j.liam wrote:
Vilhelm Sjostrom, a pro shooter from Finland who posts at mflenses.com and often gets preview equipment to test long before others, recently wrote that, "I already pissed off half a dozen of 24-120/4G VR owners on Flickr when I pointed out that the 24-120/4G VR is a Holga with vibration reduction when coupled with a D800".
HOWARD KEARLEY wrote:
what I do not understand is I see quite a few comments about moving to Nikon but no comments about moving to Canon.
Have I missed something here
Canon is lucky they have affordable and a better lens collection than Nikon, if not you will have seen more people switching.
okafoja wrote:
Canon is lucky they have affordable and a better lens collection than Nikon, if not you will have seen more people switching.
Canon was affordable. The 1Dx is almost 15% more expensive (at MSRP) than the D4 with an $800 difference. So is the 5D3 at $500 (nearly 17%). The new tele primes are all much more expensive than Nikon counterparts. Other examples can surely be given for new gear... and that doesn't even begin to consider the whole market of older glass that still fits Nikon cameras because Nikon didn't change their mount, an option not easily (or sometimes not at all) available to Canon shooters.
Each brand has its advantages and neither is totally and unequivocally superior for all shooters (else they wouldn't both command so much market share), but the idea that Canon is much more affordable than Nikon is, today, nothing more than a myth.
okafoja wrote:
Canon is lucky they have affordable and a better lens collection than Nikon
As mentioned by Rodolfo, 5D Mark III is $500 more expensive over D800 and 1DX is $800 more expensive than D4. For example, Nikkor 200-400 G VR is $7000 and Canon counterpart is claimed to have jaw-dropping $11000 price tag. And what about new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM for 829 euro and 28mm f/2.8 IS USM for 799 euro? Slow wide-angle lens for 800 euros? Really?
Other Canon lenses are cheaper because they're too old, obviously. 135L was released in 90's and still have no successor. '2006 50L didn't bring the quality up to demands of modern days, so it was born outdated. One of my friends claims that he never uses his 50L on digital. Once he put it on 1v camera and never ever took if off. Film masks in a some way obvious flaws of the lens and I'm gonna agree with him. On digital it is way too bad for $1600 tool. If it was $300 and had f/1.8 maximum aperture, there couldn't be too much reasons to complain.
j.liam wrote:
Then you're a lucky guy with a great copy that meets your needs. But the reality is that these are pricey tools and most folks will rely on reviews to eliminate the chafe before renting or buying. With numbers like Roger posted, even accounting for sample variation, why bother?
Vilhelm Sjostrom, a pro shooter from Finland who posts at mflenses.com and often gets preview equipment to test long before others, recently wrote that, "I already pissed off half a dozen of 24-120/4G VR owners on Flickr when I pointed out that the 24-120/4G VR is a Holga with vibration reduction when coupled with a D800".
Guess what? That means sh** for people who are actually photographers (like those who capture 2D and 3D images, not EXIF's) and not brand collectors or fat people who can't do sports and take revenge in photography.
There is no better alternative, you can say that a 24-70/2.8 is better, you can say that you'd be better off with a 24+35+85 1.4 prime set, you can say all you want, if you need a zoom lens (that means ONE lens) with stabilization in the 24-120 range (or less), the lens to acquire is the Nikkor 24-120 f/4 VR. If you don't, you acquire something else.
MTF charts are for people who shot meaninglessly, if somebody wants to run a business or have fun (and record moments of their life on film/digital files), there's a different story.
The problems I referred to with Nikon lenses was gross optical de-centering easily visible. On reduced sensor camera this will pass unnoticed until the owner updates to the FS body and many never will. Unfortunately this problem is common and unfixable. Even with those problems I'd stick with Nikon if they provided good service and support.
I personally don't think people should quote others. This is irrelevant. Each camera and lens are different and those mini deltas will show up on high resolution sensor. So test your gear properly and trust your eyes. If it meets your expectations use it and enjoy it. Making blanket statements is silly.
This one is equally silly: "Other Canon lenses are cheaper because they're too old, obviously."
There is no need for the 135L update. This old lens is recognized world class optics. The only update would be IS which would make it bigger, heavier and more expensive.
A similar situation exists with old Nikon lenses which can be excellent (the old ones made in Japan not China), if you get a good copy. Nikon also had dogs like the 43-86 which was re-designed no less than 3 times and was always junk. Previous version of 24-120 was poor. The new one, with the VR, may be good - no experience here.
zyberk wrote:
This one is equally silly: "Other Canon lenses are cheaper because they're too old, obviously."
There is no need for the 135L update. This old lens is recognized world class optics. The only update would be IS which would make it bigger, heavier and more expensive.
Tell that to Nikon staff, which is working on new 135 mm lens to replace the already good 135 DC. And by the way, I have mention not only 135L which is really the state of the art item, but also 50 (both f/1.4 USM and 1.8), 35 f/2, 28 f/1.8 and many other which are begging for being replaced.
Bottom line: qualities of all those lenses are irrelevant if used by skilled photographer. What is really silly is to start topics in line "I'm a Canon shooter, so everything by Nikon is rubbish because I told you so, period". I doubt that OP is a beholder of an absolute truth. If he enjoys his gear, good for him. But making statements based on nothing is not just silly, but also offensive. I responded to him in his style just to show how stupid his rant is. Maybe he now is sitting back with the bucket of pop-corn and enjoys the war in the thread started by his plain troll statements.
Technician wrote:
And what is really silly is to start topics in line "I'm a Canon shooter, so everything by Nikon is rubbish because I told you so, period". I doubt that OP is a beholder of an absolute truth. If he enjoys his gear, good for him.
As mentioned by Rodolfo, 5D Mark III is $500 more expensive over D800 and 1DX is $800 more expensive than D4. For example, Nikkor 200-400 G VR is $7000 and Canon counterpart is claimed to have jaw-dropping $11000 price tag. And what about new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM for 829 euro and 28mm f/2.8 IS USM for 799 euro? Slow wide-angle lens for 800 euros? Really?
Other Canon lenses are cheaper because they're too old, obviously. 135L was released in 90's and still have no successor. '2006 50L didn't bring the quality up to demands of modern days, so it was born outdated. One of my friends claims that he never uses his 50L on digital. Once he put it on 1v camera and never ever took if off. Film masks in a some way obvious flaws of the lens and I'm gonna agree with him. On digital it is way too bad for $1600 tool. If it was $300 and had f/1.8 maximum aperture, there couldn't be too much reasons to complain....Show more →
Sorry but your friend has no clue about 50L. 50L is one sweet lens. I always hear people talk crap about 50L and usually those people never owned 50L. Same talk goes for Nikon 24-120f4 and yet I see beautiful images with that lens. I even saw a test between Nikon 24-70 and 24-120f4 and it was hard to notice any difference in sharpness. I don't look at chart because I have no clue how to read charts.
zyberk wrote:
"When I buy a Nikon lens, the first copy works well."
Interesting. The reason I switch to Canon, after being a Nikon user for 20+ yrs., was just the fact that all lenses: 12-24, 85, and 24-70 were defective. The wide zoom was fixed, but never met my expectations, the 85 was in repair 3 times . After 3rd repair was declared "meeting Nikon specs." and the first 2 samples of the newly introduced mid range zoom were retained by Nikon while 3rd sample delivery promised. By the time it was available, 8 months after getting the camera, I gave up on Nikon. These were ALL new lenses! For me it was a big financial loss and disappointment.
I had some problems with Canon lenses, but Canon response was professional and fully satisfying. No "it meets our spec." nonsense.
It looks like there are many cases when "the first copy" not always works....Show more →
OMG...The Canon 24-70 is the worst piece of pro glass ever made. Its common knowledge
that it's a pile of garbage.
okafoja wrote:
The only lens you listed that I will want is 14-24. I will take 50L over 50G any day. Same goes for 85L and 135L. When it come to Nikon lenses the more I look, the less I see.
Then don't make the switch to Nikon. It sounds like you really don't have a clear idea of why you want to do so anyway.
I switched for a weather-sealed FF body under $5000, and the 14-24. Having to get rid of my 85L really wasn't an issue for me, and I found my 14-24 and 70-200 f/2.8VR II on the used market for a 20% discount. If you really think it's such a pain, then maybe you should stay where you are.
Arka, your sarcasm missed the target. I enjoy my gear and know for certain how to get the best of it. Fast f/1.2 aperture will bring no advantages over tools which I have already. If it will in your world, then best wishes to you, heartily. No rant.
Those 50/1.2L photos look like crap, there is a noticeable large amount of sharpening in them to make them look good. That or the girl has some kind of goo in the hair...
Guess what? That means sh** for people who are actually photographers (like those who capture 2D and 3D images, not EXIF's) and not brand collectors or fat people who can't do sports and take revenge in photography.
OK, I'll ask. How do you capture a 3D image with these cameras? I must have the wrong type of camera. Each print I make is 2D don't matter what I do.. Also, who are these fat people taking revenge on athletes by taking pictures?
