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.

^---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.

+1
7D

 

[bobbyknight]

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).

No big deal, either way they're very good. Number 1 would be the only thing to consider I guess.

 

[ausemmao]

I wish Nikon would get off their arses and make a 70-200 f/4 like Canon. That would make poor students like me happy in their pants.

Actually, if any of you guys have used the 80-200, what's that like to manually focus?

 

[Village Idiot]

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!

Bodies and lenses matter at some point, but barring a huge leap in tech, you'll get some what similar results from them. The differences come mainly in features like faster FPS, faster focusing, etc... and unless you're shooting a subject that requires those features, then it more of what do you want and what are you willing to pay for over what you need.

Lenses matter in certain situations as well. Unless you need a prime f/1.2 lens, then you can get by using the an 85 f/1.8, It might not be as sharp and it might not be as fast, but it's going to be almost impossible to tell the difference between two frames. The first lens is $1800ish and the second is $400ish.

But then there are instances where you have to learn about photography and the way things work. An 18-200 super zoom with a variable apertur will generally have poorer quality than most zooms that have a normal range. ie. 10-20, 17-40, 7-200.

An most importantly is the light. Photography is about light. It's the collection of light onto the little sensor in the camera body. If you're shooting subjects that require specific lighting, like portaiture, still life, automotive, etc... The perfect natural light or artificial lighting placed just right can cover up nearly any faults in your equipment.

Just don't get so wrapped up in the gear aspect until you're attempting something and realize, Hey, I absolutely can't get this shots without an 85 f/1.8 and a set of pro foto lights.

 

[subscuck]

^ +1

That should be a sticky.

 

[Village Idiot]

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

Dumbest arguement against a brand ever.

Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS = $1,120. Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 without an image stabilization technology integrated into the lens = $1,359. The Canon hood is only $47, which is not even roughly close to 10% of the cost of the lens and the Nikon description doesn't show that it comes with a hood, so even if it does, the price and lack of image stabilization make it an even wider gap.

Canon's 24-70 f/2.8L sells for $1,329 on B&H. Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8 sells for $1,699 on B&H. They both come with hoods.

And do all Nikon lenses come with a hood? The 70-300 and 18-55 on B&H that I saw did not say that they did.

 

[Overread]

An most importantly is the light. Photography is about light. It's the collection of light onto the little sensor in the camera body. If you're shooting subjects that require specific lighting, like portaiture, still life, automotive, etc... The perfect natural light or artificial lighting placed just right can cover up nearly any faults in your equipment.

Further poor light can make a mockery of even the best glass and camera bodies - sure the better you go the worse the light you can work in and that is always a bonus- but nothing makes up for not having the perfect light.


(however as a wildlife photographer I'd say the most important part isn't the camera at all = infact the whole photographic side is secondary to the subject. And yes that works in other areas too - if you want modelings shots that look good you need someone who can model - if you want car shots you gotta have a car etc....
So its not enough to stop thinking at the camera - think beyond the camera!

 

[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

Dumbest arguement against a brand ever.

About the specs, it doesn't mean that if they have higher mm are better than those lower ones?

 

[bobbyknight]

An most importantly is the light. Photography is about light. It's the collection of light onto the little sensor in the camera body. If you're shooting subjects that require specific lighting, like portaiture, still life, automotive, etc... The perfect natural light or artificial lighting placed just right can cover up nearly any faults in your equipment.

So its not enough to stop thinking at the camera - think beyond the camera!

+1!

 

[bobbyknight]

For the following lens kit(7D), what are the ideal uses:
1.)18-55 IS
2.)18-135 IS
3.)15-85 IS

 

[dxqcanada]

Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 AF-S VR-G professional zoom lens is an area where Canon, or any other maker for that matter, has absolutely no competing offering. That one lens alone has cost Canon many sales among professional sports and wildlife photographers who need a professionally capable zoom lens with a constant aperture and high-grade optics.

Canon develops EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender1.4x: Digital Photography Review

 

[Overread]

Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 AF-S VR-G professional zoom lens is an area where Canon, or any other maker for that matter, has absolutely no competing offering. That one lens alone has cost Canon many sales among professional sports and wildlife photographers who need a professionally capable zoom lens with a constant aperture and high-grade optics.

Canon develops EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender1.4x: Digital Photography Review

Go Canon! Go Canon! Go Canon! Go Canon! Go Canon! :greenpbl:

 

[bobbyknight]

Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 AF-S VR-G professional zoom lens is an area where Canon, or any other maker for that matter, has absolutely no competing offering. That one lens alone has cost Canon many sales among professional sports and wildlife photographers who need a professionally capable zoom lens with a constant aperture and high-grade optics.

Canon develops EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender1.4x: Digital Photography Review

 

[mjhoward]

and it'll likely only be $7k+

 

[bobbyknight]

and it'll likely only be $7k+

it's well worth it!