# A student considering switching Nikon for Canon.



## chyidean (Nov 14, 2009)

Right now my kit is sparse. It consists of:

*Nikon D90
16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikkor
50mm f/1.8 Nikkor*

*I'm mainly getting into concert photography where low light and high ISOs reign supreme.* The D90 is superb for low light, and coupled with the 50mm f/1.8, it's quite killer. I'm feeling a little bit limited by the prime though. Variable focal length would be really nice. (I don't even bother using the 16-85mm unless I have time for a crowd shot or something since the f/3.5-5.6 needs seriously high ISO). 

So I've been looking at the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor and prices are consistently around $1800 (I'd consider going third party, but I'm a student, and resale value is pretty important to me). Yet the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 (and other pro lens) is/are significantly cheaper than their Nikon counterparts. 

*Canon -*
24-70mm f/2.8 - $1300
70-200mm f/2.8 IS - $1750

*Nikon - *
24-70mm f/2.8 - $1800
70-200mm f/2.8 - $2400

It kind of got me thinking - since Canon pro lens are cheaper by a couple hundred dollars than the Nikons, it might be in my best interest to switch to Canon and save more in the long run as I acquire more and more pro lens. And if I switch right now, it's probably the best time to do so - none of my lens are particularly expensive. 

*What are your thoughts? Would I stand to gain anything if I stayed with Nikon and bought the 24-70mm f/2.8 and worked my way towards acquiring the "holy trinity"?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, are both Nikon and Canon lenses of the same image quality? Because if they are the same, wouldn't Canon be undoubtedly the better buy? (Since their bodies are pretty much competing neck to neck, differences should be negligible, right?)*


----------



## Tighearnach (Nov 14, 2009)

Haha. You have just opened a big can of worms here! 

From an economic point of view it does seem to make sense. However (Im a Canon man by the way) in my opinion Nikon bodies are king when it comes to High ISO Image quality. My friend has a D3 and its the absolute Mutts Nuts in my humble opinion. However ive also tried a Canon 5D and it is also excellent at high ISO's. Afraid i cant answer which glass is better. From what ive read on here and elsewhere the advantage lies with different sides for different lenses. Maybe a pro who uses both will be able to direct you on that. I have also heard pro nikoners say that QC is better with Nikon so there is a less chance of a dodgy lens but i dont know how much truth is behind this.


----------



## IgsEMT (Nov 14, 2009)

Price is always a B****H on Nikon, No doubt about it. Go with Tokina, they have Nikon engineers working for them.



> *What are your thoughts? Would I stand to gain anything if I stayed with Nikon and bought the 24-70mm f/2.8 and worked my way towards acquiring the "holy trinity"?*


I believe, that unless ALL YOU HAVE is a camera and one lens, jumping brands is isn't cost effective.

*Image Quality*: working with both nikon and canon, more often then not you can't tell the difference b/n the two. UNLESS you'll sit in front of a 24inch calibrated monitor and will be analyzing raw files (not knowing extension) you might tell the difference b/n the two if you know what to look for 
*Price*: some say that b/n price of Yan went up compared to USD, thus the change in Nikon price.


----------



## chyidean (Nov 14, 2009)

Tighearnach said:


> Haha. You have just opened a big can of worms here!
> 
> From an economic point of view it does seem to make sense. However (Im a Canon man by the way) in my opinion Nikon bodies are king when it comes to High ISO Image quality. My friend has a D3 and its the absolute Mutts Nuts in my humble opinion. However ive also tried a Canon 5D and it is also excellent at high ISO's. Afraid i cant answer which glass is better. From what ive read on here and elsewhere the advantage lies with different sides for different lenses. Maybe a pro who uses both will be able to direct you on that. I have also heard pro nikoners say that QC is better with Nikon so there is a less chance of a dodgy lens but i dont know how much truth is behind this.



Thanks for your input, nevertheless 



IgsEMT said:


> I believe, that unless ALL YOU HAVE is a camera and one lens, jumping brands is isn't cost effective.



Lol, I technically have a lens and a half, since the 50mm f/1.8 is practically disposable. But yeah, I also have a old old old SB-28 that I inherited from  my aunt. I only use it in extremely dark situations where I HAVE to have a flash, and even then, I need to manually set everything since it doesn't meter correctly with my D90 (it's a film-era flash), so I was thinking of getting a SB-600/800/900 anyways.



IgsEMT said:


> *Image Quality*: working with both nikon and canon, more often then not you can't tell the difference b/n the two. UNLESS you'll sit in front of a 24inch calibrated monitor and will be analyzing raw files (not knowing extension) you might tell the difference b/n the two if you know what to look for



So what are those differences? Is one better than another?


----------



## JIP (Nov 14, 2009)

I think that kind of price difference is a silly thing to base you decision on.  The system you decide to use should be based on what works best for you and not some price difference.  If you feel like Canon is a better system for you then by all means switch but don't make a decision that costly on price alone.  Basically all I can say is what if you go over to Canon for the price difference and hate everything about the system, now you are stuck with several thousand dollars worth of gear you do not like.


----------



## sA x sKy (Nov 14, 2009)

I moved from a Nikon D60 to the 5D Mark II a little while ago. I think it was worth it but since you have the D90, you have to deal with less BS than I did. The D60 didn't AF while Canon bodies did. There was no AEB on the D60 and no support for a intervelometer remote. 

I say go for it. I have the the 24-70mm f/2.8L and it's really good. Here are a few of my pictures taken with that lens: Misc. - a set on Flickr


----------



## Plato (Nov 14, 2009)

IgsEMT said:


> Go with Tokina, they have Nikon engineers working for them.



Gee, I wonder why Nikon doesn't object.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 15, 2009)

If you're debating spending $1800 on any lens, I wouldn't worry too much about a couple hundred dollars here and there.

That being said, both Nikon and Canon are great, so you really can't go wrong either way.  Whatever you think is best.

I'm a Nikon shooter, btw.


----------



## battletone (Nov 15, 2009)

Look into the functional differences between Canon and Nikon.  As much as I like to save money, I think for anyone who takes photography seriously will find that there are big differences in how things work and what they will or will not do.


----------



## seekinglight (Nov 15, 2009)

You can jump brands any time. Lenses hold their value and even appreciate. 
Two things to consider:
1. Prime lenses at f2 or faster. (135mm f2 is gorgeous!) Rent them for events. Check out lensrentals.com
2. An usher hunted me down in my balcony seat because the shutter on my Canon 20D was too loud. On the stage far below was a 60 piece brass band and a dozen percussion instruments. True story. I also shot an outdoor wedding at a zoo. I was far back and at 300mm and heads turned everytime I took a shot. (no flash) Nikon is quiter. Google Canon noise and shutter.

Forget what you hear from fanboys. I love my Canon for sports photography. I'll not use it again at concerts, shows, or weddings.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Nov 15, 2009)

chyidean said:


> Right now my kit is sparse. It consists of:
> 
> *Nikon D90
> 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikkor
> ...



With those lenses, the Nikon's are considerably sharper. FOR SURE.

Honestly, I'd stick with the D90, and if you need something wider/faster, look into the 35mm f/1.8. It'll outperform all of those lenses you listed at the same apertures (except the new nikon 70-200 most likely), is smaller, lighter, more discreet, and goes to f/1.8. If you need even wider, than you can get nikon 20mm and 24mm f/2.8's for a song and a dance.

If you need longer, look into the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 as well, awesome lens, small, sharp, bright, unobtrusive, same story as the 35. 

Not to mention, it would save you a ridiculous amount of money! Nikon's got the lenses, and unless you shoot with a 5DII or 7D, high ISO performance will only be worse on the canon's and you'll be using slow zooms anyway compared to the fast primes. 


So I say stick with the D90, and shoot with the 35 f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 (or 1.4), and the 85mm f/1.8. All of which give you a stop and a half over a 24-70. 

Or you could spend a retarded amount of money to switch to a canon body (7D or 5DII), and again, MORE money to get the 24-70, and you'll be using bigger cameras with slower lenses, only ONE body which gives you significantly better high ISO, that 5DII, but it's cancelled out because you'll be shooting ISO6400 when you could be at ISO 1600ish. And ISO 1600 on a D90 looks better than the 5D at 6400.


----------



## chyidean (Nov 15, 2009)

Sw1tchFX said:


> With those lenses, the Nikon's are considerably sharper. FOR SURE.



Okay, exactly the information I was looking for. Thanks!



Sw1tchFX said:


> Honestly, I'd stick with the D90, and if you need something wider/faster, look into the 35mm f/1.8. It'll outperform all of those lenses you listed at the same apertures (except the new nikon 70-200 most likely), is smaller, lighter, more discreet, and goes to f/1.8. If you need even wider, than you can get nikon 20mm and 24mm f/2.8's for a song and a dance.
> 
> If you need longer, look into the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 as well, awesome lens, small, sharp, bright, unobtrusive, same story as the 35.
> 
> ...



Interesting analysis, thanks. The thing is though, for concert photography, the photogs with photo passes are limited to shooting only the first three songs in the pit. As a result, I highly doubt I'll have time to change lenses - I need to get as many shots as I can in.


----------



## IgsEMT (Nov 15, 2009)

> Quote: Originally Posted by *IgsEMT*
> 
> 
> _Go with Tokina, they have Nikon engineers working for them._
> ...



Last time I called B&H looking for glass, that is what they told me .
----------------------------


> I moved from a Nikon D60 to the 5D Mark II a little while ago


Did you have any other accessories for D60? B/c if not, it is like moving from P&S to SLR.


----------



## KmH (Nov 15, 2009)

sA x sKy said:


> The D60 didn't AF while Canon bodies did.


This is not an accurate statement. Canon hasn't made *any* camera body, since 1987, that can AF.

The Nikon D60/D40/D40X/D3000/D5000 does not have a focus motor in the body. Neither do *any* of Canon's DSLR cameras made since 1987.

While Nikon supplies lenses, both consumer and pro level, with a built-in auto focus motor, they also offer some lenses that do not.

Canon doesn't offer a choice, all of their lenses have a built-in auto focus motor, unless you acquire a lens made before 1987.


----------



## KmH (Nov 15, 2009)

battletone said:


> Look into the functional differences between Canon and Nikon. As much as I like to save money, I think for anyone who takes photography seriously will find that there are big differences in how things work and what they will or will not do.


Go to DXOMark.com and compare the RAW image quality, SNR, dynamic range, color depth, ISO performance of comparable Nikon and Canon cameras, like the D90 compared to a T1i. DXOMark is an independent testing lab.
In fact here's a link for you. Look closely at the difference in ISO performance.

Did you know that Nikon's metering and auto focus can see in color? Canon's can't, black and white only.

You, and your clients, would be best served basing your decision on technical merit, rather than emotion.


----------



## flightless_beaker (Nov 15, 2009)

seekinglight said:


> You can jump brands any time. Lenses hold their value and even appreciate.
> Two things to consider:
> 1. Prime lenses at f2 or faster. (135mm f2 is gorgeous!) Rent them for events. Check out lensrentals.com
> 2. An usher hunted me down in my balcony seat because the shutter on my Canon 20D was too loud. On the stage far below was a 60 piece brass band and a dozen percussion instruments. True story. I also shot an outdoor wedding at a zoo. I was far back and at 300mm and heads turned everytime I took a shot. (no flash) Nikon is quiter. Google Canon noise and shutter.
> ...



I'll agree with you that Nikons shutters tend to be quieter (at least on the more expensive models) but I have the 7D and its pretty quiet and have played with the 5D and 50D at work and they seem quieter as compared to some of the older models. I was actually taking some pictures at a reservoir of some people and my 7D didn't turn heads when I pressed the shutter.


----------



## battletone (Nov 15, 2009)

KmH said:


> battletone said:
> 
> 
> > Look into the functional differences between Canon and Nikon. As much as I like to save money, I think for anyone who takes photography seriously will find that there are big differences in how things work and what they will or will not do.
> ...



I have see that site before.  I have been amazed at some of the charts.  ie: the SNR of many Nikons @200 is basically equal to many Canons @100, if not better in some cases.  Things that make my own debate on switching confusing since I like many of the things Canon does from a function stand point since it is what I am used to, and is much the same as my Minolta SLR was too.


----------



## chyidean (Nov 15, 2009)

Shutter sound isn't too much of a concern for concert photography. If the rock concerts I'm shooting are loud enough to require myself to wear earplugs when shooting my three songs, I'm sure the shutter sound is negligible. Nevertheless, chances are I'm staying with Nikon after reading this lively debate.


----------



## Montana (Nov 15, 2009)

I wouldn't jump ship.  Nikon has fantastic lenses.  Most of those "expensive" Nikon lenses are better because they are a newer design than Canon's (for the most part).  Obviously, this will change when Canon releases new versions, then again when Nikon releases new versions and so on.  I see no real reason at all for a switch.  I'd stay with what you are comfortable with and invest in the lenses you want.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 15, 2009)

If you need cheaper lenses, Canon has plenty of them.

Canon 16-35mm v Nikon 17-35mm: Intro

Canon is (in)famous for poor wide zoom performance. Look at two comparable vintage lenses (2006) of basically identical specifications. For those wondering why many Nikon lenses cost more than comparably specified Canon L glass, this test is one of several that shows why Nikon charges more money for its wide zooms.

If one wishes to see the performance of the world's best wide angle zoom, it is compared here 
Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

against some Canon L lenses, both zoom and prime, as well as Zeiss primes. And take note: the Canon 16-35/2.8 L Mark II and Zeiss 17-35 f/2.8 lenses were cherry-picked, supreme examples: "Andrew Gough, of Planetwide, scrutinised six copies of the L before purchasing this best-of-breed sample. Similarly, the Zeiss N was chosen from a batch of five for his personal use. The Nikon is the same sample used in the other tests, adapted for use on the 1Ds III by our own adaptor."
All three lenses are compared on a single, high quality Canon pro body.


----------



## chyidean (Nov 15, 2009)

Derrel said:


> If you need cheaper lenses, Canon has plenty of them.
> 
> Canon 16-35mm v Nikon 17-35mm: Intro
> 
> ...



You've definitely convinced me to stay with Nikon. Exactly the answer to the question I posed in the original post (what's the difference between Canon and Nikon f/2.8 glass).


----------



## Garbz (Nov 16, 2009)

Just one thing to remember too when you're looking at cost, this camera should easily outlive your student years. Times are tough now but in a few years I would hope these couple of hundred dollars don't worry you too much anymore. Then you may have changed systems for nothing. 

Also remember that these two companies are in direct competition. There's always bound to be one leading in quality for a certain market, and one leading in price. But things will always change too. Would you have switched back to Nikon in 5 years when the Nikkors are $500 less than Canon?


----------



## inTempus (Nov 16, 2009)

I agree that you should probably stay with Nikon for no other reason that cost alone isn't always an ideal motivator for switching platforms when you're already invested in one.

With that said, it always cracks me up how you hear about how sucky Canon L glass is (only certain lenses like their wide angles - you won't hear too many folks ripping on their telephotos).

There are world famous photogs that can shoot with anything they want who choose to shoot with Canon.  You know, people like Annie Leibovitz.  








She's one of the most famous celebrity photographers on the planet.  






Watch for the Canon 1D and the 24-70 in the video above.

You can see her most recent portrait of the First Family here:  P090109-0127 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

...also taken with her 1Ds Mark III and crappy Canon glass.

Ironically she's been spotted with Nikon and Hasselblad in the past too but she's still quite often seen with her inferior Canon products.

As a matter of fact, there are a whole slew of working professionals who shoot Canon and their inferior glass.

You can peruse the list here.

By the way some tell it, you would be surprised Canon sells a single lens or body to anyone other than the horribly misinformed.


----------



## Dao (Nov 16, 2009)

I will say stay with the brand you familiar with.  Unless you are not able to do what you need to do with your current Nikon system.  (I doubt it)  Or if you are one of those who only want to use the latest and greatest technology no matter what.

For lowering the cost, you do not have to buy all Nikon lenses unless you want the best for your Nikon camera.  A lot of third party lenses are also very good, if not better.

As for the images the camera created, I do not have much 1st hand experience at all (I only play with my friend's D50 and my Canon cameras), but from what I see, learned and told, not much of the different at the end.  Especially for a experienced photographer.

So I will say stay with your Nikon and look for a cheaper good quality lens for now.  And when you are ready, you can get your dream lenses and sell the cheaper good quality lens at that time.  Most likely, you will not lose too much money especially if you buy it used.

For example, I bought a Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 lens used (like new) for $300 a year ago.  And now the new one cost about $436 at Amazon.  And a quick search in google "tamron 17-50mm site:*.craigslist.org".  The 1st page shows the lens is selling for $280 - $385 used now.  (The $280 one has a broken ring).   So if money is tight, buy a used good quality 3rd party or Nikon lens now and upgrade to a better one later once you save up more.


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 16, 2009)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Or you could spend a retarded amount of money to switch to a canon body (7D or 5DII), and again, MORE money to get the 24-70, and you'll be using bigger cameras with slower lenses, only ONE body which gives you significantly better high ISO, that 5DII, but it's cancelled out because you'll be shooting ISO6400 when you could be at ISO 1600ish. And ISO 1600 on a D90 looks better than the 5D at 6400.


 
I don't quite get you here.

If he's shooting at 6400 ISO, he would get faster shutter speeds where as shooting clean on a D90 at 1600 ISO might not get him the speeds that he needs which will result in motion blur. Why would he be shooting at 6400 ISO with the 5DII and 1600 ISO with the D90? If he could shoot at 1600 ISO with the D90, he could also shoot at 1600 ISO with a 5DII and the FF camera would win out at that point. Or how about, if he was in a situation where he needed 6400 ISO, he would be SOL with the D90.

6400 ISO with a tiny bit of noise reduction looks great.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 16, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> 6400 ISO with a tiny bit of noise reduction looks great.


I would agree, ISO 6400 and the 5D2 are good to go.  Here's a sample I shot for another discussion about the 5D's high ISO performance.






[/thread jack]


----------



## Derrel (Nov 16, 2009)

inTempus said:


> I agree that you should probably stay with Nikon for no other reason that cost alone isn't always an ideal motivator for switching platforms when you're already invested in one.
> 
> With that said, it always cracks me up how you hear about how sucky Canon L glass is (only certain lenses like their wide angles - you won't hear too many folks ripping on their telephotos).
> 
> ...



Funny...when Annie she shot the advertisements for ProFoto's professional-grade studio lightign equipment in late 2008, she was using a Nikon D3 series body and professional Nikon zoom lens:

News | Profoto USA: Annie Leibovitz & Profoto Pro-8 Air - Behind the Scenes

And as far as Canon's lame wide-angle and lame wide primes, let's look at a highend stock shooter testing Cann;s "vaunted" 85mm f/1.2 L- glass against Nikon's acknowledge bokeh leader, the 85mm 1.4 AF-D, commonly called the "Cream Machine" for its smooth,creamy bokeh and the beautiful image quality it lends to its images.

Clash of the Titans  Canon 1Ds Mark III vs Nikon D3X for Stock | Yuri Arcurs

Note how un-sharp the Canon 85mm 1.2-L is in comparison to the less-expensive Nikkor lens? Note the guy's dismissal of Canon's poor wide angle lens perfroamance as well.

And of course, the multiple head-to-head comparisons of Canon,Zeiss,and Nikon glass found here. It's shocking how a 14-24mm Nikon zoom can out-shoot Canon's 24mm f/1.4-L prime lens at f/5.6.

Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

Canon telephotos are nice lenses, provided you get one that isn't optically decentered or otherwise defective from the factory. I guess Canon prime telephotos are the reasons Robert Hanashiro switched to Nikon. And why many of the Sports Illustrated crew has switched to Nikon. Canon lenses are indeed, a good reason to switch to Nikon. We need to remember that Nikon is the company Canon contracted to make ALL the lenses for the first 13 years of Canon camera production...yeah...Canon had Nippon Kogaku aka Japan Camera aka "Nikon" make all its lenses for over the first decade of Canon's life as a camera company. Hmmm....wonder which company has the actual tradition of being a fine maker of lenses?

It's all good though. I own some Canon L-glass lenses, and they're pretty good lenses. I own more Nikon equipment though. Canin does some dumb stuff on some of its lenses, like the 70-200 f/2.8 -L, with the squared-off rear element shrouding causing horrible physical vignetting, ruining the bokeh of an otherwise fine lens, as in this shot done with that Canon L zoom

IMG_2153_EF 70-20028L-IS at f-2.8 bokeh.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com


----------



## inTempus (Nov 16, 2009)

Derrel, I said that Annie had also shot with Nikon but *still* elects to shoot with her crappy 1Ds3.  I know she's used other equipment, but for some reason she still loves her crappy old 1Ds3 despite all of its claimed faults.  

As for sharpness tests, much like your own comments where you disregard most of what you read posted on the net in terms of reviews (remember how you were burned on a body purchase based on reviews and swore them off?), I have learned to disregard much of what I read in favor of my own tests.  They're a great place to start, but in the end you have no idea how the tests were conducted or even what biases might be present.  Let's not mention that the review above they admit to downsizing the D3x's image so they match the 1D's... which tends to make images look better.  But that's not my point...

Here's a shot I took this morning at the office for a co-worker.  He needed a pic for a pitch document.






That was shot with my 5D2 and my crappy 24-70 f/2.8L.  It looks ok at full size.  So let's zoom in a ridiculous amount and see how the details look.






You may think it looks like crap, but I don't.  I think the resolution is amazing and the details are stunning.  Even the other photogs in the office who shoot Nikon mentioned my 5D and 24-70 produce amazing images and were quite envious of these rather mundane shots.

So, where the rubber meets the road I am more than happy with all of my L glass.  The day it fails to impress me is the day I switch to another platform.  As it stands, my images get the attention of my peers and I am frequently asked what body I use to produce my work.

There are several reasons I've considered switching to Nikon, image quality isn't one of them.


----------



## Dao (Nov 16, 2009)

inTempus said:


> ...... You may think it looks like crap, but I don't.   ......



Your equipments will make a photo look awful especially for those (ladies) who want to hide their facial defects .....


----------



## inTempus (Nov 16, 2009)

Dao said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> > ...... You may think it looks like crap, but I don't.   ......
> ...



Yeah, sometimes it has just a little too much detail.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 17, 2009)

I thought I would investigate optical decentering as mentioned several times by Derrel now regarding Canon.  His comments seem to imply that Nikon has perfect lenses, or nearly perfect, while Canon lenses are plagued with issues.  Derrel has also implied that Nikon tests all of their lenses whereas Canon doesn't, and thus Nikon warrants the premium they charge for their lenses.   I would like to see a source for this claim as I can't seem to find anything definitive on my own.

First, optical decentering isn't an issue encountered with Canon only.  It happens with all manufacturers, Nikon included.

Here's an article that touches upon the issue and cites a specific Nikon lens this reviewer had the issue with.

Lens Evaluations




> An issue frequently left out from reviews is the variation found in optical products. All manufacturers gloss over this and say that their products are "quality tested" before shipping. Take it with a pinch of salt. This statement is virtually always true for long lenses, often true for medium long lenses, and more commonly false than you would like to care about for short lenses and zooms.
> 
> ...
> 
> A typical example is the exciting AFS 17-35 mm f/2.8 Nikkor, which incidentally is a lens that I literally had available by dozens. I found in early production runs of this very expensive lens samples that showed mild degrees of optical decentering, or focus shifts within the zooming range.




It doesn't seem to be something you can find a lot of info on with a Google search.  

But I did find an interesting survey conducted by Lens Play.




> *Survey Results*
> 
> Note: Values are greyed out if there are less than 300 lenses sampled
> 
> ...



It would seem, based on their survey findings, that statistically you're more likely to get a good Canon Lens than a good Nikon lens.

Would I put much stock in this?  Not really.  I would say Canon and Nikon are pretty evenly matched and a few percentage points here and there aren't to be taken too literally.  

What it does show is that the notion you're more likely to get a crappy Canon lens vs. a Nikon lens is more than likely false.

I am open to other surveys or studies that show otherwise though and would welcome them.


----------



## KmH (Nov 17, 2009)

Statistically speaking, the list you posted is useless because the sampling rates are seriously skewed. Note there were well 11,400 Canon lens responses compared to 2050 responses concerning Nikon lenses.

One might want to explore, why the nearly 6 to 1 response rate? Something seems to be out of whack, relative to the market share of the 2 companies.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 17, 2009)

KmH said:


> Statistically speaking, the list you posted is useless because the sampling rates are seriously skewed. Note there were well 11,400 Canon lens responses compared to 2050 responses concerning Nikon lenses.
> 
> One might want to explore, why the nearly 6 to 1 response rate? Something seems to be out of whack, relative to the market share of the 2 companies.


While I appreciate your comments, I don't believe I represented the survey as a scientific study.  It's also not "useless" as you claim.  It's far more useful than making a proclamation about the quality of a product without citing any source what-so-ever.   A non-scientific study is far more valuable than no study.  However, if you have something more definitive, please share it.

I would say the sample size for Canon is quite notable.  11,400 responses giving them a 93% rating isn't anything to sneeze at.  Heck, even 2050 isn't a small number given organizations such as Gallup can predict elections by polling 1,000 people or less.


----------



## chyidean (Nov 17, 2009)

inTempus said:


> I would say the sample size for Canon is quite notable.  11,400 responses giving them a 93% rating isn't anything to sneeze at.  Heck, even 2050 isn't a small number given organizations such as Gallup can predict elections by polling 1,000 people or less.



I can see where you're coming from, and I see what you mean, but I just want to point out that the amount of people responding to an optional survey doesn't always indicate the quality of the responses.

A large sample size may be beneficial to render outliers insignificant but it cannot be used instead of proper sampling methods (ie random sample, proper representation of all members of the population, etc.) I think the percentages for ALL of them might be slightly on the low side, because people who have defective lenses are more likely to complain, resulting in a perceived higher reporting of defective lenses. People who have non-defective lenses expect the lenses to be not defective so they're less likely to have a strong opinion and respond to an optional study.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 17, 2009)

Here's an example of a Canon "professional, L-model lens" that displays poor quality control from Canon. This is from photozone.de, one if the web's larger, independent lens testing web sites.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L - Test Report / Review
MTF (resolution)Well, I guess everybody has a nemesis and mine is the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L. It took me 4 (f-o-u-r) samples of the lens to get a good one - please note: "good", not a "great" sample. The first three variants showed rather hefty centering defects which spoiled the results quite a bit.This final sample exhibited a very good to excellent center resolution at wide-open aperture throughout the tested focal length range. The borders follow on a good to very good level. Stopping down lifts the center further into excellent territories and the borders improve gradually till about f/5.6 to f/8. The sweet spot of the lens is in the middle of the zoom range.

And Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L-IS USM lens?
The third time was the charm--the lens was tested on its third try... Here is the URL and the quote. Poor Klaus, trying to get decent samples to test...
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS - Test Report / Review
"MTF (resolution)
Two sample of this lens has been tested. The first sample performed quite poor and the 2nd sample did outperform its quality figures but not without problems. This 2nd sample has been tested once more after a calibration by the Canon service.
In the lab the lens showed a very good (f/2.8) to excellent performance at 70mm and 135mm However, at 200mm the resolution figures are not all that impressive for such a high-priced product. The figures are generally still very good here but frankly you can have a better performance out there. Regarding the fact that the lens has been calibrated it is viable to state that the lens is not any better than that. Regarding the quality figures at 200mm it does not seem to be advisable to use this lens with converters without hefty performance penalties."

Again, pretty unimpressive performance in terms of Quality Control for a professionally-priced, L-series zoom lens that would be counted on to be a cornerstone of any serious shooter's lens kit.

How about another Canon, L-glass, high-priced "professional zoom"? Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L - Lab Test Report / Review
"The lens exhibited a very good but slightly varying performance in the lab. The center performance is excellent throughout the zoom range with a superb peak at 24mm. Unfortunately the border quality isn't quite up to that level specifically at large aperture settings at the wide and long end of the zoom range. The extreme borders at 16mm (not shown in the graph below) suffered from field curvature effects. As usual the quality can be increased by stopping down resulting in very good (16mm and 35mm) to even excellent (24mm) levels.
Two samples of the lens were tested during the recent months. The first one tested in late '05 showed slightly better figures at 35mm and slightly worse at 24mm. However, in the field the results were somewhat sub-standard under certain conditions so the lab results were not taken into account here despite a statement by the Canon Service that the lens was within specs."


----------



## inTempus (Nov 17, 2009)

chyidean said:


> I can see where you're coming from, and I see what you mean, but I just want to point out that the amount of people responding to an optional survey doesn't always indicate the quality of the responses.


Yes, once again - this isn't a scientific study.  It's the only thing I can find on the internet that's unbiased and deals with the quality of lenses purchased by owners of all major manufacturers.  Again, if you have something better, please share it.

The best possible solution would be for the manufacturers to give us their repair data, but good luck getting any of them to release that info.



> A large sample size may be beneficial to render outliers insignificant but it cannot be used instead of proper sampling methods (ie random sample, proper representation of all members of the population, etc.) I think the percentages for ALL of them might be slightly on the low side, *because people who have defective lenses are more likely to complain, resulting in a perceived higher reporting of defective lenses. People who have non-defective lenses expect the lenses to be not defective so they're less likely to have a strong opinion and respond to an optional study.*


Slightly on the low side? Perhaps.  Maybe their happy customer rates are higher than 93%.  Maybe is 95% or 98%.  The point is, it's still pretty close if we assume your assumption is accurate.  Most properly conducted polls have a margin of error in the 3-5 point range.  That means this survey is probably pretty solid.

For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume the number for both Nikon and Canon are really 98%.  That means the notion Canon produces inferior lenses while Nikon produces perfect lenses is still inaccurate.  After all, that's what this is all about, right?


----------



## lbridges (Nov 17, 2009)

chyidean said:


> ...
> A large sample size may be beneficial to render outliers insignificant but it cannot be used instead of proper sampling methods (ie random sample, proper representation of all members of the population, etc.) I think the percentages for ALL of them might be slightly on the low side, because people who have defective lenses are more likely to complain, resulting in a perceived higher reporting of defective lenses. People who have non-defective lenses expect the lenses to be not defective so they're less likely to have a strong opinion and respond to an optional study.



I agree whole-heartedly about population representation.  However, and I do note the numbers were presented as not being scientifically derived, the scaling factor for dissatisfied consumers would apply equally assuming the data collector did not purposely induce skewed data.

Here is a web reference based on numbers I would expect to be without bias (but have no evidence that they are/are not):  LensRentals.com - Lens Repair Data 2.0


----------



## Derrel (Nov 17, 2009)

A couple of comments to the OP. Why do you suppose somebody who actually has lens testing equipment and know-how went through so many samples of two popular professional lenses, in order to get a "professional" 24-70 wothy of representing its brand?

And why did it take a three tries to get a 70-200-L that was worthy of representing its brand; and why were the results of the professional 16-35 and the 70-200 "questioned" by a qualified lens tester. Why was Canon's assurance that the lenses, plural, were within specification questioned by an experienced lens tester? Why was there doubt that the lenses, after factory service, were really "good enough" to represent their model and their brand?

Another question for the OP: why do you suppose Nikkor lenses come with a 5-year warranty, while the white lens brand lenses come with a ONE-year warranty? There's a concept of standing behind one's product,and in this day of 90-day and 1-year warranty offers, Nikon's FIVE YEAR warranty is a statement in and of itself--the company warrants the fitness and reliability of its lenses for five YEARS.

As far as sample sizes and qualifications to judge: according to millions world-wide, McDonald's is *the* best restaurant in the world. Huge sample size, low price, tremendous satisfaction. Again, this is why I am citing photozone.de as a source--a *qualified and experienced* lens tester's opinion, to me, is worth a lot, while the opinions of a huge sample size of users unable to even discern if the lens is not all it could be, is of little value to me. Again, McDonald's....Ernest and Julio Gallo jug wine, etc.

5 year warranty vs a ONE year warranty. Higher cost? Not "always"--look at the Nikon 105 VR macro vs the Canon 105 IS macro; the Nikon is about $200 less costly, yet has a better warranty.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 17, 2009)

Derrel said:


> A couple of comments to the OP. Why do you suppose somebody who actually has lens testing equipment and know-how went through so many samples of two popular professional lenses, in order to get a "professional" 24-70 wothy of representing its brand?
> 
> And why did it take a three tries to get a 70-200-L that was worthy of representing its brand; and why were the results of the professional 16-35 and the 70-200 "questioned" by a qualified lens tester. Why was Canon's assurance that the lenses, plural, were within specification questioned by an experienced lens tester? Why was there doubt that the lenses, after factory service, were really "good enough" to represent their model and their brand?
> 
> ...


All great commentary, but it doesn't answer the questions asked.

1)  Where do you come up with your conclusion that Nikon has higher quality control than Canon with regards to lenses?  Do you have any data to support his notion other than anecdotal evidence offered by two bloggers?  I've shown actual data collected from thousands of owners which seems to counter your claims.  

2)  You've brought up optical decentering several times in recent threads, including this one, and act as though it's something unique to Canon... much like you acted as though micro-adjustment was developed just for Canon to deal with faulty lenses in this thread - and Nikon was immune.  Obviously this isn't accurate either.

3)  You originally claimed that Nikon cost more because they have something Canon lacks - "quality control".



> Here's an example of why Nikon's higher-grade lenses cost more. Quality and quality control.



But again, this seems to be proven to be inaccurate given the information posted above.  Now you're claiming it's because of a 3 year vs. a 5 year warranty?

I'm just looking for something more than unsubstantiated opinions.  I'm willing to listen to any evidence you have to support your claims, but it seems you read something posted by a potentially biased source that has a very small sample set to collect data (one or two lenses) and you hold it up as proof positive Nikon rocks and Canon absolutely sucks.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 17, 2009)

My mistake--I was crediting Canon with offering a 3-year warranty period--but I went to B&H Photo and Adorama, and I see now Canon's warranty is only ONE-year, so I amended my above post to reflect the 1-year warranty Canon offers, versus Nikon's 5-year warranty. And Tim, please stop making stuff up--like "Nikon rocks and Canon sucks"-that is YOU talking smack. You're a relatively new shooter, with a year's experience in serious photography; I myself recall my college days and even then in the early 1980's Nikon lenses were priced higher than Canon; I payed $269.95 for a 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S Nikkor in 1983, when minimum wage was $3.25 an hour, with a $2.40 hr take-home after tax rate: I payed for that lens with 112 hours of work. The lens works perfectly to this DAY. That same Nikon lens works on my current Nikon bodies AND on my current Canon bodies. Please note the lensrentals.com data as being representative of rigorous, demanding usage, not lenses sitting around in lens lockers. I differentiate between "cheaper" and "less-expensive". Why are there no Nikkor primes in the 16 Most-repaired list?

I also stopped by the lensrentals.com site and noted a few issues for the OP, who claims Nikon lenses COST more than Canon lenses, which would be the reason the OP was considering switching FROM Nikon to Canon--to get "cheaper" lenses. And please, keep in mind, I *own* the Canon 18-55, Canon 135 Soft Focus, Canon 50/1.4, Canon 85-1.8, Canon 135-f/2-L, Canon 24-105 f/4 L-IS USM, and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L-IS USM,and a 20D and a 5D, in addition to my full Nikon system which I have been amassing since 1982. I am not just a Canon-basher NOR a Canon fan-boy.

LensRentals.com - Lens Repair Data 2.0

Of the 16 Most Repaired Lenses, the worst five are Sigma zooms, with annual repair percentage figures from 84.6% down to 22.2%, followed by the Tamron 70-200 in sixth place at 22.2%. Seventh and 8th worst are a pair of Canon zooms, the fairly expensive EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS at 19.6% for IS and Err99 problems, so just under ONE-FIFTH of those requires repair each year. Keep in mind that a 17-55 f/2.8 IS-USM Canon is priced at $990, after a $70 rebate has been deducted, and sells with a ONE-YEAR warranty. According to the folks at lensrentals.com, 19.6% of their multiple 17-55's have been repaired on an annual basis. 17-55 would be a *critical* lens for wedding work on APS-C--but one-fifth per year FAIL??? WTF?

In eighth place is the Canon 10-22 EF-S which has a 15.8% annual failure rate for "barrel separation." Which is amusing, since a fellow TPF forum member here was bragging to me about how that lens, the 10-22 is "L-grade", but then about a week later, he told me his lens broke in two, so the design is obviously not too good. THis Canon F-S lens is $720 after rebate right now, and comes with Canon's now-standard ONE-YEAR warranty.

Nikon's first entry into the list comes with its 70-200 VR, the first generation model at ninth place and 13.1 percent annual repair rate. 

In 12th position in the Most Repaired Lenses is Canon's 50mm f/1.2-L with an annual repair percentage of 13.3%-- the worst repair percentage per annual basis of any prime lens in their data. That 50mm-L glass lens sells for $1599 at B&H with ONE-YEAR warranty. Nikon has a new 50mm f/1.4  AF-S G lens selling for $449 at B&H Photo, and it comes with a FIVE-YEAR warranty.

Canon's 85mm f/1.2-L is in the 16 Most Repaired Lenses, with a one-year annual repair percentage 11.7%. The Canon 85mm 1.2-L sells for $1840 at Adorama with ONE-YEAR warranty.
Nikon's 85mm f/1.4 AF-D is priced at $1229 at Adorama and is sold with a FIVE-YEAR warranty.

Of the 16 Most Repaired lenses, there are three prime lenses. The most-likely prime lens to need repairs is Canon's 50mm f/1.2-L, followed by the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX, and then the Canon 85mm 1.2-L. No other prime lenses, from any maker, are among the 16 Most Repaired lenses. I find it surprising that two of Canon's newest, and highest-priced non-supertelephoto prime L-glass lenses make this list. Lensrentals.com's web page states they had 2,315 copies of 320 different lenses when this data was collected and presented.

Hmm...Sigma has 7 of the Most Repaired lenses; Canon makes 5 of the most-repaired lenses; Nikon makes 3 of the most-repaired lenses. Nikon offers a full FIVE-YEAR warranty on all the lenses listed, Canon offers a ONE-YEAR warranty on all the lenses listed.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 17, 2009)

Lens Rentals data is a great resource.  But a few things;

1)  They only list the lenses with a 10% or higher repair rate.  That means there are likely a whole bunch of repairs going unreported.  I would like to see all of the data.

2) to make the list, they need to have 9 (and odd number) on hand.  That means they probably only have 10 or so of any given lens.  This isn't a very large sample set.

3)  These lenses are treated like rental cars.  I can assure you 99% of the owners of these lenses that aren't rental companies don't treat their property like, well, rental equipment.  God only knows what these lenses are subjected to.

4)  Even Lens Rentals cites the Lens Play survey.  Interesting, because unlike Lens Rentals data, this is collected from thousands of owners vs. a rental company.

Now, with the rather small sample set and not having the full data set (lenses with repairs under 10%) saying Canon makes the top 5 and Nikon makes the top 3 is hardly saying much.

But let's get back to the whole quality control issue that keeps getting dodged.  Where do you get your information that Canon suffers from optically decentered lenses and Nikon doesn't?  Where do you get your information that Canon lacks quality control yet Nikon excels at it?  Do you have anything to support these claims?


----------



## inTempus (Nov 17, 2009)

Derrel said:


> I am not just a Canon-basher NOR a Canon fan-boy.


Have you read your own posts lately?  You spend an inordinate amount of time writing novels about why Canon is bad and Nikon is great.  It's not occasionally, it's daily.  It's not a couple of sentences, it's paragraphs.

You obviously think you're unbiased, but honestly - take a look at the stuff you write.  It's not the slightest bit objective, you're clearly on a mission and get quite worked up about it.

Just a friendly observation.  I'm passionate about things too, but you seem somewhat obsessed with convincing people Canon sucks.


----------



## lbridges (Nov 17, 2009)

Derrel said:


> ...why do you suppose Nikkor lenses come with a 5-year warranty, while the white lens brand lenses come with a ONE-year warranty? ....



I presume you would therefore pick Hyundai/Kia over Honda/Toyota in terms of reliability, and indeed over even Acura/Lexus?  

But since you asked in some serious sense -- I suppose it's offered as a marketing ploy to entice a consumer to purchase the product.

Do you honestly think if any company had a lock on the market they would give you anything more than a warranty that expired once you left the parking lot?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 17, 2009)

Do you honestly think that a company would warranty a product for 5 years if they thought they would lose money on the deal?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 17, 2009)

inTempus said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I am not just a Canon-basher NOR a Canon fan-boy.
> ...



Sorry Tim, but you're the one on a mission...you keep resorting to fanboy type comments like "Nikon rocks, Canon sucks," and trying to attribute such comments to me. You referring to one of the web's largest lens testing sites a "blogger",etc,etc. is indicative of your ad-man style of put-down ad hominems in an effort to defend your beloved Canon brand. You are even the web master of Kwanonians, a Canon fan site. Your own signature, with your list of newly-bought L-glass lenses is quite a sign of gear-centric fanboyism. I love how you put the "L" in red type face! Sorry dude, I'm commtited to both brands, Canon and Nikon, for the forseeable future. I will use whatever is the better product to get what I need,and I shoot a mix of Canon and Nikon equipment. You? You've been at this whole game for a year,and are alresdy the web master at a Canon fan site??? Sorry buddy, but your sense of objectivity and your inability to listen to anything sombody with more experience says speaks volumes...

I OWN and USE a reasonably complete Canon system. YOU are the one who keeps using the word "sucks". Your juvenile approach is tiresome.

What's the URL for Kwanonians again??? I see you dropped the HUGE "Kwanonians" hot-link from your signature recently. Did TPF management ask you to drop that hot link, or did you just do it to appear impartial when you launched your "another unfavorable review of the Canon 7D thread" two days ago?


----------



## inTempus (Nov 17, 2009)

Derrel said:


> Sorry Tim, but you're the one on a mission...you keep resorting to fanboy type comments like "Nikon rocks, Canon sucks," and trying to attribute such comments to me. You referring to one of the web's largest lens testing sites a "blogger",etc,etc. is indicative of your ad-man style of put-down ad hominems in an effort to defend your beloved Canon brand. You are even the web master of Kwanonians, a Canon fan site. Your own signature, with your list of newly-bought L-glass lenses is quite a sign of gear-centric fanboyism. I love how you put the "L" in red type face! Sorry dude, I'm commtited to both brands, Canon and Nikon, for the forseeable future. I will use whatever is the better product to get what I need,and I shoot a mix of Canon and Nikon equipment. You? You've been at this whole game for a year,and are alresdy the web master at a Canon fan site??? Sorry buddy, but your sense of objectivity and your inability to listen to anything sombody with more experience says speaks volumes...
> 
> I OWN and USE a reasonably complete Canon system. YOU are the one who keeps using the word "sucks". Your juvenile approach is tiresome.
> 
> What's the URL for Kwanonians again??? I see you dropped the HUGE "Kwanonians" hot-link from your signature recently. Did TPF management ask you to drop that hot link, or did you just do it to appear impartial when you launched your "another unfavorable review of the Canon 7D thread" two days ago?



You see, you can do nothing but fling insults.  You're so worked up you can't even be civil.  

It's best we drop it since you obviously can't have a conversation where you're not insulting or talking down to people.  The sophomoric personal attacks you resort to when you're cornered on your inaccuracies are tiresome.


----------



## Dao (Nov 17, 2009)

inTempus said:


> .....It's best we drop it since you obviously can't have a conversation where you're not insulting or talking down to people.....




:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 18, 2009)

inTempus said:


> You see, you can do nothing but fling insults. You're so worked up you can't even be civil.
> 
> It's best we drop it since you obviously can't have a conversation where you're not insulting or talking down to people. The sophomoric personal attacks you resort to when you're cornered on your inaccuracies are tiresome.


 
How many 24-70's have you owned or used? Owned one and used a firend's, myself. Out of the two I used, I found they both have had front or back focusing issues out of the box and that if you're using an older camera without micro adjustments, then you're probably going to be disappointed unless you send it off to have it calibrate. I guess that could make you utterly despise a company.

Once I had it adjusted to my 5DII, it was golden. I did send it in when I had the shutter problem just so they could set it up right.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 18, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> > You see, you can do nothing but fling insults. You're so worked up you can't even be civil.
> ...


I've just owned one, and two friends have them (and one has the 24-105 to go with it - which he prefers).  I've not had a problem with mine as you can see from the images I posted earlier in this thread.  But I also know from reading the Canon forums that the 24-70 seems to have more issues with this than other models... perhaps because it's one of Canon's most popular lenses and so many are in circulation.  Who knows.

My point is that all lenses from all manufacturers can have issues occasionally.  

Derrel, on the other hand, claims Nikon has quality control whereas Canon doesn't.  He also implies that Canon suffers from optically decentered lenses, and again Nikon doesn't (which I debunk in this thread).  He's also claimed that Canon has front/back focusing issues whereas due to their superior quality control, Nikon doesn't... a notion I debunk in this post.

What I have a problem with is someone posting inaccurate information about either brand.  Derrel's posts are obviously biased and full of technical inaccuracies as I've pointed out.  Claiming Canon lacks quality control, is the only company that needs micro-adjustment because of their faulty lenses, is the only company that suffers from optically decentered lenses, etc. is not useful. 

I would retract this assessment if he could do what I've asked several times now and post his sources for these claims.  But thus far all I've gotten out of him are angry posts attacking my signature line, website, experience, character, etc... so I have to assume he doesn't have a source for these rather outlandish claims which are easily disproved by a quick Google search.

Personally, if I had it to do all over again I would go with Nikon most likely.  I've often considered switching mostly because of the features of their bodies, not because they offer superior lenses or superior image quality.


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 18, 2009)

inTempus said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > inTempus said:
> ...


 
Trust me, I've seen it many many many times.

Anyways, as far as going with Nikon because of the bodies, that's just a product of what generation of what body is in production. Back when the D2H was Nikon's top performer and they had no FF offerings and most of their cameras (if not all?) used CCD sensors, then it was a no brainer to go with Canon. 

Door swings both ways here and so given a year from now, things could be totally different. I think at this point though, there's several trade offs and that unless you're specifically shooting one type of photography or another that demands the one specific feature that the other brand doesn't have, that it's better to base the decision on other factors.

How many times have you heard that the Nikon D700's high ISO trumps the 5D MKII? Yet very few times do those people mention that both have very usable 6400 ISO and that if you downsize a 21mp file to 12mp, noise is less visible and the images are comparable.

I guess that's almost like trying to compare a 5DII to a D3X and upsizing the 5DII image to match the resolution of the D3X and complaining about how the upsized 5DII file is soft and shows artifacts...something like Ken Rockwell would do*

*did


----------



## lbridges (Nov 18, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> Do you honestly think that a company would warranty a product for 5 years if they thought they would lose money on the deal?



No, but I think they would warranty it for less time - 90 days, up to one year - if they didn't feel the need for a marketing ploy to attract customers.  

Back to my car example.  Do I think Hyundai is losing money with a ten year 100K mile warranty, NO.  Do I think Acura/Lexus are losing money with a three year 36K mile waranty - NO.  Do you think using the longer warranty is a marketing ploy, or do you think that Hyundai has better  quality control than Acura/Lexus/Honda/Toyota?

We are talking about a company that desires a profit - extending the warranty is not a free item.  I freely admit to being a fair to poor photographer, but I've been managing business efforts for over 20 years now - so while I'm not in the Japanese camera business, I think I do understand the business case.

At work, one side of the business pays for professional photographers to do their thing, frequently using our equipment - when we switched from film to digital, and the Hasselblad brand (that we used in the film day) didn't make the cut, I supported a switch to Nikon D3X bodies - this isn't a fanboy thing - just an attempt to insert some rationality into what looked to me as a fanboy discussion.

Thanks for entertaining my viewpoint.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 18, 2009)

I see what you're saying, but in my eyes they are willing to stand behind their product longer... marketing or not, it says a lot to me knowing I don't have to worry about my purchase going down the tubes for that much longer. Heck, I wish my Chevy Suburban or Escalade had the kind of warranty KIA and Hyundai are throwing out there - if they made a full size SUV I'd consider them next time around because of it.


----------



## Dao (Nov 18, 2009)

Sometimes, that is what the company want the general public to believe.  If they cannot use the fact to represent the quality of their products, they use other way.  Extending the warranty is one of them I believe.  The bottom line is, they need to push some sales.  If they cannot push the product out of the door, warranty mean nothing.


----------



## Mbnmac (Nov 18, 2009)

Man I thought I left this kind of fanboyism behind on the gaming forums.

Protip; these companies don't care about you, only your money so please drop any kind of emotional attachment you have to them, as it's quite clear most posters in this thread have more than a little bias.


----------



## chip (Nov 18, 2009)

I have both Nikon and Canon equipment. I can tell you from personal experience that if you are the kind of person who likes to blow up pictures to examine every pixel - Nikon lenses are clearly sharper, hence the higher price. Nikon would not be able to get away with asking for the higher price otherwise. In terms of built quality again Nikon lenses are clearly better built and more solid and robust. Since you already have a Nikon D90 which is an excellent DX camera, I would stay with Nikon.


----------



## MrLogic (Nov 19, 2009)

Mbnmac said:


> Man I thought I left this kind of fanboyism behind on the gaming forums.
> 
> Protip; these companies don't care about you, only your money so please drop any kind of emotional attachment you have to them.



 Nikon Corp doesn't even _pretend_ to care about me. Customer support is horrendous for the most part (if you happen to be an amateur). And I'm _heavily_ invested in them. Long AF-S glass doesn't come cheap.

I have to applaud them for not giving a ****, though.

At the same time, I'd much rather deal with an American company.


edit: grammar


----------



## lbridges (Nov 19, 2009)

chip said:


> I have both Nikon and Canon equipment. I can tell you from personal experience that if you are the kind of person who likes to blow up pictures to examine every pixel - Nikon lenses are clearly sharper, hence the higher price. Nikon would not be able to get away with asking for the higher price otherwise. In terms of built quality again Nikon lenses are clearly better built and more solid and robust. Since you already have a Nikon D90 which is an excellent DX camera, I would stay with Nikon.



Not disputing what you say, or the advice in the last sentence (which I think is good), but for your words to have any meaning (to me anyway) you have to state which equipment (body & lens) you are addressing in your comparison.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 19, 2009)

MrLogic said:


> Mbnmac said:
> 
> 
> > Man I thought I left this kind of fanboyism behind on the gaming forums.
> ...


The one thing that really turned me off Nikon initially was this on their website:

What is Gray Market?



> Nikon Inc. USA cannot provide any technical support or warranty service on Gray Market items. Additionally Nikon Inc. USA cannot perform any fee-based repair work on Gray Market items. Please do not contact Nikon Inc. USA for help with any Gray Market products. Please contact the reseller or importer of your Gray Market items for warranty and service information as well as software updates and downloads.


One of the first lenses I bought for my Canon was a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and I bought it used off the internet.  I saved a considerable amount on the purchase.  I've also purchased other lenses used online.

The problem with buying used Nikon gear is that if the original owner bought gray market gear from Adorama, B&H or some other place, you can't get your lenses serviced by Nikon USA *even if you try to pay for it*.  I mean, it's not hard to find gray market lenses, almost every major retailer stocks them.  B&H simply marks gray market lenses "imported" so I'm sure many people buy them for the cheaper price not knowing what it really means.

That scared me away since you really have no idea if the lens you bought is gray market or not since they're not marked as such.  Most any other manufacturer will at least service your lens for you, for a fee, even if it is gray market.  Canon will go a step further and will even warranty a gray market lens if you can produce a sales slip from an authorized retailer like Adorama, B&H or similar dealer.


----------



## chyidean (Nov 19, 2009)

inTempus said:


> That scared me away since you really have no idea if the lens you bought is gray market or not since they're not marked as such.



I'm somewhat of a noob, and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't US Nikon lenses have a serial number starting with "US"?


----------



## inTempus (Nov 19, 2009)

chyidean said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> > That scared me away since you really have no idea if the lens you bought is gray market or not since they're not marked as such.
> ...


Actually, I do believe the serial number does begin with US.


----------

