asaf_tzadok Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Hello, I am getting a little confused when it come to Nikon lenses.When you want to buy Canon high-end lens you need to check the "L" (Luxury) lens. Nikon use ED for indicating that ED elements are used. You can find the 70-300 4-5.6 ED with relatively bad optical performance and you can have a 70-200 2.8 ED with very good optics. My current conclution is that when the price is high and you have constant and wide aperture than you can say it is a high-end lens. Canon use "L" for indicating high-end optics performance, indicating that ultra low dispersion elements (they have levels) are used. They have it with constant aperture (even F4) and with range aperture. It does not always have to be with high price tag (70-200 F4/L is only 579$ at B&H). I know several websites that have ranked lens but it feel like relative comparision (not absolute). Photodo has absolute comparison, but it is does not include all lenses (esp. DX format). If you look at Nikkor 18-70 DX specification : 3xED glass elements, 1x aspherical lens - it sounds like "L" equivalent, but it does not seem to be the case (I know that it is impossible to knoe lens performance by looking at its spec). Is there is any label that I miss ? What is the Canon equivalent of Nikkor 18-70 3.5-4.5 IF-ED DX , in terms of optics ? (I have a feeling that it is the Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 EF) Can I still regard ED-lens as the mid/high lens ? Thanks, Asaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Nikon has no direct equivalent of Canon's L (Luxury/pro) connotation. However, ED is an indicator of an "above average" Nikkor (except some consumer zooms such as the 70-300 and the one you mention). The converse is not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mskovacs Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 "L" can be in the eye of the beholder. I had an EF 50/1.4 USM that was definitely "L" class optically but not marked as such. Canon uses calcium fluorite elements which I believe are inferior to ED glass. They undergo dimension changes too easily with respect to temperature, hence the white paint treatment and past infinity focusing (also found on some Nikons to a lesser degree). An f/4 lens in the 70-200mm range in Nikon is indeed sorely lacking. If the lens is metal with the crinkle type finish, weighs a ton and costs a fortune, then its a pro Nikon lens. Photodo is not a reliable source of information IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_lu Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 agree on photodo...numbers can't capture lens performance...so many times have i found that lenses agreed to be outstanding get relatively low grades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Right on re. Photodo. Except that the highly rated lenses are almost always really good. The converse is not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Any EDIF Nikkor (with constant aperture, if a zoom), may be considered an elite level lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Unlike Canon, Nikon does not label its lens to indicate whether "We made a effort" or "We really didn't make too much effort". Every Nikon lens represents a strong effort resulting in performance way above par for its specification and its price point. If you want to find a Nikon lens comparable to a Canon L lens, simply find a Nikon lens at roughly the same price point, with similar specification, and it is very likely that the Nikon lens will perform as well or better than the Canon lens, L or no L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_h Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 > If you want to find a Nikon lens comparable to a Canon L lens... Which Nikon lenses are weatherproofed, like all L's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamv Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I think that using ED glass makes the lens less vulnerable to wheater in comparision to CaF2 made optics and only the latest Nikkor models were made "sealed". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsbc Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I think with respect to comparable lenses, Nikon is slightly more expensive, eg Nikon's 17-35 F2.8 vs Canon's 16-35. Also Canon has more tilt/shift lenses. But I do not respond to spoil the party. After all, Nikon is more innovative in some aspects (flash technology, etc). I think in Nikon's case, most VR lenses are supposed to be better lenses. It would make more sense if Nikon has designated a special pro line, but given all the confusion and overlap regarding G lenses, the old AF lenses, etc, I understand Nikon's hesitancy. Bottomline - you have to do your research on a case by case basis. The new 200mF2 would be definitely a luxury lens sans peers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klix Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Okay, I'll probably get pelted for this... An expensive Nikon lens is an elite lens. I do not know of any expensive Nikon glass that is a dog. However, the converse is not true. There are some inexpensive Nikon lenses that are gems. The 50mm/1.8 comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Edward H , oct 26, 2004; 01:58 p.m. > If you want to find a Nikon lens comparable to a Canon L lens... Which Nikon lenses are weatherproofed, like all L's? Define "weatherproofed". Does it consist mainly of a printed line in a Canon brouchure? I don't recall seeing much evidence of more practical "weatherproofing" on a 35-350, nor 17-40 (nice lens, BTW). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 >Any EDIF Nikkor (with constant aperture, if a zoom), may be considered an elite level lens. -- Alex But the converse is not true. Consider the 105 and 60 micro nikkors ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 <B>Guys, please don't drift into another Canon vs. Nikon flame war. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.</B> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I don't know the details of how weather-sealing is handled on the Canon L lenses. I have several of them. On some (500 IS) there is a little rubber gasket on the lensmount that presumably is a barrier to dust and moisture. Not visible but probably present are similar gaskets for focus and zoom rings. This is certainly reassuring but I still go FAR out of my way to keep rain and dust off of them. How well the high-end Nikon lenses are sealed relative to Canon "Ls" is not clear, but I presume Nikon does pay some attention to this issue. No lens is likely to be completely sealed (else you'd risk having air pressure blow the elements out of the barrel if you took it to high altitude or flew in a plane). I used to have a Nikon 400 EFIF lens, which was a very fine optic. It focused considerably past infinity, as does my Canon 500. I regarded this as an advantage: put on an extension tube and you loose slightly less long-distance focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Folks, please understand that the quality of a lens (chromatic aberrations, resolution, etc, etc) is not "improved"by the use of fluorite glass (CaF2) or LD, ED, UD, etc specialty type glasses. The use of such low dispersion glass types (fluorite and "ED") makes it possible to make the lens compact and lighter in weight. This is the MAJOR advantage. There were many different APO lenses made by many manufacturers before Canon ever learnt to make a simple, decent lens, for example. None of these sported any fluorite elements. Canon's innovation with DO (diffraction optics) elements is a low grade technical solution to the same problem. If anyone noticed, Nikon has introduced the same DO (forgot what they call it) feature in one of its Coolpix teleconverter attachments. This announcement from Nikon at the recent Photokina, I think is the step in the right direction (i.e. introducing this feature in a consumer level optics). Vivek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 <I>Every Nikon lens represents a strong effort resulting in performance way above par for its specification and its price point. </i> <p> Thanks, I needed a laugh. <p> Technically, Nikon's ED glass is very similar to Canon's UD glass. Therefore any ED lens would qualify for Canon's L designation. <p> Performance is a different matter, and can't necessarily be determined from the construction of the lens. <p> Just about everything else in this thread is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Vivek, in Nikon's own literature, they have been stating for years that the purpose of ED (Extra-Low Dispersion) glass is to correct chromatic aberrations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Yes, that is correct. Low-dispersion glass is necessary to correct chromatic aberration in long lenses. In theory you might be able to correct it with a larger number of elements of less exotic glass, but it's not practical, due to cost, size and the undesirable optical effects of having too many elements (eg flare). In reality you can be certain that a lens of 200mm or more without exotic glass is going to suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Shun, It is correct that ED is used to correct chromatic aberrations. A set of high/low refractive glass use in a lens is used for chromatic aberration control. You just do not need ED or fluorite for that. There are several hundreds of optical glass varieties that can be used to achieve that. Moreover, when some glass elements are shaped in a special way, chromatic aberration control is also achieved. Until, Fuji's break through in this particular area, such shaping of a glass element by precision grinding made it expensive. Fuji's process can do that by injection molding. That is why I am not overly swayed by all the ED, IF, SIC, NIC add ons following a lens's name nowadays. Vivek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Rather than speculate on the internet, I simply asked Nikon support which lenses were as tough as my F5. The constant f/2.8 zooms and the longer primes are considered "Pro" and are built to higher standards, such as weatherproofing. If you are a registered Nikon customer, you can ask them yourself and confirm what I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asaf_tzadok Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 So according to what most of the members said, Nikkor 18-70 DX with a very impressive specification : IF, 3xED glass elements, 1x aspherical lens - should be considered as elite lens. Is it ? Asaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 The "majority, concensus"would then be: No, it is a low end, low cost, consumer level lens. If this makes you sit up and think what all these "ED", "Asph" do to make a lens better, you are on the right track! Also, the 25-50 f/4 AIS nikkor (not cheap when they sold them!) has the best chromatic aberration control in a Nikon zoom. It does not have any Ed! Vivek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Until a few years ago, ED elements and AF-S used to indicate that a lens was "high end." That changed with the introduction of the $300+ 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-D with ED elements, followed by the likes of the 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S G and 24-120mm AF-S G. The 18-70 DX kit lens is very much consumer-grade. Distortion and vignetting at 18mm/f3.5 wide open are pretty serious. The ~$300 price-tag is also consumer grade. It is normal that technology makes its way down to the low-end products. 3D color matrix metering was a big deal on the F5 8 years ago. Now that is available on the cheapest Nikon DSLR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Not all L lenses are weather sealed, that's definitely a fact. They have improved it in recent lenses though. Price tells a lot, and user experience even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now