Canon vs. NIKON

The main thing to remember (as I learned the hard way) when you buy a Canon camera - is if you want the best quality pictures out of it, you MUST pay a premium and get their "S Series" lenses. Their regular lenses are sub-standard, as are the lenses you get when you buy "pre-packaged" cameras (with multiple lenses) from retailers like Costco.

Hope this helps!

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Anatoliy on February 7, 2012 at 2:37pm

The S-Series lenses is not Canons premium lenses. All it tells the photographer is that the lens is meant for APS-C (H) type cameras.

The way to know a premium lens from canon if it has the a red ring or has L on the lens.

One way to know Nikon premium lenses if it has a golden ring or N on the lens.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CameraClicker on February 8, 2012 at 5:35am

The only APS-H camera body I am aware of is the 1D. You risk damaging something if you try to fit an EF-S lens on a 1D. It requires EF lenses.

EF-S lenses seemingly all have a protrusion that fits inside the camera body which might interfere with the larger mirrors in APS_H and full frame bodies. The protrusion also prevents use with teleconverters. And, their image circle is too small even for APS-H.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anatoliy on February 8, 2012 at 4:27pm

With the way Canon is setup it's very confusing. All I know if the camera has a red dot then it can take EF lenses, If the camera has a red dot and a white square then the camera takes EF, and EF-S lenses.

Anyway why give 1D IV a APS-H crop and not go full frame.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CameraClicker on February 8, 2012 at 4:42pm

Because it is for sports? Because they could get the performance they were looking for with the sensor they used? Money? Some things you only learn by attending the developer's meetings and I did not.

I don't know how I feel about the 1D X, it seems like they are putting everything in one basket and I'm not so sure that is ideal. Time will tell. From the specs, I don't think I will be trading in my 1Ds for one.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anatoliy on February 8, 2012 at 8:08pm

Whats wrong with the 1DX, I mean besides the bottoms layout. I'm sure there is a reason why they did it, they do have around 4 years to come out with something better and they probably have some thing in mind.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Brooks on February 7, 2012 at 4:54pm

If speaking of glass, then this argument between the "big two" is pretty much irrellavant, as the best glass around, as a genral opinion, doesn't come from from EITHER of these manufacturers, It comes from Carl Zeiss. The glassmaker has been around since the 1890's, and has been widely regarded as the top glass company for nearly a century now. They have lenses that fit most of the "brands" out there, and to this day, have refused to skimp like many of the other companies have. They grow and adapt as necessity(and technology) dictates, without killing the core values of quality and produt perfection that got them to where they are at.

Not only are they a leader in photo optics, though; they are also a world leader in almost every imaginable field of optics, from eyewear to the high-end surgical products. I know that there will be much discussion about who is the "best", but a proven track record like the Zeiss products have is very hard to pass.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anatoliy on February 7, 2012 at 5:16pm

I believe what he was saying is how to know identify a quality lens from a manufacture.

But yes Carl Zeiss does produce excellent glass, but dont forget Fujifilm also produces lenses just as good as C.Z if not better.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Brooks on February 7, 2012 at 5:36pm

When identifying quality glass, why should it just be about "manufacturer" glass? That was my whole point in commenting. If you truly want the best outcome, many of the lenses provided by many non-manufaturers flat out kills when comparing them to all but the highest lenses from the manufaturers, and a select few like C.Z., Fujifilm, and Sigma outperform even the highest lenses offered by manufacturers. I guess what I am really trying to get at, is that you shouldn't limit yourself to only what the manufaturer offers or reccomends for your camera if there is a known better product out there.(Think outside of the box a bit)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anatoliy on February 7, 2012 at 6:04pm

Ok, in that case I want a Fujinon XA87, that has a zoom range of 13.2-1150mm F/2.4-5.8 for my Nikon. That way I will never have to worry about getting any other lens, did I forget to mention that this lens has a built in 2x extender. And has some amazing quality glass.

The reason why you would get a manufacturer lens is because it will work best with their camera, for instance C.Z only offers manual focus for Nikon or any other brand, Sigma lenses do not come close to what Nikon can offer for there camera users in terms of speed, quality, reliability.

Good luck getting a Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, whatever to outperform a Nikon 70-200 or Canon or any other lens for that mater (24-70, 50, 85, 600, etc).

One benefit that I see using a C.Z if you are not in a hurry and or doing video other then that very limited use in this high paced world of photography.

Manufacturer (Nikon/ Canon) lenses will always be better then what other 3rd partly lens manufacturer can offer over all.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Brooks on February 7, 2012 at 6:17pm

The AF vs. MF is for a whole different discussion, as there are a wide array of opinions about that, but in general, I beleive in pushing myself as a photog, so the MF/AF is irrelevant to me. It's more for me about how the glass is made, put together, functions with light, and how it lasts. I don't really care if it "works best with their camera", I care more about it's ability to do what I want it to, how I want it to.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CameraClicker on February 8, 2012 at 6:01am

' I don't really care if it "works best with their camera",' is a curious notion. The lens is part of a system and the body is the rest of that system. If they don't match, the resulting photos will not be as good as they can be.

There are many different types of photography and the needs of a studio photographer shooting still life are radically different to the needs of a sports photographer shooting football or auto racing. The studio still life photographer has time to mess with focus and lighting, can tether to a computer and can do endless retakes if desired. The sports photographer either nails it or misses it and there is no retake opportunity, the whole system (lens, camera, flash & photographer) has to work together, flawlessly.

From time to time I hear about lenses lasting. I am old enough to have lived through a complete change in Canon's lens line up, and most of a second significant change with their version II lenses. I still have a couple of FD lenses with my old film bodies. I have a mix of EF lenses, some are version I and some are version II. Carl Zeiss may have a reputation built over a century and may be into all kinds of optics as are Canon and Nikon but a fashion photographer may only be as good as his last shoot and a lens manufacturer may only be as good as their last product. Digital sensors are not film and this realization has driven Canon to bring out redesigned version II lenses that work better with sensors. It is reasonable to assume that other lens companies would have to tweak their designs to account for the engineering differences as well, so unless the lens was redesigned in the digital era, it probably will not perform in the system as well as the newer glass, regardless of reputation.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Brooks on February 8, 2012 at 12:11pm

All good points. As you state, you have much more experience than most of the people on here, myself included. I always value your opinion and anticipate your view on many subjects. I guess what I was trying to say is that "works best with their camera" can be seen as a matter of opinion, in some cases.