Nikon to Conon EOS Lens Adapter

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Bill Blackwell Images, Sep 21, 2011.

  1. I am an avid long-time Leica M user, but I’ve been pondering getting into a Nikon full frame DSLR. I have been patiently anticipating the Nikon’s replacement of the D700 (which has itself been scarce in recent months) rumored for about a year now.
    I’ve been thinking about the Conon D5 Mk ii as an alternative and using Nikon to Canon EOS lens mount adapters - because everyone knows Nikon optics are far and away better than Canon’s. As I understand it, some of these adapters permanently replace the Nikon mount.
    I have two questions –
    Which of these 'replacement' mounts works best? and
    Does it provide for full stop-down metering and/or otherwise provide full function on the Canon body?
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    because everyone knows Nikon optics are far and away better than Canon’s​
    That is news to me. If that is your motivation to use Nikon lenses on the EOS 5D Mark II, I am afraid that you are off the wrong track.
    The D700 is a fine DSLR and I would imagine the next generation is merely months away; in fact I am a bit surprised that the D700 has not been replaced yet, but who known how much effect the March earthquake has. However, if you intend to use the 5D Mark II, I would get Canon lenses. Like Nikon, Canon also makes lots of excellent lenses.
  3. That is news to me. If that is your motivation to use Nikon lenses on the EOS 5D Mark II, I am afraid that you are off the wrong track.​
    Since I posted in the Nikon forum this was intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, I have read dozens of lens reviews indicating Nikon optic superiority over Canon. PN’s own Canon forum has user postings noting disappointing results in certain Canon prime lenses.
  4. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Plenty of Nikon's current so called "prime" lenses are designed from 20, 30 years ago. A lot of them do not work well on modern DSLRs. Today, the excellent lenses are mostly newer lenses; most of those are zooms and some of them are very expensive fixed-focal-length lenses. What is common among the new lenses is that they are all G. I am sure you will have a lot of "fun" controlling the aperture on your Canon body. I assume you don't mind not having AF and VR.
  5. The change is not permanent. All you require is a simple mechanical a dapter to use Nikon lenses on a Canon EOS body. In fact you can use many non-Canon EF lenses on EOS bodies. I have used many Nikon lenses and also a Contax/Zeiss as well. I know you can use Leica R, and Olympus as well, and I believe Pentax and Minolta MD. Do some research and there may be a way to mount your Leica M lenses as well.
    You have to use the lens using the stopped-down metering method and the Canon body will meter with the lens. Manual focus only but if you spend the extra money on the chipped adapters you can get focus confirmation from the Canon body.
    Some Nikon lenses, like the 8/2.8 that I use on a 1Ds, require some filing down of the non-required big bits sticking out of the back of the lens, in order to mount it.
  6. What is common among the new lenses is that they are all G. I am sure you will have a lot of "fun" controlling the aperture on your Canon body. I assume you don't mind not having AF and VR.​

    It is clear to me you believe the idea of the superiority of Nikon optics is erroneous. It is also clear to me you are steering me away from combining the two systems. For now, I will accept your notion that Canon optics are more than 'acceptable.'

    However, I'm not familiar enough with either system to otherwise follow you. ... Are saying these Nikon to Canon adapters do not allow for AF or VR on (modern) Nikon DSLR lenses (this was one of my questions)?

    And what is "G"?
  7. Leica M mount lenses if adapted to EOS will not focus on infinity. The registration lens to film gate of M and thread Leica is shorter than Canon EOS. M lenses will fit micro4/3 with 2x crop with proper adapter and will provide infinity. They may fit Sony Nex with 1.5 crop with proper adapter.
  8. The change is not permanent. All you require is a simple mechanical a dapter to use Nikon lenses on a Canon EOS body. In fact you can use many non-Canon EF lenses on EOS bodies. I have used many Nikon lenses and also a Contax/Zeiss as well. I know you can use Leica R, and Olympus as well, and I believe Pentax and Minolta MD. ...​
    Thanks, John. This is the kind of feedback I was looking for.
    Do some research and there may be a way to mount your Leica M lenses as well.​
    It would be nice, but I seriously doubt it. The Leica M mount is far too close to the film plane to allow for adaptability to any SLR and properly focus to infinity.
  9. Dunno whose lenses are in fact better, although I'd be inclined to think there's no across the board answer (I'm a Nikon guy myself--but I got into that a while back because of the durability of the film bodies, and the nearly-universal lens/camera compatibility of the line rather than for any perceived lens superiority).
    I do know that over here in London, I have run into several people who own the 5D or 7D and use them extensively for video, and who use Nikon manual-focus lenses with adapters on the front of the camera. Their stated reason was that *they* felt that Nikon lenses produced a better image. I didn't go into detail with them over precisely which aspects of the image they found more pleasing.
    One evening I even had a young fellow who was with a crew borrowing my studio for a video shoot/interview and who was using the Canon 50/1.4. For some reason, he had an adapter with him, so I loaned him my old Nikon 28/F2. He couldn't stop raving about the quality he was getting from it.
    Personally, I'm not convinced either way, just offering a bit of anecdotal information to the OP. And as I don't do much video, I really can't see the point of dealing with the incompatibilities between Nikon lenses and Canon bodies for still photography, when there's probably not *that* much difference in quality between the manufacturers' lenses--if any at all.
  10. I have read dozens of lens reviews indicating Nikon optic superiority over Canon​
    I'm guessing on the Nikon forums, right? LOL
    If you want to use Nikon lenses, then get a Nikon body.
    Of course, if you have a large collection of old pre-AI lenses, then you do want a Canon. ;)
    Or were you thinking of Conan the Barbarian or Conan the O'Brien?
  11. Don't you love it when people base all their knowledge on what they have heard or read on the internet? There are so many wrong assumptions in the OP!
    Adapters are NOT permanent. You will lose all auto functions with adapters - manual focus, manual aperture control, stop down metering, etc, etc.
    I assume the reason so many pros use Canon is because their lenses are so inferior to Nikons? Right - that must be it!
    I am not bashing Nikon btw, but the OP is just ridiculous.
  12. There are even adapters for "G" lenses! "G" lenses do not have an aperture dial on them but the adapters do.
    It seems to me that Leitax makes non-destructive conversion kits for the more difficult lens adaptations.
  13. I assume the reason so many pros use Canon is because their lenses are so inferior to Nikons? Right - that must be it! I am not bashing Nikon btw, but the OP is just ridiculous.​
    Any misinformation I may have picked up (and posted here) notwithstanding, I am currently neither a Canon nor a Nikon user (I have a long history with Leica) - so I simply don't know. It's prickly answers like this that undo any real usefulness to these forums.
    I regret wasting my time - and yours.
  14. I am not bashing Nikon btw, but the OP is just ridiculous​
    I remember a time, it doesn't seem that long ago, I too was ridiculous. But I found a group of people that knew more than me that were kind and generous in sharing their knowledge. Although I was an easy target for sarcasm and ridicule they treated me with respect and embraced me into their group. I'll never forget that kindness.
  15. SCL


    Bill -as far as using Leica M lenses on current Canon bodies - there are several you can use and achieve infinity focus, but understand that they are few and far between. The list boils down to M lenses designed to be used in conjunction with a Leica Visoflex. My recollection is that the shortest focal length is the 65mm, followed by several 90mms (only the ones with removable heads from their focusing RF mounts), the 135mm ones which remove from their RF focusing mounts, and of course the 400mm and 560mm Telyts. All require specific adapters, etc. I've used most of them on Nikon DSLRs over the years, as well as several other mounts, including the Canon FD systems. If you want a list and specs, e-mail me and I have a couple of charts I'll be glad to send you.
    I've never used my Nikon lenses on current Canon bodies. Like others indicated, too much of the functionality is lost.
  16. Bill,
    Coming from Leica I'm sure you feel like your taking a step down to either Canon or Nikon ;).
    I am with Shun Cheung here, if you get a 5DmkII, get Canon lenses, unless you like ultra wides in which case I highly recommend the 14-24mm, even on a Canon body because there is no lens like it from either Canon or Nikon, its in a class all of its own, and because its ultra wide angle you wont' have to worry too much about focusing it. As far as adapters are concerned, you will find it really annoying to change F/stop, especially on Nikon G lenses with you will have to buy an extra expensive adapter and have no way of knowing where its F/stop set. Once you have it set, I found that the Shutter priority mode (can't remember what it was called on my 7D), works fine, but the focus can be hit and miss and its very frustrating in any kind of fast paced environment to have no in camera information from the lens (which I'm not aware of any adapter that will provide one). I also felt that most of the adapters I had never quite fit properly, and I know several people that felt the same way, frustrating. I speak from the experience of many filmmakers that use 5DmkIIs for filmmaking with manual Nikon primes or Olympus manual focus primes (it was my job to change lenses along with the adapter rings on many a set, so I can tell you, its a real hassle unless you have adapters for all your lenses, and if they are Nikon G lenses the adapters are like $100!)
    If you have an interest, I've had extensive experience with almost all of Nikon and Canon's high end pro grade F/2.8 zooms and F/1.4 primes (with few exceptions), so I thought you would might like to hear how they line up in general.
    On the wide side, Nikon has a superior advantage. Namely their 14-24mm is so good, there is nothing in its class, either by Nikon or Canon, its as though Nikon figured out a way to defy the laws of physics to make this lens. In general Nikon's pro wide zooms and F/1.4 primes are a step or two ahead of their Canon counter parts. I am referring to Full Frame pro lenses here, Nikon's DX offerings are not overly impressive except the 35mm F/1.8 and about the same as Canon and both companies have reasonable to excellent slow primes. This issue was one of the primary reasons I switched, because going through all of Canon's pro wide angle offerings was just disappointment after disappointment for me (I'm sure all the Canon wide angle users will give me hell, but I just call them the way I see them).
    In the middle, I'm not a fan of either companies 50s, I'm disappointed that both companies can make 24mm F/1.4s and 85mm F/1.4/1.2 lenses that are usable sharp on contrasty wide open, but 50s on both sides are weak wide open, and I really want to shoot there. I've heard Nikon's 50 F/1.2 is impressive but its manual focus and I've never used it, its still weak wide open, but its sharpens up fast, and is a stop superior to all other 50s till about F/5.6. I prefer Nikon's 24-70 over Canon's. I feel that the Canon is weak at 2.8, and has many issues that I would not expect to find in a pro 2.8 zoom. Nikon's is simply stellar with a few issues, but over all very impressive.
    Canon has slightly better Tele zooms, the 70-200 F/2.8 II being a stand out (if you are worried about image quality pass on the mkI because its weak wide open). The mkII though is extremely impressive and is almost as good as Nikon's 14-24mm on the tele side. Nikon's 70-200 is very impressive, but its not up to the Canon's stunning levels. Both companies have excellent tele primes, although Nikon's lineup has very dated AF systems, but still very impressive glass. It should be noted that the 105mm & 135mm F/2s have the DC feature, which is a Nikon only feature, but its very complex, subtle and easy to mess up causing soft images if you don't know what you are doing (one can simply leave it on neutral).
    As far as pro super tele's go both companies make amazing exotic lenses and I would not be concerned with using either, they both offer extremely outstanding super tele lineups, any differences is like saying your 230mph Lamborghini can go 2 miles faster than my 228mph Ferrari. At such extreme optical qualities little differences aren't of significant enough to concern.
    One final note, I prefer Nikon lenses because they have a certain look. Its a natural organic look, that I personally find appealing. Dealing with the Canon lenses I feel like they are just trying to get the best color transmission and aren't really going for any particular "look". Which is something I find true for the bodies as well, it seems like my Nikon's are trying to get "true" colors while the Canons are just trying to get color and tons of it. This is of course a total matter of preference. Also in general Canon IS systems tend to be a stop better than advertised while Nikon's tend to be a stop slower than advertised. On the flip side Nikon bodies usually live up to their highest non-high mode ISO setting, while I find that Canons are generally very weak at their highest ISOs and I usually try to keep them a stop or two under their ISO ceiling. Canons undoubtedly have faster AF, but with the exception of the 1DmkIV, they are generally "sloppy" (it should be noted I prefer fast primes, and on the middle to wide end, I always found my Canon lenses to be inconsistent, rarely "nailing" focus wide open even in good light, while the 85mm F/1.2 was dead on, albeit pretty slow). Nikon's are slower but in generally they hit their mark dead on 9 out of 10 times. Of course their 70-200 is pretty fast & accurate, as are their super teles, I'm referring to Nikon's fast primes here, and in general they have slower AF systems.
    I hope you enjoyed my lecture, I hope that I was able to give you an idea of what your up against. Please feel free to comment or ask questions.
    All of that being said, I am very bias, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I've seen amazing pictures taken with Canon lenses and bodies, I don't put them down, I simply found that Nikon's system and lenses matches my style of shooting while Canon's systems and lenses where in general counter productive to the way I shoot, so I am now and probably forever a Nikon shooter.
  17. Plenty of Nikon's current so called "prime" lenses are designed from 20, 30 years ago. A lot of them do not work well on modern DSLRs.​
    Ironically Shun Cheung, the exact opposite is the reason I switched to Nikon, because I primarily shoot the 24, 35, and 85mm F/1.4 primes, all of which are within 2 years old, and I switched because I had the Canon equivalent and I felt the primes, especially the 24 & 35mm were old and I had all kinds of issues and inconsistances that made me switch. My Nikon's aren't perfect and I still have great respect for Canon's 85mm F/1.2, but I find they a much more up to date lens than Canon's current fast prime lineup.
    I also want to point out that Nikon has so many legendary lenses, they don't need a refresher (except AF systems). Example, the 28mm F/2.8 AIs. Yes its manual focus, its also the sharpest, most impressive wide angle lens I've ever used, and despite being 30 years old, it puts every other wide angle in its range to shame, Nikon or Canon. I shot it against my 24mm F/1.4II and my heavily used, modified, 15 year old, $200 28mm F/2.8 using a rinky dink adapter on a my 7D but even still it was superior to a brand spanking new $1600 24mm F/1.4II in every way, color transmission, center sharpness, corner sharpness, distortion, contrast, and that was with the 24mm stopped down F/2.8 and the 28mm wide open at F/2.8. Its also still sold brand new today, after 30 years of continuous sell. To be fair I also shot it against Nikon's brand new 24mm F/1.4 and the 28mm F/2.8 was also superior there as well, it even focuses closer than either 24mm F/1.4 versions. Sadly the AF version doesn't have the same optics. Admittedly there are many relics in the line up, but here is another example, the 180mm F/2.8 was originally developed by of all people Hitler. Leni Riefenstahl was shooting the Olympics in Berlin in 1936 for Hitler, with whom she was close, and she requested a long fast lens so Hitler had this lens custom made just for her. Later Nikon bought the patent and made several modifications. The reason this lens has endured so long is it has a very unique contrast reproduction, more unique than any other lens I've ever seen. Does it make it worth shooting around its ancient AF system? That depends on the shooter, but I can tell you this, you can't get its subtle look in Photoshop, its an organic thing unique to that lens. Finally, Nikon's 200mm F/4 maybe getting ready for its 19th birthday, its AF is so slow, I time my hour glass by it, but its one of the sharpest, unique pieces of glass I've ever used. There isn't anything quite like it, and I prefer it over all the other macros I've used. Could it use a refresher and get AF & VR. Sure, that would be nice. However as I may point out, in the case of a macro lens, because of its F/stop ring, and its huge, lovely focus ring, I like shooting manual focus macro on a the Nikon 200mm F/4 on a Canon camera more than Canon's own macros.
    Older than dirt? Yes. Doesn't work so well with modern cameras? Sometimes. Legendary optical quality still unparallelled 30 years later? Definitely!
    Both camera makers have relics that need refreshing, but both still sell those relics because photographers still make great pictures with them.
  18. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Skyler Proctor, you did not quote the rest of my original post where I addressed the better and newer Nikon lenses such as the three f1.4 AF-S lenses: 24mm, 35mm, and 85mm. The problem with those lenses is that they are all G lenses without an aperture ring. Using Nikon G lenses on a Canon body is super inconvenient to say the least. The 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S also falls in the same category.
    If people like those lenses, by all means get a Nikon body and use them. Using them on a Canon body is, IMO, not a wise move, although some people still do that.
  19. Shun Cheung,
    Oh I am sorry, I didn't realize you were referring to their new lenses, I thought you were referring to their G lenses in general. I agree, using Nikon lenses on Canon for most work is not the best move in the book. It does of course heavily depend on what you are shooting. If you are shooting landscape from a tripod and want the best possible wide angle, then the 14-24mm serves that purpose very well. One can purchase a special adapter ring from Amazon for around $100 that adds the aperture ring back to the 14-24 (or any G lenses), allowing you to at least alter the aperture. When I used manual Nikon lenses on my 7D, it did meter, so I didn't have to guess at exposure. With super wide angles like the 14-24mm focus isn't a huge issue, especially at 14mm, so even though I wouldn't recommend using Nikon on Canon, it would be a noteworthy exception for certain types of photography.
  20. I guess with use of an adaptor, No spot, central weight or evaluative meteringing work on EOS body. only average metering works.
  21. Bill: The Eos to Nikon G adapter is a mechanical fudge. All that it does is to couple a control arm to the aperture stop-down lever of a Nikon G lens to hold it open at (approximately) the desired stop. You still have to use stop-down metering and manual focus, as well as pay extra to get the focus confirmation function.
    I have an Eos 5D MK1 and a D700. So from personal experience I can tell you that use of Nikon or any other non-Canon lenses on an Eos is a total pain and hardly worth the trouble. You lose any automation, and viewing, focusing and composing the image at working aperture is no fun at all. The only Nikon lenses that adapt to the Eos reasonably well, IMHO, are the older PC-Nikkors that only have a preset diaphram, or Reflex-Nikkors that don't stop down at all. Working with your lenses wide-open all the time might be another option!
    Although you can get adapters to use other system lenses on an Eos, there are many restrictions, and some lenses will actually collide with the Canon mirror. Among these risky lenses are quite a few of the Pentax and Praktica wideangles and at least one Praktica standard lens. I doubt that any M series or 39mm screw-fit Leica lenses are useable with infinity focus.
  22. I am using a Nikkor 28mm f 2.8 AI (yep, the one said to be inferior to the f2's and 2.8 AIS). The adapter is a Fotodiox, not the most expensive by a long shot. ( adapters are highly regarded and can be fitted with a chip). I like the 28 focal length, always have. I rarely drive myself nuts trying to focus a wideangle, but instead use hyperfocal settings. I don't care how the lens performs wide open, because I rarely use a wideangle wide open. The old lenses (Nikkor, Olympus OM, Leica R) have large, easily legible depth-of-field markings. The focus ring is nice and tight, and not easily knocked off the mark (unlike my Olympus 24). From what tests I have read (, SLRlenstests,, both Canon EF 28's are inferior to the old Nikkor manual focus 28's. If you can't tolerate barrel distortion, the 28 f 2.8 AIS is said to be about as distortion-free as 28's come. It's a crap shoot on these oldies (sample variation), but they can be had cheap, are light and discreetly small and, for me, worth the effort to find a good one.
  23. Although I would not buy a lens by Nikon for the express purpose of putting it on a Canon EOS body, I do use two or three Nikon lenses on EOS bodies. I was fortunate a few years back to pick up the manual focus version of the Nikon 600mm f/4 for very little money. Unless one wants to use the 1.4X teleconverter (or whatever Canon calls theirs), the cheap Chinese adapters on eBay work well and do not cost very much. The attachment seems very secure, and I have left the adapter on the lens since I bought it. The same adapter works well with the manual focus Nikon 50mm f/1.2 as well. I bought one for each lens, since they are a bit of a pain to get off--and they do not cost much.
    In general, though, I put Canon lenses on Canon bodies. (I did hedge my bets by buying the D90 with the kit lens. . . . One never knows what is coming down the pike.)
  24. Both nikon & canon are making great cams and lenses. If you want proper jargon can get any one of them and you will
    fine. If you are a camera collector then all brands are not sufficient.

    I use nikon, canon, sigma andi am getting superb result of them
  25. Bill, if you want superb optics, stick with your Leica M. You may not find the IQ you have come to expect, with any small format SLR. Apart from the usual compromises you find with retrofocus lenses, Nikon have not paid as much attention to their prime lenses as they have to their zoom lenses. It is this very reason why some zooms will outperform a prime lens at an equivalent focal length. FWIW, I think the Canon mount is more versatile than the Nikon mount.
  26. I’ve been thinking about the Conon D5 Mk ii as an alternative and using Nikon to Canon EOS lens mount adapters - because everyone knows Nikon optics are far and away better than Canon’s.
    If you want to use Nikon lenses, use a Nikon body. If you're looking at a 5D mkII for high ISO performance, the 12 MP Nikon FF bodies will suffice. If for fine detail in large landscape prints, Nikon's 25 MP model would be the comparable choice.
    Nikon optics are not far and away better than Canon's. For any given purpose you might find one or the other has the better lens, but it's never by a wide margin and overall their lens libraries are comparable. If anything I would give the nod to Canon for the specialty lenses (i.e. T/S; 5x macro), and for having more models with USM / IS (at least last time I checked). But that only matters if you buy and use those specialty lenses, and Nikon has worked hard to catch up on the sonic motors / stabilization front.
    However, I have read dozens of lens reviews indicating Nikon optic superiority over Canon.
    I'm calling that bluff. I've researched this and I'm hard pressed to remember one review that claimed this. I've seen this unsubstantiated opinion several times on blogs and forum posts, but that counts for zip. It seems that adapter manufacturers also like to claim this at times for the obvious reasons.
    When researching this I recall that somebody had taken the average of MTF scores from a testing site and found that Canon had the sharpest lens ever tested at the site (200 f/1.8L) and had an average of all tests 1/10th of a point higher than Nikon. In other words: they are neck and neck as one would expect from two of the largest and most well regarded optics companies on the planet. If one has the better lens then another for a particular purpose, that probably means the other hasn't gotten around to updating it yet but soon will. Case in point: Nikon didn't have an answer for Canon's 16-35L. Then they brought out their 14-24. Then Canon updated their 16-35L. And the competition goes on.
    If you're buying new glass, choose your system and buy your body. Adapters are for people with older lens collections.
  27. Visitors from Leicaland can't seem to resist poking a stick at Nikon and Canon people. It must be galling to realize that you could have bought a superior camera without taking out a home equity loan.
    But seriously, if you have a big investment in Leica glass (meaning at least one lens) you should probably look at a Sony NEX or micro 4/3's, so you could use your lenses with a good modern autofocus camera. As for the ancient Canon vs Nikon thing, if you really want to make cross-platform comparisons (and waste a lot of time) you can look at side by side ISO chart crops on The Digital Picture. What you'll find is that comparable Nikon and Canon lenses are, well, comparable. It can hardly be otherwise. If one of these intensely competitive brands really had overall superiority in optics, pros and serious amateurs would abandon its unfortunate rival. That ain't happening.
  28. Actually, the pros do occasionally shift one way or the other. Back in the latter days of the 20th century, a lot of people did shift to Canon from Nikon after the introduction of the EOS cameras, especially the EOS 1 camera, built as a Nikon F4 killer. However, the principle is valid.
    At any given moment, a particular lens or feature may take on enough importance to some, to stimulate a shift (as I shifted, literally, from Pentax to Nikon back in 1971 to get a PC-Nikkor shift lens). However, if the feature(s) is not immediately needed, usually a short wait will see the other company respond with its own version of the feature.
    I've stated this before as JDM's Law of Camera Advances:

    If at a time N, Canon is "ahead" of Nikon, then at N+1, Nikon will be "ahead" of Canon.
    "1" is usually a year. Much of the time, the two marques (and not only them) will be pretty much equivalent as a result of good old Capitalist principles of competition.
  29. Daniel, I don't' disagree with your viewpoint, but I do wish to note a few things, for every website that says that Canon has amazing lenses there is a website that says Nikon has amazing lenses. MTF curves and "official" tests are about as accurate as internet opinions. There are many kinds of MTF curve tests that can drastically differ the results and even if any one place was dead on with their results, productions can vary from lens to lens.
    The truth is, one or the other companies excel at certain things, and it is true that one or the other will catch up, but there are also plenty of areas that one or the other lacks and has for years. As JDM pointed out, there maybe a reason or two to go one way or the other. One example is the 200-400 F/4, Canon has no, nor have ever had any professional grade fixed aperture lenses over 200mm, and Nikon is already on their second version. I realize you noted the updated 16-35mm as an example where Canon caught up to Nikon, from my experience from several copies of both lenses, the 16-35mm II is still a far inferior lens to the 14-24mm, which would be another example of Nikon having an edge (and that's from my hands on experience with multiple copies of each). To be fair on the flip side, I have huge respect for Canon's 24-105, creams Nikon's 24-120 any day of the weak, which is plain weak, to say the least. Also Canon's 70-200 2.8II is superior to Nikon's 70-200VRII. Like the 14-24 to 16-35mm comparison, there is really nothing in Canon's 70-200 league, its just so darn good no other zoom can really touch it.

    I think the truth is, we are all very scared. We all want to make the best pictures and we are worried that a good or bad lens can break a picture, and most scary of all, make us look like bad photographers. The truth is, every photographer has a different style, and a different environment, a different application and a different market. One must test thoroughly both sides of the fence to see what fits them best. I maybe able to prove that even a bad copy of the 14-24mm could easily out resolve the best copy of Canon's 16-35mm, but if you are most comfortable using the 16-35mm, and you get good pictures with it, all the testing and all the proof, and all the MTF curves in the world are irrelevant. Personally I owned a 7D, and 3 L lenses, and I have at least a half a dozen close friends who own 5DmkIIs and I've shot with them countless times. A very, very good friend of mine has a 1DmkIV and we have shot many a project together, so I speak from extensive experience from both sides of the fence, and I can honestly say for the way I shoot and for my personal style I get much better pictures with Nikon cameras and lenses. Doesn't mean that I didn't make great pictures with my 7D, I did, but I have a much much higher keeper rate with my Nikon than with my 7D. For me personally they are also much more of a joy to use. But I also respect that there will be plenty of photographers that have the reverse experience.
    Despite all this conversation, I would still recommend the 14-24mm, even with the screwy adapters on the 5DmkII and all of the missing features. The 14-24mm is just that impressive, its as though the gods of lenses came down from heaven and blessed Nikon designers with the wisdom to design a lens 10, perhaps 20 years ahead of its time. Despite all the limitations on a Canon camera, those are ultimately inconveniences, but there are no Canon lenses that can match the 14-24's performance, not any that I've used anyway.
    I think Nikon has the reputation it does because they were known to make extreme lenses, the kind of thing that average people never used, while Canon always focused on what the general market wanted. A number of good examples are the 13mm F/5.6, still the widest, non-distorting lens released by either Canon or Nikon, and what is especially impressive is that it has less distortion than either companies 35mm lenses. Yes Canon released the 50mm F/1.0, but it was a marketing stunt, and even if you could afford it, for the most part, there were much more practical options.
  30. extreme lenses, the kind of thing that average people never used, while Canon always focused on what the general market wanted.​
    This does not correspond to actual history.
    Lots of "extreme" and not-so-extreme lenses have come first on Canon-designed lenses. It takes more than one wide-angle to prove the point. For a contrary example, while Nikon introduced the PC-Nikkor shift lens early on, Canon now commands that territory with the introduction of the unequaled TS-E 17mm. Image stabilization gave Canon a long-term advantage over the other latecomers. Both companies have been innovative at various times, Canon as well as Nikon, not to mention Pentax and others. Both companies have very comparable catalogs of "general market" lenses as well.
    History should not be made up on the spot, unless you are a Post-Modernist. If that's the case, then history is all relative anyhow, so you can make up whatever proves your point.
  31. The old adage was "Nikon is a Lens company that makes Cameras, and Canon is a Camera company that also makes Lenses". When they shot the last stop motion animation film "Corpse Bride", the Hollywood cinematographers adapted a full frame Canon EOS to take Nikon lenses. Sophia Coppola routinely uses old Nikon AI and AIS prime lens (snagged from her Dad Frances) to shoot her 35mm films.
    Only the Canon L series can match Nikon optics. So far nothing I've seen in 35mm outshines the Nikon Ai and AIS series from the 70s. Even the Pre-AI Nikons are exceptional. Leica lenses (and ALL German optics including East German Zeiss Jena) are equal but different in character to Nikon. I know the "Official" Nikon history says the name comes from "Nippon Kogaku". But I heard it was for "Nippon IKON". So there you go. The Eastern Zeiss Ikon company.
    I've got a Cheap EBAY Photodiox adaptor and use Nikon AI and AIS lenses on my EOS 20D digital all the time. It's not as easy as the Canon AF, but it's not really rocket science either. I say Go For It!
  32. Thank you all (well, most of you) for your thoughtful responses.

    You have adequately answered my questions.
  33. Bill,
    :). Didn't realize a simple half-joking phrase about a one camera company being better than other could start a war did ya?
  34. I know the "Official" Nikon history says the name comes from "Nippon Kogaku".​
    Absolutely no need for inverted commas, because that's exactly where the Nikon name comes from. Nippon Kōgaku Kōgyō Kabushikigaisha - meaning Japan Optical Industries Company - was the original registered company name, and "Nikon" and "Nikkor" were the trademark names applied to their camera and lens lineup respectively.
    Nippon Kogaku KK remained the proper registered trading name of the company until 1988 when the name was changed to Nikon Corporation. As for the ridiculous suggestion that Zeiss Ikon had an influence on the choice of Nikon as a brand name, that seems to be a relatively new urban legend that's come into being in the last few months! I've never previously heard of such a rumour in all the 40 years that I've been using Nikon equipment. Besides, Nippon Kogaku KK was founded in 1917, which I believe predates by some years Zeiss's introduction of the Ikon and Ikonta series cameras. However it's not hard to see why Kwanon changed its name to "Canon" to gain some credibility in Western markets.
  35. "So far nothing I've seen in 35mm outshines the Nikon Ai and AIS series from the 70s".
    Of course in your opinion -:) .I happen to disagree.I believe every manufacturer has some stellar lenses and quite a few dogs ...
    I seriously doubt that the latest Leica R APO lenses can be matched by the Nikon in the correspondent focal lengths,the beautiful Canon FD 85/1.2,24/2,Zeiss 85/1.2,35/1.4 and on and on .Some are ok,some are exceptional and some mediocre like for any other maker

Share This Page