Canon vs Nikon glass
- Thread starter cuthbert
- Start date
- Status
"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...
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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."good luck"? Some might consider it planning and forethought on the part of Nikon.
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.
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
well, you never know. I mean would it take a genius to realise that electronics would eventually make their way into cameras?
:shrug:
:shrug:
- Messages
- 2,859
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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)..
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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.
- Messages
- 351
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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 for absolute state of the art in 1959
Most computers were still valve based.
Nick.
ps: see THIS for absolute state of the art in 1959
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
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.
- Messages
- 488
- Name
- Samuel
- Edit My Images
- No
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..
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..
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Oh no! My lens has 0.001% more CA at 50mm than the canon equivalent when wide open
Post of the thread, bloody well said.........
Joe T
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 15,801
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I wouldnt call that a red herring. Just something that isnt 100% true.
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
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.
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...
I'm seeing precious little hard evidence to back up some of the claims here...
- Messages
- 9,162
- Name
- Trevor
- Edit My Images
- No
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 ?
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 ?
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Get your submission in here:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=224074
(quick plug for my thread!
)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.
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
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).
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).
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
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.
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
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...?
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
Asking you to qualify your post is hardly being thick is it.
FYI, I've reported your post.
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...
Herro? :shrug:
...that's pretty effin' thick in my book...
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
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:
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:
- Messages
- 140
- Name
- Stig
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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...
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...
- Messages
- 6,732
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Canon vs Nikon, nooooo.
It's too much like Apple vs Microsoft.
What, we have some of those?!?!?!
- Messages
- 587
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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.
- Messages
- 587
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
... but if it keeps them happy and off the streets ...
- Messages
- 2,677
- Edit My Images
- No
I think this is the best reply I have seen on this post.
- Status