 Nikon haven't had a full frame format (excpet the F6 of course, but then that would be a niche indeed) to justify the development of a zoom like that which is far better suited (general concensus, not mine) to full frame which Canon have had a longer history of producing.

Personally speaking though, I'd much rather have a 28-70 and have f/2.8.

[Amp34]

of course another facetious answer would be 'only bad photographers need better lenses' :whistling:

Maybe he was just trying to be modest, you never know...:lol:

"You're a brilliant photographer!"

Well thankyou, but really it's the camera, not me. *blushes*"

[EdinburghGary]

Maybe he was just trying to be modest, you never know...:lol:

"You're a brilliant photographer!"

Well thankyou, but really it's the camera, not me. *blushes*"



Ha, no I wish, not the case sadly!!

[Canon Bob]

I'm not going to say where my allegances lie....;) but I dare say that neither Canon or Nikon would be bold enough to make a body that could be configured to successfully use the other marque's lenses.

I think the debate needs to look at the imaging system and not purely one aspect of it...there are pro's and cons with both and one or the other will be more suitable to any individual. I can't deny that there's a very attractive Nikon body out there but it's of no consequence for me if an MP-E65 won't interface nicely to it.

That's my 2p.

Bob

[Moadib]

For example, Nikon have NO answer to this

http://www.digital-cameras.com/pic/300x300/17/89/canon_eos_lens_ef_24105mm_f4_l_is_usm_1970.jpg

F4 , 24 to 105 L

Nikon have never really gone for "Non F2.8" glass in their pro-targetted lenses. They make more consumer oriented items, or they go for outright pro-glass (their "equivalent" would be the 24-70 2.8 + 70-200 2.8).

The thinking seems to be the consumers will want lower price, and the pros will just carry two bodies with the appropriate lens on each, rather than compromise on one lens which is "only" an F4.

Nikon may have a point, but it misses the likes of us who want a certain level of quality, but also a level of convenience (not swapping lenses often).

[HIMUPNORTH]

Gary - Clear your PM's (mailbox full) so I can send you a reply to yours!!

[EdinburghGary]

Gary - Clear your PM's (mailbox full) so I can send you a reply to yours!!

BUGGER - TWO MIN MATE!!!

[EdinburghGary]

Gary - Clear your PM's (mailbox full) so I can send you a reply to yours!!

Sorry I have deleted!!

[joxby]

:popcorn:


That f/4 things come out the closet again
f/4:thinking:
Throw it away and get something with a decent sized hole in it


:lol:

[StewartR]

Amusing to see how far off the point this thread has gone, which is a shame, because I think there's a very interesting nugget here.

First of all, I think we can agree that Canon and Nikon (and others) are capable of making very good lenses, and also capable of making not-so-good lenses.

But the interesting nugget to my mind is about the marketing strategy. Canon definitely seem to milk the reputation of their "L" lenses, whether it's deserved or not. But it is definitely much harder to identify which Nikon lenses are deemed to be their "pro" range. Have Nikon missed a marketing trick? I think they might have.

I've been trying to get my head round Nikon's lens nomenclature in the last couple of weeks, and it really is mental. It reminds me of the way Mercedes-Benz got their knickers in a twist over model names in the 80s and early 90s. Originally the "190" simply meant a car with a 1.9L engine, but by the time they had cars called "190 E 2.3-16", or cars called the 350SD and the 500SEL built on the same platform, it was obvious that they needed a clean-out; and the current range of "A Class", "C Class", "S Class" is a lot more straightforward to comprehend. I think Nikon could so with something similar.

But then I wonder whether the big brass at Nikon really care. Back in the 80s Canon bet the shop on ditching the FD mount and going all electronic with the EF; whereas Nikon plumped for compatibility. At the time I doubt whether either of them could have foreseen the massive pace of technological development that we've had in the last 10 years, but if Canon did then all credit to them, because their strategy seems to have paid off. (Though of course it could just have been luck.) Nikon seem to me to have a bit of the corporate techno-geek in them, and they seem perversely proud of the fact that - you need complicated tables and charts to work out which lenses work with which cameras.

So my short answer to Gary's question is yes, I think Nikon have missed some tricks on the marketing front. Anyone disagree?

[EdinburghGary]

Amusing to see how far off the point this thread has gone, which is a shame, because I think there's a very interesting nugget here.

First of all, I think we can agree that Canon and Nikon (and others) are capable of making very good lenses, and also capable of making not-so-good lenses.

But the interesting nugget to my mind is about the marketing strategy. Canon definitely seem to milk the reputation of their "L" lenses, whether it's deserved or not. But it is definitely much harder to identify which Nikon lenses are deemed to be their "pro" range. Have Nikon missed a marketing trick? I think they might have.

I've been trying to get my head round Nikon's lens nomenclature in the last couple of weeks, and it really is mental. It reminds me of the way Mercedes-Benz got their knickers in a twist over model names in the 80s and early 90s. Originally the "190" simply meant a car with a 1.9L engine, but by the time they had cars called "190 E 2.3-16", or cars called the 350SD and the 500SEL built on the same platform, it was obvious that they needed a clean-out; and the current range of "A Class", "C Class", "S Class" is a lot more straightforward to comprehend. I think Nikon could so with something similar.

But then I wonder whether the big brass at Nikon really care. Back in the 80s Canon bet the shop on ditching the FD mount and going all electronic with the EF; whereas Nikon plumped for compatibility. At the time I doubt whether either of them could have foreseen the massive pace of technological development that we've had in the last 10 years, but if Canon did then all credit to them, because their strategy seems to have paid off. (Though of course it could just have been luck.) Nikon seem to me to have a bit of the corporate techno-geek in them, and they seem perversely proud of the fact that - you need complicated tables and charts to work out which lenses work with which cameras.

So my short answer to Gary's question is yes, I think Nikon have missed some tricks on the marketing front. Anyone disagree?

Nice Reply and thanks!

[alexisonfire]

Amusing to see how far off the point this thread has gone, which is a shame, because I think there's a very interesting nugget here.

First of all, I think we can agree that Canon and Nikon (and others) are capable of making very good lenses, and also capable of making not-so-good lenses.

But the interesting nugget to my mind is about the marketing strategy. Canon definitely seem to milk the reputation of their "L" lenses, whether it's deserved or not. But it is definitely much harder to identify which Nikon lenses are deemed to be their "pro" range. Have Nikon missed a marketing trick? I think they might have.

I've been trying to get my head round Nikon's lens nomenclature in the last couple of weeks, and it really is mental. It reminds me of the way Mercedes-Benz got their knickers in a twist over model names in the 80s and early 90s. Originally the "190" simply meant a car with a 1.9L engine, but by the time they had cars called "190 E 2.3-16", or cars called the 350SD and the 500SEL built on the same platform, it was obvious that they needed a clean-out; and the current range of "A Class", "C Class", "S Class" is a lot more straightforward to comprehend. I think Nikon could so with something similar.

Canon have indeed milked the reputation of the L mark dry. People seem to think its far superior to anything out on the market, yet its no different from any other prosumer lens on the market, whether it be from sigma, nikon etc. Its almost got to the point where buying an L lens is an achievement, and you've joined a special group of people. :lol:

You could say Nikon have missed the boat on this one, or you could say they don't need it. Nikon glass will sell regardless of whats written on the side. :thumbs:

As already said above, Nikon's flag ship lens are identifiable by a gold ring around the filter thread.

[dazzajl]

Stewart is bang on that canon have knocked 7 bells out of Nikon with marketing and market share with the "L" series lenses.

They are perceived world wide as the leaders in glass technology and build quality for pro lenses.

Is any of this actually deserved? Maybe a small amount was for a while in the big tele sector but not any more.

Nikon have a far more prestigious history of lens design and were not going to be left behind. Nikon also make some great glass for large format cameras where zooms, focus motors and gizmos don't exist and supreme image quality will always be king. :thumbs:

[EdinburghGary]

I am going to agree, Nikon's marketing sucks. For example a Canon user might think - okay I have a grand burning a hole and I need a lens that does this, this and this....I wonder which is the best....

And fine they should probably research as much as possible, but I bet the power of that big red RING and the L portion of the name = decision made.

Nikon? Erm...put it this way if I had a grand to spare and I wanted a cracking pro wide angle for a D3 per say, I wouldn't have a clue.

[StewartR]

Erm...put it this way if I had a grand to spare and I wanted a cracking pro wide angle for a D3 per say, I wouldn't have a clue.That's exactly how I feel.

Of course you can look at the price, but that's always a bit iffy. For example, last week I bought (a) an AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR for £1120; and (b) an AF 80-200mm f/2.8 D ED (or it might be IF-ED) for £590. Is (a) better? Yes, very probably. Is it twice as good? Almost certainly not. Did I get a great bargain on (b)? I might have. But here's the killer ... Was (b) the "pro" version before (a) came out? How can I tell?

Yes, some people say that the gold ring denotes the "pro" range. So if they're right, when I unpack the boxes I'll find out what I've bought. But how can they be sure? Nikon don't say anything about gold rings in their marketing. And there seems to be no correlation between the existence of gold rings and any particular combination of letters in the nomenclature.

Here's a final thought. That lens I bought is an AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR. OK, "AF-S" and "G" tell me something about which cameras it's compatible with, and "VR" tells me about some important functionality. But "IF-ED" is pointless techno-geekery. Why not tell me something about the quality of the lens instead? Obviously "L" is taken, but there are a few letters left in the alphabet that they don't use yet...

[wez130]

I think one of the main reasons i chose canon over nikon is the lens range is much easier to get your head round and all EF lenses are compatible with all EOS D models, none of this 'this isn't compatible with your D4 because it doesn't have AF etc, so i think that could be the difference between nikon and canon sales, however, i'd be inclined to agree with the majority here, nikon do produce some excellent lenses, some better than canon, but i couldn't be bothered to learn a whole new language just to go out and take photos.

[AliB]

Even then I have two Canon bodies (20D and 5D) and some of my lenses are incompatable. That being down to the two different sensors.

I bought into Canon for three reasons.
1. I had a Canon 35mm once and it was good!
2. The Canon's fit my hands better than the Nikons.
3.I found the Canon's menu system easier to understand than the Nikons. Nikon seemed to be in a different language to me.

My decision has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the lenses and their nomenclature because I recognised that between the manufacturers and Sigma, I could cover anything I ever wanted to do anyway!

I do think a lot of the discussion about lenses is a form of photography snobbery. There are some specialised applications like Canon Bob's example but for the main both manufacturers are producing quality products.

After all, a lot of my favourite images have been taken in the 60's on 35mm film cameras and Hasselblads and neither of those have IS/VR or any of the current technology.

[petemc]

For example, Nikon have NO answer to this...F4 , 24 to 105 L

Thats because its a stupid pointless lens. 24-70 f/2.8 is what you need.

Nikon? Erm...put it this way if I had a grand to spare and I wanted a cracking pro wide angle for a D3 per say, I wouldn't have a clue.

Nor would I, but thats not due to bad marketing. Thats because I'm not a Nikon user so I don't follow their market. I wouldn't know what Oly lens to buy either.

[Yv]

:lol: I find looking at the pictures on Nikons website the easiest way to find out if a lens has the Gold ring or not.

Even as a Nikon user and as I said yesterday, Nikons lens names defy any kind of logic that I have yet managed to fathom, particularly atm as I try to decide how to kit out my bag with some new glass later this year and I would definately bet that they have lost some market share to Canon because of it.



Nor would I, but thats not due to bad marketing. Thats because I'm not a Nikon user so I don't follow their market. I wouldn't know what Oly lens to buy either.

Pete - the point of Gary's comment about not knowing which wide angle is that he IS a Nikon user and still wouldn't be sure - I bet neither he nor I would know which Canon one to go for, but if we found one with 'L' in the name and one without, we would at least know that the L glass is the better option.


I love my Nikons and I know that when you put some good NIkon optics on your camera, they are fantatsic, but if Nikon could get their act together market them more understandably, I doubt any but the most snobbish user would be complaining.

[petemc]

Pete - the point of Gary's comment about not knowing which wide angle is that he IS a Nikon user and still wouldn't be sure - I bet neither he nor I would know which Canon one to go for, but if we found one with 'L' in the name and one without, we would at least know that the L glass is the better option.

I had a feeling that'd be the case. 14-24 f/2.8 is it?

[Yv]

I had a feeling that'd be the case. 14-24 f/2.8 is it?

A quick trip to Nikon says yes, probably.... although there is also a 12-24 f2.8 DX - so you think, ah, thats wider....except DX, I think, and this is where it gets confusing, is for cropped framed sensors - both have the gold ring :bang:

Anyway, for the NIkon uses, after some seraching found this

http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nikoneurope_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=12089&p_created=1100513744&p_sid=tN_PXY1j&p_accessibility=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9OTMmcF9wcm9kcz0wJnBfY2F0cz0yNDEmcF9wdj0 mcF9jdj0xLjI0MSZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PURYI ExlbnNlcw**&p_li=&p_topview=1

[Dangleman]

I had a feeling that'd be the case. 14-24 f/2.8 is it?

That's the one. Came out alongside the new 24-70 2.8 to partner the D3. Is apparently a fantastic lens from the reviews I've seen. Only thing is it has a 'bulbous' front element so you can't use filters, which really puts me off.

[kmlc]

Thats because its a stupid pointless lens. 24-70 f/2.8 is what you need.

:eek: i haven't found it stupid or pointless. works for me.

Sometimes, i think big companys throw lots of spiel at you to confuse you, therefore tricking some people into thinking as it is confusing, it must be good, or something like that anyways.

[jpd300]

As a Nikon user I feel that canon have a better marketing strategy, but I class any Nikon lens with a aperture of f2.8 or faster as PRO (with the exception of the long telephotos as making a 600mm F2.8 would be rather big and heavy and super expensive)

[Snake Man]

I think the price of a lens also gives a clue to whether or not it's a pro lens.

[petemc]

:eek: i haven't found it stupid or pointless. works for me.

I'm sure I could get good shots with it too but when you compare it to the 24-70 f/2.8 its a pointless lens. Having an extra 34mm won't help in low light and while it has IS its no substitute for f/2.8 which produces a nicer depth of field. Ultimately it comes down to f/2.8 vs f/4 and I'd pick f/2.8 every time.

[kmlc]

I'm sure I could get good shots with it too but when you compare it to the 24-70 f/2.8 its a pointless lens. Having an extra 34mm won't help in low light and while it has IS its no substitute for f/2.8 which produces a nicer depth of field. Ultimately it comes down to f/2.8 vs f/4 and I'd pick f/2.8 every time.

Im sure, but going by how much i could afford etc its def better than nout! :)

[petemc]

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 :p

[kmlc]

you think?
*hmm*

[kmlc]

wow, its only 270 squids!!!
I can buy that too in a few weeks :)
lol

[StewartR]

I think the price of a lens also gives a clue to whether or not it's a pro lens.OK Snake, I'll take the bait. Care to look at post #35 and tell me whether I bought one "pro" lens or two?

[HIMUPNORTH]

Thats because its a stupid pointless lens. 24-70 f/2.8 is what you need.


Not quite true however I acknowledge the reasoning behind the sentiment Pete.

It is just a "specialised" lens (not specialist). This lens is very appealing to me for my aerial photography as it would mean I would have a larger working range without changing lens (awkward in flight).

f2.8 is not useful for aerial work but an assurance of good clarity and the trademark L series edge and colour contrast is.

Despite this I have still not bought it! :lol:

[petemc]

Yeah but what happens when you want a nice image of a passing police helicopter a f/2.8? :p

[fracster]

Does it really matter what lens you use, pro or non pro if your happy with the results then stick with the lenses you have.For example, I bought the 70-200 2.8 whilst already owning the 80-400 4-5.6, the 80-400 is considered a non pro lens, yet it gets a helluva a lot more use than the 70-200.Why? simply because I like the images better from that lens. The 2.8 is useful for certain situations certainly and I would not say that I feel it was a waste of money.

[kmlc]

I agree fracster: if you are happy with the images it produces, then it shouldnt matter.
I ahve seen some amazing stuff form some 'cheaper' lens'

[dazzajl]

Thats because its a stupid pointless lens. 24-70 f/2.8 is what you need.

No Pete, it's just a stupid and pointless comment. http://forum.hondaevolutions.com/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

There are times that I have need for a short tele to use in low light without flash or tripod. Whilst the f2.8 might be the better quality lens in terms of IQ at a given focal length, it's sod all use to me if I need a 100mm lens I can shoot at with a Tv of an 1/8 of a second.

[kmlc]

well said

[dod]

we're going off topic folks :)

[dazzajl]

we're going off topic folks :)

http://forum.hondaevolutions.com/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif
Sorry, seems to happen every time I see a spade.

[HIMUPNORTH]

Yeah but what happens when you want a nice image of a passing police helicopter a f/2.8? :p
:lol:

Then 105mm will be a useful length.;)

[alexisonfire]

That's exactly how I feel.

Of course you can look at the price, but that's always a bit iffy. For example, last week I bought (a) an AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR for £1120; and (b) an AF 80-200mm f/2.8 D ED (or it might be IF-ED) for £590. Is (a) better? Yes, very probably. Is it twice as good? Almost certainly not. Did I get a great bargain on (b)? I might have. But here's the killer ... Was (b) the "pro" version before (a) came out? How can I tell?

Yes, some people say that the gold ring denotes the "pro" range. So if they're right, when I unpack the boxes I'll find out what I've bought. But how can they be sure? Nikon don't say anything about gold rings in their marketing. And there seems to be no correlation between the existence of gold rings and any particular combination of letters in the nomenclature.

Here's a final thought. That lens I bought is an AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR. OK, "AF-S" and "G" tell me something about which cameras it's compatible with, and "VR" tells me about some important functionality. But "IF-ED" is pointless techno-geekery. Why not tell me something about the quality of the lens instead? Obviously "L" is taken, but there are a few letters left in the alphabet that they don't use yet...

The AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED lens was the fastest telephoto lens of its time, and was Nikons flagship model. They then created an AF-S version to up autofocus speeds, but this was soon discontinued and replaced with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IF-ED VR. The 80-200mm f/2.8 is the sharpest zoom lens nikon have made, which is why its still available to buy today. They are both excellent in their own right.

The 80-200 is sharper and is smaller, but the 70-200 offers faster autofocus (not a lot of difference on a probody) and VR. IF stands for internal focus, and ED is a type of high spec coated glass used in the lens.

FX is the full frame line of Nikon DSLR's, and DX are the cropped sensor bodies. Any lens with DX written on it, is designed specifically for cropped sensor. Anything without DX will work on any Film, cropped sensor or full frame camera. Nikon currently only have one full frame camera atm obviously, which is the D3. It does have a feature which allows you to use DX lens at 6mp.

"D" range lenses are compatitable with the 3D matrix metering system. "G" range lenses do not have a manual apature ring, so are incompatible with some older generation cameras, even though the mount is the same.



Nikon? Erm...put it this way if I had a grand to spare and I wanted a cracking pro wide angle for a D3 per say, I wouldn't have a clue.

Its simple, the 12-24 f/4 is DX, so its designed for cropped sensor cameras. The 14-24mm f/2.8 is not DX so it will work on FF cameras. :)

[petemc]

No Pete, it's just a stupid and pointless comment. http://forum.hondaevolutions.com/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

There are times that I have need for a short tele to use in low light without flash or tripod. Whilst the f2.8 might be the better quality lens in terms of IQ at a given focal length, it's sod all use to me if I need a 100mm lens I can shoot at with a Tv of an 1/8 of a second.

Well that's me told. I'll sell my f/2.8 now and buy a lens that's won't help me get the pics I want. :p lighten up dude. Its sunny. Make photos not war.

[blinkerz]

Does Nikon have fast glass such as 1.0 , 1.2??

[dazzajl]

Well that's me told.

If only eh. :p;):lol:

Don't worry, I'm light and I have been out on the sun most of the day making images. :D

You did go on to prove my point rather nicely though.

The 24-105 wouldn't get the job done for you. Is it really so hard to accept that your f2.8 wouldn't cut it for some others? :)

I'll happily accept that a ferrari IS a better car than an old volvo estate..... but not when you want to move a sofa it's not. :thumbs:

[fracster]

I'll happily accept that a ferrari IS a better car than an old volvo estate.....

Not when it comes to spare parts cost.....:eek:

[petemc]

Is it really so hard to accept that your f2.8 wouldn't cut it for some others? :)

Yes because it invalidates my argument then :p

[fracster]

Yes because it invalidates my argument then :p

:lol::lol::lol:

:thumbs:

[Chappers]

One of the problems here is that you are not really comparing like with like. It's the camera system that's producing the result, not the lens on it's own. yes you can look at MTF figures and try to determine which lens is better, but you can only really compare them when they are on the same camera.

If someone is shooting Nikon and gets a good picture, fine, as a Canon user I really don't have any problem with that. I went down the Canon route because the camera "felt" better to me. Other people I know would have gone the Nikon route.

I've even got some friend who have Nikons:lol::lol::lol:

[StewartR]

Why do these threads always have to degenerate into pointless and childish Canon vs Nikon debates? Why can't we all just accept that they're both very good systems? There was an interesting discussion going on here a while ago, but it's just got buried amongst all the mud-slinging.

[EdinburghGary]

I was just questioning the marketing strategy...

[grumpybadger]

The other bit of the question Gary was price. I don't know about the smaller lenses, but I costed up moving to Nikon and the 500 f/4 was significantly more expensive than the Canon one.

I think it is swings and roundabouts. In Norway recently, I was using my 500 f/4 on a 1d MK II. The guy I was travelling with was using a 400 f/2.8 on a D2x. We both had similar fields of view, but he had an extra stop of light. Probably significant considering how dark it was. Also, the Nikon 400/2.8 weighed about the same as my Canon 500/4 whereas the Canon 400/2.8 is about 2 kg heavier. This is very significant if you are travelling and occaisionally wanting to hand hold.

Quality wise, I reckon in real life they are very similar. The only reason I use Canon is that I started on Canon when I went autofocus in 1998 - before that I had an OM4Ti but Olympus weren't doing DSLRs at the time.

[joxby]

Quality wise, I reckon in real life they are very similar. The only reason I use Canon is that I started on Canon when I went autofocus in 1998

I think this is pretty much the crux of why one or the other, its just the way the cards fall.:thumbs:

I know the ins and outs of Nikon, I dont find it complicated because thats what I shoot, I daresay if I'd have shot Canon I'd make it my business to know what all that crap means.
As it is, all the talk of eos/is/efs/usm/Learner glass and the like, doesn't mean a damn thing to me at all...not a clue, but I do understand specs which is more important than any pre-fix lettering
Anybody looking for pro glass will know what they are looking for without a "pro range" platinum royal seal of approval.
I do know theres nothing to choose between them, and anybody who says there is, either doesn't really know or is market brainwashed.
There are togs like that in both camps, its an insecurity thing.
Marketing ?.....I like it as it is, without the big sell "your nothin without Z glass":lol:

[fracster]

Allelujiah.......:thumbs:

[SimonTALM]

Nikon have definately missed the boat in their marketing.

Personally I think you friend is an idot - photographs are made by the photographer and not the kit, just look at the kit Cartier-Bresson or Ansel Adams used. Personally I'd ignore the comments and get on with producing better photographs than him, that way he'll soon shut up and go and buy a Nikon (after all the camera took the photo :cuckoo:).

But as you asked for a comeback have you tried this one?

Remember that it's the Lenses that actually make the image and in film days the lens on the camera was the only difference in image quality. Historically Studio and Wedding togs used Nikon and sports and news togs used Canon, the reason being was that the Canon had faster motor drive speeds (10fps on EOS 1V, compared to 8fps on Nikon F5) and this ensured they get the shot (what they got paid for). When speed isn't such an issue the factor the Pro chose Nikon, why? Well might this have something to do with the quality of the lenses?

With digital cameras the main difference in image quality comes from the sensors and as Canon were far in advance of Nikon in the early days many Togs switched from Nikon to Canon hence the trend does not continue.

[wbm]

I can just see him now ;)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/clinton.jpg

You can. I am.

Hiya Gary :)

[EdinburghGary]

You can. I am.

Hiya Gary :)



See the uproar you have caused? :D

[dod]

You can. I am.

Hiya Gary :)

:lol: Welcome aboard :thumbs:

[wbm]

See the uproar you have caused? :D

Where football and religion fail, Canon v. Nikon always works...

:lol:

[EdinburghGary]

Where football and religion fail, Canon v. Nikon always works...

:lol:

WBM? Trying to make a connection, failing...:thinking: :shrug: :)

[wbm]

:lol: Welcome aboard :thumbs:

Cheers. Has me laughing for sure.

[wbm]

WBM? Trying to make a connection, failing...:thinking: :shrug: :)

I nearly changed my name to one with those initials when very drunk once. Long story and not for a family audience...

[EdinburghGary]

I nearly changed my name to one with those initials when very drunk once. Long story and not for a family audience...

Yup, when you say not for a family audience, I am inclined to believe it ;)

[Joe T]

Nikon, being a relatively small company, sell as many lenses as they can make (especially the higher quality glass). So you could argue the marketing strategy is not so important.... :)

[wbm]

I've just sat back and read the whole thread. Wow, chill out everyone. The "L" thing was a bit of banter.

First, I don't think I'm a much better photographer than you, Gary, but I've taken a lot more photos. That helps a lot.

As a Canon owner it's a no-brainer, if you've got the money you buy an "L" lens. Its optics will be good (at least), the build quality will be excellent, the resale value will be high. The means justify the lens. ;)

If Nikon wide-angles fitted my Canon I'd be all over them, but they don't.

[EdinburghGary]

I've just sat back and read the whole thread. Wow, chill out everyone. The "L" thing was a bit of banter.

First, I don't think I'm a much better photographer than you, Gary, but I've taken a lot more photos. That helps a lot.

As a Canon owner it's a no-brainer, if you've got the money you buy an "L" lens. Its optics will be good (at least), the build quality will be excellent, the resale value will be high. The means justify the lens. ;)

If Nikon wide-angles fitted my Canon I'd be all over them, but they don't.


Dude I didn't said you think I said you ARE - your photos are awsome. I just got the impression that the L lens quality I suppose were not available elsewhere, so I asked. I knew you and Adam knew I posted here, so the only time I have said your crap is in all the PM's....joke :D

[specialman]

For example, Nikon have NO answer to this

http://www.digital-cameras.com/pic/300x300/17/89/canon_eos_lens_ef_24105mm_f4_l_is_usm_1970.jpg

F4 , 24 to 105 L

Who cares? I use Canon 'L' lenses at work but can't tell any difference between my 17-40mm Canon 'L' and my 'cheap' Nikon 18-70mm kit lens. One is £140 and the other is £500 - that's a lot extra to pay for a red ring aroud the lens!

If your mate is semi-pro he'll obviously realise that it's not the kit but the way he uses it that matters.

Judging by the number of utterly gash photos taken on expensive kit that i see on this website, there are a lot of people who are kidding themselves that expensive gear will make them into a 'photographer'.

All the gear, no idea springs to mind...

[wez130]

Who cares? I use Canon 'L' lenses at work but can't tell any difference between my 17-40mm Canon 'L' and my 'cheap' Nikon 18-70mm kit lens. One is £140 and the other is £500 - that's a lot extra to pay for a red ring aroud the lens!

If your mate is semi-pro he'll obviously realise that it's not the kit but the way he uses it that matters.

Judging by the number of utterly gash photos taken on expensive kit that i see on this website, there are a lot of people who are kidding themselves that expensive gear will make them into a 'photographer'.

All the gear, no idea springs to mind...

That's a bit harsh isn't it? Isn't photography subjective, what one person likes another will dislike, doesn't make it 'utterly gash' does it? How would you like me to call your work utterly gash?

[wbm]

Dude I didn't said you think

Sorry, let me rephrase what I said: I do not believe that I am a better photographer than you, I do have more experience, though. That helps when you're trying to get the picture you see in your head onto a sensor or piece of film.

And I totally agree (apart from the critique) with specialman above, it's not the equipment. Most of my best pictures are with kit lenses. A lot of my "nice but for the flare" or, back in film days, "nice but for the distortion", pictures were also taken on kit lenses, but that's a different matter... Specialman's work will have bought "L" lenses, though, for the build quality. I know I could have easily got cheaper lenses with as good optics, but I'd be much less happy outdoors with them.

[EdinburghGary]

Sorry, let me rephrase what I said: I do not believe that I am a better photographer than you, I do have more experience, though. That helps when you're trying to get the picture you see in your head onto a sensor or piece of film.

And I totally agree (apart from the critique) with specialman above, it's not the equipment. Most of my best pictures are with kit lenses. A lot of my "nice but for the flare" or, back in film days, "nice but for the distortion", pictures were also taken on kit lenses, but that's a different matter... Specialman's work will have bought "L" lenses, though, for the build quality. I know I could have easily got cheaper lenses with as good optics, but I'd be much less happy outdoors with them.


No worries. What you up to today....


Let me have a guess....


Footy? :D

[wbm]

Footy? :D

Got it in one. Suffering withdrawal symptoms after last week. I mean, Skye is nice, but it is no Tynecastle. :D

[NorthernNikon]

That's exactly how I feel.

Of course you can look at the price, but that's always a bit iffy. For example, last week I bought (a) an AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR for £1120; and (b) an AF 80-200mm f/2.8 D ED (or it might be IF-ED) for £590. Is (a) better? Yes, very probably. Is it twice as good? Almost certainly not. Did I get a great bargain on (b)? I might have. But here's the killer ... Was (b) the "pro" version before (a) came out? How can I tell?

Yes, some people say that the gold ring denotes the "pro" range. So if they're right, when I unpack the boxes I'll find out what I've bought. But how can they be sure? Nikon don't say anything about gold rings in their marketing. And there seems to be no correlation between the existence of gold rings and any particular combination of letters in the nomenclature.

Here's a final thought. That lens I bought is an AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR. OK, "AF-S" and "G" tell me something about which cameras it's compatible with, and "VR" tells me about some important functionality. But "IF-ED" is pointless techno-geekery. Why not tell me something about the quality of the lens instead? Obviously "L" is taken, but there are a few letters left in the alphabet that they don't use yet...

Stewart IF-ED isn't pointless techno-geekery at all, it's telling you that the lens has internal focusinf and Extra Dispersal glass which would tell you a whole load more than an arbitory letter be it 'L' or 'X', 'Y' or 'Z'.

You wnat to know how to tell Nikon's 'Pro' range but the question is irrelevent. What is a 'pro' lens? Can a professional photograher nbot use a 50mm f/1.8 or must he/she only use the f:1/4? Nikon don't have a 'pro' range, just a range. Each lens has pros (no pun) and cons. You buy each Nikkor on its own merits not because the manufacture decided to label it with an 'L' You ask whether the 70-200 is twice as good as the 80-200, but how can one lens be twice as good as another? It can be twice as sharp, twice as fast, twice as heavy, twices a small, but why would anyone in their right minds think of lenses in terms of one being twice as good as another. The price might be twice the price, but then you weigh up what you need against the cost and you make a value judgement.

Those who say that Canon have stolen a march over Nikon with their 'L' marketing are living in cloud cuckoo land. I can't see how anyone would ever buy into the Canon system because they have a range of lenses with an 'L' on them and if any Canon user bought an 'L' lens over a cheaper one simply because they have bought into the concept of 'L' being 'better' rather than what suited their requirements better then it's certain that the L stands for Loser.

[kmlc]

very well said!