# Canon Glass vs. Nikon Glass



## IDLaxStar (Oct 5, 2010)

So I have heard from multiple people that Canon glass is generally cheaper then Nikon glass but the same quality. Is there any truth here?


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 5, 2010)

OH NOES...


----------



## o hey tyler (Oct 5, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> OH NOES...



Seconded.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 5, 2010)

Someone pass the popcorn?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 5, 2010)

Uh...oh....but, to add something here...has anybody noticed that Canon, and Sigma have recently started pricing significantly higher than they used to??? I mean, look at what Sigma has done with its 70-200 f/2.8 lenses...they used to be at $799 retail...now they have jacked that price up to some ridiculous list price, like $2199 or something, and are getting like $1600 for it at actual retail!!! Meanwhile, Tamron's 70-200 f/2.8 lens is in the $800 price range, more or less...it seems like Canon and Sigma are raising the stakes on us...

Conversely, there is also now a move underway to make really quite low-cost kit zooms, like 55-200 and 18-55 lenses and 70-300 lenses that cost less than such lenses used to cost, even a few years ago. The quality of the lower-priced lenses is better now than it was in the 1970's, in my opinion. it used to be almost impossible to make a good 4x ratio zoom....but now all the makers can crank out pretty doggone good lenses for relatively low amounts of money--if they want to play in a particular segment.

The 18-105mm kit zoom for example--surprisingly sharp and good, for such a wide-ranging ratio of focal lengths, from wide-view to telephoto....light,and affordable(ish).


----------



## Taylor510ce (Oct 5, 2010)

Derrel has dreams at night about these threads....lol.


----------



## Overread (Oct 5, 2010)

IDLaxStar said:


> So I have heard from multiple people that Canon glass is generally cheaper then Nikon glass but the same quality. Is there any truth here?



I now present to you the only thing Canon can do that Nikon can't (at least straight out of the box with lenses - there are of course ways to get similar and better quality shots with various alternate setups - like microscope elements, reverse mounting and diopters)







Otherwise when it comes to comparing the systems it is a case of splitting hairs on quality and on mix/matching specific lenses to ones needs. 

And yes Canon and Sigma have been boosting prices a lot recently. Partly this is through the financial downturn, but I also think that in the case of sigma they are now making a serious push into the pro market or at least the semi-pro market with their gear/


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 5, 2010)

Overread said:


> I now present to you the only thing Canon can do that Nikon can't (at least straight out of the box with lenses - there are of course ways to get similar and better quality shots with various alternate setups - like microscope elements, reverse mounting and diopters)


 
Well theres at least one more thing...

That is shooting with the 85 1.2 wide open, and having like 99% of the shot out of focus lol. 

Please explain more about what that photo is, and what lens it was. Great pic by the way, very unique. :thumbup:

I dont really know what you are talking about here though lol...


----------



## tirediron (Oct 5, 2010)

Overread said:


> I now present to you the only thing Canon can do that Nikon can't (at least straight out of the box with lenses - there are of course ways to get similar and better quality shots with various alternate setups - like microscope elements, reverse mounting and diopters)
> ...


 :raisedbrow:  You can't shoot albino termites with Nikon glass?  What am I missing?


----------



## KmH (Oct 5, 2010)

A 1:5 macro ratio?


----------



## Overread (Oct 5, 2010)

tirediron said:


> :raisedbrow:  You can't shoot albino termites with Nikon glass?  What am I missing?





Neil S. said:


> Please explain more about what that photo is, and what lens it was. Great pic by the way, very unique. :thumbup:





KmH said:


> A 1:5 macro ratio?


5:1  

It's a springtail - for an idea its something like 2mm long at the most - taken with the Canon MPE65mm macro. I'm quite serious as well its the only truly unique lens in the canon/nikon lineup. Each company has their own unique lenses, eg canons 100-400mm and nikons 200-400mm but each company  can cover the same subjects/situations as the other. Clearly dedicated enthusiasts with clear and select interests might favour one company over the other because of specific lenses.
However the MPE is the only 1:1 to 5:1 macro "zoom" lens on the market - though as I said there are other ways to get to 5:1 and some of them are actually better (image quality wise) than the MPE


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 5, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Uh...oh....but, to add something here...has anybody noticed that Canon, and Sigma have recently started pricing significantly higher than they used to??? I mean, look at what Sigma has done with its 70-200 f/2.8 lenses...they used to be at $799 retail...now they have jacked that price up to some ridiculous list price, like $2199 or something, and are getting like $1600 for it at actual retail!!! Meanwhile, Tamron's 70-200 f/2.8 lens is in the $800 price range, more or less...it seems like Canon and Sigma are raising the stakes on us...
> 
> Conversely, there is also now a move underway to make really quite low-cost kit zooms, like 55-200 and 18-55 lenses and 70-300 lenses that cost less than such lenses used to cost, even a few years ago. The quality of the lower-priced lenses is better now than it was in the 1970's, in my opinion. it used to be almost impossible to make a good 4x ratio zoom....but now all the makers can crank out pretty doggone good lenses for relatively low amounts of money--if they want to play in a particular segment.
> 
> The 18-105mm kit zoom for example--surprisingly sharp and good, for such a wide-ranging ratio of focal lengths, from wide-view to telephoto....light,and affordable(ish).


Yes, its pissing me off -.-
canon's 70-200mm F/2.8 IS used to be $1600 now its $1900?
I bought my canon 50mm F/1.4 for $300, its now $350
They both increased by a fixed % (or near fixed lol)


----------



## Derrel (Oct 5, 2010)

I think it's safe to say that the Japanese lens makers have a real "Yen" for American dollars. And European Euros. And British Pounds Sterling.


----------



## Overread (Oct 5, 2010)

Yah everything from canon, sigma and nikon took around a 20%+ (or now I think on it was it 40 - some big number) price hike about half a year after the recession kicked in. In the case of canon and nikon this was a few 10% price increases (excluding canons new pricing on new M2 released lenses) whilst sigma did it in one big price jump.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 5, 2010)

Overread said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > :raisedbrow:  You can't shoot albino termites with Nikon glass?  What am I missing?
> ...



Does Nikon have an 800mm don't think they do not new anyway


----------



## Taylor510ce (Oct 5, 2010)

Nikons can't do as good of a job getting you mugged either, with the bright white L zooms that scream "ripe for the taking.":lmao:


----------



## Overread (Oct 5, 2010)

Taylor510ce said:


> Nikons can't do as good of a job getting you mugged either, with the bright white L zooms that scream "ripe for the taking.":lmao:



That's why we have Lens Coats

or for those of us on budget - a wellie sock will do





:lmao:


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 5, 2010)

Taylor510ce said:


> Nikons can't do as good of a job getting you mugged either, with the bright white L zooms that scream "ripe for the taking.":lmao:


 
While this is a bit amusing, a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 screams steal me at least 99% as much.

Nikon pro level lenses got the bling man...







Look at it lol. Gold lettering and a gold ring.

If you are trying to say that thieves know lenses with a red ring are better quality though...


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 5, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Taylor510ce said:
> 
> 
> > Nikons can't do as good of a job getting you mugged either, with the bright white L zooms that scream "ripe for the taking.":lmao:
> ...


Ya, Canon got a red ring, wtf is red? Only USM lenses from canon got some gold...

Nikon got GOLD ALL OVER THEIR their lenses, damn them and their 24k gold rings. Maybe thats why they are so expensive!


----------



## icassell (Oct 5, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Uh...oh....but, to add something here...has anybody noticed that Canon, and Sigma have recently started pricing significantly higher than they used to??? I mean, look at what Sigma has done with its 70-200 f/2.8 lenses...they used to be at $799 retail...now they have jacked that price up to some ridiculous list price, like $2199 or something, and are getting like $1600 for it at actual retail!!! Meanwhile, Tamron's 70-200 f/2.8 lens is in the $800 price range, more or less...it seems like Canon and Sigma are raising the stakes on us...
> 
> ).



Could this be because Sigma is trying to enter the dSLR market (see their newest cameras  Sigma SD15 Digital SLR Camera | sigmaphoto.com  ) and they want to compete on the same field?  Are they going to stop making lenses compatible with the other vendors?


----------



## Overread (Oct 5, 2010)

I highly doubt it - have you ever met anyone who owns and shoots Sigma only? Or even just sigma alone? 

I think at the moment they know that they are in the market for lenses mostly - bodies they've a long way to go marketing wise to really take a slice of that market. I think the change is that for a long time sigma was the "poormans" choice (even though they have fantastic pro end lenses - their 10-20mm, teleconverters, 50mm f1.4 and marco lenses being examples of those just as good/better than canon/nikon own) and now they are more seriously also pushing into the semi and pro markets as well.


----------



## DerekSalem (Oct 5, 2010)

Overread said:


> I highly doubt it - have you ever met anyone who owns and shoots Sigma only? Or even just sigma alone?
> 
> I think at the moment they know that they are in the market for lenses mostly - bodies they've a long way to go marketing wise to really take a slice of that market. I think the change is that for a long time sigma was the "poormans" choice (even though they have fantastic pro end lenses - their 10-20mm, teleconverters, 50mm f1.4 and marco lenses being examples of those just as good/better than canon/nikon own) and now they are more seriously also pushing into the semi and pro markets as well.



Aye that's what I'd go with. I've owned Sigmas (and their half-brothers Tamron) and I've been completely impressed with them. Nothing wrong with a Sigma lens at all.

But now it's in a different category. The new Sigma lenses are supposedly on the same level as some L lenses in terms of IQ and lens perfection. I haven't shot one of the newer zooms yet but I really want to...I've heard they're *VERY* good.

As far as the whole "which top lenses are easier to see and steal"...depends where you live. Here in Cleveland where there's a chance of snow 5+ months out of the year the white L zooms actually blend in much better than you'd think =P

Oh and now there are plenty of Sigmas and Tamrons that are incorporating a red ring around the barrel. It's great for me because that way maybe a thief will get confused and steal one of those things instead of the equipment poking out of my $7 million home.


----------

