Things aren't always greener on the other side.

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by C2020, Jul 29, 2008.

  1. I've spent the past few days helping my brother outfit his Canon 30D body with a walk around and a long lens. It's shocking to see how many of Canon's non-pro lenses earn low grades when reviewed by the experts. Nikon's line seems overall better than Canon's in this respect. For instance, I'm having a hard time finding him a walk around lens. At first I recommended the popular $500 Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS, image stabilized, lens only to find it suffers from optical distortions at wide angles and softness peripherally. The new $170 Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens seems sharper and a much better value. We have the 18-55, 18-55 VR, 18-70, as high quality kit lenses. Prior to the new Canon 18-55mm most of the entry lenses were handicapped at best.

    The long lenses are even worse off. We have the Nikon 70-300mm VR which offers very good quality for the money. The Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS gets no where near the same reviews--though photozone.de does like it more than some. One must jump to the professional 'L' series to get consistently good results. The Canon 55-200mm entry level lens seems to offer mediocre performance at best. The Nikon version gets much better reviews.

    I eventually recommended the Canon 70-200mm f/4L with a monopod, ($600 lens in non IS form) over the Canon 70-300mm IS f/4-5.6, ($500). I also recommended the Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens over the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS. Besides saving him money with the 18-55 IS, I figure he can "upgrade" to the 17-55mm f/2.8L when he's ready and not feel bad about spending $169 on the kit lens.

    Nikon may not offer all the lenses we want but the one's they do have are generally very good in image quality. I think we're spoiled by the quality and forget what we have. To me the grass is greener here than over there.Notice I didn't touch on the Nikon 2.8's vs the Canon L's,(except the Canon 70-200 f/4L), they are all in a different league than the entry level lenses.

    Granted, I've never used Canon's lenses, I'm only going by reviews from fredmiranda.com, photozone.de, the-digital-picture.com, photo.net, and a few others.
     
  2. Interesting Bob, you should check SLRgear for lens reviews as well. I guess this is a reason we are on the dark side.... :wink:
     
  3. Thanks Rich, it is a good source and I forgot to look at it.

    Regards,
     
  4. Randy

    Randy

    May 11, 2006
    the comparison is even worse for them when you include bodies
    I shot a 30d for a year and it was an ergonnomic nightmare....
    they can't even angle the shutter button correctly
    and how many times did i turn the cam off trying to chg the aperture....yes, we have it great over here and it just gets better
     
  5. shaocaholica

    shaocaholica

    112
    Jul 21, 2008
    LA
    I'm still trying to get used to the Nikon front dial. It just feels uncomfortable to move my index finger that far away from the shutter release to access the front dial. I like the angled front dial on my Sony A700 better still.
     
  6. their competitor to out 24-120 VR is much better. IS that works and constant F/4.0, sharp and less flare.

    they also have many other quality 4.0 zooms to make up their 2.8 zooms which is fantastic for reducing weight. we don't really have that here. even though our new 2.8 zooms are the best lenses around, they are not easy to haul around.
     
  7. Randy

    Randy

    May 11, 2006
    they musta used my fat stuby index finger for the model, since it's perfect
    and the d3 fits my right hand like a glove, portrait or landscape...the 30d was ok in landscape but not good in portrait...too squared and angled
     
  8. Randy

    Randy

    May 11, 2006
    & their 135/2 is the best lens i ever used, even better than our 300/2.8 vr
    and it was nice to get their 70-200 2.8 w/o VR and save $500 since i rarely use VR on ours