Prime Lenses: Canon vs Nikon, Who makes them best?

[Derrel]

I will be honest that I know very little about high end manual focus lenses, like the ones from Leica.

I think this would be a good homework assignment for me, to do research on them.

Maybe I should just save for a long time and make one of them my next lens. Theres no better way to understand something than to use and study it.

The only problem with Leica's high-end manual focusing lenses is that they are made only for Leica M-mount cameras: Leica discontinued its manual focus R-mount 35mm film camera and all lenses recently, and their S2 digital medium format camera and all of its lenses are, GASP!--autofocusing!!!!!!!!

Zeiss is now selling high-end manual focusing lenses in Nikon F, Canon EF, and Pentax K-mount, at around $1100 per lens.

 

[CanonFreak]

Lens design has improved over the last few years; 10 to 20 year-old designs, designed for use on film cameras, do not deliver the final light rays perpendicular to the sensor, which was *not* a problem with film, but which *is* a big problem with sensor wells, which tend to show very bad peripheral light fall-off (aka vignetting) when the light rays from the outer circle of the lens's image circle hit the sensor at an angle and not straight on. Olympus, for example, has designed an entire, brand-new set of lenses, all from the ground up, which are what most people refer to as "designed for digital" use, meaning that even in their wide-angle designs, the lenses deliver the light rays perpendicular to the sensor, ie "straight on."

Regarding the Canon 85mm f/1.2L versus the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-D: it's not clear that the Canon is the better optic: the Canon has absolutely horrible chromatic aberration at its wider aperturtes, and creates some weird, swirling bokeh. The Nikkor lens has smoother,creamier,rounder bokeh than the Canon 1.2-L, and the NIkon focuses much,much,much more rapidly, and can actually be used for action work, whereas the Canon is a dog in terms of focusing speed. As far as the Canon 85/1.2-L being a bokeh champion, the Nikkor 200mm f/2 absolutely blows it away. On things like specular highlights or highlights on sunlight coming through trees, the 1.2-L creates an awful bokeh signature, but the 200mm creates an impressive, round, smooth bokeh signature. This one is a no-contest, and that makes sense, because the 200/2 is a no-holds-barred lens design with a $5,000 price limit, whereas the 85mm is a real-world design, with a $1,700 price limit on the design. Many people might argue the Canon 85 1.2L is the best bokeh lens, but then, they don't own the Nikjon 200mm f/2 either...

The idea that old versus new is not applicable doesn't make sense: currently, Canon is in the process of re-designing its lens lineup so that their lenses will work well on newer, higher-density image sensors. Canon just finished redesigning its 24mm and 45mm Tilt/Shift lenses, improving their optics and adding lens elements, for better correction and higher resolution. Canon just re-designed its 100mm macro lens, to bring it up to L standards.

The idea that an autofocus lens can "never be as good as manual-focus designs" is a fallacy: the top-line internal focusing AF lens designs move very small, lightweight focusing element groups, much like the Nikon internal focusing lenses invented in the 1970's with the 400/3.5 ED-Internal Focus premiered at the 1976 Montreal Olympics. By using small,light, internal element groups to focus, there is very little "play" in the mechanism, and the accuracy of the autofocusing systems in top cameras ensure more accurate focusing than manual focusing cameras, so the "advantage" of a manually focused lens often evaporates because the human focusing it cannot actually get the danged thing into accurate enough focus to realize the theoretical ( or hypothetical) "advantage" manual focusing lenses allegedly have.

One of the clearest examples of why we need "new" lens designs can be seen in one, specific camera: the Canon T2i: its small, high-density sensor makes many Canon lenses look like crap.

I didn't compare the 200 f2 Nikon to the Canon 85mm 1.2 directly, they aren’t even to close to the same class.

To say "the 1.2-L creates an awful bokeh signature" is simply ridiculous sir. Anyone here that knows about photography will tell you that the 85mm 1.2 is one of the most coveted and best portrait lenses in the world. Not just Canon vs Nikon, but the world. If you don't believe me, do the research for yourself.

Obviously a 1.2 lens is capable of a shallower DOF than a f2 lens, so it’s not really an equal comparison at all.

You are comparing a $4800 lens to a $2000 one(of a much different focal length) by the way.

It’s almost like you are resorting to name calling to back up your argument.

I will admit that the 200mm f2 Nikon is a beautiful lens and it costs a fortune, but to say the Canon 85mm 1.2 is awful is just crazy.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I will be honest that I know very little about high end manual focus lenses, like the ones from Leica.

I think this would be a good homework assignment for me, to do research on them.

Maybe I should just save for a long time and make one of them my next lens. Theres no better way to understand something than to use and study it.

The only problem with Leica's high-end manual focusing lenses is that they are made only for Leica M-mount cameras: Leica discontinued its manual focus R-mount 35mm film camera and all lenses recently, and their S2 digital medium format camera and all of its lenses are, GASP!--autofocusing!!!!!!!!

Zeiss is now selling high-end manual focusing lenses in Nikon F, Canon EF, and Pentax K-mount, at around $1100 per lens.

From tests I have seen those 'Zeiss' lenses (actually Cosina-made under license) are actually inferior to the Nikkors.

Nikon 50mm Lens Comparison

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/lca.htm

The Leica S2 uses a different autofocus approach that seems to overcome any weaknesses that affect others. The lenses are beyond belief!

There is a ton of Leica R gear around (the system was made for 45 years, after all) so there's no reason to avoid it any more than to avoid Canon, Nikon, or Pentax manual-focus equipment. There may be some further developments in the future, such as a digital camera body, according to Leica (I have an e-mail from them).

 

[Derrel]

No, there's no name-calling going on. The bokeh signature of the 85/1.2-L in the situations I described looks "awful" to me. As I described it, in situations where there is light coming through trees or foliage, the 85/1.2-L produces a swirling, chromatic aberration-tinged bokeh "signature" that I recognize, and which, to me, looks "awful". At wide apertures, the 85-L produces absolutely horrible longitudinal chromatic aberration, with green and purple fringing that is very clearly obvious, and it looks bad--AND to make matters worse, longitiudinal CA is not correctable in software, but lateral chromatic aberration is correctable in software. So, to "me", the bokeh signature of the lens is horrible in the situations I described.

As far as an f/1.2 lens being able to produce shallower depth of field than an f/2 lens of longer focal length, that is simply incorrect. Also, there is depth of field AND there is something called background blur; a longer lens has a wider (physically wider, or larger-diameter) aperture than a shorter lens has, when both lenses are used at the identical f/stop. Due to background blur, a longer focal length lens will create more background blurring than a shorter lens will create, even if the foreground objects are of identical size, and so a longer lens produces a more blurred backdrop. The longer lens will have shallower depthy of field AND greater background blur than the shorter lens. That's physics (optics) in action.

Bokeh is not just about a blurred background, although many novice or casual or new shooters seem to think that it is. I'm kind of a bokeh snob,you might say. To me, the 1.2-L's bokeh looks bad in the specific situations I described...it has strong defocus, but has problems with specular highlight shape and longitudinal CA. I have very little interest in discussing this topic additionally with somebody who wants Canon to "win" and who cannot see the obvious drawing style issues the 1.2-L has in social/portraiture situations.

 

[CanonFreak]

No, there's no name-calling going on. The bokeh signature of the 85/1.2-L in the situations I described looks "awful" to me. As I described it, in situations where there is light coming through trees or foliage, the 85/1.2-L produces a swirling, chromatic aberration-tinged bokeh "signature" that I recognize, and which, to me, looks "awful". At wide apertures, the 85-L produces absolutely horrible longitudinal chromatic aberration, with green and purple fringing that is very clearly obvious, and it looks bad--AND to make matters worse, longitiudinal CA is not correctable in software, but lateral chromatic aberration is correctable in software. So, to "me", the bokeh signature of the lens is horrible in the situations I described.

As far as an f/1.2 lens being able to produce shallower depth of field than an f/2 lens of longer focal length, that is simply incorrect. Also, there is depth of field AND there is something called background blur; a longer lens has a wider (physically wider, or larger-diameter) aperture than a shorter lens has, when both lenses are used at the identical f/stop. Due to background blur, a longer focal length lens will create more background blurring than a shorter lens will create, even if the foreground objects are of identical size, and so a longer lens produces a more blurred backdrop. The longer lens will have shallower depthy of field AND greater background blur than the shorter lens. That's physics (optics) in action.

Bokeh is not just about a blurred background, although many novice or casual or new shooters seem to think that it is. I'm kind of a bokeh snob,you might say. To me, the 1.2-L's bokeh looks bad in the specific situations I described...it has strong defocus, but has problems with specular highlight shape and longitudinal CA. I have very little interest in discussing this topic additionally with somebody who wants Canon to "win" and who cannot see the obvious drawing style issues the 1.2-L has in social/portraiture situations.

Well you must stand alone thinking the 85mm 1.2 has "awful bokeh" then, as I have never heard that statment before. Everyone else must be wrong.

I said DOF, I didn't say background blur. And no a f2 lens can't produce the same exact types of shots as a 1.2 no matter what the focal length.

Clearly you either don't like Canon, or want to justify your investment in Nikon gear.

What I do know is that to act like Nikon lenses are better than Canon in every way is rediculous.

I understand that you have the right to your opinion, and mine is that Canon overall is a better system, lenses included. This isn't just because I am invested in them either.

Where is the "awful bokeh" in these pictures? I am not seeing it.

Tulip Garden Picture
Wet Mum Picture

I don't know how to attach pics yet, going to have to figure that out....

I will just agree to disagree with you I guess, as we arent really getting anywhere here.

 

[Petraio Prime]

No, there's no name-calling going on. The bokeh signature of the 85/1.2-L in the situations I described looks "awful" to me. As I described it, in situations where there is light coming through trees or foliage, the 85/1.2-L produces a swirling, chromatic aberration-tinged bokeh "signature" that I recognize, and which, to me, looks "awful". At wide apertures, the 85-L produces absolutely horrible longitudinal chromatic aberration, with green and purple fringing that is very clearly obvious, and it looks bad--AND to make matters worse, longitiudinal CA is not correctable in software, but lateral chromatic aberration is correctable in software. So, to "me", the bokeh signature of the lens is horrible in the situations I described.

As far as an f/1.2 lens being able to produce shallower depth of field than an f/2 lens of longer focal length, that is simply incorrect. Also, there is depth of field AND there is something called background blur; a longer lens has a wider (physically wider, or larger-diameter) aperture than a shorter lens has, when both lenses are used at the identical f/stop. Due to background blur, a longer focal length lens will create more background blurring than a shorter lens will create, even if the foreground objects are of identical size, and so a longer lens produces a more blurred backdrop. The longer lens will have shallower depthy of field AND greater background blur than the shorter lens. That's physics (optics) in action.

Bokeh is not just about a blurred background, although many novice or casual or new shooters seem to think that it is. I'm kind of a bokeh snob,you might say. To me, the 1.2-L's bokeh looks bad in the specific situations I described...it has strong defocus, but has problems with specular highlight shape and longitudinal CA. I have very little interest in discussing this topic additionally with somebody who wants Canon to "win" and who cannot see the obvious drawing style issues the 1.2-L has in social/portraiture situations.

Well you must stand alone thinking the 85mm 1.2 has "awful bokeh" then, as I have never heard that statment before. Everyone else must be wrong.

I said DOF, I didn't say background blur. And no a f2 lens can't produce the same exact types of shots as a 1.2 no matter what the focal length.

Clearly you either don't like Canon, or want to justify your investment in Nikon gear.

What I do know is that to act like Nikon lenses are better than Canon in every way is rediculous.

I understand that you have the right to your opinion, and mine is that Canon overall is a better system, lenses included. This isn't just because I am invested in them either.

Where is the "awful bokeh" in these pictures? I am not seeing it.

Tulip Garden Picture
Wet Mum Picture

I don't know how to attach pics yet, going to have to figure that out....

I will just agree to disagree with you I guess, as we arent really getting anywhere here.

I don't think either of you even understands what bokeh is...

 

[CanonFreak]

No, there's no name-calling going on. The bokeh signature of the 85/1.2-L in the situations I described looks "awful" to me. As I described it, in situations where there is light coming through trees or foliage, the 85/1.2-L produces a swirling, chromatic aberration-tinged bokeh "signature" that I recognize, and which, to me, looks "awful". At wide apertures, the 85-L produces absolutely horrible longitudinal chromatic aberration, with green and purple fringing that is very clearly obvious, and it looks bad--AND to make matters worse, longitiudinal CA is not correctable in software, but lateral chromatic aberration is correctable in software. So, to "me", the bokeh signature of the lens is horrible in the situations I described.

As far as an f/1.2 lens being able to produce shallower depth of field than an f/2 lens of longer focal length, that is simply incorrect. Also, there is depth of field AND there is something called background blur; a longer lens has a wider (physically wider, or larger-diameter) aperture than a shorter lens has, when both lenses are used at the identical f/stop. Due to background blur, a longer focal length lens will create more background blurring than a shorter lens will create, even if the foreground objects are of identical size, and so a longer lens produces a more blurred backdrop. The longer lens will have shallower depthy of field AND greater background blur than the shorter lens. That's physics (optics) in action.

Bokeh is not just about a blurred background, although many novice or casual or new shooters seem to think that it is. I'm kind of a bokeh snob,you might say. To me, the 1.2-L's bokeh looks bad in the specific situations I described...it has strong defocus, but has problems with specular highlight shape and longitudinal CA. I have very little interest in discussing this topic additionally with somebody who wants Canon to "win" and who cannot see the obvious drawing style issues the 1.2-L has in social/portraiture situations.

Well you must stand alone thinking the 85mm 1.2 has "awful bokeh" then, as I have never heard that statment before. Everyone else must be wrong.

I said DOF, I didn't say background blur. And no a f2 lens can't produce the same exact types of shots as a 1.2 no matter what the focal length.

Clearly you either don't like Canon, or want to justify your investment in Nikon gear.

What I do know is that to act like Nikon lenses are better than Canon in every way is rediculous.

I understand that you have the right to your opinion, and mine is that Canon overall is a better system, lenses included. This isn't just because I am invested in them either.

Where is the "awful bokeh" in these pictures? I am not seeing it.

Tulip Garden Picture
Wet Mum Picture

I don't know how to attach pics yet, going to have to figure that out....

I will just agree to disagree with you I guess, as we arent really getting anywhere here.

I don't think either of you even understands what bokeh is...

We are talking about 2 of the best bokeh lenses that you can own, and the slight differenceces between them.

I think we understand it.

 

[Infidel]

No, there's no name-calling going on. The bokeh signature of the 85/1.2-L in the situations I described looks "awful" to me. As I described it, in situations where there is light coming through trees or foliage, the 85/1.2-L produces a swirling, chromatic aberration-tinged bokeh "signature" that I recognize, and which, to me, looks "awful". At wide apertures, the 85-L produces absolutely horrible longitudinal chromatic aberration, with green and purple fringing that is very clearly obvious, and it looks bad--AND to make matters worse, longitiudinal CA is not correctable in software, but lateral chromatic aberration is correctable in software. So, to "me", the bokeh signature of the lens is horrible in the situations I described.

As far as an f/1.2 lens being able to produce shallower depth of field than an f/2 lens of longer focal length, that is simply incorrect. Also, there is depth of field AND there is something called background blur; a longer lens has a wider (physically wider, or larger-diameter) aperture than a shorter lens has, when both lenses are used at the identical f/stop. Due to background blur, a longer focal length lens will create more background blurring than a shorter lens will create, even if the foreground objects are of identical size, and so a longer lens produces a more blurred backdrop. The longer lens will have shallower depthy of field AND greater background blur than the shorter lens. That's physics (optics) in action.

Bokeh is not just about a blurred background, although many novice or casual or new shooters seem to think that it is. I'm kind of a bokeh snob,you might say. To me, the 1.2-L's bokeh looks bad in the specific situations I described...it has strong defocus, but has problems with specular highlight shape and longitudinal CA. I have very little interest in discussing this topic additionally with somebody who wants Canon to "win" and who cannot see the obvious drawing style issues the 1.2-L has in social/portraiture situations.

Well you must stand alone thinking the 85mm 1.2 has "awful bokeh" then, as I have never heard that statment before. Everyone else must be wrong.

I said DOF, I didn't say background blur. And no a f2 lens can't produce the same exact types of shots as a 1.2 no matter what the focal length.

Clearly you either don't like Canon, or want to justify your investment in Nikon gear.

What I do know is that to act like Nikon lenses are better than Canon in every way is rediculous.

I understand that you have the right to your opinion, and mine is that Canon overall is a better system, lenses included. This isn't just because I am invested in them either.

Where is the "awful bokeh" in these pictures? I am not seeing it.

Tulip Garden Picture
Wet Mum Picture

I don't know how to attach pics yet, going to have to figure that out....

I will just agree to disagree with you I guess, as we arent really getting anywhere here.

Derrel was very specific about the circumstances that lead to (in his opinion) "awful" bokeh. You took his original statement out of context, and posted an irrelevant counter example. The pictures you linked to don't possess the traits that Derrel referred to; i.e., light coming through foliage or specular highlights, so it's irrelevant to Derrel's criticism. Personally, if I had to choose, I would take the 85mm 1.2 over the 200mm f2, because I have more use for a shorter focal length.

Not trying to take sides here, as you both have made some great points in this thread, but wanted to set that straight.

 

[CanonFreak]

No, there's no name-calling going on. The bokeh signature of the 85/1.2-L in the situations I described looks "awful" to me. As I described it, in situations where there is light coming through trees or foliage, the 85/1.2-L produces a swirling, chromatic aberration-tinged bokeh "signature" that I recognize, and which, to me, looks "awful". At wide apertures, the 85-L produces absolutely horrible longitudinal chromatic aberration, with green and purple fringing that is very clearly obvious, and it looks bad--AND to make matters worse, longitiudinal CA is not correctable in software, but lateral chromatic aberration is correctable in software. So, to "me", the bokeh signature of the lens is horrible in the situations I described.

As far as an f/1.2 lens being able to produce shallower depth of field than an f/2 lens of longer focal length, that is simply incorrect. Also, there is depth of field AND there is something called background blur; a longer lens has a wider (physically wider, or larger-diameter) aperture than a shorter lens has, when both lenses are used at the identical f/stop. Due to background blur, a longer focal length lens will create more background blurring than a shorter lens will create, even if the foreground objects are of identical size, and so a longer lens produces a more blurred backdrop. The longer lens will have shallower depthy of field AND greater background blur than the shorter lens. That's physics (optics) in action.

Bokeh is not just about a blurred background, although many novice or casual or new shooters seem to think that it is. I'm kind of a bokeh snob,you might say. To me, the 1.2-L's bokeh looks bad in the specific situations I described...it has strong defocus, but has problems with specular highlight shape and longitudinal CA. I have very little interest in discussing this topic additionally with somebody who wants Canon to "win" and who cannot see the obvious drawing style issues the 1.2-L has in social/portraiture situations.

Well you must stand alone thinking the 85mm 1.2 has "awful bokeh" then, as I have never heard that statment before. Everyone else must be wrong.

I said DOF, I didn't say background blur. And no a f2 lens can't produce the same exact types of shots as a 1.2 no matter what the focal length.

Clearly you either don't like Canon, or want to justify your investment in Nikon gear.

What I do know is that to act like Nikon lenses are better than Canon in every way is rediculous.

I understand that you have the right to your opinion, and mine is that Canon overall is a better system, lenses included. This isn't just because I am invested in them either.

Where is the "awful bokeh" in these pictures? I am not seeing it.

Tulip Garden Picture
Wet Mum Picture

I don't know how to attach pics yet, going to have to figure that out....

I will just agree to disagree with you I guess, as we arent really getting anywhere here.

Derrel was very specific about the circumstances that lead to (in his opinion) "awful" bokeh. You took his original statement out of context, and posted an irrelevant counter example. The pictures you linked to don't possess the traits that Derrel referred to; i.e., light coming through foliage or specular highlights, so it's irrelevant to Derrel's criticism. Personally, if I had to choose, I would take the 85mm 1.2 over the 200mm f2, because I have more use for a shorter focal length.

Not trying to take sides here, as you both have made some great points in this thread, but wanted to set that straight.

I am new here guys, today is my first day.

Someone tell me how to attach photos. Do I need a photosharing site account or something?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Well you must stand alone thinking the 85mm 1.2 has "awful bokeh" then, as I have never heard that statment before. Everyone else must be wrong.

I said DOF, I didn't say background blur. And no a f2 lens can't produce the same exact types of shots as a 1.2 no matter what the focal length.

Clearly you either don't like Canon, or want to justify your investment in Nikon gear.

What I do know is that to act like Nikon lenses are better than Canon in every way is rediculous.

I understand that you have the right to your opinion, and mine is that Canon overall is a better system, lenses included. This isn't just because I am invested in them either.

Where is the "awful bokeh" in these pictures? I am not seeing it.

Tulip Garden Picture
Wet Mum Picture

I don't know how to attach pics yet, going to have to figure that out....

I will just agree to disagree with you I guess, as we arent really getting anywhere here.

I don't think either of you even understands what bokeh is...

We are talking about 2 of the best bokeh lenses that you can own, and the slight differenceces between them.

I think we understand it.

From your posts it doesn't seem so. It has to do with the 'pleasingness of out-of-focus areas'. It has nothing to do with aberrations per se.

 

[CanonFreak]

No, there's no name-calling going on. The bokeh signature of the 85/1.2-L in the situations I described looks "awful" to me. As I described it, in situations where there is light coming through trees or foliage, the 85/1.2-L produces a swirling, chromatic aberration-tinged bokeh "signature" that I recognize, and which, to me, looks "awful". At wide apertures, the 85-L produces absolutely horrible longitudinal chromatic aberration, with green and purple fringing that is very clearly obvious, and it looks bad--AND to make matters worse, longitiudinal CA is not correctable in software, but lateral chromatic aberration is correctable in software. So, to "me", the bokeh signature of the lens is horrible in the situations I described.

As far as an f/1.2 lens being able to produce shallower depth of field than an f/2 lens of longer focal length, that is simply incorrect. Also, there is depth of field AND there is something called background blur; a longer lens has a wider (physically wider, or larger-diameter) aperture than a shorter lens has, when both lenses are used at the identical f/stop. Due to background blur, a longer focal length lens will create more background blurring than a shorter lens will create, even if the foreground objects are of identical size, and so a longer lens produces a more blurred backdrop. The longer lens will have shallower depthy of field AND greater background blur than the shorter lens. That's physics (optics) in action.

Bokeh is not just about a blurred background, although many novice or casual or new shooters seem to think that it is. I'm kind of a bokeh snob,you might say. To me, the 1.2-L's bokeh looks bad in the specific situations I described...it has strong defocus, but has problems with specular highlight shape and longitudinal CA. I have very little interest in discussing this topic additionally with somebody who wants Canon to "win" and who cannot see the obvious drawing style issues the 1.2-L has in social/portraiture situations.

Well you must stand alone thinking the 85mm 1.2 has "awful bokeh" then, as I have never heard that statment before. Everyone else must be wrong.

I said DOF, I didn't say background blur. And no a f2 lens can't produce the same exact types of shots as a 1.2 no matter what the focal length.

Clearly you either don't like Canon, or want to justify your investment in Nikon gear.

What I do know is that to act like Nikon lenses are better than Canon in every way is rediculous.

I understand that you have the right to your opinion, and mine is that Canon overall is a better system, lenses included. This isn't just because I am invested in them either.

Where is the "awful bokeh" in these pictures? I am not seeing it.

Tulip Garden Picture
Wet Mum Picture

I don't know how to attach pics yet, going to have to figure that out....

I will just agree to disagree with you I guess, as we arent really getting anywhere here.

Derrel was very specific about the circumstances that lead to (in his opinion) "awful" bokeh. You took his original statement out of context, and posted an irrelevant counter example. The pictures you linked to don't possess the traits that Derrel referred to; i.e., light coming through foliage or specular highlights, so it's irrelevant to Derrel's criticism. Personally, if I had to choose, I would take the 85mm 1.2 over the 200mm f2, because I have more use for a shorter focal length.

Not trying to take sides here, as you both have made some great points in this thread, but wanted to set that straight.

I will have a 85mm 1.2L II soon. Ill show you guys some shots from it.

 

[emh]

Well it would seem that things are changing.

I know you know what I am talking about though. Over the last 10 years I have seen lots of the shots with mostly white canon lenses.

Maybe this is a sign of more pros switching to Nikon. This will be food for thought.

Yes, I do know that until a couple of years ago Canon was more prevalent among sports photographers. And Nikon before that. The most recent evidence seem to suggest that Nikon is the preferred option now. And presumably that may change in another 10 years or so but what I pointed out was the current state since your statement implied otherwise.

Well you must stand alone thinking the 85mm 1.2 has "awful bokeh" then, as I have never heard that statment before. Everyone else must be wrong.

I'm just a casual photographer and can't justify the price of high-end primes. But this exchange got me interested about the two lenses mentioned (Canon 85 f/1.2 and Nikon 200 F/2) -- enough to go read the photozone reviews on them.

Lots of praise for both lenses (and some minor nits on both). However, while "awful bokeh" may be a bit too strong, the Photozone reviews do seem to agree with Derrel on longitudinal CA. On the Canon 85mm:

Bokeh fringing at large aperture is a problem which is often not well corrected even by the very best lenses and the EF 85mm f/1.2 L II is no exception to the rule. If you have a look at the provided sample crops below you should be able to spot a purple halo in front of the focus zone and a green one beyond. The effect is clearly visible from f/1.2 till f/2.8.

On the Nikon 200mm:

LoCAs (non-coinciding focal planes of the various colors) are a common issue with relatively fast glass and usually lead to halos on contrasty subjects with different colors - magenta (red + blue) in front the focus point and green beyond. Truly "apochromatic" lenses don't show LoCAs but these lenses are very rare. Unlike lateral CAs, LoCAs cannot easily be fixed in post processing.
Well, as you can see below, this is one of the rare lenses. There is a very tiny amount of LoCAs detectable wide open, but in the field this is certainly not an issue.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I've never actually used the 85L wide open before, and i've never even touched the Nikon 85 1.4. The only thing i remember from using the 85L when I did, is that (for Canon) the AF was slower than i thought it'd be. I think it's because of the silly focus-by-wire system they've used on it for some reason.

I think overall Canon midrange prime lenses are better than the Nikons, but that's because Canon actually showed interest in updating them.

The Canon 14mm f/2.8L is without a doubt far better than the Nikon 14mm. The Nikon is a total dog no matter how you play it.

The Nikon 24mm f/1.4 seems to be better than the Canon 24 f/1.4L II.

The Canon 35mm f/1.4L is better than the Nikon version because there is no current Nikon version. Just a Manual focus lens made some 40 years ago. the Nikon 35mm f/2 is only OK on FF digital, but since it's a stop slower, it doesn't count.

I'd say the Nikon and Canon 50mm f/1.4's are about equal. The Nikon's sharper, but the Canon's better corrected. The Nikon 50 1.8 is a far superior lens over the Canon 50 1.8 by any measure. At least the nikon has focus scales. The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is an OK lens. i've never really heard any glowing comments on it, just people having problems with AF. The Nikon NOCT 58mm f/1.2 is pretty spectacular, but again we go back in time because it's a 40 year old MF lens.

I've got so little experience on the really fast 85's, but the Canon 85 1.8 is a smoother design, but the Nikon is sharper. Bokeh is about equal, neither of them stellar for 85's. As far as the 85 1.4 vs 85 1.2.. haven't a clue.

Canon's got a nice 100mm f/2 that gets no credit.

I like the look of the 135 f/2L over the Nikon 135 DC, but both are pretty awesome.

Haven't a clue on the 200mm canon and 180mm nikon. i'm sure they're both pretty good.

The Macro's i'd say are equal, i've never seen a really BAD macro lens from anyone.

Not sure about the normal T/S lenses, but I was never really convinced with the Nikon 24mm f/3.5 PC. The Canon 90mm T/S is pretty slick for product photography.

I dunno, both have made good and bad lenses. I almost switched to Canon a few years ago because I wanted to shoot with a 24mm f/1.4, but since the D700 is an overall better camera than the 5DII, i stuck with Nikon and waited. If I shot Canon, i'd shoot with the 14mm, 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, and 85 1.2. All of which are stellar lenses. Out of those, Nikon only has a 50 and 24 that are capable in that list. the 14 sucks, the only AF 35 is f/2, and the 85 is f/1.4, so it doesn't count.

 

[NateS]

I said DOF, I didn't say background blur. And no a f2 lens can't produce the same exact types of shots as a 1.2 no matter what the focal length.

Please, do tell an instance where a 85mm f1.2 lens can do something that a 200 f/2 can not in regards to DOF. (since DOF is what you are arguing above.

So, let's compare the DOF at the minimum focus distance which will show the absolute smallest DOF that each lens can have.....

85mm f1.2 @ f1.2 and 3.2 ft = 0.02 feet DOF
200mm f/2 @ f/2 and 6.2 ft = 0.02 feet DOF

....so both are capable of producing DOF within the same range of each other....please explain how an 85mm f1.2 can do something DOF wise that a 200 f/2 can not.

 

[sovietdoc]

I don't know about now but Zeiss lens used to be the best.

If price is not a factor then nikon is the absolute best now. But going through their lens really quickly, each one cost over 2 grand while canon sells theirs cheaper, so price for performance wise, Nikon ain't worth it.