Re: Canon - Nikon Observations

measekite wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:42:25 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:42:01 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

measekite wrote:

And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually
claims that Canon lenses are superior to Nikon.

Hold on there, I never really said that (or I didn't mean to say
it
that way). What I meant to say that in each price class for
lenses,
Canon _usually_ delivers equal or better results at equal or lower
cost. If cost were not a consideration, you could probably match
up
Nikon and Canon lenses pretty closely until you moved up to the
professional "big white lenses" where Nikon doesn't compete.

Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't
paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to
choose
from, particularly at the very long end.


If a D-SLR buyer is starting from scratch, with no existing
lenses,
then it's certainly worth considering the cost differential for
lenses of similar quality when choosing which system to buy into.
But it's only one of many considerations. As David pointed out,
Canon was very late to the game with their 18-200 IS lens, and if
someone wanted that type of lens, up until recently that would
have
been a reason to not even consider Canon.


As in all things in life, you usually get what you pay for. Pro
level Nikon glass is amazingly good, it just doesn't call attention
to itself with the embellishment of a "luxury" label and a
different
color. Nikkors also have a three year warranty vs. one year for
the Canons.

Just had a discussion with a friend of mine who is a pro
photographer. He shoots with a Nikon F5, a Canon 5Dmlii, and an
RB67.

We had a discussion over lenses.

Part of the discussion was over the Nikkor 24x120 that he has used
for 8 years. I told him that is made the Terrible List of Ken
Rockwells worst of the worst of Nikkor lenses and that Ken owns and
tested this lens saying it is soft etc etc and the image quality is
not good when compared against other Nikon Alternatives.

My friend claimed that Ken was wrong. That the lens is "razor
sharp". He further stated you can put this lens up against a $5,000
Nikkor lens and print 16x20 and not see any difference in image
quality.

There is no Nikkor lens that has a focal length between 24 and 120mm
that costs $5000. The most expensive Nikkor listed in that range is
The 24mm PC-E at $1899 and you're paying for the tilt and shift
capability on that one. Going down a bit, in the 1500-1800 range
you have the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 24-70 f/2.8--in both cases you're
paying for aperture. So I don't understand what he's on about with
"$5000 Nikkor".

You might find http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
to be of interest. Not directly applicable but he did some blind
testing comparing 13x19s from a Hasselblad with a Phase 1 back and a
Canon G10 point and shoot and the people he showed them to couldn't
tell the difference--he says that they were people with experience in
photography, printing, etc and so knew what to look for. Shows that
there isn't any direct relationship between cost of equipment and
quality of the finished print.

Now I find this hard to believe since other reviews while not as
harsh
against the 25x120 as Ken did note that it is not one of Nikons
best.

Doesn't have to be one of the best to be good enough. So far few
cameras have enough sensor resolution that the lens becomes the
limiting value (take a look in the Canon section on
http://www.photozone.de they test some of the same lenses on a 350d
and a 50d so you can see how much difference sensor resolution makes
in the test results), at least not on center.

Also I questioned my friend on why would so many pro photographers
buy
$5,000 Nikkor lenses if the $1,000 ones produced just as good a
quality. His reply was they just wanted it and then saw stuff that
really was not there to jusify what they did like the audiophile who
pays $20,000 for a speaker system that does sound great but are the
only ones who can here the difference between that and a system for
$10,000.

Uh, the only Nikkor lenses costing $5000 or more are the 400/2.8 and
the 500s and higher. On those you're paying for aperture and focal
length. In the 24-120 range you may go as high as 1800 or so but
there again you're paying for aperture or special features (for
example tilt and shift).

The more expensive lenses generally also have more durable
mounts--more metal, less plastic, possibly some weather sealing, all
of which can mean the difference between getting the shot and not
getting it.

I am not a pro. I do not want to make a mistake. I do want to
print
up to 16x25. I do not want to push myself for a full frame camera
unless that is what i need to do what I just described.

Is there anywhere in the area that you can rent photo equipment?
Might be worth spending a few bucks on a day's rental and do some test
shots and make sure.

I own a Nikon F2A but the lenses are not autofocus so I may sell the
system. I no longer want anything that is not autofocus and
autometering.

If you're shooting for 16x25 you're likely going to end up
manual-focusing with a magnifier anyway. Autofocus is good but it's
not necessarily _that_ good, especially if you don't have a body that
allows you to fine-tune the focus for individual lenses. I wouldn't
be too quick to toss the old lenses.

So you can say I am starting from scratch. I bought
the Nikon over Canon at the time because I liked the look and feel
better and I thought at that time Nikon was better but that appears
to be debatable.

Both do fine.

That said I narrowed my search down to the Nikon D90 (unless I
absolutely need full frame to get top image quality 16x25 in which
case the Canon 5d2 is the only ball game at the under $3,000 price
that I am not happy about spending) and the Canon 50D that is known
to be built better but the D90 build appears to be good enough for
my
use. The D90 feels somewhat better and there are non modal buttons
for all of the every day commands.

One point to consider--the D300 and the 50D allow you to fine tune the
autofocus for individual lenses (by type, not by serial number)--if
you're printing 16x25 on a regular basis you may want that.

I'm a Canon shooter so can't really make recommendations on the
quality of the lenses below, but focal length and aperture is another
story.

Here are the lenses I am considering with the camera. If any of you
would like to recommend a different lens in one of the places please
state which one and the reason.

* AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED $800

Take a hard look at the 10-20 Sigma. Performance is comparable but
you get another 2mm at the wide end, which has more effect than you
might expect. I was surprised to find that the 10-22 Canon is my
favorite lens.

* AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED $620

Note that to get that kind of zoom range they had to make compromises
(not just Nikon--Canon, Sigma, etc all had to). If you break that
range down into two lenses you may find that you're getting less
distortion, chromatic aberration, and vignetting at the sacrifice of
convenience. If you haven't checked out the tests at
http://www.photozone.de you might want to--there's enough information
there that you should be able to figure out whether the compromises
are going to be a problem for you. Also, if you want maximum
versatility in a single lens and are willing to accept the
compromises, you might want to look at the 18-270 Tamron. Note that
PTLens will autofix most of the distortion and chromatic aberration,
but you'll lose a tiny increment of resolution in the process.

* AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED $730

Can't go wrong with a 100 or so macro IMO.

Optional
* AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED $470

I don't know how the Nikkor in that range compares to the Canon, but
the Canon is a very nice lens.

Something you haven't mentioned is a fast portrait lens--you might
want to look into a 50 or 85mm 1.8 or faster. It's very convenient
to be able to cut down the depth of field when you need to.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


.

Loading