| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/18/2007 11:55:16 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by banmorn:
Originally posted by skylercall:
Hey where is that picture of the thousand Canon lenses at a Summer Olympic Event? |
You mean this one? |
Well that pretty much ends the discussion. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 11:35:52 PM · #2 |
I find Nikon designs to be more pleasant.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 11:32:39 PM · #3 |
| Go Nikon for sure. :) D80 and the 80-200 VR as someone already mentioned. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 11:19:41 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by skylercall:
Hey where is that picture of the thousand Canon lenses at a Summer Olympic Event? |
You mean this one? |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 11:08:41 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by ionyou:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I heard that about Minolta (leaving camera and doing copiers only) and people laughed.
I heard that Sony was going to make dSLRs and people laughed.
I read that (above) and you're all laughing, now. |
Yeah like I'm really going to win the lottery and marry a supermodel. baaahahahahahaha! |
OKay well one Konica-Minolta is a long standing complete merger and has been making both copiers and camera's under the combined name which Sold their Digital Camera end to Sony. Just to get that straight.
People may have laughed but DUH sony was gonna make dSLR's... using layed of Konica Minolta EMployees and all the patents they bought. They were practicly given the instructions.
And yeah im still laughing at the nikon jesture. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 11:05:24 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I heard that about Minolta (leaving camera and doing copiers only) and people laughed.
I heard that Sony was going to make dSLRs and people laughed.
I read that (above) and you're all laughing, now. |
Yeah like I'm really going to win the lottery and marry a supermodel. baaahahahahahaha! |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:57:41 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by I Enjoy Ham:
bah! get a 17-40L and a 60mm, 70mm or 85mm prime. You'll get far superior results and it will only cost you about 100$ more than the nikon lens. |
17-40L = AU$1300
60 or 85 prime = AU$650
Total = AU$1950
Nikon = AU$600
Far superior results = probably (certainly in the hands of a pro who is happy to change lenses and fiddle around for a long time to get the best shot). $100 more? Oh, I see, you missed a zero. You meant to say over a $1000 more! :)
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:56:40 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Jib:
ok my question is....cannon lenses...vs nikon lenses... i plan on buying a budget body and getting sick lenses...so which has better lenses is what im asking...or are they equally the same? |
The Nikon lenses are better.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:13:27 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
Well, if you can get the 18-200, you don't need dust removal. It's a permanently sealed camera. :) |
The 18-200mm VR lens expands as it zooms and that will pull dust into the lens. Is that lens totally sealed from the camera? I know many lenses have open air paths from the sensor to the lens lens elements and if that is the case, you are still going to get dust in on the sensor. To back up this claim, I have a friend with a D80 and a 18-135mm kit lens that has been on her camera from day one. She is finding dust on her sensor. If yo owned a sealed lens like a L lens, then you would not have to worry about sensor dust. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:12:54 PM · #10 |
Is this a "serious" question?
Frankly in terms of IQ of lenses the two companies are roughly the same. One company might have a slightly better lens than the other in the same category, but you are just splitting hairs.
There are a few facts though:
1) Canon does have a larger selection of CURRENTLY manufactured lenses
2) Nikon has had the same mount for ages, so you can use AI/AIS Manual Focus lenses on all digital Nikon bodies without using any adapters (metering depends on body).
3) Both companies have a huge backlog of old glass which fills nearly any specialty lens you might need.
There are very few lenses one company offers that the other doesn't, the difference is they may not all be in currently in production. (Example: Canon 200m 1.8 (out of production) vs Nikon 200mm 2.0... or Canon 70-200 f4 vs Nikon 70-210 f4 (out of production).
Generally though, given the exact same lens the Nikon will usually cost a bit more, though that probably has more to do with smaller distribution numbers. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:05:42 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
canon has a 17-85 IS USM and a 28-135 IS USM...so it's just like the nikon offerings.
At least the 400XTi has FEV - the 300D didn't. So compare the 400 to the D40 and for the $100 more the 400 wins hands down. Compare the 80 to the 30D maybe? True, it falls more in between...
What, no dust removal system on Nikon?
What, you have to pay extra for RAW software for a Nikon? |
You are right, the 17-85 is the only Canon lens that compares to the Nikon offerings in features, but there's only one option, and is AU $1000 with IS. Compared to the Nikon 18-70 at AU $600. For this zoom range, I don't want IS, and I don't want to pay twice the price for this lens.
(28-135 is a full-frame equivalent - it's not really a competitor with a crop sensor)
From my looking, the Sigma lenses are the best offerings, but they don't offer HSM or FTM in many of them, which is a real pity. I'd pay more for HSM in a Sigma lens! :) (which is exactly what I plan on doing with the 70-200 2.8 - now this is a nice lens for a reasonable price)
(Edit to fix the Sigma lens zoom range. Sorry, my quality control missed that one. The typo has been fixed under warrantee.) |
bah! get a 17-40L and a 60mm, 70mm or 85mm prime. You'll get far superior results and it will only cost you about 100$ more than the nikon lens. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:00:10 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I'm sorry, did I miss something? Sigma 18-200 f/2.8?
Uhm.... |
Aha, hem, yes, sorry, 70-200 2.8. :)
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:59:26 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
What, no dust removal system on Nikon?
|
Why follow canon's mistake and put a useless feature on the camera? |
Well, if you can get the 18-200, you don't need dust removal. It's a permanently sealed camera. :)
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:59:16 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
From my looking, the Sigma lenses are the best offerings, but they don't offer HSM or FTM in many of them, which is a real pity. I'd pay more for HSM in a Sigma lens! :) (which is exactly what I plan on doing with the 18-200 2.8 - now this is a nice lens for a reasonable price) |
I'm sorry, did I miss something? Sigma 18-200 f/2.8?
Uhm.... |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:56:41 PM · #15 |
Shall I enter the fray?
Canon's good if you want to move up later in life. They also have more high end choices (70-200 f/4.0 IS anyone?), however, for someone wanting a medium level offering, the Nikon is a decent choice, provided you get stay away from the D40/D50 (IMHO).
I used the D80 the other day and really enjoyed it - in spite of the fact that the 'shutter button feel' made my finger a little squirmy... that is just about what I'm used to though.. I still prefer my 5 FPS and superior noise performance, but in any circumstance that didn't require this, the D80 would indeed be high on my list.
I don't think the 18-200 VR is really all that great personally - I DEFINITELY wouldn't call it a 'sick' lens, but there ARE some really decent options for Nikon. Their 50mm f/1.8 blows the CRAP out of the Canon variant. The Nikon flash system is pretty much superior at every step of the game as well (as already mentioned with Flash EV, but also with wireless flash control which scores BIG points for serious flash users).
We still don't really know what your actual budget is though, so we don't know how 'sick' your 'sick' is... Are we talking about a thousand bucks or are you prepared to go really hard and blow 3-5000? or 10g? more?
Plenty of other stuff to spend money on that isn't glass too... I've spent probably a thousand bucks easy on things that aren't camera body and glass. Oh and don't forget filters if that's your thing.
PS for the poster that mentioned how costly the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS is, why not check the price on the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR? Or how about the price of the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS vs the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 without VR? Yeesh. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:56:23 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
canon has a 17-85 IS USM and a 28-135 IS USM...so it's just like the nikon offerings.
At least the 400XTi has FEV - the 300D didn't. So compare the 400 to the D40 and for the $100 more the 400 wins hands down. Compare the 80 to the 30D maybe? True, it falls more in between...
What, no dust removal system on Nikon?
What, you have to pay extra for RAW software for a Nikon? |
You are right, the 17-85 is the only Canon lens that compares to the Nikon offerings in features, but there's only one option, and is AU $1000 with IS. Compared to the Nikon 18-70 at AU $600. For this zoom range, I don't want IS, and I don't want to pay twice the price for this lens.
(28-135 is a full-frame equivalent - it's not really a competitor with a crop sensor)
From my looking, the Sigma lenses are the best offerings, but they don't offer HSM or FTM in many of them, which is a real pity. I'd pay more for HSM in a Sigma lens! :) (which is exactly what I plan on doing with the 70-200 2.8 - now this is a nice lens for a reasonable price)
(Edit to fix the Sigma lens zoom range. Sorry, my quality control missed that one. The typo has been fixed under warrantee.)
Message edited by author 2007-04-18 22:01:18. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:55:14 PM · #17 |
curious question.
who makes the best consumer-available lenses?
leica? zeiss? canon? nikkor? (or any other japanese or german names out there?) |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:41:23 PM · #18 |
| lets see thread soon to be locked in 10....9....8...7... |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:39:45 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Jib:
yea...dust removal is as good as a pine tree airfreshner in an outhouse |
Hey when i was over your toiletless house i was quite fond of that air freshner. However wiping my butt with Canon Manual Pages was ruff.
(Before the SC removes this might want to PM jib he gets it)
Message edited by author 2007-04-18 21:40:02. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:38:48 PM · #20 |
| yea...dust removal is as good as a pine tree airfreshner in an outhouse |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:37:39 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
What, no dust removal system on Nikon?
|
Why follow canon's mistake and put a useless feature on the camera? |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:36:17 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
You have a 'budget' body, as far as Nikon goes (not all nikon lenses will work on the D40) so why not stay with Nikon? |
I don't believe he's bought the D80 yet. His profile is his wish list. :) You just can't trust what you read on the internet these days. LOL
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:33:26 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
I've just got a Canon 400D, and I'm looking at lenses, and Nikon have got all the nice ones. Canon seems to be fine with a few good budget lenses, as well as fantastic Pro lenses. However, if you take the nikon 'kit' lenses, 18-70, 18-135 and 18-200, all with USM, full time manual focus, and some VR thrown in, you just can't get anything like this for Canons. There's some enticing Sigma lenses, which are optically great, but they don't have the USM ftm focus.
My other gripe about the 400D is that the flash EV is buried in a menu. Why not just push the flash button and roll the wheel like the D80? Even my old P&S had a very easy to adjust flash EV. The wireless flash control built into the D80 would be really nice too.
Well, that's the end of my little Canon gripe. :) |
Try and actually get that nikon 18-200 VR...
canon has a 17-85 IS USM and a 28-135 IS USM...so it's just like the nikon offerings.
At least the 400XTi has FEV - the 300D didn't. So compare the 400 to the D40 and for the $100 more the 400 wins hands down. Compare the 80 to the 30D maybe? True, it falls more in between...
What, no dust removal system on Nikon?
What, you have to pay extra for RAW software for a Nikon?
Message edited by author 2007-04-18 21:33:43.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:31:35 PM · #24 |
You can't directly compare Canon to Nikon cause they don't sell exactly the same thing. I mean you can't buy a Nikon 18-55mm and a Canon 18-55mm lens, mount then on a camera and then find a winner.
If you look at the whole range of lenses, I like the Canon line-up. And that is not because I own a Canon, I just like it better and there are more choices. So here come my blanket statements
- Canon has a better line-up overall
- Canon has more choices
- Nikon has better kit lenses (the 18-70 and 18-135)
- Nikon has the 18-200mm VR lens that a lot of Nikon owners want but it is expensive.
- Canon lenses are easier to understand. If it says L it rocks otherwise it is a basic lens.
- Canon offers way more IS lenses.
Oh and for a basic set of lenses, get something like a 18-85mm and a 70-300mm IS. Or for higher end lenses get a 24-70mm f/2.8L and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS.
Message edited by author 2007-04-18 21:43:08. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:29:21 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Jib:
ok my question is....cannon lenses...vs nikon lenses... i plan on buying a budget body and getting sick lenses...so which has better lenses is what im asking...or are they equally the same? |
You have a 'budget' body, as far as Nikon goes (not all nikon lenses will work on the D40) so why not stay with Nikon?
Canon does offer more lenses, more specialty lenses (tilt shift, 500 IS, 5X macro, etc) and the 400XTi is good for most things and will work with all the canon lenses.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 07:04:21 AM EDT.
