What's the difference?

Chris Johnston

Chris Johnston

Veteran
I've got a 60d now with a canon 17-55 2.8 (I like this glass for what I'm doing)
I also have an old Nikkor 28mm 2.8

I haven't done ANY testing yet (I'm a bizzy guy) but what would be the differences in these two lens if I shoot at 28mm on the canon glass. (I mean optically, not IS and AF) Is there something special about the nikkor? nicer bokeh? softer , sharper,

I don't know squat about various glass, just curious why people might choose a prime over a zoom even if it doesn't open up any more than the other. (I'm no expert but it seems like my canon is fairly sharp through the range???)
 
What's "old" mean? Nikon has been making SLR glass for 50 years. Without knowing which you have, it would be near impossible to say. I will say that I love the very old Nikkor glass. The stuff from the 60's and very early 70s. The more modern stuff is good too, but not as "charismatic" to me.

I've been working a lot on my mid-60s Nikon 50mm F1.4 recently. Absolutely LOVE it.
 
I don't actually know how old it is. (guess I can check it this week) How do you tell? Serial number lookup?

But your use of the terms "I love the very old..." and "Charismatic" are what I'm getting at. What does that mean in tech terms? Is it sharper? etc etc

If my Canon is as sharp (or sharper) at 28mm (center and edges) then I'd be kinda silly to use the Nikkor when the Canon offers the same , plus the extended range of the zoom.
I assume there is some kind of benifit to the older stuff, but I'm kinda confused as to what it might be.

I have an old 1939 Indian motorcycle and I love riding it, (because it's rare and kinda unique and I find myself smiling when I'm riding it) but I also know it doesn't ride near as smooth as newer bikes, performance wise it sucks, getting parts is ridiculous. etc etc. Is it the same thing with old glass? Just an enjoyment of something older and classic?
 
From all accounts the Canon EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is an exceedingly good lens, near, if not just as good as Canon L series lenses, just not quite built as well as an L. Primes offer a few advantages over zooms in some cases. Zoom lens designs are by their very nature, always some sort of a compromise, you've got to cover a number of focal lengths all in one package - but modern, high end zooms, especially Canon L zooms are very, very good. With zooms on the wide end, distortion is probably the number one issue - a zoom is also potentially more likely to have worse CA and edge sharpness than a high quality prime. The thing is, the 28mm focal length is sort of tried and true, it's not a particularly difficult focal length to build a lens around, and Canon zooms that cover 28mm tend to be very good at 28mm (from my experience with a few of the older Canon L series zooms in this range). My guess is that your 17-55mm f/2.8 is such a good lens by all accounts, that you wouldn't benefit much from using the Nikon prime. I doubt it's sharper and I doubt it's much better in terms of distortion. It's a smaller lens for sure, than your zoom, so in some situations you might prefer to carry around the Nikon if you don't want to carry around a big lens. The other benefit of primes is sort of...psychological? That is, if you've only got a 28mm focal length at your disposal, you have to physically move yourself and the camera around in order to compose, you can't zoom in to compose, this tends to create more dynamic/interesting/artistic compositions, you've got to work a little harder.

Aside from all that - the Nikon prime is very likely to just deliver a look that's quite different from your 17-55. The 17-55 is very modern, high contrast, high sharpness, etc., a vintage prime may be just as sharp, but it's likely to be less contrasty (which can be good when paired with a DSLR) and it's other *imperfections* you may find visually pleasing, it's color reproduction, bokeh, etc., are all going to be different from the Canon - but to be honest a 28mm f/2.8 is sort of a boring focal length and speed all else considered, even at f/2.8 you're going to have pretty deep depth of field, etc...you're never going to get extreme bokeh out of a 28mm f/2.8 unless you're focused at it's minimum focusing distance - but again, that may be useful - primes can also often focus more closely to a subject than a zoom can, which could also be a benefit for certain shots.

All in all it depends on your shooting style - but the key benefits of primes (high end) are available speeds, marginally better sharpness, less CA and overall distortion - I personally don't buy primes slower than f/2.8 since this speed can be covered so well by a good Canon L series zoom and if I were you I'd probably very rarely use that Nikon and stick to the Canon as it's such a great lens. I'd say use that lens quite a bit, find out what focal lengths really do it for you, and then consider buying one of the fast Canon primes in that focal length (like the 24mm f/1.4 L, 35mm f/1.4 L, 50mm f/1.2 or 85mm f/1.2) - any of those lenses will give you a dramatically different tool at the same focal length that your zoom covers - I wouldn't buy anything for just a 1 stop improvement over your zoom, go all the way and get something 2+ stops faster, that's where you're really going to be able to see a difference and have another trick up your sleeve. The truth of the matter is that the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 is probably sharper at f/2.8 than your Nikon, primes get better as you stop them down. Zooms do too, but there's 30+ more years of lens technology/development in your 17-55 than your Nikon.

The other benefit is that older MF primes are designed to be manually focused from the ground up, focusing them manually is a more pleasing experience, they're dampened and often offer a longer focus throw than modern lenses do - of course your Nikon lens will focus "backwards" compared to your Canons which will take some getting used-to.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that in depth report Roger. I popped both lens' on today and didn't notice any difference on the camera but I'm interested in taking a close look in Photoshop to see about the color, ca and any distortion issues. (which I honestly didn't even think about)
Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top