Canon Flash vs Nikon Flash issue!

<p>Before I decided to post this I've read a series of post about the "battle" of flashes ( Canon vs Nikon) and couldn't find the answer to my dilema so I decided to ask for your help.<br>

I shot a wedding recently together with a guy who was shooting Nikon and he told me that he switched from Canon to Nikon because he shoots with flash a lot and the Nikon flash system is so much better. Being a Canon shooter I took that to heart and I argued that it's not true, Canon is just as good. So he challenged me to a test.<br>

We were shooting inside a ball room, so we set the cameras to the same settings ( ISO, shutter speed and aperture, I don't remember the exact settings) and we did some tests. We shot in manual mode, aperture priority and program mode.<br>

To my surprise and disapointment hes images were better than mine. The images had people dancing in the foregraund and other people at the tables in the back ground, my images were only well lit in the foregraound but the background was dark. His images( remember we were shooting at the same settings) wre lit form foreground to background. For me to get the same result I had to bring down the shutter speed at like 1/30 of a second while his were at around 1/100 of a second. Even today I have to bump up the ISO and bring down the shutter speed to gather light in the back of the picture.<br>

I still believe to this day that the reason for this is because I don't know how to use the flash settings right despite the fact that I read the manual ( and books and on line articles) inside out.<br>

What was I doing ( still doing) wrong, why he's images at the same settings were so much better?<br>

How can I improve on this, and were I can go ( on line or books) to learn how to use the damn flash better?<br>

It's hard for me to believe that Canon doesn't make a flash system that is just as good as Nikon's.<br>

Thank you for your time, you can rip me a new one if you think I deserve it.<br>

Thank you.<br>

Ciprian.</p>

 

<p>What was the equipment used? And can you post example photos? My guess is one of the following:</p>

<p>* You missed a setting which was enabling his camera to better expose for ambient light. Either his ISO was higher or his aperture was wider.</p>

<p>* His camera was set to optimize the highlights / shadows using the D-Lighting setting. Something you could have done in post processing or, with a newer Canon, using whatever they call their equivalent setting.</p>

<p>I don't think it would have been a flash power issue because that would have likely overexposed the foreground on his shots. And I doubt you missed something as obvious as him bouncing his flash while you were shooting straight on. It has to be one of the other two.</p>

<p>"Nikon has better flashes" is one of those urban legends I've heard many times but cannot substantiate. (I've used both.) The only problem with Canon's flash system IMHO is that Canon cameras bias the meter too strongly to the selected AF point. Since I have shutter AF activation turned off, I don't have to deal with that problem. (If you activate AF, then press the shutter as separate steps, the camera doesn't give any bias to the AF point that was used. Much more consistent flash exposure, at least with my older equipment.) But this is an issue when it comes to consistent flash exposure, not ambient light exposure. You're describing the latter problem.</p>

<p>For the record I pretty much always shoot Manual when using the flash. I set my shutter speed as necessary to freeze subject motion and control ambient light exposure with ISO and aperture.</p>

<p>If there's a Nikon advantage here it's in producing better out-of-camera JPEGs with D-Lighting when it comes to scenes with areas in deep shadow, which does seem to work. I can't say how Canon's new feature compares, and I never really cared because I post process my images any way and can do an even better job in PS.</p>

<p>I should note that sometimes you also have to lower shutter speed to capture more ambient light, given the lighting conditions, and it can be a balancing act between freezing subject motion and getting the background.</p>

<p>Daniel,<br /> I use a Canon 5D MII with a 35 mm 1.4 lens, canon 580 EX II, he had a Nikon ( ? model, I know it was not a full frame) and whatever top of the line SB flsh from Nikon. I did not miss any settings, we sat side by side and set the cameras and the flash to the same settings. We both bounced and use direct flash. His images were BETTER lit from foreground to background AND the people in the foreground were not overexposed. I had to lower the shutter speed ( as you suggested ) to get the same amount of ambient light in. So as I explained above I had to open the lens up, bump the ISO and lower the shutter speed to get the same kind of exposure ( i.e. shutter and aperture were higher than mine, a. e. I was: ISO 1250 , he was ISO 400, I was shutter 2.8 he was 5.6, I was 1/30 he was 1/100.<br /> This issue it's been bugging me ever since and I don't seem to find an explanation, maybe, as you suggested , is the D-Lightning thing that Nikon has!<br /> Now since you mentioned the AF bias with Canon ( my AF is always on the center point, the outside AF points are useless for direct focusing - they miss the exposure EVERY time. I know they are only suppose to help) maybe he had all the camera AF points active, however I still believe that with all AF points selected my Canon would have still gotten worse exposures than the Nikon.<br /> There must be an explanation! this is so annoying, I'm almost afraid to use flsah anymore ( I don't like on camera flash anyway !)<br /> Thanks,<br /> Ciprian.</p>

<p>I'm having a hard time understanding the differences from your explanations. This could be answered very quickly with a couple shots from the test.</p>

<p>If the foreground was equally exposed (roughly speaking), but the background had more ambient light exposure in the Nikon shots, then either a) the settings were not truly identical, or b) in camera processing lifted the shadows in the Nikon shot. The solutions are either a) match the settings, or b) try turning on HTP and Auto Lighting Optimizer. Another option in the case of b is to simply not worry about it and adjust levels to taste in post processing. There isn't really another option. Nikon flashes can't defy the physics of light fall off and give the background more output while holding the foreground the same as yours. I thought it was this situation from your initial post.</p>

<p>If the foreground and background were brighter because they received more flash output in the Nikon shots, then you need to determine why your flash output was less than ideal. Your second post makes it sound like this was the problem. Was the AF point over a lightly colored foreground object? (I don't know how much AF bias there is in newer Canon cameras, I recall a friend telling me this was evened out a bit in later models. I would still test this.) Were you in the wrong metering mode? Did you have a flash attachment eating light output and not realize that your flash was struggling at its max output? Was flash exposure compensation set inadvertently on either the camera body or the flash? Was some other manual setting on the flash involved, messing up the situation?</p>

<p><em>So as I explained above I had to open the lens up, bump the ISO and lower the shutter speed to get the same kind of exposure ( i.e. shutter and aperture were higher than mine, a. e. I was: ISO 1250 , he was ISO 400, I was shutter 2.8 he was 5.6, I was 1/30 he was 1/100.</em></p>

<p>That's a 5 stop exposure difference. That leads me to believe one of the following:</p>

<p>* Your flash wasn't firing correctly at all, and you were increasing exposure to the point that the scene was well lit off ambient light not realizing that the flash wasn't firing, or was firing but was not synced correctly to the shutter.</p>

<p>* Your flash was firing, but was manually set to an output way too low for the scene and initial settings. As you increased exposure you made the camera more sensitive to both flash output and ambient light until you had an image roughly as bright as your friend's. (I suppose being in the wrong metering mode, i.e. partial or spot, could also bias the flash output to be way too low. But I would think over multiple shots this would swing the exposures from over to under exposure depending on what happened to be under the partial/spot section of the meter.)</p>

<p>Again, a pair of test shots would really help. But something was clearly off if you needed 5 stops of additional exposure to get an image as bright or well lit as his. Your flash output was either not there (misfire), or way too low (screwed up setting). FYI, when attaching my flash I always, always do a test shot to make sure it's firing and syncing correctly. This is because on occasion I attach the flash and even though it fires, it's not syncing correctly and I have to detach/re-attach the flash and make sure it's seated properly on all contacts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>my images were only well lit in the foregraound but the background was dark.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So how does it make a Nikon system better..? Do you think that the Nikon flash has some magic property and flashes more light on the background than a Canon flash..?<br>

It's all technique: you gotta lern what ratio of f/stop and shuter speed will give you a properly exposed background (i.e. mainly existing light exposure) and foreground (i.e. mainly flash exposure.) Play not only with f/stop and shutter settings (and ISO if you need to bump up exposure) but also with the flash power setting: sometimes it is very beneficial to set the flash output to less than 100% to make the foreground better exposed in relation to the background (not to mention that the lower power settings produce flashes of much shorter duration.)</p>

<p>Ciprian,<br>

I use both Canon and Nikon cameras in my job as a newspaper photographer. When I need to use flash, I grab the Nikon. I believe the flash system is far superior and simpler to use, as you intimated. My assessment: Canon for autofocus excellence; Nikon for flash excellence.<br>

Regards,<br>

Steven</p>

<p>When then new SB-800 flash features were discovered, some well known authority on photography (MP) wrote about Nikon iTTL/Balanced SB-800 flash revelation on his web site:</p>

<p>Not remember exact words, something like: "The flash circumnavigates the inverse squre law" </p>

<p>... that seems to be the most reasonable explanation up to date, about the Nikon flash success. <br>

That falls right into saying: "in every gossip there must be a little doze of truth".</p>

<p> Of course you deserve rights to laugh :)</p>

<p>Have you actually looked at the images on a calibrated computer monitor? I think your 5-stop difference comes from simply looking at the images on the camera's LCD... and we all know accurate that is ;) That said, I did switch to Nikon for their flash system and couldn't be happier. I have also read that the Nikon flash system is better than Canon's and for me, I find this to be true. I had also read that Nikon treats the flash more as a key-light while Canon treats it more as a fill light, hence the out of box difference. Again, for me it seemed I had to constantly fiddle with the FEC on my 580's whereas I seldom fiddle with the FEC on my SB900. So I can relate as to why another photographer switched. But I do miss the wide, fast primes. Attached is a shot that amazed me soon after we switched. This was one SB800 on camera flash, taken by an assistant in training.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>All I know is that <em><strong>all</strong> </em> the Nikon users I know tell me how much better their flash system is than Canon's. I think it's a meme.</p>

<p>Since I don't use flash much, for all I know they're right, but it seems to be some sort of compensation for their jealousy of all the other things Canon got more right than Nikon (jes' joking, folks).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Attached is a shot that amazed me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Could you elaborate..? Is the amazement due to a totally off white balance setting, iffy framing, psoriasis-like skin tones, ghastly shadows,..? Something entirely else..?</p>

<p>Firstly , ask the Nikon guy if he used a feature on his camera called "BACKLIGHT" <br /> i have used both Canon & Nikon both with flashes and i have found both to be just as good except for that one feature on Nikon body ( 200D ) called BACKLIGHT .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Could you elaborate..? Is the amazement due to a totally off white balance setting, iffy framing, psoriasis-like skin tones, ghastly shadows,..? Something entirely else..?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was shot by an assistant in training from the back part of the pews with a 105mm lens. The framing may not be perfect, but for what she had to work with I think she did just fine. White-balance and skin tones are perhaps a bit cool- but this is as shot. The "ghastly" shadows are indeed the work of the flash. However, for some reason this was shot @ f/5. Not that it would have mattered much, there was virtually NO ambient light in the church. By that I mean a shot at f/2.8 w/o flash and a shutter of 1/50 @ ISO 1600 yielded a practically black frame. So while I don't understand the f/5 choice (which is why we train assistants), I am still amazed at the edge to edge coverage of the flash and the exposure of the flash at f/5 in a very dark church and at that distance. There wasn't a way to avoid the "ghastly" shadows at that point- and I think I would rather have this shot then none at all. On top of that, the people closest to the flash, while too hot, are not blown out white. Something Frank eluded to in his post:</p>

<p>"The flash circumnavigates the inverse squre law"</p>

<p>As to your personal opinion of the shot, well they are what they are. But it still doesn't detract from the fact I never got this kind of flash coverage from my 580's.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I shoot Canon and love it. However, in my opinion and experience the Nikon flash system is far superior. After spending time in St. Lucia with Joe McNally and seeing what everyone else in the class was doing, it was fairly obvious. Also read Syl Arena's blog post about Canon flashes. he's a die hard Canon guy and has several complaints about the system. Even with the new Pocket Wizards which do TTL, I was still struggling. Now with that said, if I went old school and use my PW and everything manual, I can get the same results, but it takes more time to dial everything in. IN a wedding situation, this might not be desireable. </p>

<p>My two cents for what it's worth.<br>

-John</p>

<p>I've also used both Canon and Nikon flash, and basically what I found is that Canon tends to underexpose in comparison. I shoot Canon for weddings and I hate ETTL--evaluative. Too much mumbo jumbo about comparing segments, trying to figure out foreground and background, etc. ETTL evaluative will also almost shut down when there is flash back or highly reflective material in the scene. I use ETTL averaging flash metering and generally do OK. The best flash metering I've used is actually Metz auto thyristor. Not perfect, but logical, and therefore, controllably consistent.</p>

<p>As for doing comparison testing, the LCD is not the best thing to use for comparisons, as mentioned, and auto modes are not the best thing to use either. I don't know about the 5D II, but on all cameras previous, using aperture priority, for instance (on custom function default), means that the camera sets an EV appropriate for the ambient light--always. With Nikon cameras, I believe in aperture priority, the shutter is set around 1/60th. So big difference in how the comparison images will look. I believe the 5D II has a custom function whereby you can make the camera use 1/125th or something in AV, don't know for sure. I would also venture to say that probably ETTL evaluative is 'better' than Nikon for outdoor fill flash.</p>

<p>Also, on the 5DII, I assume the metering pattern is the same as the 5D--a grid of 35 segments. I find that with ETTL evaluative, any light colored objects in front of the subject skew the exposure a lot. So a guy in a white shirt standing in front of the main subject is going to cause a lot of underexposure of anything beyond the guy/white shirt. Not to mention the white shirt causes underexposure to begin with.</p>

<p>The best way to test is to use manual camera mode, to control the flash/ambient balance yourself. I am sorry, but I don't believe any flash can circumvent the inverse square law. I would also leave bouncing out of this. Bouncing brings in a whole other set of variables, namely the bounce surfaces.</p>

<p>Did you test Canon ETTL-averaging?</p>

<p>By the way, Daniel, ETTL II is not so active focus point dependent. It is a factor, but one of several/many factors considered.</p>

<p>Read all the articles at planetneil.com on using on camera flash. There are a lot of them, and if you read and understand them all, you will know a lot about using flash. If you've read them already and are still using automated modes to shoot wedding receptions, I'd say go back and re-read them. Even if you are using a Nikon.</p>

<p>(a duplicate of my earlier post - no idea it ended up here, perhaps because I hit the refresh button...please delete it if possible)</p>

<p>The assumption that the same camera and flash settings should lead to the same result is probably wrong. Both systems have their own idiosyncracies that you should be aware of before comparing results. I have never used Nikon but from several pnet posts I have the impression that Canon is better for fill-in flash, Nikon for using flash as a main light. Whatever the differences are, when you have chosen the shutter speed, aperture, ISO and amount and direction of flash(es) you basically have defined all paramaters that matter. It is not so much the brand but the photographer that matters.</p>

<p>First off, the examples that I gave in regards to the camera and flsh settings were arbitrary, I can't remember the exact settings so there weren't 5 stops difference. I can tell you for a fact that we set up the cameras and the flashes to EXACTLY the same settings, in manual mode ( the big settings that is - ISO, shutter and aperture).<br>

Daniel, I dont use the Canon Software so I can't use the HTP, I shoot thousand of images every week and going in PS to fix stuff is not an option so I need my images to come properly framed and exposed out of the camera. How do I know if the flash is synced correctly, how do you test that?<br>

Michael,<br>

I know that by doing different settings ( aperture, shutter, ISO) you can get the correct exposure, the issue here is that, and I hate to say it, at the same settings Nikon blows Canon out of the water.<br>

John,<br>

I do use a calibrated NEC monitor and you coudn't be more right about Canon being more of a fill flash, I attached your image to what I believe the Canon flash would have done to this image.<br>

Nadine,<br>

You're so right about the underexposed shots with ETTL evaluative. I will try using ETTL average but I'm very doubtful that will change things for the better.<br>

Jos,<br>

It's not that the results should be the same, the problem is that the results are drastically different. I dare you to go shoot with a Nikon guy, get the same settings on both cameras and fleshes and you'll be blown away how big of a difference there will be between the two.<br>

I've been a Canon shooter for over a decade now and I love Canon but I do feel like shit everytime I have to put the flash on.<br>

I will try to find somebody with Nikon system and do some testing, i will post the results here.<br>

Thank you all for the insight in what to me is my nightmare, flash photography.</p>

<p>Here is what I think Canon would have given you.</p>

<div></div>

<p>First off, the examples that I gave in regards to the camera and flash settings were arbitrary, I can't remember the exact settings so there weren't 5 stops difference. I can tell you for a fact that we set up the cameras and the flashes to EXACTLY the same settings, in manual mode ( the big settings that is - ISO, shutter and aperture).<br>

Daniel, I dont use the Canon Software so I can't use the HTP, I shoot thousand of images every week and going in PS to fix stuff is not an option so I need my images to come properly framed and exposed out of the camera. How do I know if the flash is synced correctly, how do you test that?<br>

Michael,<br>

I know that by doing different settings ( aperture, shutter, ISO) you can get the correct exposure, the issue here is that, and I hate to say it, at the same settings Nikon blows Canon out of the water.<br>

John,<br>

I do use a calibrated NEC monitor and you couldn't be more right about Canon being more of a fill flash, I attached your image to what I believe the Canon flash would have done to this image.<br>

Nadine,<br>

You're so right about the underexposed shots with ETTL evaluative. I will try using ETTL average but I'm very doubtful that will change things for the better.<br>

Jos,<br>

It's not that the results should be the same, the problem is that the results are drastically different. I dare you to go shoot with a Nikon guy, get the same settings on both cameras and flashes and you'll be blown away how big of a difference there will be between the two.<br>

I've been a Canon shooter for over a decade now and I love Canon but I do feel like shit everytime I have to put the flash on.<br>

I will try to find somebody with Nikon system and do some testing, i will post the results here.<br>

Thank you all for the insight in what to me is my nightmare, flash photography.</p>

<p>Nadine - I have to believe from your post that ETTL-II is still too biased to the AF point. I don't have the problem of brightly colored objects severely skewing flash exposure. But I can reproduce that behavior by activating AF simultaneously with the shutter release. (I have a sneaking suspicion that this single mistake is why Canon's flash system has a bad reputation.)</p>

<p>Ciprian - I thought HTP was a setting on the camera and usable with JPEGs? Same with Lighting Optimizer. As for the flash firing correctly you just need to walk into a dark room and take a shot with aperture/shutter/ISO settings that would result in a black frame without the flash. Either the shot will be black or properly lit. If it's black, the flash isn't seated properly.</p>

<p><em>I know that by doing different settings ( aperture, shutter, ISO) you can get the correct exposure, the issue here is that, and I hate to say it, at the same settings Nikon blows Canon out of the water.</em></p>

<p>What you're saying doesn't make sense, and the more I think about what you've described, the more I think you missed a setting, or something is very wrong (i.e. flash on manual or not seated properly). (Again, a sample pair would put this to rest.)</p>

<p>* If the Nikon captured more ambient light, not raised the shadow detail with in camera processing but actually captured more ambient light, then the settings could not have been identical. Period. A Nikon sensor at ISO XYZ has the same sensitivity as a Canon sensor at ISO XYZ, and the same aperture/shutter values allow the same amount of light to fall on the sensor.</p>

<p>* If the Canon is underexposing the scene with flash output that is too low, then changing the settings won't help. The camera will keep adjusting the flash output lower as you open the aperture and raise ISO because this is a metering mistake, and the camera computes the meter reading against your settings to determine flash output. It's going to make the same mistake regardless of your settings.</p>

<p>I'm curious: did you happen to try flash exposure compensation during your test? If so, what were the results? If your 5D mkII just consistently chooses a lower flash output versus your friend's Nikon, then you should be able to get what you want by dialing in +1 or +2 stops. (The question then becomes why do you need to do this? I would test AF point bias and metering pattern.)</p>

<p>BTW, the photo posted by John is about what I would expect from my Canon equipment. I don't know why he considers it to be a special Nikon achievement unless he was constantly running into excessive AF point bias with Canon. (Though, in my testing, that can go either way, under or over exposure.)</p>

<p>Daniel,<br>

What do you mean by "activating AF simultaneously with the shutter release"?<br>

HTP is post processing only, what I meant by "doing different settings" was that yes, if you change settings around you will get same results as the Nikon flash only that the shutter speed on Canon is say 1/30 instead of 1/100 on a Nikon. I know that looking at things from a complete realistic and methodical view it's impossible for a Nikon flash to get more ambient light in and yet IT DOES! How? No clue!<br>

Where I find Canon flash to suck big time is when the subject is back lit, it underexposes EVERYTIME!</p>

<p>If did play around with flash exposure compensation but it overexposes the foreground.<br>

The photo posted by John would have never come out that well exposed out of a Canon camera, the further away from the subject the worse the Canon flash exposure gets.<br>

You seem a very avid suporter of Canon flashes , I wish I could be the same, I still belive that I'm the one who doesn't know how to use it properly but at the same time I have my doubts about the Canon flash.</p>

<p>I don't use flash. So I asked at work about this, as I thought the top two manufacturers flash systems would be comparable. The answer from our resident tech guru is that Nikon sometimes gives you better results because of colour matrix metering and Active D Lighting. The flash systems themselves are comparable. On the stats it seems that less pros are actually buying flash systems now because the latest offerings from C and N are so good at high ISOs. The news guys seem to just put everything on auto, flash included, and fire away. In this manner it seems that a current Nikon D300/700/3 camera figures it all out a bit better on auto than Canon. Would we amateurs notice? Probably not.</p>

<p>Daniel--it isn't brightly colored objects, it is white or light colored objects. And if you have a 1 series camera, the metering pattern is different. On the 5D (and II, I think), the metering pattern is a grid of 35 segments. On a 1 series camera, the metering sensitivity is kind of center weighted.</p>

<p>As for the focus point bias, it used to drive me crazy on my EOS 3 and Elan (original ETTL), and it isn't half as bad with ETTL II, so got to disagree with you there. I also disagree that this one thing is Canon's flash downfall. To me it is the set of ETTL evaluative algorithms--that they don't explain. Averaging on a 5D type camera I understand--the exposure is averaged across the 35 segments, period.</p>

<p>As for the rest of it, Ciprian, unless you intend to use automated camera modes for flash indoors or when flash is primary, I don't know why it matters if Nikon has better 'set and forget' flash metering. If you use camera manual mode, you are controlling flash to ambient balance. If you test your flash metering enough to predict how it will respond, you are controlling the flash metering. So you are master of the light, which is what a photographer is, right? :^)</p>

<p>If the flash underexposes EVERYTIME in backlit situations, you should be setting plus comp EVERYTIME.</p>

<p>On John's sample, I would say any flash is going to overexpose the foreground. That is according to the inverse square law. Sorry, but I don't believe a flash metering system can circumvent that.</p>

<p>I think you should do more tests before giving up on the Canon flash system. Just curious--have you read the planetneil articles or the photonotes.org/eos flash articles?</p>

<p>In response as to why I think that's a good example photo, let me "dissect" that photo. First, it was shot @ f/5, the ONLY light present in that image is the light from the flash. At f/5, there is no ambient to speak of. What impresses me is first, just the pure reach of the flash. To get the same type of throw (about 15' at the closest and up to 20-21' at the furthest) from my 580's would have meant bumping the FEC to +2 or more. If I did that though, the heads in front of the lens would be completely blown out. Besides the throw, the priest is about 3 feet behind our subject (the couple coming down the aisle) and the other bridesmaid is about 3 feet behind our subject in another direction. And, the curtain behind the priest is yet another 4 feet or so behind him. This was shot with the flash forward (Cathedral ceiling) using the Nikon diffuser (Sto-fen type). I was impressed by the overall lighting of the scene, front to back, corner to corner, from a shoe mount flash. Perhaps I was more impressed than I should have been but in my 6 or 7 years shooting Canon, I never experienced flash coverage like that. Ever. Assuming I had upped the FEC to cover the distance, I would have still had normal flash fall off on the subjects behind as well as bright white heads in front of the lens. In other words, my light would have been all over the place. Could I have been doing something wrong with the Canon system all these years- sure. Whatever it was, it's a non-issue with me and Nikon. Which all leads back to: "The flash circumnavigates the inverse squre law". So I am saying I can relate with what Ciprian is saying/experiencing. </p>

<p>On another note, I can whole-heartedly say that I wish I had tested a 1D series camera prior to making the switch. According to Canon's own literature, the 1D series has the best AF and metering system. All other Canon bodies use their 2nd best system! I have both a Nikon D90 and a D300 (two of each actually). The D300 uses Nikon's best AF and metering while the D90 uses their "in-between" system. There is no doubt the exposures are more consistent on the D300. There is no doubt the AF is better- as judged by the number of OOF shots of moving subjects I get with the D300 vs the D90 AND the ability to Macro AF (on something like the rings in the flowers). Which leads me to conclude that there is a respectable difference and I wish I had tried Canon's "best" prior to the switch. But I am happier with my current results than I was using the 40D/580/24-70 f/2.8 when I was shooting Canon.</p>