Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by shingfan, Feb 16, 2007.
Canon has the luxury line of lense called the "L" series.....does Nikon has something equivalent?
yeah, it's called the expensive ones. Nikon doesn't need to put a fancy red rings around their lenses nor to they have to give them special designation.
haha.........so how much would be considered expensive?....and what would be the starting line to the next level of quality in the nikon lense series?....like with canon....you can tell L is the next level up in terms of quality......how about nikon?.....how do you draw the line?
I thought the L just stands for "Low dispersion glass" .. as in these lenses have at least one fluorite element.
in addition to that, they are often more sturdy and better sealed against weather and often have wider max. apertures.
As for the ring, Canon likes to colour code things with rings .. such as green rings for DO lenses, red rings for L lenses ... I think the marketing effect of this was only discovered later ...
I would say the line is money as well... sometimes.
Some of the better lenses have a pretty little gold plate to signify the pro status. (It's really just camera bling)
My favs of pro nikons are the 17-55 2.8, the 10.5mm 2.8 fisheye, and the 70-200 2.8 VR. I don't own the 10.5mm 2.8 yet, but I will at some point. I've used a friends before and it's pretty slick.
Of course I love the 50mm 1.8 too and that was just $100. I have to keep the 50mm in a seperate part of my camera bag so the other lenses don't hurt him.
I was a little bummed that the 17-55 2.8 didn't come with blinking lights or a butler or something for the price LOL. Not even the little gold plate. But it is a monster of both size and image quality.
I guess this long and pointless post ends without giving you an answer. Bottom line is they seem to be inconsistant about making the Pro lenses stand out with any frilly eye candy.
<tim allen grunt> Nikon Rules... <\tim allen grunt>
so the f/2.8 lense of the nikon family is the next level up then i guess?....or am i wrong?.....
That is pretty much true of most companies. Most of Canon's L zooms, have a max aperture of F2.8.
For many zooms, probably, but obviously primes are a different matter. Also bear in mind that a zoom with a max aperture of f/4 can still be better than a faster one. In other words, lens quality shouldn't be assumed based on just a name, number or colour on the lens; I wouldn't concern yourself too much with trying to "draw the line" and instead just do a bit of research and/or borrowing when looking for a specific lens.
"Canon has the luxury line of lense called the "L" series.....does Nikon has something equivalent?"
No, Nikon doesn't seem to care about marketing as much. If it says Nikon on it and it is suitable for the job, you'll be just fine. It's up to you to know what is suitable though.
i had a lot of conversations with my canon fellas about the "quality" of the companies.
when we talked about the 200-400 f2.8 from nikon, they said that this is the reason why they want to leave canon and go to nikon
That is an oversimplification for sure. Nikon has and still does produce some pretty bad lenses. They also produce some of the best. In the 35mm days, the great Nikkors were made from metal instead of plastic and were called ED (same as Canon's L - low dispersion glass.) Most of them had a black wrinkle paint job on them.
Today it is more complicated because most of the lenses are made from plastic and ED isn't always used to designate the better products. An example is my 17-55 f2.8 zoom which is plastic, not ED and is still a very good performer. Generally speaking, if you spend around $1000 or more on a Nikkor you are getting an outstanding lens - There are a few exceptions but very few. As an example the 18-200 zoom is around $1000 - maybe a little less - but, like any 10X zoom, has some issues. Here, you are paying for VR and extreme zoom range, not image quality. It is pricey but not a great Nikkor. But for the most part, it's pretty hard to find a bad Nikkor in this price range.
Under $1000 You might be getting a great lens - certainly the single focal length lenses under $1000 are uniformly excellent. Some, like the 18mm f2.8, 85mm f1.4, 180mm f2.8 are famous for being outstanding Nikkors. Sorry, the 180 has the ED designation, now that I think about it. I guess these aren't much under $1000 either for that matter.
Some Nikkors are just plain unbelievable in terms of image quality. The aforementioned 18 and 180 lenses are examples. So are the 300 f2.8 ED, the 80-200 f2.8 AF ED zoom and others.
Some are outstanding but affordable. Examples are the 24 f2.8, 35 f2, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 105 f2.5 (pre AF but still one of the best.)
Some, unfortunately are average to poor. The consumer grade zooms are the perfect example. Nikon doesn't make any great zooms for much less than $1000 down to perhaps $800. When you spend $150 for Nikkor zoom you are getting an OEM lens made for Nikon in China as a price impression product. You would do better to buy a Sigma, Tamron etc.
Ask any Nikon pro about your choice of Nikkor lenses. They all have the lowdown and share this information with each other.
And I remember when all the Nikon shooters wanted to switch to Canon to get IS. As a rule few change from either side. They get used to one system and keep using it. Both extensive and high quality systems.
Separate names with a comma.