Diff Nikon and Canon Lens System
measekite
Line?
Does it just boil down to the fact that each as a few lenses that are
marginally better than the other with the remainder being comparable or is
there a significant difference?
Savageduck
It's mainly in the spelling.
Welcome back.
Have you not bought that DSLR yet??
Weren't you going through all of this comparison stuff a few months ago?
I would refer to the usual sites:
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/2
http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/
Have fun, see you in June.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bob Larter
To really simplify things, Canon tends to be better at teles & Nikon
tends to be better at wide-angles. Other than that, neither is, in
general, significantly better than the other.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Fischer
>Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
>Line?
One works best with Nikon cameras and the other works best with Canon
cameras.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chris H
<rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>measekite <inkys...@oem.com> wrote:
>>Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
>>Line?
>
>One works best with Nikon cameras and the other works best with Canon
>cameras.
OK... So which works better with Canon and which with Nikon?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Savageduck
> In message <49e59337$0$1659$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
> <rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>> measekite <inkys...@oem.com> wrote:
>>> Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
>>> Line?
>>
>> One works best with Nikon cameras and the other works best with Canon
>> cameras.
>
> OK... So which works better with Canon and which with Nikon?
It doesn't matter. Mease hasn't quite figured out which DSLR he is
going to buy yet.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
TheRealSteve
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 06:09:35 GMT, measekite <inkys...@oem.com>
wrote:
Stop worrying so much about little things like minute differences in
lens performance across the wide variety of each manufacturers line of
lenses. Most differences are in the esoteric professional lenses that
you'll probably never use anyway. The prosumer lines are almost
identical.
Just go to a store, pick up a Canon and a comparable Nikon, play with
each and buy the one that feels better to you. There's a lot more
differences between them than the various lens performance.
For me personally, the Nikon control layout worked much better and
felt more confortable. Also, Nikon in general seems to have a better
handle on exposure control, especially flash exposure. But I'm sure
there's other areas where Canons are better and the choice is a
personal one you have to make yourself. You won't go wrong whichever
way you go.
I'm also sure, judging on the type of posts you make here, that you're
not going to notice any difference in the photos you take whether you
have a Nikon or a Canon. So just go get one or the other already and
start shooting.
Steve
Chris H
<inkys...@oem.com> writes
It's all irrelevant. God uses a Nikon and all Canon users are going to
Hell. Mary uses an Olympus as it's a girls camera.
Just go and try a Nikon and a Canon in the shop and see which one feels
better in YOUR hands. It is personal preference on handling that is
more important than the 10'th decimal place. Especially when humans
(i.e. pedants not on this NG) can only resolve to 5 decimal places.
Technically A is slightly better than B this month and B will be better
than A next month. Both A and B are several orders of magnitude better
than anything you could afford 5 years ago.
Savageduck
> In message <zSeFl.4905$im1....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, measekite
> <inkys...@oem.com> writes
>> Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
>> Line?
>>
>> Does it just boil down to the fact that each as a few lenses that are
>> marginally better than the other with the remainder being comparable or is
>> there a significant difference?
>
> It's all irrelevant. God uses a Nikon and all Canon users are going to
> Hell. Mary uses an Olympus as it's a girls camera.
>
> Just go and try a Nikon and a Canon in the shop and see which one feels
> better in YOUR hands. It is personal preference on handling that is
> more important than the 10'th decimal place. Especially when humans
> (i.e. pedants not on this NG) can only resolve to 5 decimal places.
>
> Technically A is slightly better than B this month and B will be better
> than A next month. Both A and B are several orders of magnitude better
> than anything you could afford 5 years ago.
Chris,
Mease has no intention of ever buying a camera or lens or anything else.
He is going to continue to troll these NGs with Ken Rockwell citations,
strange propositions and personal observations.
He will ask for opinion and not take any action. He will talk about
making massive prints and pixel peeping and all of it amounts to
nothing.
Once he finally buys any damn camera, be it P&S or DSLR of any brand
and submits proof of such purchase, I might be prepareed to take him
seriously.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Chris H
<savag...@savage.net> writes
I know but I thought I would just put it up as general guidance to
others asking the same question.
BTW I like what I can see of your web site but most of the links are
broken.
Savageduck
My web site??
Thanks for the compliment but, I am afraid my photographic ego hasn't
pushed me to produce a web site yet. There is a reason for the broken
links.
I am fortunate enough to be able to afford some mac.com storage space
which I can use to put up a Lightroom produced web gallery for as long
as it seems appropriate to share with friends and family.
It also gives me the ability to post links to individual files stored
at mac.com and remove them once the original post has become stale.
I certainly have the server space, software and ability to establish a
web site, and might consider that some time in the future. I just have
no real need to right now.
Until then this kind of thing is what I can do to get some of my files
and images out there:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/Sites/Ferebee-SV-1/index.html
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0386-3Ec.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Timmo
news:zSeFl.4905$im1....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
With Canon there is usually a lens to suit your needs in their range. With
Nikon, this isn't always the case.
measekite
> measekite wrote:
>> Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
>> Line?
>>
>> Does it just boil down to the fact that each as a few lenses that are
>> marginally better than the other with the remainder being comparable or is
>> there a significant difference?
>
> To really simplify things, Canon tends to be better at teles & Nikon
> tends to be better at wide-angles. Other than that, neither is, in
> general, significantly better than the other.
>
>
What is actually meant by better. Is it construction, sharpness, color,
overall image quality, speed or ??????
nospam
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> With Canon there is usually a lens to suit your needs in their range. With
> Nikon, this isn't always the case.
nonsense.
measekite
> measekite <inkys...@oem.com> wrote:
>>Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
>>Line?
>
> One works best with Nikon cameras and the other works best with Canon
> cameras.
>
Gee I thought one works best with Toyotas and the other works best with
Hondas.
measekite
I have decided to wait for the D90 replacement. I want a 3" articulating
lcd and after the D5000 I think it will be coming.
Timmo
news:150420091035324889%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>> With Canon there is usually a lens to suit your needs in their range.
>> With
>> Nikon, this isn't always the case.
>
> nonsense.
Care to elaborate?
Savageduck
I wouldn't have expected anything else of you.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Chris H
<inkys...@oem.com> writes
All of the above in varying quantities. You forgot holiness. Nikon has
more of that because God uses a Nikon.
Chris H
<inkys...@oem.com> writes
Idiot. Canon are better with Volkswagens. Fancy trying to use one with a
Honda!
Peter Parry
>
>Care to elaborate?
Its really quite simple. Nikon lenses appeal to Nikon enthusiasts who
consider them to be better than Canon lenses.
Canon lenses appeal to Canon enthusiasts who consider them to be
better than Nikon lenses.
The lenses themselves and their relative qualities are supremely
unimportant.
Chris H
>Thanks for the compliment but, I am afraid my photographic ego hasn't
>pushed me to produce a web site yet. There is a reason for the broken
>links.
Ok.
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0386-3Ec.jpg
I like that one
Chris H
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>"measekite" <inkys...@oem.com> wrote in message news:zSeFl.4905$im1.2
>6...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
>> Line?
>>
>> Does it just boil down to the fact that each as a few lenses that are
>> marginally better than the other with the remainder being comparable or is
>> there a significant difference?
>
>
>
>With Canon there is usually a lens to suit your needs in their range.
>With Nikon, this isn't always the case.
I have found the reverse to be true. But then I have a Nissan.
Chris H
<m...@privacy.net> writes
Your statement re Canon and Nikon lenses was wrong.
measekite
When you want to fork over you money than you get a chance to run your
mouth. With my money I make my decisions based on my needs and desires.
measekite
> In message <zSeFl.4905$im1....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, measekite
> <inkys...@oem.com> writes
>>Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
>>Line?
>>
>>Does it just boil down to the fact that each as a few lenses that are
>>marginally better than the other with the remainder being comparable or is
>>there a significant difference?
>
> It's all irrelevant. God uses a Nikon and all Canon users are going to
> Hell. Mary uses an Olympus as it's a girls camera.
One does not know if in actuality there is a God or if the entity is just
a belief existing in the believer's mind.
Therefore that entity would use what the believer likes.
measekite
Like I said. Fork over the money and I will buy today. Anyway I can wait
for what I want and decide ever so slowly because my Canon currently gets
me buy. If I did not have it I would get the best compromise out their
today.
measekite
You guys should try an instant messenger
measekite
why
Savageduck
Not me. Just coincidence.
I have been using Savageduck at a pseudo domain of savage.net as a
spambot avoidance and anonymity measure for some 8 years now.
I suppose, now that I have retired from Law enforcement I could start
posting with my name, but old habits die hard.
>
>> Thanks for the compliment but, I am afraid my photographic ego hasn't
>> pushed me to produce a web site yet. There is a reason for the broken
>> links.
>
> Ok.
>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0386-3Ec.jpg
>
> I like that one
MOPAR man should get a thrill out of that and will probably call me a
Euro-centric, unpatriotic, liberal lefty for not driving a piece of GM
crap.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
nospam
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> With Canon there is usually a lens to suit your needs in their range.
> >> With
> >> Nikon, this isn't always the case.
> >
> > nonsense.
>
> Care to elaborate?
canon has no equivalent to nikon's 14-24mm. in fact, this lens was one
of the lenses that motivated someone to design an adapter that converts
the electrical protocol so that it could be used on canon cameras like
any other canon lens.
nikon also has a wider selection of kit lenses, including the 18-70,
18-105vr and 18-135, which canon doesn't have.
there is also the 10.5mm fisheye and 105mm vr macro. canon has a 100mm
macro but it lacks stabilization. both nikon and canon have a 60mm
macro but the nikon 60mm macro is full frame while canon's is ef-s.
until recently, nikon had an 18-200mm vr and canon didn't. sigma
capitalized on that and introduced their own (and not very good)
18-200os, which sold to a *lot* of canon users.
also, nearly all of nikon's older manual focus lenses work just fine,
whereas canon manual focus lenses are orphaned. one of the more
esoteric ones that nobody else has (or had) is the 6mm fisheye (220
degree angle of view):
<http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/speciallenses/images/6mm
fish.jpg>
basically, canon and nikon are fairly close. either one is a good
choice.
Floyd L. Davidson
>"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> With Canon there is usually a lens to suit your needs
>>> in their range. With
>>> Nikon, this isn't always the case.
>>
>> nonsense.
>
>Care to elaborate?
*You* need to elaborate, troll. What you said is indeed
nonsense, and you cannot provide detail to support it.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
measekite
> In article <K9OdnecK5utxgXvU...@pipex.net>, Timmo
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> >> With Canon there is usually a lens to suit your needs in their range.
>> >> With
>> >> Nikon, this isn't always the case.
>> >
>> > nonsense.
>>
>> Care to elaborate?
>
> canon has no equivalent to nikon's 14-24mm. in fact, this lens was one
> of the lenses that motivated someone to design an adapter that converts
> the electrical protocol so that it could be used on canon cameras like
> any other canon lens.
While that is true the lens has one major downfall for me and that is you
cannot use filters with that lens.
>
> nikon also has a wider selection of kit lenses, including the 18-70,
> 18-105vr and 18-135, which canon doesn't have.
But doesn't Canon have an 18-200, 18-55, and a 24-105. I hear that the
Nikkor 18-135 is crap.
>
> there is also the 10.5mm fisheye and 105mm vr macro. canon has a 100mm
> macro but it lacks stabilization. both nikon and canon have a 60mm
> macro but the nikon 60mm macro is full frame while canon's is ef-s.
>
> until recently, nikon had an 18-200mm vr and canon didn't. sigma
> capitalized on that and introduced their own (and not very good)
> 18-200os, which sold to a *lot* of canon users.
>
> also, nearly all of nikon's older manual focus lenses work just fine,
> whereas canon manual focus lenses are orphaned. one of the more
> esoteric ones that nobody else has (or had) is the 6mm fisheye (220
> degree angle of view):
Who cares about that. If you are going to spend the money for a modern
camera who wants to manual focus or for that matter manual meter.
Chris H
<savag...@savage.net> writes
>
>Not me. Just coincidence.
>I have been using Savageduck at a pseudo domain of savage.net as a
>spambot avoidance and anonymity measure for some 8 years now.
>I suppose, now that I have retired from Law enforcement I could start
>posting with my name, but old habits die hard.
I know what you mean but do any of the cons you dealt with have a memory
span of more than 20 minutes? :-)
I know what you mean some semi literate jerk you once busted who now has
an hotmail or Gmail account can be a pain in the ass.
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0386-3Ec.jpg
>> I like that one
>
>MOPAR man should get a thrill out of that and will probably call me a
>Euro-centric, unpatriotic, liberal lefty for not driving a piece of GM
>crap.
:-)
Chris H
<inkys...@oem.com> writes
>> It's all irrelevant. God uses a Nikon and all Canon users are going to
>> Hell. Mary uses an Olympus as it's a girls camera.
>
>One does not know if in actuality there is a God
He told me so.
>or if the entity is just
>a belief existing in the believer's mind.
>
>Therefore that entity would use what the believer likes.
:-)
Chris H
Dave Cohen
> You guys should try an instant messenger
They would but it's so difficult to choose which one to use. I suppose
they could try all of them and see which one is the best, but how do you
judge the best. Would it be the fastest, the one with most users....
Maybe there's a ng where they could get some help.
Dave Cohen
nospam
<inkys...@oem.com> wrote:
> > canon has no equivalent to nikon's 14-24mm. in fact, this lens was one
> > of the lenses that motivated someone to design an adapter that converts
> > the electrical protocol so that it could be used on canon cameras like
> > any other canon lens.
>
> While that is true the lens has one major downfall for me and that is you
> cannot use filters with that lens.
that is true, but it's a *very* good lens and one which canon does not
have. i've also seen a kludgey hood for it. what filters were you
thinking of using? a polarizer would produce ugly artifacts.
> > nikon also has a wider selection of kit lenses, including the 18-70,
> > 18-105vr and 18-135, which canon doesn't have.
>
> But doesn't Canon have an 18-200, 18-55, and a 24-105. I hear that the
> Nikkor 18-135 is crap.
canon does have an 18-200is now, but they didn't for quite a while and
lost a lot of sales to nikon because of that. sigma jumped on the
opportunity to make one because they knew canon users wanted one.
both canon and nikon have 18-55 and 55-200 lenses, which is why i
didn't list those. canon has a 24-105, an example of where canon has a
lens that nikon doesn't. however, nikon has an 18-105vr which has a
wider range but it's a dx lens. nikon has a 28-105 full frame lens but
it lacks stabilization. it all depends what they'll be used for. canon
also has a 28-300mm l is (the full frame equivalent of an 18-200 vr/is)
and nikon doesn't have an equivalent of that either.
nikon has a 200-400mm vr, a *very* good lens with a constant f/4
aperture and one of the best lenses nikon makes. the closest is
canon's 100-400mm is, but that's an f/4.5-5.6 and i've heard mixed
reports as to its quality. it's also a push/pull lens which some
people don't like as much as a ring control. the canon lens is a close
match to nikon's 80-400mm vr.
and nikon/canon don't have everything either. pentax has a series of
fixed focal length lenses that they call limited. they are very
compact and very good.
<http://gallery.photo.net/photo/7025593-lg.jpg>
> > also, nearly all of nikon's older manual focus lenses work just fine,
> > whereas canon manual focus lenses are orphaned. one of the more
> > esoteric ones that nobody else has (or had) is the 6mm fisheye (220
> > degree angle of view):
>
> Who cares about that. If you are going to spend the money for a modern
> camera who wants to manual focus or for that matter manual meter.
the question was whether nikon had lenses canon doesn't, not whether
someone is interested in manual focus lenses. they can sometimes be
found for very little money and for some types of photography autofocus
is not always used, such as macro or panorama, so why pay for it.
if you absolutely *must* have a specific lens, then your decision as to
which brand is made. however, for most people, they can't go wrong
with nikon or canon. although the selection with the other brands are
not quite as extensive, it's still usually more than adequate for most
people.
measekite
> In message <7EpFl.29166$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, measekite
> <inkys...@oem.com> writes
>>> It's all irrelevant. God uses a Nikon and all Canon users are going to
>>> Hell. Mary uses an Olympus as it's a girls camera.
>>
>>One does not know if in actuality there is a God
>
> He told me so.
Then for you he exists
Atheist Chaplain
then why waste our time now, after all your now running YOUR mouth on our
time and money.
I have a friend just like you, he is always waiting for the next big
improvement in technology before he spends his money, but guess what, every
time he thinks that he has found what he wants, there are rumors of
something "Bigger and better" in the wings so he waits again. so far the
rest of us have leapt ahead of him by several generations and he is still
stuck with with his 10 year old technology. Jump into the pool or get off
the diving board!!
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
Savageduck
...and there it is. A perfect assessment and analogy of Mease and his behavior.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
measekite
I am waiting for a feature that I am already using on my Canon that I find
very usefull. It is already out on the D5000 and I want it on the D90.
It is just a matter of time. I also expect is on most of the new Canons.
Ray Fischer
Evidence indicates that you NOT make your decisions. That's why
you're still dithering and will continue to dither.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bob Larter
> In message <YUoFl.29160$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, measekite
> <inkys...@oem.com> writes
>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:17:12 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>> Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
>>>> Line?
>>>>
>>>> marginally better than the other with the remainder being comparable or is
>>>> there a significant difference?
>>> tends to be better at wide-angles. Other than that, neither is, in
>>> general, significantly better than the other.
>>>
>>>
>> What is actually meant by better. Is it construction, sharpness, color,
>> overall image quality, speed or ??????
>
> All of the above in varying quantities. You forgot holiness. Nikon has
> more of that because God uses a Nikon.
The devil's a better photographer. ;^)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
Why don't you just blow a few hundred dollars on a used Canon (or Nikon)
DSLR & really get to know it? That'll give yo0u a lot more useful
answers than asking questions on Usenet will.
David J Taylor
[]
> But doesn't Canon have an 18-200, 18-55, and a 24-105. I hear that
> the Nikkor 18-135 is crap.
Yes had to wait some three years before you could buy an 18-200 VR/IS from
Canon. In that particular case, advantage Nikon.
For most "normal" uses, both manufacturers have adequate lenses. It's in
the handling of the cameras and the lenses where the differences lie.
Make your own personal choice. As you can tell. people can live with
either.
David
Chris H
<inkys...@oem.com> writes
>On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:10:49 +0100, Chris H wrote:
>
>> In message <7EpFl.29166$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, measekite
>> <inkys...@oem.com> writes
>>>> It's all irrelevant. God uses a Nikon and all Canon users are going to
>>>> Hell. Mary uses an Olympus as it's a girls camera.
>>>
>>>One does not know if in actuality there is a God
>>
>> He told me so.
>
>Then for you he exists
No he exists for everyone, he told me so, but Canon users are going to
HELL
Chris H
<us...@example.net> writes
>measekite wrote:
>
>
>> You guys should try an instant messenger
>
>They would but it's so difficult to choose which one to use. I suppose
>they could try all of them and see which one is the best, but how do
>you judge the best. Would it be the fastest, the one with most
>users....
Can some one help me with the choice of IM please? I have been
researching it for the last 15 years but need some help.
I am split between Skype and MSM
measekite
In the old days they said to choose a lens system since the bodies always
change and the lenses last a real long time so get the best lends system.
Today I do not think that is true for the MOST part especially with Nikon
and Canon.
From what I can tell as this point for most NORMAL uses both are as good
as each other. But like you said the Look and Feel of the entire models
of all bodies are where I, at this point, see the most differences.
Also if Canon's lenses are a little bit sharper but you enjoy the handling
of Nikons better or vice versa then the extra sharpness of the lens may be
barely noticeable.
At this point (even though I am still a bit ambivalent) I think the look
and feel and menu system and controls of the Nikon are somewhat more
favorable but somewhat more expensive as well.
Basically (unless the substantially raise the prices) I am favoring a D90
class camera with certain features I expect them to have that I absolutely
want. My Canon allows me to wait for what I want and one of those things
is a D90 class Articulating LCD.
That said I really would like a full frame model but the price is more
than I want to spend.
I am not sure how much better the results will be at 16x20 though at that
size it should be somewhat noticeable if you crop a bunch.
Chris H
<inkys...@oem.com> writes
>Basically (unless the substantially raise the prices) I am favoring a D90
>class camera with certain features I expect them to have that I absolutely
>want. My Canon allows me to wait for what I want and one of those things
>is a D90 class Articulating LCD.
That is the D5000 apparently so now you can go and get your camera.
David J Taylor
[]
> That said I really would like a full frame model but the price is more
> than I want to spend.
>
> I am not sure how much better the results will be at 16x20 though at
> that size it should be somewhat noticeable if you crop a bunch.
So you will need to save your pennies, and wait for full frame.
Personally, I hardly print any more, but use electronic displays instead,
so I don't need the 25MP of a full-frame camera, and enjoy the lighter
weight and more compact kit which DX brings me. Camera + 16-85 VR +
70-300 VR. And for walking round (and it proved invaluable in Antarctica)
the Nikon 18-200 VR.
Cheers,
David
PDM
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49e589f9$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> measekite wrote:
>> Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon
>> Lens
>> Line?
>>
>> marginally better than the other with the remainder being comparable or
>> is
>> there a significant difference?
>
> To really simplify things, Canon tends to be better at teles & Nikon tends
> to be better at wide-angles. Other than that, neither is, in general,
> significantly better than the other.
>
(particularly for the C / DX size sensor). You have to pay premium for a
good lens from Canon. Canon has more lenses. There are some gaps in the
Nikon line.
PDM
PDM
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:34:49 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> On 2009-04-15 01:08:25 -0700, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>>
>>> In message <49e59337$0$1659$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>> <rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>>> Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon
>>>>> Lens
>>>>> Line?
>>>>
>>>> cameras.
>>>
>>> OK... So which works better with Canon and which with Nikon?
>>
>> It doesn't matter. Mease hasn't quite figured out which DSLR he is
>> going to buy yet.
>
> I have decided to wait for the D90 replacement. I want a 3" articulating
> lcd and after the D5000 I think it will be coming.
Think you may have a long wait. The D90 is only a few months old. Nikon tend
to replace only every 2 years (D40x not included). The D300 will probably be
the next camera to be replaced.
PDM
Timmo
news:87ocux9...@apaflo.com...
>>>> With Canon there is usually a lens to suit your needs
>>>> in their range. With
>>>> Nikon, this isn't always the case.
>>> nonsense.
>>Care to elaborate?
> *You* need to elaborate, troll. What you said is indeed
> nonsense, and you cannot provide detail to support it.
Chill out, it's only camera equipment. ;-) I must admit, it was a bit of a
troll post, but to be honest I was interested in hearing the responses.
However, I didn't just make it up off the top of my head, because for me
personally, Canon does have the lenses that suit my needs and with Nikon
this isn't always the case.
Personally, two focal lengths I use often are 24 and 300. Nikon don't make
a 24 and their 300 f4 isn't image stabilised (VR), so for me this supports
it. I could possibly be tempted by a 400 f4 or even a 400 f5.6 instead, but
Nikon don't make these either.
I am not going to nit-pick and list all the lenses one provides that the
other doesn't, such and T&S's and 5:1 macro's, and bigger aperture primes,
but if you keep your ears peeled, you will hear Nikon users themselves say
that they would also like an equivalent to the 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4.
Some also complain that the 70-200 2.8 isn't so great on a full frame body.
Whether or not this is true, I don't know because I have not used one, and
to be honest I don't plan to go full frame.
Camera equipment is a personal choice, and it depends on what each person
wants, but for me, I still stand by my 'troll' post.
nospam
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Chill out, it's only camera equipment. ;-) I must admit, it was a bit of a
> troll post, but to be honest I was interested in hearing the responses.
> However, I didn't just make it up off the top of my head, because for me
> personally, Canon does have the lenses that suit my needs and with Nikon
> this isn't always the case.
for you perhaps, but for others it's exactly the opposite.
> Personally, two focal lengths I use often are 24 and 300. Nikon don't make
> a 24
what's this then?
<http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/wideangle/af_2
4mmf_28d/index.htm>
> and their 300 f4 isn't image stabilised (VR),
but their 300 f/2.8 is.
> so for me this supports
> it. I could possibly be tempted by a 400 f4 or even a 400 f5.6 instead, but
> Nikon don't make these either.
they make two 400 f/2.8 lenses, one stabilized, one not. canon's 400mm
f/4 uses diffractive optics and that has its own set of drawbacks.
there's also the 200-400mm f/4, which despite being a zoom, is a *very*
good lens.
> I am not going to nit-pick and list all the lenses one provides that the
> other doesn't, such and T&S's and 5:1 macro's, and bigger aperture primes,
of course not, because then you're ridiculous statement would be proven
false.
> but if you keep your ears peeled, you will hear Nikon users themselves say
> that they would also like an equivalent to the 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4.
and you'll hear canon users wanting a nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, so much so
that they get an adapter just to use it on their canon bodies.
24-105 on a dx body isn't all that useful and the 16-85vr covers the
equivalent range (and then some).
> Some also complain that the 70-200 2.8 isn't so great on a full frame body.
people who actually use the lens don't have a whole lot of complaints.
> Whether or not this is true, I don't know because I have not used one, and
> to be honest I don't plan to go full frame.
>
> Camera equipment is a personal choice, and it depends on what each person
> wants, but for me, I still stand by my 'troll' post.
of course it's a personal choice but your 'troll' post was pure
bullshit.
Timmo
news:j3mju49b7ugee3juk...@4ax.com...
>>Personally, two focal lengths I use often are 24 and 300. Nikon don't
>>make
>>a 24 and their 300 f4 isn't image stabilised (VR), so for me this supports
>>it. I could possibly be tempted by a 400 f4 or even a 400 f5.6 instead,
>>but
>>Nikon don't make these either.
> Then you have completely missed the absolutely stellar AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR
> 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED, which holds up quite well in front of a 2x TC by my
> experience, http://edwardgruf.com/bluebird.html
>
> http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2146/AF-S-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-200-400mm-f%252F4G-IF-ED.html
>
No, I haven't missed it. There is nothing wrong with the lens, it's just a
bit big and heavy for a mobile photographer. On a Gimball head, maybe it's
not such a problem.
Timmo
news:180420090653382833%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>> Personally, two focal lengths I use often are 24 and 300. Nikon don't
>> make
>> a 24
> what's this then?
>
> <http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/wideangle/af_2
> 4mmf_28d/index.htm>
Someone not knowing their arse from their elbow.
Robert Coe
: In message <YUoFl.29160$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, measekite
: <inkys...@oem.com> writes
: >
: >> measekite wrote:
: >>> Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
: >>> Line?
: >>> Does it just boil down to the fact that each as a few lenses that are
: >>> marginally better than the other with the remainder being comparable or is
: >>> there a significant difference?
: >>
: >> To really simplify things, Canon tends to be better at teles & Nikon
: >> tends to be better at wide-angles. Other than that, neither is, in
: >> general, significantly better than the other.
: >>
: >
: >What is actually meant by better. Is it construction, sharpness, color,
: >overall image quality, speed or ??????
:
: All of the above in varying quantities. You forgot holiness. Nikon has
: more of that because God uses a Nikon.
No I don't! Not since the film days. Currently, I have two Canons.
Robert Coe
: measekite wrote:
: > Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
: > Line?
: >
: > Does it just boil down to the fact that each as a few lenses that are
: > marginally better than the other with the remainder being comparable or is
: > there a significant difference?
:
: To really simplify things, Canon tends to be better at teles & Nikon
: tends to be better at wide-angles. Other than that, neither is, in
: general, significantly better than the other.
Well, as Albert Einstein is supposed to have said, "Everything should be made
as simple as possible, but not simpler." The complication is that there are
very good third-party lenses at both ends of the spectrum. So for your Canon
you might have the Sigma 10-20, and for your Nikon you might have the Sigma
50-150 f/2.8. Or similar lenses from Tamron, Tokina, et al.
Bob
Robert Coe
: measekite <inkys...@oem.com> wrote:
: >Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon
: >Lens Line?
:
: cameras.
Well said. ;^)
Robert Coe
: In message <49e59337$0$1659$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
: <rfis...@sonic.net> writes
: >measekite <inkys...@oem.com> wrote:
: >>Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon
: >>Lens Line?
: >
: >One works best with Nikon cameras and the other works best with Canon
: >cameras.
: OK... So which works better with Canon and which with Nikon?
That's a philosophical question with metaphysical ramifications. A full
exposition is well beyond the scope of this newsgroup.
Bob
Robert Coe
: On 2009-04-15 01:08:25 -0700, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
: > <rfis...@sonic.net> writes
: >> measekite <inkys...@oem.com> wrote:
: >>> Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
: >>> Line?
: >>
: >> One works best with Nikon cameras and the other works best with Canon
: >> cameras.
: >
: > OK... So which works better with Canon and which with Nikon?
: It doesn't matter. Mease hasn't quite figured out which DSLR he is
: going to buy yet.
He's going to get a Rolleiflex.
Robert Coe
: On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:47:11 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
:
: > On 2009-04-15 10:37:16 -0700, measekite <inkys...@oem.com> said:
: >
: >>
: >>> On 2009-04-15 01:08:25 -0700, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
: >>>
: >>>> In message <49e59337$0$1659$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
: >>>> <rfis...@sonic.net> writes
: >>>>> measekite <inkys...@oem.com> wrote:
: >>>>>> Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
: >>>>>> Line?
: >>>>>
: >>>>> One works best with Nikon cameras and the other works best with Canon
: >>>>> cameras.
: >>>>
: >>>> OK... So which works better with Canon and which with Nikon?
: >>>
: >>> It doesn't matter. Mease hasn't quite figured out which DSLR he is
: >>> going to buy yet.
: >> I have decided to wait for the D90 replacement. I want a 3" articulating
: >> lcd and after the D5000 I think it will be coming.
: > I wouldn't have expected anything else of you.
:
: When you want to fork over you money than you get a chance to run your
: mouth. With my money I make my decisions based on my needs and desires.
I thought the Duck already had a camnera. Am I wrong?
Robert Coe
: "measekite" <inkys...@oem.com> wrote in message
: news:vBpFl.29165$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
: then why waste our time now, after all your now running YOUR mouth on our
: I have a friend just like you, he is always waiting for the next big
: improvement in technology before he spends his money, but guess what, every
: time he thinks that he has found what he wants, there are rumors of
: something "Bigger and better" in the wings so he waits again. so far the
: rest of us have leapt ahead of him by several generations and he is still
: stuck with with his 10 year old technology. Jump into the pool or get off
: the diving board!!
OTOH, we have that other group that always seems to be using the Latest &
Greatest of Everything, even before B&H has it in stock. I think this
newsgroup must have the richest clientele in all of Usenet. ;^)
Bob
Robert Coe
It's the light that goes on when your battery is almost dead.
Robert Coe
His wife will decide in her own good time. (Which isn't necessarily bad. My
wife is about as good a photographer as I am.)
Bob
measekite
I wonder that with the economy the way it is that Nikon and others may
shrink their model line and combine the D300 and D90 into one. There does
not seem to be a whole lot to differentiate them. And as they keep
running out of new features that are significant the main difference is in
building materials and seals etc and that may not be enough to sustain a
model. Some may shrug off a D300 class and go for a full frame which
should be coming down in price.
measekite
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> news:87ocux9...@apaflo.com...
>
>>>>> With Canon there is usually a lens to suit your needs
>>>>> in their range. With
>>>>> Nikon, this isn't always the case.
>
>
>>>> nonsense.
>
>
>>>Care to elaborate?
>
>
>> *You* need to elaborate, troll. What you said is indeed
>> nonsense, and you cannot provide detail to support it.
>
>
> Chill out, it's only camera equipment. ;-) I must admit, it was a bit of a
> troll post, but to be honest I was interested in hearing the responses.
> However, I didn't just make it up off the top of my head, because for me
> personally, Canon does have the lenses that suit my needs and with Nikon
> this isn't always the case.
>
> Personally, two focal lengths I use often are 24 and 300. Nikon don't make
> a 24 and their 300 f4 isn't image stabilised (VR), so for me this supports
> it. I could possibly be tempted by a 400 f4 or even a 400 f5.6 instead, but
> Nikon don't make these either.
It seems to be that Zoom lenses due to their increase in image quality are
more popular these days than fixed lenses that do then to be faster,
smaller and lighter and in some cases less expensive.
Savageduck
You are not wrong. I have a D300 & D70.
It is measekite who is perpetually searching for perfection via review
& troll post to allegedly upgrade an unidentified Canon.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
You are not wrong. I have a D300 & D70.
It is measekite who is perpetually searching for perfection via review
& troll post to allegedly upgrade an unidentified Canon to some fantasy
ideal.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87ocux9...@apaflo.com...
>
>>>>> With Canon there is usually a lens to suit your needs
>>>>> in their range. With
>>>>> Nikon, this isn't always the case.
>
>>>> nonsense.
>
>>>Care to elaborate?
>
>> *You* need to elaborate, troll. What you said is indeed
>> nonsense, and you cannot provide detail to support it.
>
>Chill out, it's only camera equipment. ;-) I must admit, it was a bit of a
>troll post,
Still trolling are we!
It's a waste of bandwidth when you write a bunch of
nonsense to see what others will say.
>I am not going to nit-pick ...
That's all you did though. It's just about the same as
complaining that you have to have a red dot on the left
side, and one company uses yellow dots or only puts them
on the left side. It's nonsense.
Get used to it, Canon makes good equipment, and so does
Nikon. A lot of people won't buy the same brand that
you did, and often it will be for good reasons.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
ASAAR
>>> I could possibly be tempted by a 400 f4 or even a 400 f5.6 instead,
>>>but Nikon don't make these either.
>> . . .
>> Then you have completely missed the absolutely stellar AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR
>> 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED, which holds up quite well in front of a 2x TC by my
>> experience, http://edwardgruf.com/bluebird.html
> . . .
>
> No, I haven't missed it. There is nothing wrong with the lens, it's just a
> bit big and heavy for a mobile photographer. On a Gimball head, maybe
> it's not such a problem.
It's lighter with a gimbal head? :) The 200-400mm is a good lens
but I also find it heavier than what I'm looking for. As for the
TCs, some of the better pros in DPR's forums that use the 200-400mm
VR have frequently reported that it gives good results (not superb)
with the 1.4x TC, less good with the 1.7x TC, and is noticably worse
with the 2.0x TC. They also say the the 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8
VR lenses are in a class above the 200-400VR, and that they both
produce superior results with all of the TCs, from 1.4x to 2.0x.
Since you could be tempted by a 400mm f/4 Nikkor or 500mm f/5.6,
why not consider the 300mm f/2.8 VR? With the 1.4x TC or 1.7x TC
it's an excellent 420mm f/4 VR or 510mm f/5.6 VR lens. At 6.3 lb.
it's actually almost a pound lighter than the 7.2 lb. 200-400 VR,
and substantially ligher than the 10.2 lb. 400mm f/2.8 VR lens. The
image quality with any of those lens/TC combos is probably better
than anything seen by most photographers. I was thinking of some
other photographers, but see that Thom Hogan's opinion is the same.
Since I read what he said about the lenses (some time last year?),
perhaps his opinion had the strongest foothold in my memory :
> The 200-400mm f/4G AF-S VR is usually the first thing people look at.
> The focal range fits in nicely atop the Let’s-Go-Pro kits, but the price
> makes this a “brainer” (as opposed to a no-brainer). The size and weight
> is a decent compromise compared to some of the exotics. But as I'll be
> reporting (Real Soon Now), the 200-400mm is a mixed bag. I love it at
> close to moderate focus distances. I hate it at long focus distances and
> with converters. Okay, those words are too strong. Let's put it this way:
> it does very well for certain uses, but less well for others. You pay some
> real penalties for going with a zoom in this range, and as good as the lens
> is, it doesn't equal some of your other choices (as we'll eventually get to).
. . .
> The 300mm f/2.8 has grown on me, especially with the latest VR version.
> It's perhaps the sharpest of the exotics, and it tolerates TCs pretty well.
> That makes it more versatile than it at first seems. You've got a sharp
> and hand-holdable 300mm f/2.8, 420mm f/4 (TC-14E), and maybe even
> 510mm f/4.8 (TC-17E). On a DX body, you've got plenty of reach for
> anything but the most extreme needs. On an FX body, well, you're
> probably going to feel a bit short.
. . .
> That’s not to say the 500mm is the best optically. It isn’t. The 400mm f/2.8
> AF-S and 600mm f/4 AF-S are slightly better wide open and some say (I
> don’t agree at the moment, though I'm going to be shooting some further
> tests this summer) the 400mm is better with converters. The 600mm is
> simply a stellar lens all around, with or without converters. None of these
> lenses are slouches. I’d be happy shooting with any of them. I'm just trying
> to point out that some are slightly better choices than others, and not just
> because of image quality. Indeed, in terms of optical quality, I think I'd
> rank them this way (places number 4 and 5 are very close):
>
> 1. 300mm f/2.8G AF-S VR
> 2. 200mm f/2G AF-S VR
> 3. 400mm f/2.8G AF-S VR
> 4. 600mm f/4G AF-S VR
> 5. 500mm f/4G AF-S VR
> 6. 200-400mm f/4G AF-S VR
>
> Yet, in terms of which make the most sense overall, I'd rank them this way:
>
> 1. 300mm f/2.8G AF-S VR
> 2. 500mm f/4G AF-S VR
> 3. 200-400mm f/4G AF-S VR
> 4. 400mm f/2.8G AF-S VR
Here are some of his comments on the best lenses at specific focal
lengths :
> 300mm – The 300mm f/2.8G AF-S VR, hands down. Again, nothing else is
> close. The latest 300mm f/2.8 is arguably the best exotic telephoto Nikon
> has made. Still, both the 300mm f/4D and the 70-200mm f/2.8G VR with a
> TC-14E do a respectable job here, almost equaling the bigger lens at
> anything beyond f/5.6. But as you move up in telephoto range, depth of field
> control becomes an important consideration, and the 300mm f/2.8G AF-S VR
> is the choice because of that, even if it weren't such a stellar performer.
>
> 400mm – The 400mm f/2.8G AF-S VR, hands down. Again no contest;
> nothing else comes close. The 300mm f/2.8D with a TC-14E falls into a
> slightly distant second place that's quite usable. The 80-400mm f/4-5.6D
> VR isn’t in the same league, though it will produce acceptable results
> on the APS-sized sensor bodies with careful shot discipline. Corners on
> a full-frame body are problematic at 400mm with the 80-400mm. The
> best budget choice is the 400mm f/5.6 AI-S, purchased used.
Atheist Chaplain
news:bvtju4djn8ajq3dg1...@4ax.com...
Actually my personal experience was to have a play with the cameras I was
interested in, find the one I wanted and then wait until it was reasonably
priced instead, of jumping in and buying it the minute it was released, but
as you correctly stated, there are some who jump in boots and all as soon as
the next big thing is released, I like early adopters, the find the bugs for
me before I have to worry about them :-)
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
ASAAR
>>> No, I haven't missed it. There is nothing wrong with the lens, it's just a
>>> bit big and heavy for a mobile photographer. On a Gimball head, maybe it's
>>> not such a problem.
>>
>> How is this really any bigger and heavier than a 400 f/4? And fwiw I carry
>> and handhold mine on a near daily basis walking the dog for several miles
>> at a time.
>
> Sorry, I was thinking of it in comparison to the 300mm f/2.8.
??? The 200-400mm VR weighs nearly a pound more than the 300mm
f/2.8 VR Nikkor. They're both pretty hefty, but as I mentioned in
my other reply, it's the 400mm f/2.8 lens that's the real beast.
measekite
> "Timmo" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>news:87ocux9...@apaflo.com...
>>
>>>>>> With Canon there is usually a lens to suit your needs
>>>>>> in their range. With
>>>>>> Nikon, this isn't always the case.
>>
>>>>> nonsense.
>>
>>>>Care to elaborate?
>>
>>> *You* need to elaborate, troll. What you said is indeed
>>> nonsense, and you cannot provide detail to support it.
>>
>>Chill out, it's only camera equipment. ;-) I must admit, it was a bit of a
>>troll post,
>
> Still trolling are we!
There is always one or two in every ng. I wonder who the other is.
Bob Larter
> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49e589f9$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> measekite wrote:
>>> Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon
>>> Lens
>>> Line?
>>>
>>> marginally better than the other with the remainder being comparable or
>>> is
>>> there a significant difference?
>> To really simplify things, Canon tends to be better at teles & Nikon tends
>> to be better at wide-angles. Other than that, neither is, in general,
>> significantly better than the other.
>>
> (particularly for the C / DX size sensor). You have to pay premium for a
> good lens from Canon. Canon has more lenses. There are some gaps in the
> Nikon line.
> PDM
I was assuming full-frame lenses. I don't have enough experience with
non-full-frame sensors to have an opinion.
PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.
nospam
<bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
> me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.
<http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.11.30/lens-repair-data-20>
sigma has the honor of having the top five most unreliable lenses that
they offer, with the #1 position having a whopping 84.6% failure rate
(and that particular lens isn't cheap either).
also,
<http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga>
Since day 1 the Sigma brand has always been a bit of a money loser
for us: they broke more frequently than the other brands.
Sigma lenses failed at a rate of 30% per year, compared to less than
5% for Canon, Tamron, Nikon, Tokina, and Zeiss.
We arenšt going to stop renting Sigma entirely but we are going to
close out two lines (the 150-500 and 120-400) that have developed so
many problems as to be unusable.
measekite
> In article <49ec7941$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
>> me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.
>
> <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.11.30/lens-repair-data-20>
>
> sigma has the honor of having the top five most unreliable lenses that
> they offer, with the #1 position having a whopping 84.6% failure rate
> (and that particular lens isn't cheap either).
What exactly do you mean by lens failure. Is it just poor image quality
or is the build quality so bad it just falls apart?
>
> also,
>
> <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga>
>
> Since day 1 the Sigma brand has always been a bit of a money loser for
> us: they broke more frequently than the other brands.
>
> Sigma lenses failed at a rate of 30% per year, compared to less than
> 5% for Canon, Tamron, Nikon, Tokina, and Zeiss.
>
> We aren¹t going to stop renting Sigma entirely but we are going to
nospam
<inkys...@oem.com> wrote:
> >> To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
> >> me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.
> >
> > <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.11.30/lens-repair-data-20>
> >
> > sigma has the honor of having the top five most unreliable lenses that
> > they offer, with the #1 position having a whopping 84.6% failure rate
> > (and that particular lens isn't cheap either).
>
> What exactly do you mean by lens failure.
the failures are listed in the link: zoom mechanism, calibration,
autofocus and stabilization for sigma.
> Is it just poor image quality
> or is the build quality so bad it just falls apart?
actually, some very old sigma lenses did fall apart.