Saad Syed wrote:
The price difference between Canon and Nikon isn't something that should be looked at in a black and white manner (no pun intended). First look at what system provides the features, ergonomics, and design that fits your way of working. Nikon fits me better, so even if I switched back to Canon for its lower priced lenses, I wouldn't be a fit with the system and thus unhappy.

Also, when considering prices between the two companies, realize that they might use different coatings, optical designs, and construction materials.

Moreover, like Tony said - it's an investment that holds its value (far better than computers, cars, etc.)

Well, aside from all that, there is also the longer lens warranty. It's 5 years on Nikkor lenses. That in itself is worth it. And the other thing is, Nikon's lens QC tends to be pretty good, as compared to others... Is your peace of mind worth it? Or will you have to go through 4 or 5 copies to find the "sharp/focussing" one.

And yes, great lenses hold their value very well.

The other thing you guys sometimes forget is that the US$ has gone down in value. So everything that's luxury is going to cost more. Sorry.

No offence... Instead to drive a BMW and to shoot Canon I prefer a bike and to shoot Nikon! Canon has some good things to offer but is very inconsistent. Nikon system is a trademark for quality - I have just one life and I want to use the best system - no space for compromise.

hardlyboring wrote:
I just saw the sticker price
So nikon shooters have an option.
Option 1: Outfit yourself with all the neeto nikon gadgets D3, d3s, 24 1.4, 14-24, 70-200, etc. and ride your bike to the weddings
or
Option 2: Outfit yourself with fine Canon equipment and have enough left over to buy a lightly used BMW to ride in style to the weddings in!

doh
Doug

swim_r wrote:
I still dont understand why anyone would buy a 16-35 f/4 when nikon's 14-24 2.8 is so amazing... well worth the extra $500 or so for the optical quality of the 12-24 imo

Not to detail the thread, but there are enough distinct differences that the 16-35 is more valuable to some people than the 14-24.

1) I like the distortion at 16mm - I almost get a fisheye for free

2) I like, no, love using CPLs and I'm not paying out the Wazoo for a custom Lee filter setup.

3) VRII has already proven itself extremely useful.

4) The lens is plenty, plenty sharp for me, and I have an extra $500

Mishu01 wrote:
No offence... Instead to drive a BMW and to shoot Canon I prefer a bike and to shoot Nikon! Canon has some good things to offer but is very inconsistent. Nikon system is a trademark for quality - I have just one life and I want to use the best system - no space for compromise.


Better make sure you don't get hit by a Canon-toting BMW while carrying/balancing all your Nikons on your bike

Realize that if you had a Canon (I have both their FFs) you would need to buy and use their 24mm F1.4-often @ F1.4! That's because Canon is 1 1/2 to 2 hi ISO stops behind the D3s in hi ISO noise. I am very happy with my Nikkor F2.8s zooms and their DOF.

Now waiting for a new Nikkor 85mm VRed F1.4 which, even though slower that the 85L, will be, effectively much faster due to Canon's refusal to make a 12/16 Mp FF low noise body.

"I just saw the sticker price
So nikon shooters have an option.
Option 1: Outfit yourself with all the neeto nikon gadgets D3, d3s, 24 1.4, 14-24, 70-200, etc. and ride your bike to the weddings
or
Option 2: Outfit yourself with fine Canon equipment and have enough left over to buy a lightly used BMW to ride in style to the weddings in!

doh
Doug"

Or option #3, buy Canon and switch to Nikon later and lose money.

This simply means that BTW the bike drives much faster than the BMW... lol!

SoundHound wrote:
Realize that if you had a Canon (I have both their FFs) you would need to buy and use their 24mm F1.4-often @ F1.4! That's because Canon is 1 1/2 to 2 hi ISO stops behind the D3s in hi ISO noise. I am very happy with my Nikkor F2.8s zooms and their DOF.

Now waiting for a new Nikkor 85mm VRed F1.4 which, even though slower that the 85L, will be, effectively much faster due to Canon's refusal to make a 12/16 Mp FF low noise body.

I owned the old Nikkor 28mm f1.4 for approximately 14 years and loved it. Heard the rumours about a new Nikkor 24mm f1.4 and sold my old 28 for nearly what I paid for it. On that basis the real cost of owning my lens was inflation, on a yearly basis that was the equivalent of a week or so's rental!

Elite glass is cheap to own, in the long run. Cheap.

Now I am with Canon, and I have a dilemma. I need an up to date fast wide, and am planning to buy the new Canon 24L f1.4 which has had rave reviews, but before I do, I would love to see a review of the new Nikon 24mm f1.4 so I can chose the best lens!

David Baldwin wrote:Now I am with Canon, and I have a dilemma. I need an up to date fast wide, and am planning to buy the new Canon 24L f1.4 which has had rave reviews, but before I do, I would love to see a review of the new Nikon 24mm f1.4 so I can chose the best lens!

You're thinking of switching systems just for the best 24/1.4?

i probably would.

David Baldwin wrote:
I owned the old Nikkor 28mm f1.4 for approximately 14 years and loved it. Heard the rumours about a new Nikkor 24mm f1.4 and sold my old 28 for nearly what I paid for it. On that basis the real cost of owning my lens was inflation, on a yearly basis that was the equivalent of a week or so's rental!

Elite glass is cheap to own, in the long run. Cheap.

Now I am with Canon, and I have a dilemma. I need an up to date fast wide, and am planning to buy the new Canon 24L f1.4 which has had rave reviews, but before I do, I would love to see a review of the new Nikon 24mm f1.4 so I can chose the best lens!

The Canon 24/1.4 Mark II (that's important, because the Mark I is clearly inferior, which is why it's much cheaper) is a spectacular lens. I've seen a lot of great images taken with various copies of it.

This lens is just another reason for NOT staying with Canon !
Darn darn .....

deepbluejh wrote:
swim_r wrote:
I still dont understand why anyone would buy a 16-35 f/4 when nikon's 14-24 2.8 is so amazing... well worth the extra $500 or so for the optical quality of the 12-24 imo

Expect the actual price difference to be larger than that. The MSRP of the 14-24 is almost *twice* that of the 16-35 (2400 vs 1250)


Where are you pulling these numbers from?

The 16-35 is selling at Amazon and B&H for $1250. The 14-24 is $1799 ($1699 gray market). The msrp means nothing. Especially when you are the one who mentioned the "actual price difference". It's much closer to the $500 figure you challenged.

Brett

"You're thinking of switching systems just for the best 24/1.4"

Well, lets just say I would feel more comfortable with my purchase having checked out the alternatives. Without wishing to troll though, the Nikkor would have to be clearly better than the Canon for me to willingly give up the 21 megapixels of the 5D2, but its possible. Fast wide lenses are very important to me.

Gregg Heckler wrote:
"I just saw the sticker price
So nikon shooters have an option.
Option 1: Outfit yourself with all the neeto nikon gadgets D3, d3s, 24 1.4, 14-24, 70-200, etc. and ride your bike to the weddings
or
Option 2: Outfit yourself with fine Canon equipment and have enough left over to buy a lightly used BMW to ride in style to the weddings in!

doh
Doug"

Or option #3, buy Canon and switch to Nikon later and lose money.


I have fallen into option 3.... Went through a 7D, 50D, and now 5D mark 2. Nothing from Canon satisfies me other than the 85/35 L primes, nifty 50, and the new 70-200 2.8. Any wide/ultra-wide zoom from Canon is optically garbage. 14-24 is the benchmark. Sure nikon has it's lemons, but Canon seems to produce far more junk in their EF/EF-S lineup. Example, the inability to design a proper 50mm lens faster than f1.8...

David Baldwin wrote:
Brett

"You're thinking of switching systems just for the best 24/1.4"

Well, lets just say I would feel more comfortable with my purchase having checked out the alternatives. Without wishing to troll though, the Nikkor would have to be clearly better than the Canon for me to willingly give up the 21 megapixels of the 5D2, but its possible. Fast wide lenses are very important to me.

Well, if resolution is a priority and a D3X isn't in the budget, I'm sure you'll be quite happy with the 24LII on your 5D2. I just made the switch from Canon (with a 5D2) to Nikon and no one lens could make me switch teams unless I did 90+% of my work with it, and it was significantly better from one manufacturer. Perhaps for some this would apply to Nikon's 24-70. For me, this almost applies to Canon's 35L, but I switched anyway, though I probably would not have if I didn't anticipate an excellent Nikon 35/1.4 this year.

I have no doubt the 24LII and Nikkor 24G are close enough in performance that many other features of different camera systems are much more important.