Options
Is it just me, or does Canon have the stronger prosumer/advanced lens lineup?
AaronJAnderson
Registered Users Posts: 28 Big grins
I’ve been shooting on the following gear for about 2 years. With commentary.
Nikon D60 (It’s OK. I’ve taken some fantastic shots. High ISO is BAD. Need better low light sensitivity. Frame is very small for my hand/style)
Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 (99 percent of shooting happens here. LOVE this lens.)
Nikkor 18-55mm Kit lens (yuck)
Nikkor 55-200mm lens (yuck)
Nikon SB400 flash (Gets the job done)
About a year ago I decided I want some better gear. My shots are improving and this is something I want to take more seriously. I’ve always pictured myself getting a better Nikon body (D90 or better) and keeping the D60 for backup, or taking out with friends at night, etc.
I didn’t always have the 35mm 1.8 lens. This was a game changer for me. Suddenly the 18-55 and 55-200 went into a box and stayed there. They lack… sharpness or crispness or something. The photos from them seemed a little grey, blurry, or have some CA in them…. Something. The 35mm fixed 99 percent of that and I’m in love with it.
I’m in a place where I need some versatility. I’m starting to do paid gigs. I really need a good lens in the 16-55 (approx.) range and want more in the future. 200mm and a wide-angle zoom would be great to have in my bag too.
So I’ve been patiently waiting for the new D7000 body to be available. A dream come true.
I’m having trouble shopping for lenses. I’ve always felt like Canon had a better range of lenses that would be considered pro-quality in the 800-1500 dollar range. I feel like Nikon has a bunch of f3.5-5.6 consumer stuff in the 4-500 dollar range, and then a bunch of pro stuff in the greater-than-$1500 range. I really want lenses that go to f2.8 or f4.
I started a thread that is currently 5 pages long @ http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=906131 titled “If you could have one ~6-700 dollar lens for a 7D, what would it be?”
I LOVE the way the Canon 7D fits my hands. I've got big ones, so it's a good fit. I'm afraid of buying nearly outdated equipment. Not that a 7D is outdated or slated for replacement but it's been on the shelf for a while. Tried and true, too, I suppose.
I'm trying not to sound too whiney about this. I just wanted to throw this out there and see if I'm crazy, if anyone else feels similar, or if anyone has been in a similar spot.
Nikon D60 (It’s OK. I’ve taken some fantastic shots. High ISO is BAD. Need better low light sensitivity. Frame is very small for my hand/style)
Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 (99 percent of shooting happens here. LOVE this lens.)
Nikkor 18-55mm Kit lens (yuck)
Nikkor 55-200mm lens (yuck)
Nikon SB400 flash (Gets the job done)
About a year ago I decided I want some better gear. My shots are improving and this is something I want to take more seriously. I’ve always pictured myself getting a better Nikon body (D90 or better) and keeping the D60 for backup, or taking out with friends at night, etc.
I didn’t always have the 35mm 1.8 lens. This was a game changer for me. Suddenly the 18-55 and 55-200 went into a box and stayed there. They lack… sharpness or crispness or something. The photos from them seemed a little grey, blurry, or have some CA in them…. Something. The 35mm fixed 99 percent of that and I’m in love with it.
I’m in a place where I need some versatility. I’m starting to do paid gigs. I really need a good lens in the 16-55 (approx.) range and want more in the future. 200mm and a wide-angle zoom would be great to have in my bag too.
So I’ve been patiently waiting for the new D7000 body to be available. A dream come true.
I’m having trouble shopping for lenses. I’ve always felt like Canon had a better range of lenses that would be considered pro-quality in the 800-1500 dollar range. I feel like Nikon has a bunch of f3.5-5.6 consumer stuff in the 4-500 dollar range, and then a bunch of pro stuff in the greater-than-$1500 range. I really want lenses that go to f2.8 or f4.
I started a thread that is currently 5 pages long @ http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=906131 titled “If you could have one ~6-700 dollar lens for a 7D, what would it be?”
I LOVE the way the Canon 7D fits my hands. I've got big ones, so it's a good fit. I'm afraid of buying nearly outdated equipment. Not that a 7D is outdated or slated for replacement but it's been on the shelf for a while. Tried and true, too, I suppose.
I'm trying not to sound too whiney about this. I just wanted to throw this out there and see if I'm crazy, if anyone else feels similar, or if anyone has been in a similar spot.
0
Comments
BUT it is changing. I think the last 6 months nikon has added 4-5 lens in the "middle".
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM, a lot of folks like this even for sports and wildlife.
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens with Built in Motor for Nikon, rated a little sharper than the Sigma above but not quite as fast an AF. Still good for event photography and landscapes.
Tamron SP 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens with Built In Motor for Nikon, very nice standard zoom.
Lots of other good and great lenses but these would get anyone started in quality if that's what they wanted. All of the above will work with any Nikon DX body and the 70-200mm zooms are FX capable too.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
These and others are great alternatives to Nikon.
But Nikon also has some wonderful primes in your price range too!!
Like the 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4
Also, they have older glass that is pro quality that will not break the bank!!
Like: the 28-70mm f/2.8 and the 35-70mm f/2.8
And another Dgrinner reminded me the other day in a post not to forget the 18-70mm kit lens! it is really good! and CHEAP!
That Tamron 17-50 is on my shopping list if I go with the D7000. Maybe just keep my 35mm prime and save for the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8.
The D7000 is an awesome camera and was on my short-list until I tried one. The grip was too small and cramped for me and I just could not get comfortable.
Definitely try one out first.
Well, I had that same question - a couple of years ago. And after considerable thought, I decided it was this http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-300mm-f-2.8-l-is-usm-lens-review.aspx
So, I bought it! 300mm makes you want 600mm but the weight (and cost) of an equivalent is too much. So, I purchased a 1.4 and a 2x extender -which gives me more reach albiet requires more light (you loose 1.5 stops on the 2x extender)
I find zoom lenses are not as crisp and cannot perform the way a fixed focal lense can. Yes, there are times I miss a shot because I am too close - but after a while you get used to what the lense can and cannot do .
My personal view: Dollar for dollar - Canon has superior lenses to Nikon - but Nikon has superior camera bodies than Canon (smile). Its not a perfect world...
Edited to add: I too have the Canon 7D - for wildlife, I find its fast shutter speed exceptional. And the 1.6 crop factor really comes in handy. For landscapes, I hope one day to purchase 5D Mark II - and have a full frame. If I had unlimited funds, I would just buy the 1D - it has everything...but the price is just too much.
Good luck
I need to just save dollars for a few more weeks (maybe months) until I can see a D7000 in a retail store.
The Sigma 50-150 2.8, case in point... Canon and Nikon have not even bothered to do a pro-grade 2.8 lens for crop sensors in YEARS, and I doubt they'll EVER get around to making a 50-150 equivalent. While the Sigma 50-150 is on it's mk2 version, and I expect a stabilized version around PMA 2011.
The Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM is also a gem, and it's like the mk5 version of that particular range! Then there's the affordable yet amazing new primes they've just recently developed, as well as the other specialty lenses. (ultra-wide, fisheye, etc.)
I don't really go for Tamron lenses because of their lack of new generation AF and plastic construction, but they do make decent lenses. Personally though the ultimate crop-sensor kit for me right now would be the Sigma 50-150 2.8, the Tokina 11-16 2.8, and then maybe if I were shooting Nikon, the 35 1.8 or if I were shooting Canon, the 28 1.8.
I honestly think it's quite neck-and-neck, comparing the likes of the Nikon D7000 and D300s against the likes of the Canon D60 and 7D. It really comes down to personal preference of the customization and functionality of the cameras. And in that respect, I prefer the versatility of Nikon's controls. There are so many things that Canon doesn't have that I simply cannot live without, even though they're admittedly NOT mission-critical...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikkor+light+gray&N=0&InitialSearch=yes
http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2002/img/photo_afsvr70-200.jpg
http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2002/afsvr70-200.htm
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3617/3506298186_c59b0e823c.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/12/72035280_45604967ea_o.jpg
http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/af66/kaoquan/a10146175.jpg
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Eww, they look like. . . . . Canons!
All prejudices aside (difficult I know), Canon has the edge over Nikon in lenses.
okay I will go there. Regarding pro lens: Nikon 14-24 and 24-70 beat the canon zooms in this range hands down. 70-200mm .. it's a wash with perhaps canon a slight edge only due to the focus breathing on the nikkor. Super teles..can't really comment..I don't THINK either has a clear edge? Primes? Both have their legendaries..135L and 85mm 1.2 on one side..the 200mm f2 and 85mm 1.4 on the other..a wash.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
And now in the past two years Nikon has re-done it's primes. Aside from the 135 f/2, Nikon has Canon perfectly matched at f/1.4 on up. And even the Nikon 135 f/2, though ancient, is sharp as heck with great bokeh. Peple just don't know about it. Then there's f/1.2, which I just don't care fore because of the added weight and reduced speed. I'm FAR more happy that Nikon has FAST options for pros, including the very *fast* 85 AFD and the very *accurate* 85 AFS.
So, in all honesty, Canon only holds a real-world advantage because their lenses can be had more readily, and in used condition for a lot less, than the brand spanking new Nikons. That is definitely worth mentioning. I've shot with practically every Canon pro lens in production, even though I'm a Nikon user, and I definitely can say good things about their lenses, their bokeh and sharpness, ...but I'm also never again going to have to say that I'm jealous, now that Nikon has gotten with the program and released amazing lenses like the new 35 and 85...
But of course, we totally just hijacked this thread that was supposed to be about prosumer lenses. Oops...
:-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Having said that, I really like the new lenses... especially the 35 1.4 and the 16-35.... mang those things are huge though!
The 35 f/1.4 is certainly a pro-level lens. The Canon 16-35L is "pro" and the Nikon 16-35 f/4 would probably be "middle of the road/advanced consumer" since Nikon has the 14-24 as their pro WA zoom.
It's hard to make a direct comparison. I recently put together a list of all the lenses currently offered by both companies, along with their MSRPs (not street prices). The main difference, IMO - and it's a glaring difference - is Nikon's lack of f/4 zooms. Since the introduction of the 16-35 and 24-120, this is levelling the field a bit, but Canon's selection of 4 different flavors of 70-200 (5 if you include the IS1 version of the f/2.8L) offers a much wider choice than Nikon's single 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. I've never used any, so I can't comment on the lenses performance, however as a hobbyist, I know that with Nikon, my choices are essentially to break the bank on the 70-200 or buy Sigma/Tamron. I would personally like the option of a lower priced 70-200 f/2.8 non-VR.
Depending on what you consider "middle of the road" lenses, though, I think both companies offer a good variety of choices. Canon's 10-22 and Nikon's 10-24 are both supposed to be good and they're both under $1k. Both offer a mid-range crop sensor zoom (EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS and DX 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 VR), and both have some choice in the telezoom range, with Nikon's new 55-300 VR replacing the 55-200 VR and Canon's 55-250. Yes, these are all variable aperture, but we're talking consumer-grade lenses here.
I don't know the OP has the 55-200 VR or non-VR. I have the VR version, and from what I've read (and experienced), it's a nice little lens. For the price, I didn't expect more than I got. Reviews on it are very favorable, and I'm happy with it until I can afford a better telezoom. But I wouldn't complain about it or characterize it with "yuck." Would I like a more affordable constant aperture telezoom? Of course, but there's not a lot I want to do that I truly can't get with my lens collection right now.
When I bought my normal zoom, my choices were essentially the Nikon 16-85 or a range of 3rd party lenses, since the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 was too much $$ for me. I went with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC) and I'm very happy. However, I tried out that 16-85 and it was very nice as well. I just decided I'd rather have the constant 2.8.
In the end, I don't think the hobbyist is limited by either company's lens selection. If money were no object, I would certainly not feel limited by either company's pro choices, either. The advice I was given when shopping for a DSLR was to try out a few cameras and go with what was comfortable, b/c both systems are very good. I did that, my wife and I preferred the Nikon (D90 at the time which is nice, and I've since added a D300 that I LOVE!!!!!), and we have no regrets about choosing Nikon. I'm sure we'd feel the same if we went with Canon. I think that both systems are very good, and we as photographers should feel blessed at what we have available.
My site 365 Project
There is the 80-200 f/2.8D still available new. Not quite 70-200, but close enough for most. I think that fills in the non-VR hole pretty well. Now an f/4 version would be a great addition (and possibly something that I might but, the f/2.8 zooms are out of my price range). Would it be better is Nikon had kept the AF-s version instead of the AF-D? Sure. That would be closer to the Canon competitor.
Everybody is always loving the Canon f/4 zooms, but I'd be curious about higher end variable aperture zooms too. Sigma has the 17-70 f/2.8-4, and Olympus has several f/2.8-3.5 or f/2.8-4 lenses. Wouldn't those be better than constant f/4?
http://jziegler.smugmug.com
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum