I really like my Canon L 24-70. Recently I have become very attached to my Nikon D90. Is the Nikon 24-70 as excellent a lens as the Canon 24-70? thank you joanlvh
I've had both - and I personally think the Nikon was better than my copy of the Canon version. Each time I look at picts taken with my 24-70 I'm amazed at how sharp that thing is!
I've used both, I feel the Canon is built better and has a better feel. It's also smaller and lighter than the Nikon (as shown in the above post).
Optically, the Nikon is slightly sharper wide open, but the Canon is sharper from F4 up.
Both are great lenses, but the Nikon is slightly overpriced imho.
the canon is smaller and lighter and more plastic, and has way more backfocus issues associated with it (all well documented q/c issues), and generally is not as sharp. The nikon version is widely discussed as perhaps the sharpest midrange zoom ever. Even if its not...its is better than its canon counterpart.
Bruce Sawle wrote:
I'm not sure you know what your talking about.
Canon 24-70
Diameter x Length, 3.3 x 4.9 in
Weight: 2.1lbs. /
Nikon 24-70
Approx, 3.3 in x 5.2 in
Weight: Aprox. 2.45 lbs.
To me the Nikon is not such a brick, it's the first thing I notice about the lens. It might be 3.3 inches but that's not the full length of the barrel as the Canon. MO
The Nikon version is better. Its sharper and much better built in my opinion. Very smooth and easy to use.
The Canon is a brick. It must be the weight distribution but it feels heavier in hand. It isn't as sharp, but sometimes that's good. It has a dreamy look to it (not soft, just "dreamy"). Excellent bokeh.
I only shoot wide open with these lenses. My experience with Nikon's version is much more limited than with the Canon.
This spring I switched to Nikon and before that I was a long time user of the Canon 24-70 (I had one of the first copies). Both lenses are excellent and I find the Nikon a little better. This summer I did a not so scientific shootout with a friend. The Nikon was better wide open and had less distortion at the wide end. Stoped down there was not much difference between the lenses.
I prefer the Nikon over the Canon. But for $600 more, it better be sharper. However, when I shot Canon, the 24-70 never left my camera, what a fantastic lens. I wish I could afford Nikons :-(
monochrome wrote:
To me the Nikon is not such a brick, it's the first thing I notice about the lens. It might be 3.3 inches but that's not the full length of the barrel as the Canon. MO
its longer, heavier. What other factor is there? Maybe the "Nikons 24-70 isn't such a brick" was just a fanboy statement from someone who has never held either?
I've had both systems, and the 24-70mm is the lens that is making me switch back to Nikon. The Canon one is great, but the Nikon is beyond belief. The remarkable difference in color contrast and sharpness justifies the price difference.
I have had the Canon 24-70L for several years (still have it), and it was/is my main lens on the 1Ds2 for people pictures, and before that on 1.6 crop cameras such as the 20D, and 1.3 crop cameras such as the 1D2.
I also have the Nikon 24-70 on a D300 and it's clearly an exceptional lens, and certainly no less good than the Canon.
I also had the Canon 24-70mm and loved it. Since I travel a lot, I prefer the 24-105 IS for obvious reasons and sold it recently. I bought the Nikkor recently and I love that on the D700 as well. To me they are approximately the same in weight, bulk and performance-wise. They both use the same and very effective hood design that I really like. I just wish the Nikkor had a VR since it is 4-5 years newer....
Owned 2 Canon 24-70 L's and one Nikon 24-70. The Nikon is easier to handle (see pic above, more narrow zoom ring - just feels better to me). Sharper than both Canon's by a good margin (and I had 2 good copies of the Canon 24-70 which has a rep for sample variation that is uncommon for pro glass). I certainly experienced why the Nikon cost more.
.