Canon and Nikon line of lenses

[bobbyknight]

Hey guy, and I'm saying this as a Canon user, you could give me a d40 and kit lens and I could take a picture that most peole wouldn't be able to distinguish from a d700 unless they saw the exit or had one hell of an eye. Same thing with an xti and a 5d mkii.

haha.. really, you must be really good then. You should tell me moree xD

It's about know how to effectively use your equipment. I forgot to mention that I would also need a set of lights. That's how I do things. I've seen all natural light wedding photos that would put some one's work who normally makes good use of flash to shame.

So you're saying that no need for the expensive body cameras and just go for like yeah D40 haha. Seriously, I agree even if you're using the most advanced or expensive body if you don't know how to utilize your camera then the outcome would be devastating!

 

[bobbyknight]

I didnt see this thread you had started... I responded in your other thread earlier so I'll just paste the link here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...80-canon-7d-vs-nikon-d7000-2.html#post2155388

hey man, it's better if you can post it again here? :thumbup:

 

[Josh66]

Off the top of my head, I think that Nikon has been more expensive, especially with their high end lenses. But recently, Canon has been raising the price of their top end lenses, or at least coming out with upgraded versions at prices that are much higher than the older versions.

Another thing that *might* be worth considering is that all Nikon lenses (from what I've seen) come with a hood. With Canon, only the L lenses come with a hood... If you factor that in, the price difference is smaller.

It's been my experience that the hoods usually cost 10% (roughly) of whatever the lens they're made to fit cost.

 

[mjhoward]

I didnt see this thread you had started... I responded in your other thread earlier so I'll just paste the link here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...80-canon-7d-vs-nikon-d7000-2.html#post2155388

hey man, it's better if you can post it again here? :thumbup:

No problem, some of this has already been covered here though (PASTED):

Canon has a little bit wider selection of lenses (especially on the long end) and in general the newer models are a bit cheaper than the newer model Nikon equivalents. The problem with Canon is that their older lenses (pre-'87) will not work on any new body. Canon also has two different current mounts, the EF and the EF-S. An EF-S lens mount is for a crop body only, you cannot mount an EF-S lens on a FF Canon.

OTOH, a Nikon lens that is designed specifically for DX (crop) will work on an FX (FF) body, you'll just have to crop the image and discard the black and vignetted areas. You can also use any older lens on any new body. Most older lenses have screw drive AF where the AF motors are not built into the lens but instead the driver is built into the camera body. The D7000 has the screw drive built in, so on these older lenses, you'll still have AF and be able to save a bundle over new lenses. Older lenses are also very capable so don't think they get outdated like the electronics/tech on a camera body.

Canon also has a 1yr warranty and Nikon has a 5yr warranty.

 

[Josh66]

Canon also has a 1yr warranty and Nikon has a 5yr warranty.

Canon stuff breaks less, thus - no need for the extra 4 years... :lmao:




Kidding, of course...

 

[bobbyknight]

Off the top of my head, I think that Nikon has been more expensive, especially with their high end lenses. But recently, Canon has been raising the price of their top end lenses, or at least coming out with upgraded versions at prices that are much higher than the older versions.

Another thing that *might* be worth considering is that all Nikon lenses (from what I've seen) come with a hood. With Canon, only the L lenses come with a hood... If you factor that in, the price difference is smaller.

It's been my experience that the hoods usually cost 10% (roughly) of whatever the lens they're made to fit cost.

More about the hood please

 

[spacefuzz]

When I made my choice between canon and nikon last year I set my budget and compared camera bodies in that price range. Both their lens lines seemed great.

 

[bobbyknight]

I didnt see this thread you had started... I responded in your other thread earlier so I'll just paste the link here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...80-canon-7d-vs-nikon-d7000-2.html#post2155388

hey man, it's better if you can post it again here? :thumbup:

No problem, some of this has already been covered here though (PASTED):

Canon has a little bit wider selection of lenses (especially on the long end) and in general the newer models are a bit cheaper than the newer model Nikon equivalents. The problem with Canon is that their older lenses (pre-'87) will not work on any new body. Canon also has two different current mounts, the EF and the EF-S. An EF-S lens mount is for a crop body only, you cannot mount an EF-S lens on a FF Canon.

OTOH, a Nikon lens that is designed specifically for DX (crop) will work on an FX (FF) body, you'll just have to crop the image and discard the black and vignetted areas. You can also use any older lens on any new body. Most older lenses have screw drive AF where the AF motors are not built into the lens but instead the driver is built into the camera body. The D7000 has the screw drive built in, so on these older lenses, you'll still have AF and be able to save a bundle over new lenses. Older lenses are also very capable so don't think they get outdated like the electronics/tech on a camera body.

Canon also has a 1yr warranty and Nikon has a 5yr warranty.

Muchos gracias!
I think all the current and new models of Canon now is compatible with both the EF and EF-S lenses?
How come Nikon has quite a long warranty?

 

[Josh66]

Off the top of my head, I think that Nikon has been more expensive, especially with their high end lenses. But recently, Canon has been raising the price of their top end lenses, or at least coming out with upgraded versions at prices that are much higher than the older versions.

Another thing that *might* be worth considering is that all Nikon lenses (from what I've seen) come with a hood. With Canon, only the L lenses come with a hood... If you factor that in, the price difference is smaller.

It's been my experience that the hoods usually cost 10% (roughly) of whatever the lens they're made to fit cost.

More about the hood please

More what?

Just have a look at B&H... You'll notice that the Nikon lenses, while they cost a little more, come with a hood. The Canon lenses, other than the L's, don't.

Not a deal breaker, but I think it does help to give a little perspective to the price differences.

 

[bobbyknight]

When I made my choice between canon and nikon last year I set my budget and compared camera bodies in that price range. Both their lens lines seemed great.

What have you decided for?

 

[bobbyknight]

Another thing that *might* be worth considering is that all Nikon lenses (from what I've seen) come with a hood. With Canon, only the L lenses come with a hood... If you factor that in, the price difference is smaller.

It's been my experience that the hoods usually cost 10% (roughly) of whatever the lens they're made to fit cost.

More about the hood please

More what?

Just have a look at B&H... You'll notice that the Nikon lenses, while they cost a little more, come with a hood. The Canon lenses, other than the L's, don't.

Not a deal breaker, but I think it does help to give a little perspective to the price differences.

Meant, any purpose for the hood?

 

[Josh66]

Lens protection, preventing flare, looking cool...?

 

[djacobox372]

In the broadest terms:

1)New canon lenses a little less expensive
2)Both offer similar image quality
3)Canon has a slightly larger selection of new lenses, whereas nikon has a massively larger selection of used lenses (nikon has been making f-mount lenses for more then twice as long as canon has been making ef mount lenses).

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Hey guy, and I'm saying this as a Canon user, you could give me a d40 and kit lens and I could take a picture that most peole wouldn't be able to distinguish from a d700 unless they saw the exit or had one hell of an eye. Same thing with an xti and a 5d mkii.

^---What he said. Thats why everyone you talk to on here shoots prosumer cameras with kit lenses. Those high dollar, constant aperture, fast lenses and high res cameras are for suckers.


Seriously though, they are both great lenses and great cameras, just pick one and get on with it. This whole comparison/poll crap is getting old. They are both better than having nothing in your hands right now as you waste time debating the merits of pretty much the best two SLR camera brands on the market.

 

[bobbyknight]

Lens protection, preventing flare, looking cool...?

One thing that stands out, looking cool