Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon Lenses vs. Nikon Lenses  (Read 22529 times)
D White
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73

Don White


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2008, 12:17:25 AM »
ReplyReply

There are more people adapting Nikon lenses to Canon since, until now, there has been no Nikon bodies worth adapting a Canon lens too, if it were possible.
Logged

Dr D White DDS BSc
Andy M
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2008, 03:46:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No intention to enter an endless discussion on this, but what do you base your opinion on?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172977\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'll hold my hands up - I was comparing the Canon lenses to Nikon's old lenses; I had not realised that Nikon had released so many new lenses!

I've always believed that Canon's 35L f1.4, 85L f1.2, 135L f2, 300L f2.8 IS, 24-70L f2.8 and 70-200L f2.8 IS were unrivaled. How do Nikon's lenses compare?
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2008, 06:57:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
With every pair of lenses you are comparing, the Nikkor has noticeably better MTF numbers.  You can check it out for yourself here:  http://www.photozone.de/reviews

No you can't. You cannot compare across different manufacturers, as the camera body used is not the same. For one thing the Canon body used has a lower pixel count.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2008, 06:58:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There are more people adapting Nikon lenses to Canon since, until now, there has been no Nikon bodies worth adapting a Canon lens too, if it were possible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173221\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That was a very very silly comment.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2008, 09:15:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It is a matter of fact, based upon the MTF charts on the Canon website, that the 70-200mm f/4L is sharper than the f/2.8 at most or all aperatures.  Just take a look at the graphs. 

...

Take a look at these sites for more serious lens reviews if you have not already done so:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/  (click on "search"---> radio button "Ken Rockwell"---> then enter "canon lenses" or "nikon lenses" to get lists)

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/jr...lens/index.html  (for Nikon lenses only, because this guy is a "Nikonian.")


I read the Digital Picture.com review, the reviewer of Digital Picture.com himself said, "The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens is my favorite and most-used lens." ... and ended his review by saying, "My keeper rate from this lens is among the best of any lenses I have used," so I was a little confused here by your recommending the f/4L IS over the f/2.8L IS when the writer of the review you provided himself favors the f/2.8L.

However, the Photozone reviews tended to support the f/4L over the f/2.8L IS ... so, here again, we see the differences amongst even the reviewers  


Jack
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2008, 09:31:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
With every pair of lenses you are comparing, the Nikkor has noticeably better MTF numbers. You can check it out for yourself here: http://www.photozone.de/reviews

If you went for the newer more expensive Nikkors (24-70/2.8 and 14-24/2.Cool then you are investing in lenses that are the benchmark lenses and will easily match prime lenses at the same apertures.

Since you are particularly interested in macro, I would think the two lenses that would be the most important to you would be these:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EO...-review?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/...-report?start=1

Also, Nikkors come with a 5 year warranty versus a 1 year warranty for Canon lenses. That might be an indication of what each company thinks of its products build quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173208\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]





Thank you for providing these links; I am almost blind now after reading many of them  

I do see what you mean about the difference in the Canon 180 macro vs. the Nikkor 200 macro, but what is interesting is that every other macro size reviewed favored the Canon. It is puzzling why Canon wouldn't follow suit in making their biggest and best macro up to the same standards  

The Photozone review also supported what Bruce said about the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS, which review was superior both to Canon's brother lens (70-200 f/2.8L IS) as well as to the Nikkor counterpart.

In fact, the review enabled me to read the comparisons of other lenses rather easily also, and I noted that in the 100-400mm zoom comparison, the Canon's review pretty much completely eclipsed the Nikkor's review. I also noted that the build quality in many of the Canon's was rated higher ... but yet I also noted that in many of the models the "if you get a good one" caveat was added ... which I think is a disgraceful commentary on Canon, quite frankly. It is inconceivable that a company with as high a profile as Canon would be that lacking in its quality control. (In fact, it almost makes you wonder if this isn't the reason for the disparity in reviews -- one reviewer getting a lemon lens while another gets a cherry.)

Anyway, it actually seemed to me that the Nikkor's didn't favor too well in many of their zoom categories, but in their recent wide-angle offerings (in particular the AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 G ED N), that their favorable difference in quality was substantial.

So this is exactly the kind of detailed comparison I was looking for, so I thank you for providing it.

Jack
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 09:34:03 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7877



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2008, 09:58:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've always believed that Canon's 35L f1.4, 85L f1.2, 135L f2, 300L f2.8 IS, 24-70L f2.8 and 70-200L f2.8 IS were unrivaled. How do Nikon's lenses compare?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From what I have seen, the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is slight ahead, the 70-200s and 300s are basically the same.

Comparison is more difficult for the other lenses since, as I wrote above, there is no direct Nikon equivalent.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2008, 10:34:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In fact, the review enabled me to read the comparisons of other lenses rather easily also, and I noted that in the 100-400mm zoom comparison, the Canon's review pretty much completely eclipsed the Nikkor's review. I also noted that the build quality in many of the Canon's was rated higher ... but yet I also noted that in many of the models the "if you get a good one" caveat was added ... which I think is a disgraceful commentary on Canon, quite frankly. It is inconceivable that a company with as high a profile as Canon would be that lacking in its quality control. (In fact, it almost makes you wonder if this isn't the reason for the disparity in reviews -- one reviewer getting a lemon lens while another gets a cherry.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173295\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Judging from the various comments and reviews I have read over the last few years, it seems that somewhere around 2003 or so, Canon started making much better 100-400 ISes.  I have one, a grey market from B&H which I purchased in May of 2004, and it is as sharp at 400mm as any of my lenses are, except the Tamron 90mm macro, and the 70-200 f/4L.  I can use 2x of converters with it and get fairly sharp 100% crops (except for some haloing in high-contrast situations), but the bokeh tends to suffer with TCs.

The samples in the reviews with older lenses give 100% crops at 400mm as soft as mine gives with 2.8x of stacked converters for 1120mm.  When it is reviewed poorly, it is usually stated that the lens is softest at 400mm.  Mine is sharpest at 400mm, by a good margin (100mm is mediocre), and the Canon Lenswork MTF charts show it as being sharpest at 400mm as well, so that *is* apparently how it is designed.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2008, 11:02:58 PM »
ReplyReply

From looking at other peoples Canons, and my own Nikons, I'd have to say that if you take the closest comparable lenses, there might be more difference in sample variation than there is, on average, between the two lens lines.

Or, at least, there used to be. I recently bought the Nikon 14-24 and the 70-200 f2.8s and they are terrific lenses; I doubt that Canon can match them simply because (maybe) the Canon lenses are older design/technology. I don't doubt that Canon *could* match them, and probably will. One thing, carrying the new Nikons around is like carrying a sack of bricks.

As far as primes go, don't forget that Zeiss makes prime lenses in Nikon mount (but not Canon) and they are supposedly quite good. (And perhaps you could adapt the Nikon Zeisses to Canon?)

Canon, if you listen to the talk, has for a long time been weak in wide lenses, and exceptionally strong in long IS lenses and shift lenses. They are now probably matched in that by the new Nikons.

One question about Canon -- can the same lenses be used on both the FF and cropped-frame cameras? They can on Nikon, although, of course, with different FOVs; and that's actually an interesting strength.

But, generally, IMHO, this is a question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; each brand, along with Leica, Hassy, etc., is used by one of another of the greatest photographers in the world. If I were you, I'd buy on budget, ergonomics, personal fit, and so on. The brand ain't gonna make much difference in image quality, and people who tell you that it will, are generally people who are hoping their equipment will make them into good photographers... 8-)

JC
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2008, 12:38:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The Photozone review also supported what Bruce said about the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS, which review was superior both to Canon's brother lens (70-200 f/2.8L IS) as well as to the Nikkor counterpart.

Anyway, it actually seemed to me that the Nikkor's didn't favor too well in many of their zoom categories, but in their recent wide-angle offerings (in particular the AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 G ED N), that their favorable difference in quality was substantial.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you may have misread the MTF numbers, matching apertures the Nikkor is slightly ahead of the Canon.  The Canon's MTF numbers start at f/4 and the Nikkor's MTF numbers start at f/2.8, which also brings up the question of bokeh -- the Nikkor's bokeh is exceptional.

When I reviewed the numbers, the Nikkors had higher MTF numbers at practically every focal range and aperture compared to the Canon lenses.

As regards other macro (micro) lenses, here's two more:

[a href=\"http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/167-canon-ef-100mm-f28-usm-macro-test-report--review?start=1]http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EO...-review?start=1[/url]

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/...-report?start=1

Regarding Slough's critique about different cameras used to test the lenses, that would explain a ceiling (MTF number that cannot be exceeded), but there are MTF number that are higher and then there are MTF number that are lower measured by the same camera; so those lower numbers relative to the higher numbers from the Nikon camera cannot be explained by the camera's resolving limitation.  Since you are buying a system, even if the camera is the culprit, then it's still a testament to the overall performance.  Ironically, the D300 has even higher resolution than the D200 that was used in the testing.

After all is said and done, they're both fine systems.  Too much analysis is a waste of time and mental effort.  Buy the best system you can afford now.  If a few hundred dollars makes a difference, get the Canon 40D; if you can afford it you get a little more with D300 and the lenses you are considering.
Logged
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2008, 02:02:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I read the Digital Picture.com review, the reviewer of Digital Picture.com himself said, "The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens is my favorite and most-used lens." ... and ended his review by saying, "My keeper rate from this lens is among the best of any lenses I have used," so I was a little confused here by your recommending the f/4L IS over the f/2.8L IS when the writer of the review you provided himself favors the f/2.8L.

However, the Photozone reviews tended to support the f/4L over the f/2.8L IS ... so, here again, we see the differences amongst even the reviewers  
Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173288\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
I looked at both of these lenses & went with the F4 version great lens. reason Weight about 1 Kg lighter. I have heard sharpness wise they are about the same. the extra price is for the F 2.8 which for my work is not important.
Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2008, 02:46:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Be careful of the test rating scales on photozone.

For Canon and Nikon, photozone uses different scales, use the raw numbers rather than the scale ratings

All about history of the site

Bob
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2008, 12:12:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Judging from the various comments and reviews I have read over the last few years, it seems that somewhere around 2003 or so, Canon started making much better 100-400 ISes.  I have one, a grey market from B&H which I purchased in May of 2004, and it is as sharp at 400mm as any of my lenses are, except the Tamron 90mm macro, and the 70-200 f/4L.  I can use 2x of converters with it and get fairly sharp 100% crops (except for some haloing in high-contrast situations), but the bokeh tends to suffer with TCs.

The samples in the reviews with older lenses give 100% crops at 400mm as soft as mine gives with 2.8x of stacked converters for 1120mm.  When it is reviewed poorly, it is usually stated that the lens is softest at 400mm.  Mine is sharpest at 400mm, by a good margin (100mm is mediocre), and the Canon Lenswork MTF charts show it as being sharpest at 400mm as well, so that *is* apparently how it is designed.


When looking at the review pictures, the photo of the Canadian goose was particularly sharp (on a so-so body at that), and since I am looking to take bird photos predominantly that photo made me consider the 100-400 lens as perhaps the one to take over 'either' 70-200. With the 1.6 conversion, the 100-400 would actually be a 160-640mm lens on a 40D.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2008, 12:45:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
From looking at other peoples Canons, and my own Nikons, I'd have to say that if you take the closest comparable lenses, there might be more difference in sample variation than there is, on average, between the two lens lines.

That is probably the real truth, ultimately.




Quote
Or, at least, there used to be. I recently bought the Nikon 14-24 and the 70-200 f2.8s and they are terrific lenses; I doubt that Canon can match them simply because (maybe) the Canon lenses are older design/technology. I don't doubt that Canon *could* match them, and probably will. One thing, carrying the new Nikons around is like carrying a sack of bricks.

Both brands in f/2.8 are known for being heavy, and in fact both the Canon and the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 weigh exactly the same at 1470g apiece. As far as quality goes, it was actually the Canon (in f/4) that got the rave reviews from Photozone: "The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS may well be the very best tele zoom on the market today - it is certainly the best Canon zoom lens tested locally to date. The lens was capable to deliver a near-flawless performance is all categories. The resolution figures are stunning regardless of the setting."




Quote
As far as primes go, don't forget that Zeiss makes prime lenses in Nikon mount (but not Canon) and they are supposedly quite good. (And perhaps you could adapt the Nikon Zeisses to Canon?)

I hadn't considered this, but thanks.




Quote
Canon, if you listen to the talk, has for a long time been weak in wide lenses, and exceptionally strong in long IS lenses and shift lenses. They are now probably matched in that by the new Nikons.

Not from what I've read. In fact, the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 required a second lens to get good results also, in their test, which indicates it isn't just Canon that can't seem to get the lens right the first time. The Nikkor 100-400 doesn't seem to stack up well at all to the corresponding Canon, either. But yes, I have read the reviews of the wide lenses too, and this verdict seems pretty unanimous in favor of Nikkor.




Quote
One question about Canon -- can the same lenses be used on both the FF and cropped-frame cameras? They can on Nikon, although, of course, with different FOVs; and that's actually an interesting strength.

Yes they can.




Quote
But, generally, IMHO, this is a question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; each brand, along with Leica, Hassy, etc., is used by one of another of the greatest photographers in the world. If I were you, I'd buy on budget, ergonomics, personal fit, and so on. The brand ain't gonna make much difference in image quality, and people who tell you that it will, are generally people who are hoping their equipment will make them into good photographers... 8-)
JC

Very good point. However, there is some amount of research that should be done before investing $6,000 - $8,000 of cash into a brand name. Doing so involves a rather steep commitment (at least for me), and I'd rather go with the brand that not only feels best in my hand, but that feels like will serve me well for the longest amount of time.

I suppose both brands would likely do this just fine, but I feel all of my reading and asking so many questions has helped me ... somewhat
« Last Edit: February 11, 2008, 01:25:22 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2008, 01:10:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think you may have misread the MTF numbers, matching apertures the Nikkor is slightly ahead of the Canon. The Canon's MTF numbers start at f/4 and the Nikkor's MTF numbers start at f/2.8, which also brings up the question of bokeh -- the Nikkor's bokeh is exceptional.

I was looking at other characteristics also. The barrel distortion on the Canon was less, the vignetting was less, and the CA was much less. In fact, the CA of the Nikkor was so bad the review said, "The first tested sample produced a very uneven and mediocre CA (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) characteristic," which again indicates that Nikon too suffers from not getting the lens right the first time. The CA review ended by saying, "Please note that lateral CAs can be easily corrected via software tools," which wasn't necessary to say about the Canon lens.

On the final summation, the review said of the Nikkor "CAs are low at large aperture settings but increase to comparatively high levels at and beyond f/8 - in absolute terms CAs remain moderate though. The mechanical quality of the lens is very good." ...

... while of the Canon it said, "On top of that the USM implementation in this lens is excellent - compared to conventional macro lenses in this range it is a speed daemon here and a near silent one. Optically the lens resides on a very high level with little to nothing to be desired. HIGHLY recommended!"

But yes, the MTF on the Nikkor lens was slightly higher.




Quote
Regarding Slough's critique about different cameras used to test the lenses, that would explain a ceiling (MTF number that cannot be exceeded), but there are MTF number that are higher and then there are MTF number that are lower measured by the same camera; so those lower numbers relative to the higher numbers from the Nikon camera cannot be explained by the camera's resolving limitation. Since you are buying a system, even if the camera is the culprit, then it's still a testament to the overall performance. Ironically, the D300 has even higher resolution than the D200 that was used in the testing.

True, and the Canon 40D has a much higher resolution and larger processor than the 350D listed on the Canon test comparison also.




Quote
After all is said and done, they're both fine systems. Too much analysis is a waste of time and mental effort. Buy the best system you can afford now. If a few hundred dollars makes a difference, get the Canon 40D; if you can afford it you get a little more with D300 and the lenses you are considering.

True again. But it's kind of a paradox. Too 'little' analysis can result in a waste of money, and the entire Nikon system is actually a few thousand dollars more (all Nikkor lenses considered), not just a few hundred. I am trying to determine if those few thousand dollars are worth it or not. If I feel that they are, then I will spend the extra dough.

And I appreciate your helping me to make this decision by providing those reviews.

Jack
« Last Edit: February 11, 2008, 01:30:07 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #35 on: February 11, 2008, 01:17:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi
I looked at both of these lenses & went with the F4 version great lens. reason Weight about 1 Kg lighter. I have heard sharpness wise they are about the same. the extra price is for the F 2.8 which for my work is not important.
Denis

Hi Denis;
If I go with the 70-200 Canon, I am going to take yours and Bruce's cue and opt for the f/4L over the f/2.8 also. My decision now is between this lens and the 100-400L  
Logged
photostop
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #36 on: November 28, 2008, 11:35:30 AM »
ReplyReply

In this debate I would admit Nikon with Nikon Lenses will rule.
However, I when using non-oem lenses I would go with Canon.

I've posted more on this debate on http://photocomics.blogspot.com
Logged
abcdefghi_rstuvwxyz
Guest
« Reply #37 on: November 28, 2008, 12:41:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Ithink you should compare Nikon's 24-70 to Canon's 24-70.
I would also add Nikon's 24-120 vs. Canon's 24-105.

I had the same question.  I got that, for most of the listed pair, Canon has better (fast and precise) auto focus, maybe better anti-shake too, while Nikon is better in stable shoot.
One exception, Canon's most popular zoom 24-105, is much better than Nikon's 24-120 in all aspects.

It's true that you can adapt almost any lens to EOS and not to Nikon F mount, but I don't think that adds real value to EOS. The problem is in the focusing. EOS's view finder is terrible for manual focus. Forget it, you'll never get it right.
I've used the best Leica R and Carl Zeiss on EOS, but even a Tamron zoom 28-75mm can easily beat it in the real application (I mean statistically. when practically not enough time to do precise focusing everytime).







Quote from: JohnKoerner
There has been a lot of debate and interest surrounding the emergence of the Canon 40D vs. the Nikon D300, but what perhaps might be an even more important discussion would be the pros and cons of each of the corresponding lens choices/prices that the consumer is faced with, after he makes up his mind which camera body he likes.

In fact, while it seems like the latest camera bodies change with the seasons, it's the actual camera lenses that last the longest and so (ultimately) matter most. In keeping with this, I have configured both brands with their high-end lenses and have tried to read as many "testimonials" as my eyes will allow me to read ... but it doesn't seem like many people have actually used and compared Canon lenses and Nikon lenses side-by-side.

Here are the 4 lenses I have compared which I feel will give me a good, broad gamut in "serious amateur" diversity:



* Canon EF Zoom 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM ($1,310)
* Nikkor AF-S Zoom 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF ($1,500)


* Canon EF Zoom 24-70mm f/2.8L USM  ($1,059)
* Nikkor AF-S Zoom 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF  ($1,400)


* Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM AF ($1,569)
* Nikkor AF VR Zoom 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF ($1,580)


* Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM ($1,239)
* Micro-Nikkor AF 200mm f/4D ED-IF ($1,340)



These 8 lenses are paired into 4 groups, based on nearly-identical specs. The specs are comparable, the prices are comparable, (although the Nikon glass is always higher), but how about the quality?

My question is, aside from the $643 difference in price ($1,294 difference when factoring the difference in price when adding the 40D and D300 bodies to the respective lists), in favor of Canon, is there any difference in function, durability, or end product? Are the Nikon lenses any better in these seemingly-comparable Canon models, to justify the extra money in favor of Nikon, or are both sets of lenses about equal in quality, function, and delivery?

Have any of you professionals done a side-by-side with any (or all) pairs of these lenses?

I have tried to compare for myself in local stores, but no one seems to have all of these options in the podunk town I live in  

Thanks for any input,

Jack
Logged
jcarlin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #38 on: November 30, 2008, 06:03:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I know a lot of the recent comments on this topic have focused on the comparisons of the longer lenses, so this may not be pertinent.  I know the original poster commented that he wanted to be able to use these lenses if/when he switches to FF, having just done this myself I would suggest to others that this is not worth worrying about when it, especially when it comes to GP and wide angle zooms.  It's true that the you'll end up loosing some percentage of your original investment when you sell your used stuff and replace it.  This is offset by a variety of factors including, when you do switch you will be able to buy newer lenses that may not have existed, if you are new to having an SLR you will have a better feel for the focal lengths that you commonly use, or you may never decide to switch within that same system.  I shoot Canon, so what I have to say applies to their lens lineup, I suspect there is some similar combination for Nikon.  If you consider the 16-35 and the 24-70 combined cost ~$2400 while the 10-22 and 17-55 combine for less than 2K, they will give you a more flexible zoom range, you won't have to constantly switch lenses around "normal" like you would with the FF versions, and you will have IS for your GP zoom.  

Anyhow just my 2 cents.
Logged
cmoster
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #39 on: December 18, 2008, 04:58:07 AM »
ReplyReply

If you do you research, you get what you pay for,
I have used both brands but Nikon much more.
Canons cost $1200ish for pro glass next to $1500 ball park for Nikon
but you get the warranty and in my opinion better glass.
also every time I buy Canon glass I have to send it back 3 times to get a sharp one

for your situation and needs they both have amazing lenses if you have the cash
look into the
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR for bugs/ portraits (amazing bokah)
and
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR for birds
the Canons cant quite compete, though you save $500
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad