Which is the most Optically Outstanding Canon/Nikon Lens?

[invisible]

Nikon's AF 85 mm f/1.4D Cream Machine!

Another vote for the Cream Machine here. Sharp as a tack even wide open, and of course unbeatable bokeh. (Plus, it's reasonably priced for the classic lens you're getting.)

 

[Sw1tchFX]

You've got to understand that alot of these lenses are the best or better the lenses in their class. Not absolutely.

Also, you've got 6 telephotos, one normal, and one wide angle listed. They all have different characteristics too.

The Nikon 24mm f/1.4 is a great lens, but far from perfect. People just say it's amazing because all the other fast 24mm lenses kind of suck.

The Canon 35mm is "amazing" for the same reasons. who else makes an AF 35mm f/1.4? Minolta/Sony does, and it's a joke of a lens, truly craptastic.

Both the Nikon and Canon 70-200's have problems and shouldn't be on there. IMO neither have any 'wow' factor.

the 300 2.8's are generally pretty good, but for how much they cost, they better be.

the 200 f/2's are the only ones left with the wow factor, and IMO the Nikon BARELY edges out the Canon version. simply because it was first though. Optically, i bet you their identical.

I'm surprised you didn't put up a 24-70 or two. Than again, nobody makes a great 24-70.

 

[Neil S.]

You've got to understand that alot of these lenses are the best or better the lenses in their class. Not absolutely.

Also, you've got 6 telephotos, one normal, and one wide angle listed. They all have different characteristics too.

The Nikon 24mm f/1.4 is a great lens, but far from perfect. People just say it's amazing because all the other fast 24mm lenses kind of suck.

The Canon 35mm is "amazing" for the same reasons. who else makes an AF 35mm f/1.4? Minolta/Sony does, and it's a joke of a lens, truly craptastic.

Both the Nikon and Canon 70-200's have problems and shouldn't be on there. IMO neither have any 'wow' factor.

the 300 2.8's are generally pretty good, but for how much they cost, they better be.

the 200 f/2's are the only ones left with the wow factor, and IMO the Nikon BARELY edges out the Canon version. simply because it was first though. Optically, i bet you their identical.

I'm surprised you didn't put up a 24-70 or two. Than again, nobody makes a great 24-70.

Ya I just wanted to get this thread going.

It seems theres quite a few lenses that I should have added.

A better list would probably be:

Canon 300mm f/2.8
Nikon 200mm f/2
Canon 200mm f/2
Canon 135mm f/2
Nikon 85mm f/1.4
Canon 85mm f/1.2
Canon 65mm f/2.8 1-5x
Nikon 50mm f/1.8


I only included the Canon 85mm 1.2 on this one because in a lot of ways it is really outstanding optically. Its also the fastest current lens made by the two companies. Overall I think its far from a perfect lens.

The new 70-200's are pretty outstanding by the way. You should read about them.

 

[uplander]

You left out the Canon EF 400 f/2.8 which of course the acme of all lenses

And this with the 400 with a 2x and a 1.4x TC stacked

 

[Neil S.]

Ya those are real nice.

I didnt want to have to put 20 lenses on the list, so I limited it to under 300mm as I said in the 1st post.

I just was interested in discussing the best lenses, and thought a vote would be fun.

I was probably not the best guy to make the list, because I am still learning and have very little experience with telephotos especially.

 

[Neil S.]

It may have been better to just make it "the best Canon lens" as well. I know much more about Canon glass than Nikon glass.

I did learn quite a bit from the thread though, and I just hope there were others that did as well. :thumbup:

 

[cfusionpm]

Both the Nikon and Canon 70-200's have problems and shouldn't be on there. IMO neither have any 'wow' factor.

............. does not compute......

 

[Neil S.]

Both the Nikon and Canon 70-200's have problems and shouldn't be on there. IMO neither have any 'wow' factor.

............. does not compute......

Ya I got to agree here.

The 70-200mm 2.8L IS II is an extremely fine lens, and far better overall optically than many L primes (the 85mm 1.2 for example).

I do understand that optically zooms are at a disadvantage, for at least certian focal lengths in their range.

Canon and Nikon have both hit a home run with the latest 70-200 2.8 offerings though.

I own 2 really nice Canon L primes, and trust me when I tell you that the 70-200 2.8 IS II is a "WOW" lens.

Its extremely sharp, even when wide open, and has virtually zero CA. Color and contrast are outstanding as well.

If you can tell me what is wrong with it, I am all ears.

 

[Neil S.]

Nikon's AF 85 mm f/1.4D Cream Machine!

Another vote for the Cream Machine here. Sharp as a tack even wide open, and of course unbeatable bokeh. (Plus, it's reasonably priced for the classic lens you're getting.)

I am not sure what you mean by "unbeatable bokeh".

Are you saying its the creamiest or the most easily produced?

Its clearly not the best at producing bokeh for the 85mm focal lenght, that one would have to go to the 85 1.2 by a long shot.

The simple numbers say that the larger aperture on the 1.2 creates a more shallow DOF. Its just math.

Now if you want to debate the "creaminess" of it, we can do that.

I am betting the 85 1.2 wins that one too though.

The problem with the 85 1.2 is that it costs a fortune for the focal length, and it has many flaws.

Also as Derrel has said in the past, the Nikon 200mm f/2 produces some seriously beautiful bokeh. I'm guessing he would put it over the Nikon 85 1.4 as the best Nikon bokeh machine.

Take a look at this pic and then show me one from the 85mm 1.4 with better bokeh. Keep in mind I have owned this lens for less than 2 weeks.

Theres much more to come.....

 

[Neil S.]

bump

 

[gsgary]

Canon 200mmF2.8L another for your list

 

[Neil S.]

I cant see it lol....

Same as before, I will look at it when I get home.

This government network filters a lot of sites.

Thanks for your input.

I do hear that the 200mm f/2.8 is a fine lens.

I just looked it up on B&H and I was shocked to see its only $750. That seems like a good deal to me. :thumbup:

That lens is no doubt a great alternative for people who can't afford the 70-200 2.8's.

You could buy the 200mm f/2.8 L, 135mm f/2 L, and the 85mm f/1.8 for less than the price of a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

Thats some food for thought guys....

 

[gsgary]

I cant see it lol....

Same as before, I will look at it when I get home.

This government network filters a lot of sites.

Thanks for your input.

I do hear that the 200mm f/2.8 is a fine lens.

I just looked it up on B&H and I was shocked to see its only $750. That seems like a good deal to me. :thumbup:

That lens is no doubt a great alternative for people who can't afford the 70-200 2.8's.

You could buy the 200mm f/2.8 L, 135mm f/2 L, and the 85mm f/1.8 for less than the price of a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

Thats some food for thought guys....

Sharper than a 70-200, try this
http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Competitions/Miscellaneous/IMG9418-2/828319588_hT2Dq-L.jpg

 

[Neil S.]

Na its filtered.

I will look at home.

Even if it is sharper, the beauty of a 70-200 is in its focal range. Its so nice not having to change lenses as much.

I find that the 70-200 range is so useful on a crop body. I am guessing it is very useful on full-frame as well, but for slightly different types of shots.

I think with the latest Nikon and Canon 70-200 2.8 offerings they are getting very close to the IQ of primes.

Thats just my opinion, and I am far from an expert.

I would like to hear any different opinions, I have an extremely open mind. :thumbup:

 

[gsgary]

Na its filtered.

I will look at home.

Even if it is sharper, the beauty of a 70-200 is in its focal range. Its so nice not having to change lenses as much.

I find that the 70-200 range is so useful on a crop body. I am guessing it is very useful on full-frame as well, but for slightly different types of shots.

I think with the latest Nikon and Canon 70-200 2.8 offerings they are getting very close to the IQ of primes.

Thats just my opinion, and I am far from an expert.

I would like to hear any different opinions, I have an extremely open mind. :thumbup:

Primes for me i can zoom with my feet

Here's another with the 200mmF2.8L at ISO3200