canon, nikon, and lens cost

vitaminCvitaminC Registered Users Posts: 12 Big grins
edited July 19, 2009 in Cameras
I'm starting to feel the urge to replace my D70, and I've been thinking about going FF with the D700. A friend has been working to convince me that what I really need is the 5d mk2. I realize that either of these bodies would be a huge step up from my D70, and I don't mean to discuss the bodies specifically, just the lenses.

In considering these options, what really struck me is the difference in the cost of glass between the two companies. Creating a list of my "ideal" line-up and comparing the prices shows that I would pay $1200 more to go with Nikon! As it stands, the only one on the list I own is the 50mm, with the rest of my glass being DX specific, so either way I'll be buying new (or used) to go with the body.

lenses.png

My question is, are the Nikon lenses that much better, or what?

Thanks.

Comments

  • DsrtVWDsrtVW Registered Users Posts: 1,991 Major grins
    edited July 16, 2009
    The nice thing with Nikon is you can use older model lenses still. Some of my favorite lenses are over 10 years old. They do not have to be all AF-S unless you have to have that. My AF 300mm f4 ED and 70-210 f4 bought for a total of 500.00 are both tack sharp. Though will focus as fast as my 200mm f2 they get the job done just the same. I believe the D700 can still use the DX lenses it has a setting to compensate for the crop. I think I remember hearing that somewhere
    But then again I have a Nikon bias, either system is good enough. I have always like the feel of Nikon ergonomics and control buttons.
    Chris K. NANPA Member
    http://kadvantage.smugmug.com/
  • ToshidoToshido Registered Users Posts: 759 Major grins
    edited July 16, 2009
    Just commenting on older lenses, and stating ten years old as old...

    The EOS system was introduced in 1987 (according to Wiki). Meaning that old EF lenses could be as old as 22 years old now...
    http://www.tag-photos.smugmug.com
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,132 moderator
    edited July 16, 2009
    vitaminC, welcome to the Digital Grin. clap.gif

    Good luck with your quest. All of the glass you have listed is pretty awesome quality.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • CaroleHayesCaroleHayes Registered Users Posts: 54 Big grins
    edited July 16, 2009
    vitaminC wrote:
    I'm starting to feel the urge to replace my D70, and I've been thinking about going FF with the D700. A friend has been working to convince me that what I really need is the 5d mk2. I realize that either of these bodies would be a huge step up from my D70, and I don't mean to discuss the bodies specifically, just the lenses.

    In considering these options, what really struck me is the difference in the cost of glass between the two companies. Creating a list of my "ideal" line-up and comparing the prices shows that I would pay $1200 more to go with Nikon! As it stands, the only one on the list I own is the 50mm, with the rest of my glass being DX specific, so either way I'll be buying new (or used) to go with the body.

    lenses.png

    My question is, are the Nikon lenses that much better, or what?

    Thanks.

    I don't know which is better, but I can tell you that you don't have to pay the prices that you have listed....

    I recently (within the last two or three months?) bought a Nikon 24-70 2.8 (new) for $1500, and the 105 2.8 Micro (used) for about $450. I love them both! : )
    Don't cry because it's over—smile because it happened.
    - Dr. Seuss

    My Smugmug
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited July 16, 2009
    the nikon wide angle is best in class. canon users will buy adapters to use that lens.

    the 24-70mm I get eh impression that the nikkor version is better as well. The canon I hear can be soft wide open. The nikkor version is a damn near perfect lens. I can't really speak for the rest.
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • thegridrunnerthegridrunner Registered Users Posts: 235 Major grins
    edited July 17, 2009
    I have to agree, the nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is a phenomenal lens. The same goes for the 24-70 f/2.8... it hardly leaves my camera. I like canon lenses but I brought into the nikon system because of their lenses.
    Nikon D800, D7000, 14-24,24-70, 70-200 Nikkor and stuff
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NYCFilmmakersGroup
    http://www.meetup.com/NYC-Filmmakers-and-Actors-Meetup-Group/
  • vitaminCvitaminC Registered Users Posts: 12 Big grins
    edited July 17, 2009
    Thanks for the replies.

    I understand that these (and others) can be purchased used, I'm just curious as to the differences in initial pricing. Presumably it will also hold that a used Nikon lens is more $ than a used Canon? Price is not my deciding factor, I'm just curious about the differences.

    Just more things to consider...
  • Cygnus StudiosCygnus Studios Registered Users Posts: 2,294 Major grins
    edited July 17, 2009
    The 14-24mm is in a class all by itself.
    The 24-70mm is also a super class lens.

    The 105mm is a great lens.

    The 50mm 1.8 can be bought without the AFS for around $325

    As mentioned many Canon users buy adapters to use the 14-24 and the 24-70. That speaks volumes about the quality. To anyone who owns them, they are worth every cent.
    I own the 14-24 and it is super in every way. The 24-70 is on my short list of wanted glass.

    I have the older non VR version of the 105mm so I can't say if the extra few hundred for the VR is worth it or not.
    Steve

    Website
  • Village IdiotVillage Idiot Registered Users Posts: 215 Major grins
    edited July 17, 2009
    Qarik wrote:
    the nikon wide angle is best in class. canon users will buy adapters to use that lens.

    the 24-70mm I get eh impression that the nikkor version is better as well. The canon I hear can be soft wide open. The nikkor version is a damn near perfect lens. I can't really speak for the rest.

    The Canon version actually suffers from the focus being off. Having it calibrated or using the in camera adjustments makes it perfect. The 16-35 f/2.8 is an amazing lens as well.
    On a scale of 1 to 10, my awesomeness goes all the way to 11.
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited July 17, 2009
    Village Idiot wrote:
    The Canon version actually suffers from the focus being off. Having it calibrated or using the in camera adjustments makes it perfect. The 16-35 f/2.8 is an amazing lens as well.

    this may be the case. I think nikon lens have built in QC cost..they reject a lot more going out the door insuring only the best arrive at the stores. Thus the added cost. The lucky canon guys probably get a lens that maybe be similar in quality to the nikon version..the really unlucky ones get a bad copy that needs calibration or get returned and a good chunk live with a lens that that is slightly off.
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited July 17, 2009
    Unlikely that you will see the difference in price show in the quality of your pictures :)
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • kini62kini62 Registered Users Posts: 441 Major grins
    edited July 17, 2009
    vitaminC wrote:
    I'm starting to feel the urge to replace my D70, and I've been thinking about going FF with the D700. A friend has been working to convince me that what I really need is the 5d mk2. I realize that either of these bodies would be a huge step up from my D70, and I don't mean to discuss the bodies specifically, just the lenses.

    In considering these options, what really struck me is the difference in the cost of glass between the two companies. Creating a list of my "ideal" line-up and comparing the prices shows that I would pay $1200 more to go with Nikon! As it stands, the only one on the list I own is the 50mm, with the rest of my glass being DX specific, so either way I'll be buying new (or used) to go with the body.

    lenses.png

    My question is, are the Nikon lenses that much better, or what?

    Thanks.

    14-24>16-35
    N24-70>C24-70
    105 has VR- Canon 100 does not
    You can get the N50/1.4 non AFS for much less
    Plus the D700 new is about $500 less than the 5DMkII.
    The D700 has "pro" AF, that is the same as Nikon uses on its professional D3 body. The 5DMkII- well the AF is like 10 years old.
    The D700 with the VG shoots 8FPS and makes a really good sports camera. The 5DMkII emmm- hardly a sports camera unless you shoot Olympic curling or other such "speedy" "sports"
    The D700 has a built in flash- can be handy when traveling or for triggering off camera flash- The 5DMkII has no flash and no built in way to control off camera flash.
    The D700 and pretty much all Nikons have better or at least more consistant metering. Especially true when using flash.
    The D700 (in conjunction with its great metering) has a very useful auto ISO feature- The 5DMkII has neither great metering or a useful auto ISO.
    The D700 has better weather sealing.

    But the 5DMkII has HD movie recording and 21mps.

    If either of those are the most important thing then the Canon is the logical choice. If not the D700 is a much more rounded camera. Very, very good at everything other than shooting video :)

    Gene
  • LifeandLensLifeandLens Registered Users Posts: 48 Big grins
    edited July 19, 2009
    Warranty?
    I am not familiar with Canon warranties... but I seem to remember reading that the Nikon USA 5 year warranty is far longer than Canon's. I have never needed to return a Nikon lens, but the coverage is very nice. Warranty influences other consumer buying decisions, I suppose it is a factor here as well.
    - Life and Lens
    Tom Schauer
    Life and Lens Photography
    www.lifeandlens.com
  • LifeandLensLifeandLens Registered Users Posts: 48 Big grins
    edited July 19, 2009
    Great Points
    Kini62 - You make some Excellent points here. I have the D700 and absolutely LOVE this camera.
    kini62 wrote:
    14-24>16-35
    N24-70>C24-70
    105 has VR- Canon 100 does not
    You can get the N50/1.4 non AFS for much less
    Plus the D700 new is about $500 less than the 5DMkII.
    The D700 has "pro" AF, that is the same as Nikon uses on its professional D3 body. The 5DMkII- well the AF is like 10 years old.
    The D700 with the VG shoots 8FPS and makes a really good sports camera. The 5DMkII emmm- hardly a sports camera unless you shoot Olympic curling or other such "speedy" "sports"
    The D700 has a built in flash- can be handy when traveling or for triggering off camera flash- The 5DMkII has no flash and no built in way to control off camera flash.
    The D700 and pretty much all Nikons have better or at least more consistant metering. Especially true when using flash.
    The D700 (in conjunction with its great metering) has a very useful auto ISO feature- The 5DMkII has neither great metering or a useful auto ISO.
    The D700 has better weather sealing.

    But the 5DMkII has HD movie recording and 21mps.

    If either of those are the most important thing then the Canon is the logical choice. If not the D700 is a much more rounded camera. Very, very good at everything other than shooting video :)

    Gene
    Tom Schauer
    Life and Lens Photography
    www.lifeandlens.com
Sign In or Register to comment.