I have taken the bait...

EdinburghGary

EdinburghGary

Reply not Report
Messages
19,065
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
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.
 
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?
 
:puke:

Nikon, compete with Canon? HA

*edit*

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

Nikon, compete with Canon? HA

*edit*

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


I know that, but the problem is he is semi pro and I am a complete amatuer. What come back do I have? :help:
 
: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. ;)
 
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 can just see him now ;)

clinton.jpg
 
NorthernNikon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!! ;)
 
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.nikonhs.org/history.html
 
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! ;) )
 
Chillimonster said:
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! ;) )
Click to expand...

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?
 
EdinburghGary said:
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"...

:)
Click to expand...

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
 
PsiFox said:
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
Click to expand...

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!
 
Chillimonster said:
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! ;) )
Click to expand...

Nikon do a nice Tropical Grey version of some lenses
 
EdinburghGary said:
For example, Nikon have NO answer to this

canon_eos_lens_ef_24105mm_f4_l_is_usm_1970.jpg


F4 , 24 to 105 L
Click to expand...

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.
 
LadyLens said:
of course another facetious answer would be 'only bad photographers need better lenses' :whistle:
Click to expand...

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*"
 
Amp34 said:
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*"
Click to expand...



Ha, no I wish, not the case sadly!!
 
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
 
EdinburghGary said:
For example, Nikon have NO answer to this

canon_eos_lens_ef_24105mm_f4_l_is_usm_1970.jpg


F4 , 24 to 105 L
Click to expand...

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).
 
: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:
 
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?
 
StewartR said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nice Reply and thanks!
 
StewartR said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. (y)

As already said above, Nikon's flag ship lens are identifiable by a gold ring around the filter thread.
 
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. (y)
 
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.
 
EdinburghGary said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
EdinburghGary said:
For example, Nikon have NO answer to this...F4 , 24 to 105 L
Click to expand...

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

EdinburghGary said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
: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.


petemc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
LadyLens said:
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.
Click to expand...

I had a feeling that'd be the case. 14-24 f/2.8 is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top