# Prime Lenses: Canon vs Nikon, Who makes them best?



## Jin (Jul 12, 2010)

Related to my previous post at 
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...kon-d60-50mm-1-4-vs-nikon-d90-50mm-1-8-a.html

I'm looking for a DSLR Body + Prime Lens with a current budget of 800-1200$ combo and I was just wondering which company (Nikon or Canon) makes the better prime lenses?

As of now, I'll most likely be sticking to the sub 400$ prime lenses, but I will be upgrading to more expensive primes  later down the road, maybe next year or so.

So, what are everyone's opinions?


----------



## usayit (Jul 12, 2010)

Your poll doesn't make sense.....

"pro" and "consumer" of which both overlap into "overall"


----------



## Jin (Jul 12, 2010)

Overall as in the company excels at making both cheap and expensive glass.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 12, 2010)

both are about equal, BUT ill give nikon the nod since they have amazing prime lenses dating back to 1959 that will still work on a modern dslr.


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Jul 13, 2010)

djacobox372 said:


> both are about equal, BUT ill give nikon the nod since they have amazing prime lenses dating back to 1959 that will still work on a modern dslr.


The old manual Nikon lenses work the same on a Canon DSLR with an inexpensive adapter as they do on most Nikon DSLRs - fully manual.  Only the AI-S Nikkor lenses from the 1980's can shoot in Av exposure mode with manual focus, and only on the more expensive Nikon DSLR cameras (D300 and up).  If you've got a D90 or lower, you're still stuck with fully-manual operation (including manual exposure), just as you would be when adapting the Nikon lens to another brand of camera.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 13, 2010)

Nikon makes prime lenses?


----------



## Formatted (Jul 13, 2010)

Nikon Optics are the best in the World. There is a reason that Nikon is the worlds largest microscope glass manufacture. 

You can't take price into account, when talking about what is best!


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 13, 2010)

Formatted said:


> Nikon Optics are the best in the World. There is a reason that Nikon is the worlds largest microscope glass manufacture.
> 
> You can't take price into account, when talking about what is best!


 
This is funny. So they're better than every other single corportation that deals with optics completely and utterly across the board. Like their lenses are all better than Zeiss's?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 13, 2010)

Formatted said:


> Nikon Optics are the best in the World. There is a reason that Nikon is the worlds largest microscope glass manufacture.
> 
> You can't take price into account, when talking about what is best!



Amusing. Leica lenses are the best, overall.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 14, 2010)

JustAnEngineer said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> > both are about equal, BUT ill give nikon the nod since they have amazing prime lenses dating back to 1959 that will still work on a modern dslr.
> ...



That adapter will not give you light metering, or focus information, unlike using a old nikon lens on a d2,d200,d300,d700, or d3


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 14, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Formatted said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon Optics are the best in the World. There is a reason that Nikon is the worlds largest microscope glass manufacture.
> ...



Not any more... new leica lenses are laging behind canon and nikon in reviews, even though they still cost twice as much.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 14, 2010)

djacobox372 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Formatted said:
> ...




LOL

Hilarious. Deluded but hilarious.


----------



## Overread (Jul 14, 2010)

Honestly there is only one difference between Nikon and Canon and it hardly affects anyone - and that is the Canon MPE65mm macro - the only single lens (that I know of) that goes from 1:1 magnificatio to 5:1 magnification.

That said its really only of concern for those of use who want to take pictures of a fly's eye. And even though the lens is unique to canon there are other options that Nikon (and other brand) users can use (such as microscope elements and bellows setups) which can achive similar or even superior quality images.

As for a by price comparison it was the case that Nikon lenses (At the expensive end) were generally more expensive than Canon brand lenses (very much noticable in the telephoto ranges). However as for quality whilst tests and such might show differences I've yet to see either company able to totally outclass the other - they are both pretty much equal in the market - heck sigma and tamron are also able to make lenses that can achive similar highclass level optical quality.


----------



## Overread (Jul 14, 2010)

Formatted said:


> Nikon Optics are the best in the World. There is a reason that Nikon is the worlds largest microscope glass manufacture.
> 
> You can't take price into account, when talking about what is best!



actually if we go by sales Sigma ship far more lenses than canon or nikon!


----------



## pbelarge (Jul 14, 2010)

Preference = better   *which could change year to year


----------



## Dao (Jul 14, 2010)

Comparison like this is meaningless.
It is better to compare a specific lens.

i.e.  Nikon 50mm f/1.8 vs Canon 50mm f/1.8


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 14, 2010)

Overread said:


> Honestly there is only one difference between Nikon and Canon and it hardly affects anyone - and that is the Canon MPE65mm macro - the only single lens (that I know of) that goes from 1:1 magnificatio to 5:1 magnification.
> 
> That said its really only of concern for those of use who want to take pictures of a fly's eye. And even though the lens is unique to canon there are other options that Nikon (and other brand) users can use (such as microscope elements and bellows setups) which can achive similar or even superior quality images.
> 
> As for a by price comparison it was the case that Nikon lenses (At the expensive end) were generally more expensive than Canon brand lenses (very much noticable in the telephoto ranges). However as for quality whilst tests and such might show differences I've yet to see either company able to totally outclass the other - they are both pretty much equal in the market - heck sigma and tamron are also able to make lenses that can achive similar highclass level optical quality.




A significant difference between off-brand and camera-maker lenses is durability and construction quality, not to mention sample-to-sample consistency. Some of my Leicaflex lenses are more than 35 years old and perform like new. A cheap lens may produce good quality when new, but after years of use, well let's just say they have a shorter life-span. They are also more variable in quality from sample to sample.


----------



## CanonFreak (Jul 14, 2010)

Formatted said:


> Nikon Optics are the best in the World. There is a reason that Nikon is the worlds largest microscope glass manufacture.
> 
> You can't take price into account, when talking about what is best!


 
I own a pair of LX compact Nikon binoculars, and I aggree they make amazing glass. I am actually planning on getting a pair of EDG full size ones, when I get the money.

I don't feel that they make better prime lenses than Canon though, which was the topic here.

When you get into the fast 300mm and longer primes, Canon has no equal. 

Why do you think that its always a sea of white lenses at major sporting events?

Canon also makes the finest 85mm and 35mm primes in my opinion(L series).


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 14, 2010)

CanonFreak said:


> Formatted said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon Optics are the best in the World. There is a reason that Nikon is the worlds largest microscope glass manufacture.
> ...



90mm Summicron APO-ASPH is fantastic. No equal from Canon or Nikon.


----------



## CanonFreak (Jul 14, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> CanonFreak said:
> 
> 
> > Formatted said:
> ...


 
I still don't see where this is going.

Are we discussing what lenses are best out of all available, or just Canon and Nikon?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2010)

Both companies make some good prime lenses. Lenses must be taken on a lens-by-lens basis, and blanket statements are hard to back up. "Generally" however, Canon's wide-angle prime lenses have been behind Nikon's wide-angle lens designs, with Canon having earned a reputation as offering poor corner performance in wide-angle lenses. Currently, Nikon 's 14-24mm zoom lens is perhaps the single best wide-angle lens, zoom or prime, at multiple focal lengths, easily out-performing Canon's 16-35 L-II and easily beating Canon's 24mm f/1.4-L lens from the center of the frame all the way to the corners. Yes, some modern zooms are better,optically, than prime lenses!

I own some Canon and a lot of Nikon lenses. A case where the two companies offer equal sharpness and contrast would be the 135mm f/2 models: the Nikon 135 D.C. is as sharp and contrasty as the Canon 135-L, but the Nikon has defocus control. Both have lovely bokeh. Nikon's 135mm f/2 Defocus Control is a better lens than Canon's 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus, but then again, the Nikon costs about 3x as much money as the Canon Soft Focus lens.

"Newer is better". Nikon's 24mm f/1.4 AF-S G is a better-corrected lens than Canon's aged 24mm f/1.4-L is. The Nikon is much newer, and better-computed.

"Better is better". Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 AF-D is a quite decent lens, even though the design dates to the 1980's. Canon's 50mm 1.8 EF-II is a piece of crap by comparison, lacking one lens element and having a 5-bladed diaphragm (both egregious cost-cutting measures) and it has to be one of the cheapest made lenses in the entire Canon lineup, what with its plastic lens mount and pop-riveted together barrel construction (seriously).

Nikon's long primes are without peer, in my opinion: better bokeh than other brands. The 200mm f/2 VR-G is the best bokeh lens in the world, IMHO. Casnon's reputation as having better loing primes than Nikon is from the 1990's...I think Nikon has recently just edged Canon out, since Nikon re-designed all its big glass--their 200,300/2.8,400 2.8,500/4,and 600mm f/4 models are all newer than Canon's now decade-old designs.

None of this really matters much though--the prime lenses are all excellent. It's no longer the 1960's or 1970's, so even the "worse" lens from Canon or Nikon is typically good enough for all but the most-demanding users.

Oh, which is the better pickup? Ford or Chevy? ANd then, which is better, Coke or Pepsi?


----------



## CanonFreak (Jul 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Both companies make some good prime lenses. Lenses must be taken on a lens-by-lens basis, and blanket statements are hard to back up. "Generally" however, Canon's wide-angle prime lenses have been behind Nikon's wide-angle lens designs, with Canon having earned a reputation as offering poor corner performance in wide-angle lenses. Currently, Nikon 's 14-24mm zoom lens is perhaps the single best wide-angle lens, zoom or prime, at multiple focal lengths, easily out-performing Canon's 16-35 L-II and easily beating Canon's 24mm f/1.4-L lens from the center of the frame all the way to the corners. Yes, some modern zooms are better,optically, than prime lenses!
> 
> I own some Canon and a lot of Nikon lenses. A case where the two companies offer equal sharpness and contrast would be the 135mm f/2 models: the Nikon 135 D.C. is as sharp and contrasty as the Canon 135-L, but the Nikon has defocus control. Both have lovely bokeh. Nikon's 135mm f/2 Defocus Control is a better lens than Canon's 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus, but then again, the Nikon costs about 3x as much money as the Canon Soft Focus lens.
> 
> ...


 
You do make some real good points here, I will give you that.

The 24mm Nikon is better than the Canon offering.

You keep refering to "newer" and "old designs". Remember that lens technology and development moves much slower than say DSLR sensor evolution. If you get it right to begin with with glass, theres not really a lot to improve on, at least until technology catches up. From my understanding in 10-20 years in lens evolution not all that much has changed really.

Canon still has quite a few of the best in class lenses, at least compared to Nikon. 

You didn't even mention the Canon 85mm 1.2L, which is without a doubt better than the Nikon 85mm 1.4D. 

Many people would also argue that the Canon 85mm 1.2 is the best bokeh lens of all the Canon and Nikon offerings, not the Nikon 200mm f2.

So the more I think about it, they are actually closer to equal then many of us probably want to admit.

It seems that it depends more on what exact lens type you are comparing, than an overall comparison.

That brings us to a whole system comparison.....another thread perhaps?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 14, 2010)

CanonFreak said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Both companies make some good prime lenses. Lenses must be taken on a lens-by-lens basis, and blanket statements are hard to back up. "Generally" however, Canon's wide-angle prime lenses have been behind Nikon's wide-angle lens designs, with Canon having earned a reputation as offering poor corner performance in wide-angle lenses. Currently, Nikon 's 14-24mm zoom lens is perhaps the single best wide-angle lens, zoom or prime, at multiple focal lengths, easily out-performing Canon's 16-35 L-II and easily beating Canon's 24mm f/1.4-L lens from the center of the frame all the way to the corners. Yes, some modern zooms are better,optically, than prime lenses!
> ...



Most photographers have only a primitive understanding of lens design and manufacture. One point is that auto-focus lenses can never be as good (all else being equal) as manual-focus designs, because there has to be a certain amount of 'play' in the mount to accommodate auto-focus.


----------



## CanonFreak (Jul 14, 2010)

[/quote] 
Most photographers have only a primitive understanding of lens design and manufacture. One point is that auto-focus lenses can never be as good (all else being equal) as manual-focus designs, because there has to be a certain amount of 'play' in the mount to accommodate auto-focus.[/QUOTE]

For most of us it is not realistic to buy the very best lenses.

A quick query on B&H of Leica Lenses for example shows the very cheapest one(of all mounts) at $1395.

It is easy to see why we are talking about Nikon vs Canon.

You say "never be as good" comparing auto-focus to manual focus lenses. What you must mean is "better image quality", because there is more to a lens than just image quality.

Canon and Nikon both clearly support and value auto-focus for their camera systems. And virtually all professionals and advanced amateurs shoot either Canon or Nikon DSLRs. 

Ask some of the top professional sports photographers if they would want to give up auto-focus. What do you think they would say?

I understand there are lenses at the absolute bleeding edge of image quality, and some day I may be lucky enough to own some of them.

Theres no need to say things like Most photographers have only a primitive understanding of lens design. You just come off as an elitist, and for all I know I might own better gear than you.


----------



## emh (Jul 14, 2010)

CanonFreak said:


> Why do you think that its always a sea of white lenses at major sporting events?



I don't know about that... I see more black & gold than white (these are from the Beijing Olympics):


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2010)

Lens design has improved over the last few years; 10 to 20 year-old designs, designed for use on film cameras, do not deliver the final light rays perpendicular to the sensor, which was *not* a problem with film, but which *is* a big problem with sensor wells, which tend to show very bad peripheral light fall-off (aka vignetting) when the light rays from the outer circle of the lens's image circle hit the sensor at an angle and not straight on. Olympus, for example, has designed an entire, brand-new set of lenses, all from the ground up, which are what most people refer to as "designed for digital" use, meaning that even in their wide-angle designs, the lenses deliver the light rays perpendicular to the sensor, ie "straight on."

Regarding the Canon 85mm f/1.2L versus the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-D: it's not clear that the Canon is the better optic: the Canon has absolutely horrible chromatic aberration at its wider aperturtes, and creates some weird, swirling bokeh. The Nikkor lens has smoother,creamier,rounder bokeh than the Canon 1.2-L, and the NIkon focuses much,much,much more rapidly, and can actually be used for action work, whereas the Canon is a dog in terms of focusing speed. As far as the Canon 85/1.2-L being a bokeh champion, the Nikkor 200mm f/2 absolutely blows it away. On things like specular highlights or highlights on sunlight coming through trees, the 1.2-L creates an awful bokeh signature, but the 200mm creates an impressive, round, smooth bokeh signature. This one is a no-contest, and that makes sense, because the 200/2 is a no-holds-barred lens design with a $5,000 price limit, whereas the 85mm is a real-world design, with a $1,700 price limit on the design. Many people might argue the Canon 85 1.2L is the best bokeh lens, but then, they don't own the Nikjon 200mm f/2 either...

The idea that old versus new is not applicable doesn't make sense: currently, Canon is in the process of re-designing its lens lineup so that their lenses will work well on newer, higher-density image sensors. Canon just finished redesigning its 24mm and 45mm Tilt/Shift lenses, improving their optics and adding lens elements, for better correction and higher resolution. Canon just re-designed its 100mm macro lens, to bring it up to L standards.

The idea that an autofocus lens can "never be as good as manual-focus designs" is a fallacy: the top-line internal focusing AF lens designs move very small, lightweight focusing element groups, much like the Nikon internal focusing lenses invented in the 1970's with the 400/3.5 ED-Internal Focus premiered at the 1976 Montreal Olympics. By using small,light, internal element groups to focus, there is very little "play" in the mechanism, and the accuracy of the autofocusing systems in top cameras ensure more accurate focusing than manual focusing cameras, so the "advantage" of a manually focused lens often evaporates because the human focusing it cannot actually get the danged thing into accurate enough focus to realize the theoretical ( or hypothetical) "advantage" manual focusing lenses allegedly have.

One of the clearest examples of why we need "new" lens designs can be seen in one, specific camera: the Canon T2i: its small, high-density sensor makes many Canon lenses look like crap.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 14, 2010)

Most photographers have only a primitive understanding of lens design and manufacture. One point is that auto-focus lenses can never be as good (all else being equal) as manual-focus designs, because there has to be a certain amount of 'play' in the mount to accommodate auto-focus.[/QUOTE]

For most of us it is not realistic to buy the very best lenses.

A quick query on B&H of Leica Lenses for example shows the very cheapest one(of all mounts) at $1395.

It is easy to see why we are talking about Nikon vs Canon.

You say "never be as good" comparing auto-focus to manual focus lenses. What you must mean is "better image quality", because there is more to a lens than just image quality.

Canon and Nikon both clearly support and value auto-focus for their camera systems. And virtually all professionals and advanced amateurs shoot either Canon or Nikon DSLRs. 

Ask some of the top professional sports photographers if they would want to give up auto-focus. What do you think they would say?

I understand there are lenses at the absolute bleeding edge of image quality, and some day I may be lucky enough to own some of them.

Theres no need to say things like Most photographers have only a primitive understanding of lens design. You just come off as an elitist, and for all I know I might own better gear than you.[/QUOTE]

Well it's true, and I include myself. It might be true that autofocus is a feature some people just won't give up, but as I said it does involve design compromises.

Erwin Puts is a very good source for information about optics.

Home


----------



## CanonFreak (Jul 14, 2010)

emh said:


> CanonFreak said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think that its always a sea of white lenses at major sporting events?
> ...


 
Well it would seem that things are changing.

I know you know what I am talking about though. Over the last 10 years I have seen lots of the shots with mostly white canon lenses.

Maybe this is a sign of more pros switching to Nikon. This will be food for thought.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 14, 2010)

Most photographers have only a primitive understanding of lens design and manufacture. One point is that auto-focus lenses can never be as good (all else being equal) as manual-focus designs, because there has to be a certain amount of 'play' in the mount to accommodate auto-focus.



> For most of us it is not realistic to buy the very best lenses.
> 
> A quick query on B&H of Leica Lenses for example shows the very cheapest one(of all mounts) at $1395.
> 
> ...


Well it's true, and I include myself. It might be true that autofocus is a feature some people just won't give up, but as I said it does involve design compromises. The same is true for vibration reduction technology.

Erwin Puts is a very good source for information about optics:

Home

I do remember back in the early 70s when I first got my used Leicaflex SL and a new 90mm Elmarit-R, my photos were noticeably better than what I had been getting from the yearbook Nikon gear I had been using. The lone exception was the Nikkor 105 f/2.5, which was a great lens. I soon acquired a 50mm Summilux-R, 21mm Super-Angulon-R, and a 250mm Telyt-R. All were noticeably better than the equivalent or near-equivalent Nikkors. 

By 'better' I mean more snap and contrast, less astigmatism, etc.

Well as far as gear is concerned, I am happy with my Leicaflex SL2 and six lenses (28, 50, 90, 180, 350, 560). Some of the lenses have been replaced with newer designs but of course the newer designs did not exist in the 70s; there is always going to be progress; you have to use the best that's available at the time. When Leica lenses are released and for a considerable time thereafter, they are generally state of the art. Usually only they can improve upon them. I recently acquired the second version of the 180 2.8 (1981 design), and it is noticeably better than the old first version (1968 design) that I had for 20 years, and smaller and lighter. There is a third, APO version, which is of course better yet, but I am happy at this point.


----------



## CanonFreak (Jul 14, 2010)

I will be honest that I know very little about high end manual focus lenses, like the ones from Leica.

I think this would be a good homework assignment for me, to do research on them.

Maybe I should just save for a long time and make one of them my next lens. Theres no better way to understand something than to use and study it.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2010)

CanonFreak said:


> I will be honest that I know very little about high end manual focus lenses, like the ones from Leica.
> 
> I think this would be a good homework assignment for me, to do research on them.
> 
> Maybe I should just save for a long time and make one of them my next lens. Theres no better way to understand something than to use and study it.




The only problem with Leica's high-end manual focusing lenses is that they are made only for Leica M-mount cameras: Leica discontinued its manual focus R-mount 35mm film camera and all lenses recently, and their S2 digital medium format camera and all of its lenses are, GASP!--autofocusing!!!!!!!!

Zeiss is now selling high-end manual focusing lenses in Nikon F, Canon EF, and Pentax K-mount, at around $1100 per lens.


----------



## CanonFreak (Jul 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Lens design has improved over the last few years; 10 to 20 year-old designs, designed for use on film cameras, do not deliver the final light rays perpendicular to the sensor, which was *not* a problem with film, but which *is* a big problem with sensor wells, which tend to show very bad peripheral light fall-off (aka vignetting) when the light rays from the outer circle of the lens's image circle hit the sensor at an angle and not straight on. Olympus, for example, has designed an entire, brand-new set of lenses, all from the ground up, which are what most people refer to as "designed for digital" use, meaning that even in their wide-angle designs, the lenses deliver the light rays perpendicular to the sensor, ie "straight on."
> 
> Regarding the Canon 85mm f/1.2L versus the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-D: it's not clear that the Canon is the better optic: the Canon has absolutely horrible chromatic aberration at its wider aperturtes, and creates some weird, swirling bokeh. The Nikkor lens has smoother,creamier,rounder bokeh than the Canon 1.2-L, and the NIkon focuses much,much,much more rapidly, and can actually be used for action work, whereas the Canon is a dog in terms of focusing speed. As far as the Canon 85/1.2-L being a bokeh champion, the Nikkor 200mm f/2 absolutely blows it away. On things like specular highlights or highlights on sunlight coming through trees, the 1.2-L creates an awful bokeh signature, but the 200mm creates an impressive, round, smooth bokeh signature. This one is a no-contest, and that makes sense, because the 200/2 is a no-holds-barred lens design with a $5,000 price limit, whereas the 85mm is a real-world design, with a $1,700 price limit on the design. Many people might argue the Canon 85 1.2L is the best bokeh lens, but then, they don't own the Nikjon 200mm f/2 either...
> 
> ...


 
I didn't compare the 200 f2 Nikon to the Canon 85mm 1.2 directly, they arent even to close to the same class.

To say "the 1.2-L creates an awful bokeh signature" is simply ridiculous sir. Anyone here that knows about photography will tell you that the 85mm 1.2 is one of the most coveted and best portrait lenses in the world. Not just Canon vs Nikon, but the world. If you don't believe me, do the research for yourself.

Obviously a 1.2 lens is capable of a shallower DOF than a f2 lens, so its not really an equal comparison at all.

You are comparing a $4800 lens to a $2000 one(of a much different focal length) by the way.

Its almost like you are resorting to name calling to back up your argument.
 
I will admit that the 200mm f2 Nikon is a beautiful lens and it costs a fortune, but to say the Canon 85mm 1.2 is awful is just crazy.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> CanonFreak said:
> 
> 
> > I will be honest that I know very little about high end manual focus lenses, like the ones from Leica.
> ...



From tests I have seen those 'Zeiss' lenses (actually Cosina-made under license) are actually inferior to the Nikkors.

Nikon 50mm Lens Comparison

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/lca.htm

The Leica S2 uses a different autofocus approach that seems to overcome any weaknesses that affect others. The lenses are beyond belief!

There is a ton of Leica R gear around (the system was made for 45 years, after all) so there's no reason to avoid it any more than to avoid Canon, Nikon, or Pentax manual-focus equipment. There may be some further developments in the future, such as a digital camera body, according to Leica (I have an e-mail from them).


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2010)

No, there's no name-calling going on. The bokeh signature of the 85/1.2-L in the situations I described looks "awful" to me. As I described it, in situations where there is light coming through trees or foliage, the 85/1.2-L produces a swirling, chromatic aberration-tinged bokeh "signature" that I recognize, and which, to me, looks "awful". At wide apertures, the 85-L produces absolutely horrible longitudinal chromatic aberration, with green and purple fringing that is very clearly obvious, and it looks bad--AND to make matters worse, longitiudinal CA is not correctable in software, but lateral chromatic aberration is correctable in software. So, to "me", the bokeh signature of the lens is horrible in the situations I described.

As far as an f/1.2 lens being able to produce shallower depth of field than an f/2 lens of longer focal length, that is simply incorrect. Also, there is depth of field AND there is something called background blur; a longer lens has a wider (physically wider, or larger-diameter) aperture than a shorter lens has, when both lenses are used at the identical f/stop. Due to background blur, a longer focal length lens will create more background blurring than a shorter lens will create, even if the foreground objects are of identical size, and so a longer lens produces a more blurred backdrop. The longer lens will have shallower depthy of field AND greater background blur than the shorter lens. That's physics (optics) in action.

Bokeh is not just about a blurred background, although many novice or casual or new shooters seem to think that it is. I'm kind of a bokeh snob,you might say. To me, the 1.2-L's bokeh looks bad in the specific situations I described...it has strong defocus, but has problems with specular highlight shape and longitudinal CA. I have very little interest in discussing this topic additionally with somebody who wants Canon to "win" and who cannot see the obvious drawing style issues the 1.2-L has in social/portraiture situations.


----------



## CanonFreak (Jul 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> No, there's no name-calling going on. The bokeh signature of the 85/1.2-L in the situations I described looks "awful" to me. As I described it, in situations where there is light coming through trees or foliage, the 85/1.2-L produces a swirling, chromatic aberration-tinged bokeh "signature" that I recognize, and which, to me, looks "awful". At wide apertures, the 85-L produces absolutely horrible longitudinal chromatic aberration, with green and purple fringing that is very clearly obvious, and it looks bad--AND to make matters worse, longitiudinal CA is not correctable in software, but lateral chromatic aberration is correctable in software. So, to "me", the bokeh signature of the lens is horrible in the situations I described.
> 
> As far as an f/1.2 lens being able to produce shallower depth of field than an f/2 lens of longer focal length, that is simply incorrect. Also, there is depth of field AND there is something called background blur; a longer lens has a wider (physically wider, or larger-diameter) aperture than a shorter lens has, when both lenses are used at the identical f/stop. Due to background blur, a longer focal length lens will create more background blurring than a shorter lens will create, even if the foreground objects are of identical size, and so a longer lens produces a more blurred backdrop. The longer lens will have shallower depthy of field AND greater background blur than the shorter lens. That's physics (optics) in action.
> 
> Bokeh is not just about a blurred background, although many novice or casual or new shooters seem to think that it is. I'm kind of a bokeh snob,you might say. To me, the 1.2-L's bokeh looks bad in the specific situations I described...it has strong defocus, but has problems with specular highlight shape and longitudinal CA. I have very little interest in discussing this topic additionally with somebody who wants Canon to "win" and who cannot see the obvious drawing style issues the 1.2-L has in social/portraiture situations.


 
Well you must stand alone thinking the 85mm 1.2 has "awful bokeh" then, as I have never heard that statment before. Everyone else must be wrong.

I said DOF, I didn't say background blur. And no a f2 lens can't produce the same exact types of shots as a 1.2 no matter what the focal length.

Clearly you either don't like Canon, or want to justify your investment in Nikon gear.

What I do know is that to act like Nikon lenses are better than Canon in every way is rediculous.

I understand that you have the right to your opinion, and mine is that Canon overall is a better system, lenses included. This isn't just because I am invested in them either.

Where is the "awful bokeh" in these pictures? I am not seeing it.

Tulip Garden Picture
Wet Mum Picture

I don't know how to attach pics yet, going to have to figure that out....

I will just agree to disagree with you I guess, as we arent really getting anywhere here.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 14, 2010)

CanonFreak said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > No, there's no name-calling going on. The bokeh signature of the 85/1.2-L in the situations I described looks "awful" to me. As I described it, in situations where there is light coming through trees or foliage, the 85/1.2-L produces a swirling, chromatic aberration-tinged bokeh "signature" that I recognize, and which, to me, looks "awful". At wide apertures, the 85-L produces absolutely horrible longitudinal chromatic aberration, with green and purple fringing that is very clearly obvious, and it looks bad--AND to make matters worse, longitiudinal CA is not correctable in software, but lateral chromatic aberration is correctable in software. So, to "me", the bokeh signature of the lens is horrible in the situations I described.
> ...



I don't think either of you even understands what bokeh is...


----------



## CanonFreak (Jul 14, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> CanonFreak said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


 
We are talking about 2 of the best bokeh lenses that you can own, and the slight differenceces between them. 

I think we understand it.


----------



## Infidel (Jul 14, 2010)

CanonFreak said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > No, there's no name-calling going on. The bokeh signature of the 85/1.2-L in the situations I described looks "awful" to me. As I described it, in situations where there is light coming through trees or foliage, the 85/1.2-L produces a swirling, chromatic aberration-tinged bokeh "signature" that I recognize, and which, to me, looks "awful". At wide apertures, the 85-L produces absolutely horrible longitudinal chromatic aberration, with green and purple fringing that is very clearly obvious, and it looks bad--AND to make matters worse, longitiudinal CA is not correctable in software, but lateral chromatic aberration is correctable in software. So, to "me", the bokeh signature of the lens is horrible in the situations I described.
> ...




Derrel was very specific about the circumstances that lead to (in his opinion) "awful" bokeh. You took his original statement out of context, and posted an irrelevant counter example. The pictures you linked to don't possess the traits that Derrel referred to; i.e., light coming through foliage or specular highlights, so it's irrelevant to Derrel's criticism. Personally, if I had to choose, I would take the 85mm 1.2 over the 200mm f2, because I have more use for a shorter focal length.

Not trying to take sides here, as you both have made some great points in this thread, but wanted to set that straight.


----------



## CanonFreak (Jul 14, 2010)

Infidel said:


> CanonFreak said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


 
I am new here guys, today is my first day.

Someone tell me how to attach photos. Do I need a photosharing site account or something?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 14, 2010)

CanonFreak said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFreak said:
> ...



From your posts it doesn't seem so. It has to do with the 'pleasingness of out-of-focus areas'. It has nothing to do with aberrations per se.


----------



## CanonFreak (Jul 14, 2010)

Infidel said:


> CanonFreak said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


 
I will have a 85mm 1.2L II soon. Ill show you guys some shots from it.


----------



## emh (Jul 14, 2010)

CanonFreak said:


> Well it would seem that things are changing.
> 
> I know you know what I am talking about though. Over the last 10 years I have seen lots of the shots with mostly white canon lenses.
> 
> Maybe this is a sign of more pros switching to Nikon. This will be food for thought.



Yes, I do know that until a couple of years ago Canon was more prevalent among sports photographers. And Nikon before that. The most recent evidence seem to suggest that Nikon is the preferred option now. And presumably that may change in another 10 years or so but what I pointed out was the current state since your statement implied otherwise.



CanonFreak said:


> Well you must stand alone thinking the 85mm 1.2 has "awful bokeh" then, as I have never heard that statment before. Everyone else must be wrong.



I'm just a casual photographer and can't justify the price of high-end primes. But this exchange got me interested about the two lenses mentioned (Canon 85 f/1.2 and Nikon 200 F/2) -- enough to go read the photozone reviews on them. 

Lots of praise for both lenses (and some minor nits on both). However, while "awful bokeh" may be a bit too strong, the Photozone reviews do seem to agree with Derrel on longitudinal CA. On the Canon 85mm: 


> Bokeh fringing at large aperture is a problem which is often not well corrected even by the very best lenses and the EF 85mm f/1.2 L II is no exception to the rule. If you have a look at the provided sample crops below *you should be able to spot a purple halo in front of the focus zone and a green one beyond. The effect is clearly visible from f/1.2 till f/2.8.*



On the Nikon 200mm:


> LoCAs (non-coinciding focal planes of the various colors) are a common issue with relatively fast glass and usually lead to halos on contrasty subjects with different colors - magenta (red + blue) in front the focus point and green beyond. Truly "apochromatic" lenses don't show LoCAs but these lenses are very rare. Unlike lateral CAs, LoCAs cannot easily be fixed in post processing.
> Well, as you can see below, *this is one of the rare lenses. There is a very tiny amount of LoCAs detectable wide open, but in the field this is certainly not an issue.*


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 14, 2010)

I've never actually used the 85L wide open before, and i've never even touched the Nikon 85 1.4. The only thing i remember from using the 85L when I did, is that (for Canon) the AF was slower than i thought it'd be. I think it's because of the silly focus-by-wire system they've used on it for some reason. 

I think overall Canon midrange prime lenses are better than the Nikons, but that's because Canon actually showed interest in updating them. 

The Canon 14mm f/2.8L is without a doubt far better than the Nikon 14mm. The Nikon is a total dog no matter how you play it.

The Nikon 24mm f/1.4 seems to be better than the Canon 24 f/1.4L II. 

The Canon 35mm f/1.4L is better than the Nikon version because there is no current Nikon version. Just a Manual focus lens made some 40 years ago. the Nikon 35mm f/2 is only OK on FF digital, but since it's a stop slower, it doesn't count. 

I'd say the Nikon and Canon 50mm f/1.4's are about equal. The Nikon's sharper, but the Canon's better corrected. The Nikon 50 1.8 is a far superior lens over the Canon 50 1.8 by any measure. At least the nikon has focus scales. The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is an OK lens. i've never really heard any glowing comments on it, just people having problems with AF. The Nikon NOCT 58mm f/1.2 is pretty spectacular, but again we go back in time because it's a 40 year old MF lens. 

I've got so little experience on the really fast 85's, but the Canon 85 1.8 is a smoother design, but the Nikon is sharper. Bokeh is about equal, neither of them stellar for 85's. As far as the 85 1.4 vs 85 1.2.. haven't a clue. 

Canon's got a nice 100mm f/2 that gets no credit.  

I like the look of the 135 f/2L over the Nikon 135 DC, but both are pretty awesome. 

Haven't a clue on the 200mm canon and 180mm nikon. i'm sure they're both pretty good. 

The Macro's i'd say are equal, i've never seen a really BAD macro lens from anyone. 

Not sure about the normal T/S lenses, but I was never really convinced with the Nikon 24mm f/3.5 PC. The Canon 90mm T/S is pretty slick for product photography. 

I dunno, both have made good and bad lenses. I almost switched to Canon a few years ago because I wanted to shoot with a 24mm f/1.4, but since the D700 is an overall better camera than the 5DII, i stuck with Nikon and waited. If I shot Canon, i'd shoot with the 14mm, 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, and 85 1.2. All of which are stellar lenses. Out of those, Nikon only has a 50 and 24 that are capable in that list. the 14 sucks, the only AF 35 is f/2, and the 85 is f/1.4, so it doesn't count.


----------



## NateS (Jul 14, 2010)

CanonFreak said:


> I said DOF, I didn't say background blur. And no a f2 lens can't produce the same exact types of shots as a 1.2 no matter what the focal length.




Please, do tell an instance where a 85mm f1.2 lens can do something that a 200 f/2 can not in regards to DOF.  (since DOF is what you are arguing above.

So, let's compare the DOF at the minimum focus distance which will show the absolute smallest DOF that each lens can have.....

85mm f1.2 @ f1.2 and 3.2 ft = 0.02 feet DOF
200mm f/2 @ f/2 and 6.2 ft = 0.02 feet DOF

....so both are capable of producing DOF within the same range of each other....please explain how an 85mm f1.2 can do something DOF wise that a 200 f/2 can not.


----------



## sovietdoc (Jul 14, 2010)

I don't know about now but Zeiss lens used to be the best.

If price is not a factor then nikon is the absolute best now.  But going through their lens really quickly, each one cost over 2 grand while canon sells theirs cheaper, so price for performance wise, Nikon ain't worth it.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2010)

We really ought to talk about which is better--the metric system or the English system: is a half-inch open end wrench really as good as a 12mm open end wrench? Both will loosen and tighten pretty much the same exact size of nuts and bolts...but one is Metric, the other uses the old English system of sizing...

Or maybe we ought to discuss which is better with whisky? Coke or Pepsi??? And, depending on where one is from whisky is spelled either WITH or WITHOUT an 'e' before the y at the end. (whisky versus whiskey--quite a debate there).

Prime lenses are so many and so varied, but Canon versus Nikon's primes is a lot like the Ford versus Chevy debate. Both companies have some average lenses, and both have some fantastic lenses, and some in the middle.

I like Canon's 85/1.8 EF--super value, light weight, good build, very fair price, good optics, a superb value for the Canon system. I let my Nikon 85/1.8 go (gave it to a friend some years back) since their 1.4 model is so much better, and he needed a Nikon f/1.8 short tele for low-light newspaper work. Sw1tchFX's point about Canon's 100mm f/2 getting no credit is a good one--it's a nice-shooting lens. A guy I know has one, and I've seen loads of good work from that Canon prime.

For those that want to hear about a Canon "win",and who love to hear about how Canon's lenses are superior to those made by every other company, a good case would be the Canon 200/2.8 versus the Nikon 180/2.8 AF or AF-D: the Nikon is old-style, mid-1980's in mechanical and optical design, and has a VERY slow, slow AF system. It's difficult to leverage in situations where fast AF is needed...it's just a clunky focusing lens that was designed in the early  days of autofocusing...it's light and compact, but the Canon 200/2.8 is a slicker, newer, better-handling design, with a prettier image "look".

Canon's 300mm f/4 is another lens category where Canon pulls slightly ahead: Canon has an IS 300/4 and a non-IS 300/4. Their non-IS variant is felt to be the superior lens, optically, but the stabilized lens has IS, which can be pretty handy when panning, or in the wind, or when you're a bit out of breath, or are shooting from a boat or other moving platform.

Many older Nikon designs (not the newest of the new) have aperture ring controls on each lens, allowing them to be adapter mounted onto Canon bodies, with the aperture control done the old-fashioned way, on each lens. This makes Nikon primes much more useful on micro 4/3 bodies, or when adapted for use on EOS bodies than lenses which have no aperture control rings.

One of the newest areas where lenses with aperture control rings on EACH LENS is a big deal is when shooting video with a d-slr...serious shooters want to be able to set the f/stop in use, and so Nikon and Zeiss manual focus and Nikon AF lenses are being used by quite a few videographers. An "old area" would be macro and reversed lens shooting, where Canon's lack of an aperture ring on all of the Canon EF lenses means that reversing a lens and getting aperture control is a major biatch to deal with, requiring a hokey work-around or a $400 Novoflex adapter instead of a $39 BR2A reversing ring that just works...

I was glad to see a poster or two who actually read the specific situations I was referring to vis a vis the 85/1.2-L's bokeh signature...and who didn't take a specific context and turn it into a blanket condemnation.


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Jul 14, 2010)

emh said:


> CanonFreak said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think that its always a sea of white lenses at major sporting events?
> ...



In Vancouver, it was about 80-90% Canon at the events where I noticed.  Watching the speed skating, I was amused to see between 20 and 30 big white super-telephoto lenses pivoting in unison on their monopods as the skaters passed by on each lap.


----------



## KennyW (Jul 15, 2010)

CanonFreak said:


> Well it would seem that things are changing.
> 
> I know you know what I am talking about though. Over the last 10 years I have seen lots of the shots with mostly white canon lenses.
> 
> Maybe this is a sign of more pros switching to Nikon. This will be food for thought.


 
I heard that in the past reports got special discount in buying Canon gears, that's why Canon tele-lenses dominated the market. Now it seems to me that the pro may feel that the Nikon D3/D3s + Nikkor tele-lenses are somehow 'sharper' than the Canon counterpart. Both 'sharpness' and ISO performance are important for the reporters, I think. And Nikon wins in these aspects with D3s plus, say, Nikkor 400/f2.8 VR II.


----------

