Canon vs Nikon glass

Status
Not open for further replies.
cuthbert

cuthbert

Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew Me Dibble and Grubb
Messages
1,966
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
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/...p=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/...&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/...&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/...&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/...Comp=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/...p=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/...&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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
cuthbert said:
<snip>

so, is this an apples vs oranges comparison?

<snip>
Click to expand...

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.
 
HoppyUK said:
I don't think you can accuse that site of Canon/Nikon bias (they get money from advertisers)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Kaouthia said:
Many of the people I know who shoot video on
the 5DMk2 and 7D actually do so with Nikon glass.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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).
 
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
 
HoppyUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cuthbert said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
desantnik said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Arkady said:
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
Click to expand...


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/...p=641&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=4
 
cuthbert said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HoppyUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/...meraComp=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/...meraComp=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/...meraComp=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?
 
cuthbert said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
desantnik said:
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:
Click to expand...

Haha, good answer! :D
 
doesnt consider slight variations in lens examples, my Nikon 300mm is way, way sharper than my Canon 300mm ever was wide open
 
desantnik said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
cuthbert said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
 
gpa said:
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:
Click to expand...


Oh No we wouldn't....:lol:
 
Arkady said:
Oh No we wouldn't....:lol:
Click to expand...

I can't honestly imagine going back to canon either. The only thing I seriously miss is the 100-400.
 
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? :)
 
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:
 
desantnik said:
but Nikon still owns the night both in terms of noise and an AF system that eats carrots :D.
Click to expand...

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.
 
trencheel303 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
trencheel303 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
desantnik said:
.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top