Camera glass

[skieur]

A lot of photographers will say that you do not buy a camera for the body but rather for the lens quality and lens cost. They will then however proceed to supposedly prove that a certain company has the cheapest priced lenses.

The reality however tends to be that the comparison is between apples and oranges. You can't compare a Nikon VR lens to a Canon kit lens on the basis of either price or quality. You also cannot compare a Sony Zeiss lens to a Nikon regular lens and say that the Sony lenses cost too much.

You can compare top lenses on price. For example a Nikon 70mm to 200mm 2.8 VR lens is 2,394 in Canada. Ths Sony G lens 70mm to 200mm 2.8 is 2,100 dollars and the Canon version is $1994. Without lab reports is is difficult to say which is the best lens.

To show that prices are not consistent either, a top line Sony G lens 70mm to 300mm is $755 Canadian. The Canon version is $1550 Canadian.

The lower lenses from Canon, Nikon and Sony seem to be about the same price and of course there are also Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses to choose from as well. The top lines of all 3: Canon,Nikon, and Sony tend to get good general reviews but the lab reports on quality might make some difference in a purchasing decision.

skieur

 

[Garbz]

Score one for the "well derr" responses But true a lot of people don't realise this. Lenses are priced to cost. Yes the Olympus pro lenses will bankrupt the buyer, but the buyer could trade in their partner and be happy for the rest of their life sharing the bed with a lens of that quality. Bonuses because the lens doesn't nag.

 

[wescobts]

Well I'm a half-ass photographer and when I bought my first Nikon, ( FG 20, film) I had NO IDEA what I was in for. I am very pleased with the path I have travelled, and now I only buy Nikon/Nikkor, and unless something tragic happens to Nikon, I always will. If I knew what I know now, back then, I believe I still would be with Nikon. I am NOT made of money, some days are really hard, but I would rather have one Nikon, lets say my 35mm f2, than I drawer full of third party lenses.

 

[Josh66]

Can you compare a Nikon 85mm f/1.8 ($450) to a Canon 85mm f/1.8 ($380)?

Cost is no secret...

One thing to factor in though - Nikon lenses come with hoods. Canon lenses (except for L's) don't. Figure the hood is usually about 10% the cost of the lens... So you're looking at $400 vs. $380 on this specific case... Pretty much even, I'd say.

 

[djacobox372]

"NEW" nikon lenses are more expensive then canon and sony; HOWEVER, the higher end nikon dslrs (d200, d300, d700,d3) are fully compatiblity with nearly all nikon lenses made for 50 years. Which means you have a FAR greater selection of lenses on the used market to choose from. And be sure that the optics of fixed focal length lenses haven't improved much at all over the last 25 years or so.

This makes nikon the least expensive option for me, since I like prime lenses.

 

[MrLogic]

RE: Nikon vs. Canon. Canon is the bigger company. That tends to keep prices down.

AFAIK, Canon's super tele primes, while MUCH less expensive, haven't been revised in a long time (dunno about the 800 f/5.6). Not saying the Nikkor super teles are better, but they certainly are much "newer."

But new Canon L prices have been much closer to new Nikon AF-S prices. The 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mk II is a case in point.

 

[skieur]

Compatibility is not totally relevant, for pros who buy a new camera every 3 years or sooner. If you are shooting on location, then features and picture noise might be more important than anything else.

For sharpness, detail, and low cost the Sony A850 or A750 will probably fit the bill in the full frame camera area. For low noise, the Nikon D3s is great under low light. Canon is slightly sharper than Nikon, but with more noise.

The number of lenses available is somewhat irrelevant, if you have the top quality 85mm 1.4 or 1.8 lens for your studio portraiture work, or a 70mm to 400mm top lens for your sports or wildlife work.

I am surprised at the aggressivel loyalty of some Canon and Nikon users in that if you are really picky about quality you should be using the Leica S2 in your studios and for product work the Red One. The new Sony A750 looks like a potentially good camera for photojournalism.

skieur

 

[Josh66]

for product work the Red One.

Isn't that a video camera?

 

[rallysman]

ITT: You get what you pay for.

 

[skieur]

for product work the Red One.

Isn't that a video camera?

It is a modular camera, so it depends on what you put into it. The still module is used for high end magazine work.

skieur

 

[skieur]

for product work the Red One.

Isn't that a video camera?

As a modular camera, you can use it to shoot medium format stills as well as large format digital stills.

skieur

 

[skieur]

ITT: You get what you pay for.

Actually, it is not that straightforward. You are going to pay more for a lens with VR than for a lens without stabilization and of course if the stablization is in your camera body then it is not necessary in the lens.

In a lab test on the Sigma 70 to 200mm 2.8, it was found to be better in the midrange with the IQ going down as it went toward 200mm. The Tamron equivalent was better toward 200mm but not quite as good as the Sigma at the 70mm end. No matter what the price, it becomes difficult to decide which is better.

Complicating the price issue even further, a fast 2.8 lens may not be terribly helpful if the lens aberrations and quality weaknesses don't disappear until your aperture reaches 4 to 5.6. Perhaps a top quality f.4 to 5.6 lens would have been a better choice, particularly if it is at a lower price.

skieur

 

[Derrel]

The Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM: a multi-sample evaluation - SLRgear.com!

This page shows the performance of five Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM prime lenses. The blue coloration represents blur units--blue is what you WANT to see. 1,2,3 blur units represents excellent optical performance. The hot colors or yellow and red represent HUGE amounts of blurring,and poor optical performance, across five lenses of the same make and model. This Canon lens retails for $349 at B&H Photo today. These tests were published in January 2010. The corner and edge performances of this lens design are quite bad at the widest apertures.

The Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S: a multi-sample evaluation - SLRgear.com!
This page shows the performance of five Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AFS-G prime lenses. The blue coloration represents low amounts of blur units. The center of the lens is shown in the center of the plotted area. This Nikon lens retails for $429.95 at B&H Photo today. These tests were published on Feb. 14, 2010. The corner and edge performance of the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 is quite consistent across the entire frame even at the widest three apertures.

Obviously, the Canon 50/1.4 USM of recent vintage is an optically inferior lens to the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 AF-D design. "Newer is better" is a maxim I often repeat about Nikon lens designs. The newer Nikon primes and zooms are some of the finest lenses in their respective classes. And they cost more money than lenses with lower price points and lower performance and or lower standards of quality assembly from other makers. A lens is both 1) a "design" or a pattern of elements,coating, and spacings and 2) a "build", meaning how well the elements are spaced, centered, and secured within the barrel by retaining mechanisms.

Compare the five lower-priced 50's from Canon to the five higher priced Nikon 50's, and see if the $80 higher price of the Nikon might just be worth the ***notably better*** and more-consistent center-to-edge performance at the three widest apertures.

 

[skieur]

The Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM: a multi-sample evaluation - SLRgear.com!

This page shows the performance of five Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM prime lenses. The blue coloration represents blur units--blue is what you WANT to see. 1,2,3 blur units represents excellent optical performance. The hot colors or yellow and red represent HUGE amounts of blurring,and poor optical performance, across five lenses of the same make and model. This Canon lens retails for $349 at B&H Photo today. These tests were published in January 2010. The corner and edge performances of this lens design are quite bad at the widest apertures.

The Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S: a multi-sample evaluation - SLRgear.com!
This page shows the performance of five Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AFS-G prime lenses. The blue coloration represents low amounts of blur units. The center of the lens is shown in the center of the plotted area. This Nikon lens retails for $429.95 at B&H Photo today. These tests were published on Feb. 14, 2010. The corner and edge performance of the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 is quite consistent across the entire frame even at the widest three apertures.

Obviously, the Canon 50/1.4 USM of recent vintage is an optically inferior lens to the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 AF-D design. "Newer is better" is a maxim I often repeat about Nikon lens designs. The newer Nikon primes and zooms are some of the finest lenses in their respective classes. And they cost more money than lenses with lower price points and lower performance and or lower standards of quality assembly from other makers. A lens is both 1) a "design" or a pattern of elements,coating, and spacings and 2) a "build", meaning how well the elements are spaced, centered, and secured within the barrel by retaining mechanisms.

Compare the five lower-priced 50's from Canon to the five higher priced Nikon 50's, and see if the $80 higher price of the Nikon might just be worth the ***notably better*** and more-consistent center-to-edge performance at the three widest apertures.

I have no biases, so I found that the info. you provided on those two regular focal length lenses was very informative. I would agree with your conclusion.

skieur

 

[Joves]

And to tell the truth on the 50's the Nikon 1.8 is constructed much better than the Canon equivalent. I tend to find that Nikons lower still get very good construction over all and, perform quite well. Also Nikon has pretty much one mount as where someone else has what now 3 or 4. When I shot film I shot Pentax because they pretty much had the PK mount and, that was it. Had they not dragged their feet in digital I would probably still be shooting with them.