DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Can Nikon Lens Fit on Canon Camera?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 23 of 23, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/13/2006 02:27:59 PM · #1
Can a Nikon Lens fit on a Canon Rebel xt? I'm Trying to find a cheap (but good) ?-300mm lens and it looks like Nikon has the best one. The rumor is that Nikon makes the best lenses.
06/13/2006 02:59:59 PM · #2
The rumor isn't exactly true. Generally nikon is considered to make better wide angle lenses, and canon to make better telephotos/super telephotos.

Nikon lenses will not work on Canon mounts.
06/13/2006 03:07:12 PM · #3
I heard that they made "The Corpse Bride" movie with a Canon 20D and Nikon glass. Maybe just rumor, but I think Nikon glass can be used, with an adaptor.

Why you'd want to, that's another issue ;-)
06/13/2006 03:14:34 PM · #4
There are adaptors out there but the lens remains manual [you didn't think it would talk to the camera in full auto right :-)] and you sometime/mostly loose infinity focus. There are people out there using all sorts of manual lenses on EOS mounts. One of the issues is manual focus on these crop cameras without any sort of manual focus aid (you can get these too if you are game). While I have been very tempted to play around, I am not that far lost yet :-)

Message edited by author 2006-06-13 15:15:19.
06/13/2006 03:16:52 PM · #5
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:

I heard that they made "The Corpse Bride" movie with a Canon 20D and Nikon glass. Maybe just rumor, but I think Nikon glass can be used, with an adaptor.

Why you'd want to, that's another issue ;-)


huh? not with a video-camera? that's weird!
06/13/2006 03:17:28 PM · #6
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:

I heard that they made "The Corpse Bride" movie with a Canon 20D and Nikon glass. Maybe just rumor, but I think Nikon glass can be used, with an adaptor.

Why you'd want to, that's another issue ;-)


Not a rumor-- the used a "NEOS" adapter.

Corpse Bride info

Some adapter info.

There was a great article on the Corpse Bride, that had alot of photos of the camera setup, but Its not available anymore.

06/13/2006 03:19:04 PM · #7
Originally posted by buzzrock:

There was a great article on the Corpse Bride, that had alot of photos of the camera setup, but Its not available anymore.


do you mean this one?
06/13/2006 03:20:15 PM · #8
Originally posted by biteme:

Originally posted by buzzrock:

There was a great article on the Corpse Bride, that had alot of photos of the camera setup, but Its not available anymore.


do you mean this one?


Nope, the one Im thinking of was at the editorsguild I think
06/13/2006 03:58:13 PM · #9
Originally posted by Sparky9001:

Can a Nikon Lens fit on a Canon Rebel xt? I'm Trying to find a cheap (but good) ?-300mm lens and it looks like Nikon has the best one. The rumor is that Nikon makes the best lenses.


I have looked at this option. Some of the older Nikon 300/2.8 AI or AIS lenses can be had for $1000 or less (as little as $700 in fair cosmetic condition). They are very good lenses, but bear in mind, focusing a 300mm telephoto manually, stopped down, through a 1.6-crop viewfinder, is a gargantuan challenge. I was interested mainly for astro work, where you focus manually anyhow, and I still elected to wait until I can get a Canon 300/2.8
The optical quality of the Canon 300/2.8 is simply top shelf. It's one of the best tele lenses *ever* offered by anyone.
06/13/2006 04:22:48 PM · #10
I'm always surprised when I stumble accross DPC every once in a while. Over on FredMiranda and such it's an obvious fact that people use other than Canon lenses on their cameras.

You can very easily adapt Nikon lenses to Canon but not the other way. Many of my photographer friends do this (20D + 17-35/2.8 for example). As you can see from my profile, I have no Nikon lenses. Currently, my fund situation just doesn't allow them. So I have to "resort" to Carl Zeiss and others, which are, by no means, bad. Quite the controary. The 35mm f/2.4 Flektogon is about as good wide-open as my Canon 50mm f/1.8 at f/2.8.

A good adapter costs alot. The Cameraquest ones are $140+. The one's that cost around $25 on eBay do the job but the machining tolerances are wider, resulting in a possibility that the adapter may be too thick or sloppy. Most of the time they do the job well though.

There are downsides to this too. Focus confirmation doesn't work and you have to meter stopped down. Now, these are no concerns to me as most of the time I shoot in constant lighting and almost never have to do sports. A split-circle focusing screen (Haoda, KatzEye) will come handy. I, myself, have the Haoda diagonal screen. You can find more info on these at his website ( //groups.yahoo.com/group/screen4DSLR/ ).

Another option are the focus confirmation chips that you attach to the adapter. They have a chip that emulates a Canon lens, enabling focus confirmation. These cost $60+ and only work on a single adapter, while a focusing screen is good for all of your lenses.

Read: G series Nikon lenses will not work on other systems via an adapter. These lenses use an electronic aperture instead of a lever operated aperture, thus, aperture cannot be controlled.

For a moderately high-aperture telezoom, I would suggest the Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5. It is a very high quality lens with a good reputation. Most of the 70-210/3.5's were produced with a Nikon mount. But be sure which model you get. Vivitar isn't a manufacturer and they outsource their lenses. There are four different manufacturers for this lens.

More info on the Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5 can be found here:
//www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm

Message edited by author 2006-06-13 17:15:13.
06/13/2006 05:00:18 PM · #11
if you want all the functions of the lens to work then no they do not work. If you get an adapter some features can work. I haven't heard of anyone using nikon AF lenses on Canon and having the AF work.

Yes the corpse bride was shot with 1DmkII's with nikon glass, it is possible to adapt the glass but there are drawbacks.

The adapter listed earlier you must use stop down metering, and you will have no autofocus.

Anyways, you cannot directly mount a nikon on a canon with no adapter as i said before.

However, even though you can adapt, why should you bother when you lose a lot of the features of the lens, and the system of the camera?
06/13/2006 05:02:03 PM · #12
I just wish I could fit the Canon 24mm TS on my F3, sigh...
06/13/2006 05:12:55 PM · #13
Originally posted by kyebosh:

The adapter listed earlier you must use stop down metering, and you will have no autofocus.


Really, no offense, but that's just stating the obvious.
I don't really mind not having autofocus. In my opinion, there is more to gain from using manual lenses on dSLRs, than to lose.

-Focusing is very fast with a split-circle focusing screen and they don't backfocus. Absence of an AF system also reduces the size of a lens.
-Build quality. Older lenses have far superior build quality compared to modern lenses with plastic/polycarbonate shells. I know, this is a bit of a cliché thing to mention, but a lens engineer from a camera manufacturer I can't recall (Pentax?) said that if lenses were to be built to the same standards (build-wise) as they were in the 1950-1980 era, they'd cost $1000+
-Optical quality is as good/better than on equivalent Canon glass. Like I mentioned, the Carl Zeiss 35/2.4 Flektogon is as sharp wide-open as my 50/1.8 at f/2.8. And I have a very good copy of the nifty fifty.
-Price. You pay less money for as good/better optical quality.

Message edited by author 2006-06-13 17:19:38.
06/13/2006 05:15:57 PM · #14
Originally posted by Uusilehto:

Originally posted by kyebosh:

The adapter listed earlier you must use stop down metering, and you will have no autofocus.


Really, no offense, but that's just stating the obvious.
I don't really mind not having autofocus. In my opinion, there is more to gain from using manual lenses on dSLRs, than to lose.

-Focusing is very fast with a split-circle focusing screen and they don't backfocus. Absence of an AF system also reduces the size of a lens.
-Build quality ALOT better. I really, really like having a metal shell around the glass I'm using. Very durable.
-Optical quality is as good/better than on equivalent Canon glass. Like I mentioned, the Carl Zeiss 35/2.4 Flektogon is as sharp wide-open as my 50/1.8 at f/2.8. And I have a very good copy of the nifty fifty.
-Price. You pay less money for as good/better optical quality.

There are a lot of people that don't know what adapters can and cannot do.

edit: basically i'm saying it might not be obvious for everyone.

Message edited by author 2006-06-13 17:16:37.
06/13/2006 05:22:05 PM · #15
Still..
The whole idea of a single metal piece translating electronic signals back and forth between two very different manufacturers is ridiculous. Especially as Canon's and Nikon's autofocus systems work in an entirely different fashion.
06/13/2006 05:26:06 PM · #16
Originally posted by Uusilehto:

Still..
The whole idea of a single metal piece translating electronic signals back and forth between two very different manufacturers is ridiculous. Especially as Canon's and Nikon's autofocus systems work in an entirely different fashion.

Yes I understand that, but not everybody knows that. Look at the OP "Can a Nikon Lens fit on a Canon Rebel xt?". The answer is NO, not directly. If you're going to get into adapters, which I understand you know and love dearly, we're talking about a whole different game. Maybe the OP'r can tell us if an adapter is an option, or if the autofocus, and easy metering is worth it. If a studio is the setting maybe not, if general photography is the goal, maybe sports, or just shooting kids around the house (just examples) maybe an adapter isn't the best choice. Fair enough?
06/13/2006 05:39:55 PM · #17
Originally posted by kyebosh:

Yes the corpse bride was shot with 1DmkII's with nikon glass, it is possible to adapt the glass but there are drawbacks.


actually it was the 1Ds Mark II that was used, not the 1D Mark II


06/13/2006 05:45:56 PM · #18
Originally posted by DanSig:

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Yes the corpse bride was shot with 1DmkII's with nikon glass, it is possible to adapt the glass but there are drawbacks.


actually it was the 1Ds Mark II that was used, not the 1D Mark II


No, it was the 1D Mk II.
1Ds Mk II Wasn't even around during the "filming". The movie was shot in January, 2004, while 1Ds Mk II was released in September, 2004.

Message edited by author 2006-06-13 18:00:44.
06/19/2006 07:16:41 PM · #19
Originally posted by Uusilehto:


No, it was the 1D Mk II.
1Ds Mk II Wasn't even around during the "filming". The movie was shot in January, 2004, while 1Ds Mk II was released in September, 2004.


"In the end, the crew chose the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II. The 16.7-megapixel cameras could deliver high-definition, high-quality stills for almost instantaneous output to Final Cut Pro, the team’s editing tool of choice."

it was the 1ds mark II. //www.apple.com/pro/film/lucas/
06/19/2006 07:22:11 PM · #20
no it wasn't. the camera wasn't even released when when the film was being shot. It is an error.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpse_Bride#Filming_techniques
//www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7886-8022
//www.animationmeat.com/pdf/featureanimation/BrideStrippedBare.pdf
//www.photographica.org/story/2006/4/3/93241/65943
//www.imdb.com/title/tt0121164/technical

Oh and I remember something about them resizing the images down before making them into a movie so they didn't even use all 8.2mp the 1DII offers.

Message edited by author 2006-06-19 19:36:35.
06/19/2006 07:30:10 PM · #21
There are a few erroneous references around. The film was actually shot with the 1DMkII, not the 1DsMkII. Here's a clip from an article on animationmeat.com, and here's the link to the article.

Kozachik and his team had been considering digital acquisition, but not with off-the-shelf SLR cameras as Watts proposed. With the beginning of photography only a month away, digital SLR camera testing began. There were many unknowns:• Are images from a digital still camera consistent frame to frame?• Is the quality comparable to film?• Is the image quality stable under different thermal and humidity conditions?• Could a system be devised for previewing animations on set?• Could a system be devised to keep track of all the frames?• Could a live video tap be created for a digital still camera? With these issues in mind, Watts set about getting his hands on every digital camera he could find. Canon UK loaned a 10D, a 1D, a 1D Mark 2, and a 1DS. Nikon loaned a D1x, a D100, and one of the new D2H cameras. Watts also tested cameras from Sigma and Kodak. Initial tests were held at Framestore-CFC and the Moving Picture Company in London.“ We shot the same scene on every camera, converted the digital frames using dcRAW [an open-source program that accesses raw digital images], crunched everything to 2K, color-timed the sequences to match using Baselight and then output to film,” says Watts. “Basically, everything looked great until the film-originated version came up, then everyone yelled at the projectionist, ‘Focus!’” The images from digital cameras looked so stunning when projected. The tests convinced Burton, Johnson, Abbate and executives at Warners. “We originally selected the Nikon D2H because of the wireless ftp, the chip size, and the fact that we owned $90,000 of Nikon glass [lenses],” notes Watts. However, random noise was visible as pixilation in dark areas when the shots were played back as a movie. This pixilation effect was only visible in stop-motion photography, an application the Nikon hadn’t been designed for. The Canon EOS-1D Mark II, which uses a CMOS sensor and DIGIC II processor chip, was one of the most expensive still cameras tested, but the image quality was amazing, according to Watts. A way had to be found to mount Nikon lenses on the Canon EOS body. With the NEOS adapter, focus and aperture must be set manually, but that’s fine for stop-motion photography.
06/19/2006 07:40:40 PM · #22
yeah that article says that nikon cameras weren't designed for stop photography. It also says the images were resized to 2.76mp.
06/19/2006 07:51:17 PM · #23
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Sparky9001:

Can a Nikon Lens fit on a Canon Rebel xt? I'm Trying to find a cheap (but good) ?-300mm lens and it looks like Nikon has the best one. The rumor is that Nikon makes the best lenses.

... The optical quality of the Canon 300/2.8 is simply top shelf. It's one of the best tele lenses *ever* offered by anyone.

But that is one SPENDY piece of glass.

Hey, bet the bokeh is great, though!!! LOL! LOL! LOL!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 12:51:15 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 03/28/2024 12:51:15 PM EDT.