I here people often saying that Nikon lenses are higher quality than Canons but I am unsure what they mean by this. Are Nikons lenses better built, use better materials, higher picture quality or something else? I have always perceived Nikons cameras to be better built than Canons but cant be sure. Any answers to this would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
It's largely a matter of opinion. Many people think that Nikon wide angle lenses in particular are better than Canon's wides. They may be, but I've never used Canon wides.
I like the results from many Nikon lenses, some of which are older and manual focus. Don't know if this makes them better, just different and my preference.
Thanks for the reply David. I have not bought into any particular system yet apart from my Pentax IstDs and one lens. The IstDs is one amazing camera but I have been considering Nikon for my next camera. I want to get quite serious about photography and really need a well built camera because I live in outback Australia which can be very hard on photographic equipment from fine dusts, heat and the hard beatings it will recieve. Because there are no proper camera stores near by I have not tried the equipment myself except the D50, D70s and Canon 350D. I have to say the Nikon cameras mentioned are amazingly well built for there price. Thanks.
Having had both I would say the top glass for both are about the same, maybe better wide for the Nikon, and better long tele for the Canon. The biggest diffrence is the Camera itself and the way the picts look, I prefer Nikon.
In theory, the Canon and Nikon lens designs should be just about equal in optical quality. The one area where Canon falls down is in quality control - an inordinately high number of their lenses, including their expensive "L" glass, seem to suffer from de-centered elements. Most casual users don't notice this unless it's particularly bad, but it's usuallly quite obvious to critical photographers. That's why there are always so many used Canon lenses for sale - people are buying multiple copies trying to find one sample that performs well, and re-selling the ones that don't.
Having both Nikon AND Canon, both systems have their great lenses. For Canon, if you're buying L lenses, you won't be disappointed. For Nikon, pretty much any consumer lens in their lineup is pretty good. Canon does have an advantage in the sense that all their good lenses have USM silent focusing, whereas Nikon's gems like 85mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 28mm 1.4 don't have any sort of fast and silent focusing like the Canon's. But the glass on these Nikon babies is unmatched.
I'd only recommend Canon if you're going to buy L lenses, and a few third party lenses, because I personally don't like their consumer lenses. Canon's sensors I do like better though. Canon also has more variety in lenses. Nikkors are proven and legendary, and every high end lens Nikon pops out never seems to lose popularity. Pretty soon, I'll be getting rid of one system though, so I need to decide carefully what I'll be staying with.
All in all, each system is great, both have their strenghts and weaknesses...
I feel both companies make good lenses, but the biggest hurdle for canon is the different crop for different cameras...which adds to the confusion to the very least.
Both make great top end lenses... the differences are fairly minor, and even most professionals would never see the difference outside of a bench test.
The biggest difference is the consumer grade glass. In general, Nikon's consumer grade glass is better than the Canon consumer grade stuff. The Nikon lenses may not be as tough as the pro grade equipment, but they generally have at least decent optical properties.
To better understand the concept one could look at Nikkor history. Often times you will see the word "legend" along with Nikkor. The roots of the legend begins in early 1900's and rather than paraphrase and try to explain I'll just plug in a few brief excerpts:
Nippon Kogaku K.K., more popularly known as Nikon, originally was a company resulted from a merger of three small optical firms in Japan back in 1881. The company was incorporated on July 25, 1917. It is Japan's oldest optical manufacturer with the most comprehensive line of some outstanding photographic and optical instruments......
Frankly, during the early days of lens design and manufacturing, almost all the know-how and technology was derived from European players such as Contax and Leica. A legacy of lens-making technology left by Heinrich Acht, an engineer who came to Nikon from Germany in the 1920s - enabled Kakuya Sunayama, the head of Nikon' s Design Departments to develop a camera lens. After many trials and errors, Mr. Sunayama finally succeeded in creating a high quality lens in 1932.
You will even see a picture of a early Canon rangefinder with a Nikkor lens which was marketed as a combo by Canon.
When you look at the building blocks, the foundation of glass manufacturer coupled with the lineage of high precision German lens engineering there is no doubt it was a perfect scenario to breed exceptional lenses.
That's history however but keep in mind a legend dies real hard.
Canon started out as a camera manufacturer. They have fine equipment including their lenses. I have no doubt a company of Canon's resources can certainly learn to make exceptional lenses, combine that with their development in technology .....
Neither company however makes a lens, with all the history and technology combined, that will allow for poor technique, vision and craftsmanship. They do not make a lens that will elevate a poor shot to a level of artistry.
Had a chance to try out a 1D Mark II with a 17-40 f/4L lens. I was shooting a sunset set at both the 17mm and 40mm ranging with from f/4-f/18. The fall off in the corners were just horrible, and the lack of contrast in the clouds that I saw was something easy to complain about. I have never had a problem with Nikons shooting sunsets. BUT earlier that day I was out and about in daylight with the same lens, as well as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, and I was pleased with the results.
Thank you for your replys they are very helpfull. Cliff mentioned Canons quality control and this is something that always has me worried with companys of there size. I have been looking into Konica Minolta lately and am impressed by the Cameras and lenses, does anyone know what Konica Minolta are like with there DSLR's. It would be good to see them come out with a high end pro body. Thanks.
pahrens wrote:
Thank you for your replys they are very helpfull. Cliff mentioned Canons quality control and this is something that always has me worried with companys of there size. I have been looking into Konica Minolta lately and am impressed by the Cameras and lenses, does anyone know what Konica Minolta are like with there DSLR's. It would be good to see them come out with a high end pro body. Thanks.
Actually, their Konica-Minolta 7D looks to be an EXCELLENT camera. I would not hesitate to buy into their system at this time. Lots of informatin out there about it. Also, it and it's newer cheaper sibling, the 5D, are the only DSLR's that have antivibration technology built right into the body.
Image Stabilisation built into the body is a huge plus in my book, and using the large 2.5" LCD screen on the back for everything also interests me a lot, aparently they have a very large view finder to. But is Konica Minoltas build quality very good, and what is the lens range like. Thanks
I have used both systems and my favorite lens to this date is the Canon 85 1.2L.... awesome portrait shots - wide open at 1.2 too! And, the colors you get from that glass can't be beat.... The Canon's images processed right out of the camera is excellent with almost no noise at high iso's... being a Rebel, 10D, 20D.....etc..etc... With that said....
I love the D2X - it's ergonomics, 5 fps raw, 8 fps cropped, 12 megapixels, flash system produces the most natural skin tones, fast focusing locks onto the subject faster than any other camera I have used....even in low light situations, and I can go on and on....
So - there are advantages and disadvantages to every system you will choose. But to answer your original question regarding quality: I have found through experience and through many of my collegues experiences that Canon has a quality and consistency issue with their lens. And, not just their own Canon branded lenses but also other Canon mount lenses - like say... Sigma Canon mount. We had to send lenses and Cameras into Canon Services Centers because of front focus and back focusing issues.
Since using Nikon - I have not experienced this with any of the lenses I owned, bought, or sold. Whenever I bought Canon lenses - there was ALWAYS the known conversation of ensuring the Canon lens was a "good" version - it didnt produce soft images, no back focus / front focus issues....etc etc..
Now with all of this information - it goes full circle and the story of the "Pots and Pans" will need to be brought up! If you eat at a person's home, you would not want to compliment the excellent dinner by stating to the host/hostess that they MUST have nice pots and pans which produced the exquisite meal...!? It was the chef - not the pots and pans....
pahrens wrote:
Image Stabilisation built into the body is a huge plus in my book, and using the large 2.5" LCD screen on the back for everything also interests me a lot, aparently they have a very large view finder to. But is Konica Minoltas build quality very good, and what is the lens range like. Thanks
Probably worth taking a look. I hear the build quality is outstanding. Excellent controls as well. If you're not invested in a system yet, I'd look at it.
