I was initially thinking of getting the canon glass 17-55 f2.8 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 IS, but it appears as if Nikon has seemingly the same lens values in their line. Any experience on which will be the better glass? If they are the same, seems as if it will be cheeper to go the Nikon route so as to avoid the higher priced Birger mount. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Canon glass vs Nikon glass
- Thread starter swanny
- Start date
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
I've shot both for years and prefer the Nikon mount. It's also far more universally supported as it hasn't change all the way back to the 1960s. Others seem to prefer the Canon glass and that's fine. Honestly, my favorite glass I own right now is a Fujinon 55mm, so what can I say! 
They all make pretty pictures.
They all make pretty pictures.
RyanDeFranco
Active member
We all know Canon is anxiously working on the successor to the 5D--several rumors claim the 5D Mark III will be announced in March--so lets say they come out with their own AF-100 style camera, or that 4K prototype gets made, or whatever. Oh no! You bought Nikon glass! You're screwed!
Nope. Because it's easy to get an adapter to go from Nikon to Canon. If you buy Canon glass, however, and you end up wanting to put it to a Red Nikon mount--not possible, the adapter would have to go into the camera. I shot with Nikon's 17-55 for three years--it's an absolute tank, very dependable, I sold it for as much as I paid for it (used) because Nikon lenses have a reputation for excellence whereas Canon lenses have a reputation for being hit-or-miss (depends on the individual lens). I'm not sure about the Nikon, but I know that the Canon 24-70 does not hold its focus throughout the zoom range (great contrast though). You zoom in, find your focus, zoom out, and the lens is focused elsewhere...
In the end, I'd go with whatever you can get a good deal on used. Also the 70-200 might be overkill on a m4/3 sensor: I shoot with a 60mm Zeiss on the GH1 and that's plenty telephoto for narrative filmmaking... are you sure you want zooms? A zoom is like a Chinese buffet: trying to do a lot of things so-so instead of doing one dish right. 2 or 3 primes might seem less flexible, but backing up and walking forward can inspire you to really look at your frame and make minor adjustments that make all the difference, instead of just zooming in and staying where you are. ENG or reality work really requires zooms, of course, but I just thought I'd mention this.
If you do decide on the zooms, make sure these don't breathe as they're focused (many zoom lenses do), or look up an example of breathing during and make sure you're okay with that.
Be well and good luck choosing!
Ryan
Nope. Because it's easy to get an adapter to go from Nikon to Canon. If you buy Canon glass, however, and you end up wanting to put it to a Red Nikon mount--not possible, the adapter would have to go into the camera. I shot with Nikon's 17-55 for three years--it's an absolute tank, very dependable, I sold it for as much as I paid for it (used) because Nikon lenses have a reputation for excellence whereas Canon lenses have a reputation for being hit-or-miss (depends on the individual lens). I'm not sure about the Nikon, but I know that the Canon 24-70 does not hold its focus throughout the zoom range (great contrast though). You zoom in, find your focus, zoom out, and the lens is focused elsewhere...
In the end, I'd go with whatever you can get a good deal on used. Also the 70-200 might be overkill on a m4/3 sensor: I shoot with a 60mm Zeiss on the GH1 and that's plenty telephoto for narrative filmmaking... are you sure you want zooms? A zoom is like a Chinese buffet: trying to do a lot of things so-so instead of doing one dish right. 2 or 3 primes might seem less flexible, but backing up and walking forward can inspire you to really look at your frame and make minor adjustments that make all the difference, instead of just zooming in and staying where you are. ENG or reality work really requires zooms, of course, but I just thought I'd mention this.
If you do decide on the zooms, make sure these don't breathe as they're focused (many zoom lenses do), or look up an example of breathing during and make sure you're okay with that.
Be well and good luck choosing!
Ryan
I do a lot of events, weddings, and training videos, so for me a fast zoom will give me a huge advantage and in most cases a must. Does anyone have any experience with any of these lenses I listed above? I know Phil Bloom said the canon 17-55 2.8 is a must have and certainly worth the money, but are the Nikons equivalent in terms of quality and breathing?
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
I generally find Nikon lenses to be of superior build quality, but breathing isa per lens deal for both manufacturers.
Gotchya. Any experience with any lenses I posted above?
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Nope. I don't care for the look of most modern glass. Especially modern zooms. Great for sports photography, does nothing to help in portraiture or filming people. I only buy glass with a mechanical aperture ring.
RyanDeFranco
Active member
Swanny,
Nikon 17-55 zoom: 3 years experience. Like PerroneFord said, no special look. Amazing build quality though, could easily double as a hockey puck. Very fast autofocus, always tack sharp. On a Nikkon body, I was always wishing it had a bit more throw; on Micro 4/3, it couldn't be more perfect. You do wedding work? This will take you from a proper wide angle to a nice portrait in less than a second.
Canon 24-70 zoom: everyone I know shoots with one. I don't see anything special about it, but I've worked for a few fashion photographers who use it as their only lens, day in and day out. Shot a music video on it a few weeks ago and noticed that while it has decent contrast, other then that, nothing special. Also, consider the fact that on m4/3, this lens will start you out at a "50mm normal" equivalent, as opposed to a "35mm wide angle" equivalent on the Nikon. Would you rather start out on a wide and zoom in to a close up, or start out on a medium shot of a single person and have to back up for a wide but be able to zoom in to a 160mm telephoto from far away?
On the other hand, if you want a look with a bit more sharpness and "pop," with spectacular color rendition and less flare, with none of the dull flatness of modern glass, consider the Zeiss Contax zooms. The C/Y to micro 4/3 rumors will run you 30 bucks on e-bay, and these are famous among photographers as the "the best zooms ever made." You'd have to sacrifice half a stop of light--3.3 instead of 2.8--but half a stop isn't much for the spectacular richness of Zeiss glass / coatings.
There are two versions, the 35-70 f/3.4 and the f/3.3-4 28-85. Finally, all of these lenses will hold their re-sale value, so I strongly suggest buying one used and shooting for free. The imminent success of the AF-100 means Panasonic would be crazy not to produce a quality, fast zoom within a year, and with Zeiss producing lenses for m4/3 now too, maybe we'll see a modern zoom from them as well.
Nikon 17-55 zoom: 3 years experience. Like PerroneFord said, no special look. Amazing build quality though, could easily double as a hockey puck. Very fast autofocus, always tack sharp. On a Nikkon body, I was always wishing it had a bit more throw; on Micro 4/3, it couldn't be more perfect. You do wedding work? This will take you from a proper wide angle to a nice portrait in less than a second.
Canon 24-70 zoom: everyone I know shoots with one. I don't see anything special about it, but I've worked for a few fashion photographers who use it as their only lens, day in and day out. Shot a music video on it a few weeks ago and noticed that while it has decent contrast, other then that, nothing special. Also, consider the fact that on m4/3, this lens will start you out at a "50mm normal" equivalent, as opposed to a "35mm wide angle" equivalent on the Nikon. Would you rather start out on a wide and zoom in to a close up, or start out on a medium shot of a single person and have to back up for a wide but be able to zoom in to a 160mm telephoto from far away?
On the other hand, if you want a look with a bit more sharpness and "pop," with spectacular color rendition and less flare, with none of the dull flatness of modern glass, consider the Zeiss Contax zooms. The C/Y to micro 4/3 rumors will run you 30 bucks on e-bay, and these are famous among photographers as the "the best zooms ever made." You'd have to sacrifice half a stop of light--3.3 instead of 2.8--but half a stop isn't much for the spectacular richness of Zeiss glass / coatings.
There are two versions, the 35-70 f/3.4 and the f/3.3-4 28-85. Finally, all of these lenses will hold their re-sale value, so I strongly suggest buying one used and shooting for free. The imminent success of the AF-100 means Panasonic would be crazy not to produce a quality, fast zoom within a year, and with Zeiss producing lenses for m4/3 now too, maybe we'll see a modern zoom from them as well.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Why are you worried about breathing? Are you planning on doing a bunch of rack focus work?
RyanDeFranco
Active member
Swanny,
If you have to have that beautiful rack focus where the lens breathing becomes apparent, it can be keyed out in post--just shoot a little wider. Many people might not notice the effect anyway, it's just a way for shooters to justify spending $$ on cinema lenses that don't breathe. I've seen clips where a slight amount of breathing was actually quite beautiful.
If you have to have that beautiful rack focus where the lens breathing becomes apparent, it can be keyed out in post--just shoot a little wider. Many people might not notice the effect anyway, it's just a way for shooters to justify spending $$ on cinema lenses that don't breathe. I've seen clips where a slight amount of breathing was actually quite beautiful.
impressive creations
Active member
RyanDeFranco
Active member
Here's an example:
In the first shot, the operator racks from rain on the window pane to the city outside. Because the image is so out of focus, the zoom effect looks kind of pretty and dynamic. But watch, right afterward, as he adjusts focus to the balcony instead of the city. The whole frame does an awkward lurch. This sort of thing is especially noticeable with faces--when the pretty actress suddenly shrinks or grows in size, it can really take you out of the film. On the other hand, if it's one smooth focus pull (no minor "hunting" adjustments) the average audience might not even notice.
In the first shot, the operator racks from rain on the window pane to the city outside. Because the image is so out of focus, the zoom effect looks kind of pretty and dynamic. But watch, right afterward, as he adjusts focus to the balcony instead of the city. The whole frame does an awkward lurch. This sort of thing is especially noticeable with faces--when the pretty actress suddenly shrinks or grows in size, it can really take you out of the film. On the other hand, if it's one smooth focus pull (no minor "hunting" adjustments) the average audience might not even notice.
It would be nice to have a good zoom where I could do some, yes. I wouldn't say I am planning on doing a bunch, but it's something to consider in buying a lens