Canon vs Nikon lenses

macgregor

macgregor

Veteran
I´m nikon and canon guy, meaning i have cameras and lenses from both brands, so I´m not biased to any of the two.

Nikon has been traditionally a company that manufactured profesional SLRs, at least until canon introduced the EOS mount.

Nikon glass has always been considered superior. I don´t really know where such an affirmation comes from, but it seems to be the consensus among professionals. I´ve even heard that from Canon reps (which was kind of a suprise to hear).

Anyway, this is not new but I was surprised by sites like http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

where you can compare res charts shot with different lenses.

Compare any nikon lens with the corresponding canon brand lens, and basically almost any canon lens is way better in terms or resolution and CA. Even cheap lenses like a canon 85mm f1.8 outperforms a nikon 85mm f1.4.
Other combinations that you can try:
- 17-35 2.8 vs 16-35
- 70-200 vs 70-200 both recently updated
- 50mm
- 200 f2.8
- 28...
and so on.

Does nikon suck and we hadn´t realized? :shocked:
 
Last edited:
i think canon has just stepped up their game.

as a former FD lens user, that class of glass wasnt anything to write home about. Faster than its Nikon counterparts yes, but at the cost of sharpness.

the newer EF mount glass.... worlds better.
 
Boy or boy, when I'm all growed up and can get a job shooting pictures of test charts, I am going with all Canon glass, no doubt.

But, since I ain't all growed up, and don't have a job shooting pictures of test charts, the massive availability and cost of the Nikon F-mount lenses are a factor that I have to consider now. I would love to go out and outfit myself with a set of Canon L series lenses, or other new Canon lenses, but, that is not something that I can do, right now. I do thank you for the link, and am going to keep that around as a reference for if and when I do need to make a decision about specific head to head lens choices. Thanks.
 
IMVHO both Nikon and Canon are second league compared to Leica and Zeiss / Contax. But then they don't generally cost as much as Leica lenses.

He he, stir-stir:Drogar-Evil(DBG):
Dave
 
Yeah I've noticed I get more chromatic aberation wide open on my nikon lenses, but stopped down to F2 or F2.8 I love them. My canon lenses are definately sharper, give them that, but the nikkor glass just look more nicely creamy, the colours more saturated, brilliantly hazey to me!
 
who gives a monkeys when shooting muzzy 1080

the important stuff is..

rigid attachement to body

no wobbly barrells

smooth and long focus throw

future proofing..

FFD (canon too short for other brands)

electronic interface for future canon FollowFocus (non canon no good)

S
 
Ya know what? I detest the look of Hurlbut's "The Last 3 Minutes" short. At some point, sharpness becomes a detriment in my opinion. Back in the day, everyone used some form of diffusion when shooting film. I for one don't want my footage to look like it was shot with a NASA satellite imaging system.

.
 
macgregor said:
I´m nikon and canon guy, meaning i have cameras and lenses from both brands, so I´m not biased to any of the two.
:
Click to expand...

Both companies are making incredible objectives these days; sometimes for surprisingly little money. We're living in good times, lens-wise. On photo sites the charty pixel-monkies generally find very few flaws (and differences) with modern lenses on either marque.
 
Chris Santucci said:
Ya know what? I detest the look of Hurlbut's "The Last 3 Minutes" short. At some point, sharpness becomes a detriment in my opinion. Back in the day, everyone used some form of diffusion when shooting film. I for one don't want my footage to look like it was shot with a NASA satellite imaging system.

.
Click to expand...

You know, I have been a reader of American Cinematographer since the mid-70's, and I would love to have a dollar for every time I read in there that a top flight DP has said, "....Todays cameras and lenses are almost too sharp...." and where they go on and describe the filter pack, with nets or other diffusion, they used.

Now, I very much appreciate the OP and thank the poster. I think that that review is very valuable. I think my original response may have come across a tad snarky, and I really did not mean it to. I was just "Funnin'" ya know?

The thing is, "Sharper", "Higher resolution", "Crisper", ect, has nothing at all to do with "Better", IMHO. A "Better" lens is a lens that makes an image that I find to be pleasant, and is appropriate for the uses that I have in mind for it.

Right now, I am buying lenses for a Canon 550D/T2i, and am picking up vintage, pre-AI Nikkor lenes, which I use with inexpensive adaptors (Kawa, had no problem with them). So far I have a 24mm f2.8, pre-AI Nikkor, a 35mm f2.8, pre-AI Nikkor, a 50mm f2 pre-AI Nikkor, a 50mm f1.4 pre-AI Nikkor, a Nikkor-Q, F4 200mm, pre-AI lens and a 100mm f2.8 E Series Nikkor. For these lenses, I have paid a shade under $400.00. In the very near future, I want to pick up a 20mm f2.8 Nikkor pre-AI, and an 85mm f1.8 pre-AI lens. Those two seem to be going for a little more cash, but I should be able to get them for just a shade over $300.00. So for about $1500.00, I will have a camera and lens set that will make fantastic images, that I will be very pleased with. Will I ever say that I have the sharpest, crispest and highest resolution lenses available? Heck no! However, I do believe that I have the "Best" lenses available, based on my situation, my aesthetic preferences and choices, and, of course, my budget, right now.
 
Chris Santucci said:
Ya know what? I detest the look of Hurlbut's "The Last 3 Minutes" short. At some point, sharpness becomes a detriment in my opinion. Back in the day, everyone used some form of diffusion when shooting film. I for one don't want my footage to look like it was shot with a NASA satellite imaging system.

.
Click to expand...

btw, NASA uses only Nikon
 
I've used my "cinevised" Nikon primes on both RED shoots and with my 5d/7d for shooting video.

They have a look FOR VIDEO that I love and they are second to none.

A023_C024_0822CC.jpg


A023_C048_0822L7.jpg


For stills, I use my IS USM L glass.
 
@David, the older manual nikons are great, but I think you might get even better quality if
you were to try and get AI or AIs instead of pre AI
 
J Davis said:
@David, the older manual nikons are great, but I think you might get even better quality if
you were to try and get AI or AIs instead of pre AI
Click to expand...

Agree with Davis, it's a coating issue, pre AI isn't multi-coated. Many circumstances will produce flaring/ghosting. Otherwise same optics, though, at least for the 50mm 1.4.

Daylight shoots, not towards the sun, or properly lit indoor shots with no direct or peripheral lights would not be a problem with pre-AI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top