Lens Costs.....

[BobSaget]

I'd go with Pepsi.

 

[robbins.photo]

I have a Silverado and a Corvette in my garage, in the past there was a F-150 and Mustang. Ford was right for me then and Chevy is right for me now. Who knows what will be right for me tomorrow.

AMC baby. The pacer is calling your name.. lol.

Ok, Canon vrs Nikon vrs Pentax vrs Sony. In the end, honestly, who cares. I like the combination of features the Nikon offered so I went Nikon. For some folks they preferred the advantages of Canon so that's what they bought. Pentax owners swear by their cameras and so do the folks that bought Sony.

The thing is each person has to evaluate what features are most important to them and decide which camera offers them the best combination of those features that fits their budget. When I recommend cameras I also generally like to encourage folks not to just look at the camera they are buying, but to look at other higher end offerings as well - because your not just buying a camera your buying into a camera system.

But in the final analysis it really doesn't matter to me what type of camera someone else purchases - what matters is that they get the most from their purchase. Just my 2 cents of course, YMMV.

 

[Scuba]

I just hate Chevy because I did car audio for years and. Chevy does dumbbell stuff in their cars.

Canon has some better choices for lenses as well as a cheaper full frame entry (5D Classic). Lenses include 70-200 series (5 versions) and the 17-40 on the wide end. I have looked a couple times at switching to Nikon but there just isn't equal equipment in my price range for full frame. Aside from that I think the Nikon/Canon debate is dumb. They are both great systems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[manaheim]

There are more Canons out there, so when the apocalypse comes and photographers are being murdered in the streets, you'll have more lenses and gear you can scoop up and use...

...until they murder you.

 

[scotts2014se]

I had a chevy once, when I was younger. I once tried to outrun a cop in it, but he caught up with me about a quarter of a mile down the road. Man, was he pissed! After writing me a ticket, He made me give him a ride back to his car.
I've been told that you cant go wrong with either. The competition between the two, insures quality from both sides. That being said, of course you gotta go with Nikon!

 

[ratssass]

When I decided to step away from my Olympus E-mounts,I chose Nikon.F-Mount!!How many mounts does Canon have???F-mounts go all the back to pre-biblical times.This was a concern of mine,as I knew I would rarely be buying new.I would have said never,but,as I found out,never isn't as long as ever.

 

[Derrel]

I've always been a Nikon guy and have always had Canon rammed down my throat. One of the most common and continuous things I was and am currently told is how much more expensive Nikkor lenses are when compared to Canon. Well, I finally decided to compare prices as I am not too deep into any brand and was tempted to take the Canon and "L" lens bait. What I found was that the validity of those comments was non-sense. The 70-200mm, f2.8 lenses are about even ($100 difference I think) and the 300mm, f2.8 prime, the Canon "L" lens is $7,300 while the Nikkor is $5,900.

So I ask.....where is Canon superior in their offerings and cost?

From what I am seeing, I am staying with and investing in Nikon and Nikkor.

I own a Canon 135 f/2 L, a shiny,k spiffy, like-NEW model, and a Nikkor 135 f/2 AF- D.C., an old, 1993 "beater" that was used by a local PJ for years. It has much of the crinkle finish work off down to bare, smooth metal on one side.

I shot both lenses on my Canon 5D Classic for a full day, one summer day back in 2006 or 2007, when my son was little. I followed him around from sunup until his bath at night. I shot just the two lenses all day, the two 135's, and switched back and forth, back and forth, all day long, and deliberately didn't keep track of anything. I shot all sorts of stuff, mixing both lenses side-by-side, on all shots. I then took the .CR2 files and converted them to large JPEG files in a batch process, and later viewed them on my 30-inch Apple Cinema Display in slide-show mode.

I had heard, for literally YEARS, about how flippin "awesome" and "incredible" the Canon 135-2 L was from Canon users. You know what? Its images looked basically identical to a beat-up, worn down old Nikkor 135mm AF D.C. f/2 prime lens. There was basically NO visible difference between the images the lenses made--when shot on the SAME body. That day's shoot and the slide show was one of the biggest eye-openers I've EVER had when it came to people talking about how "awesome" Canon optics were. Loads of BS floating around.

 

[TheLost]

Canon offers a wee bit more choices when it comes to a few ranges.. Like the 70-200's

EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM = $2.5k = Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR2
EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM = $1.4k = ??
EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM = $1.4k = Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR3
EF 70-200 f/4L USM = $700 = ??

As somebody who never uses VR on my Nikon 70-200 i admire the fact that Canon gives you the choice. As a parent who shoots my kids playing sports a $700 70-200 f/4 is VERY tempting vs. Nikons $1.4k version.

Or how about..

EF 400mm f/5.6L USM = $1.4k
EF 100-400 f/4.5 -5.6L IS USM = $1.7k (vs. Nikons newer 80-400 @ $2.7k)

For the sports/wildlife shooter Canon offers a good mix of cost and range that Nikon doesn't.

 

[runnah]

I think the L series lenses are built better IMO. They feel more solid and less plastic-ie than the nikkors. Optically I think it's a bit of a wash.

 

[TheLost]

I think the L series lenses are built better IMO. They feel more solid and less plastic-ie than the nikkors. Optically I think it's a bit of a wash.

I don't know.. the fact they have to paint the lenses white to stop the heat from expanding the fluorite lens element seems like a cheap tactic to hide a fatal flaw

Oh.. and i don't buy american cars so i don't care.. Ford or Chevy.. Meh...

 

[runnah]

I don't know.. the fact they have to paint the lenses white to stop the heat from expanding the fluorite lens element seems like a cheap tactic to hide a fatal flaw Oh.. and i don't buy american cars so i don't care.. Ford or Chevy.. Meh...

I am actually considering buying a ford.

 

[TheLost]

I am actually considering buying a ford.

Since we are being honest.. I did by my kid a Cadillac Deville a few weeks ago.. But he's an idiot with no taste.

Oh... and i would secretly buy the new 2015 Mustang but i'll deny it if asked.

 

[robbins.photo]

Canon offers a wee bit more choices when it comes to a few ranges.. Like the 70-200's

EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM = $2.5k = Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR2
EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM = $1.4k = ??
EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM = $1.4k = Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR3
EF 70-200 f/4L USM = $700 = ??

As somebody who never uses VR on my Nikon 70-200 i admire the fact that Canon gives you the choice. As a parent who shoots my kids playing sports a $700 70-200 f/4 is VERY tempting vs. Nikons $1.4k version.

Or how about..

EF 400mm f/5.6L USM = $1.4k
EF 100-400 f/4.5 -5.6L IS USM = $1.7k (vs. Nikons newer 80-400 @ $2.7k)

For the sports/wildlife shooter Canon offers a good mix of cost and range that Nikon doesn't.

Well I paid roughly $700 for my 70-200 mm F2.8 with OS - Granted it's not a Nikkor but the Sigma works great and it gets the job done. I'd like to see some additional Nikkor offerings myself at various price points, but it's not like there are no other options available.

 

[runnah]

Since we are being honest.. I did by my kid a Cadillac Deville a few weeks ago.. But he's an idiot with no taste. Oh... and i would secretly buy the new 2015 Mustang but i'll deny it if asked.

Yikes that's a boat.

That mustang looks really really good.

 

[PaulWog]

I'd go with Pepsi.

Coke is always better.

[/I'm joking but also I'm serious. Seriously.]