Nikon makes the better wide angel lenses!?

[martin_patek_strutsky]

After buying into the Canon system recently I surfed the web

extensively for information. Surprisingly I found a lot of comments

as well from Canon and Nikon shooters stating that Nikon makes the

better wide angel lenses.

 

Interestingly no one saw the need for explaining this position and I

also found no direct comparison for example between the Nikkor 17-

35/2.8 and the EF 16-35/2.8.

 

Could someone please explain where this theory comes from? Has there

been a time when Nikon lenses were superior?

 

Looking at my recently acquired 17-40/4 (used at 1.6 crop) this seems

to be an urban myth.

[kiestphoto]

I too would echo this question, as I have heard this and had believed it to be true, but had

never seen it proved, or even argued.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

I've heard this said often.

<br>I do recall hearing many comments comming from users of both brands but can't say i've seen any objective online tests

[ilkka_nissila]

Bjorn Rorslett, who is highly respected for his Nikon lens tests, gave the Canon EF 20/2.8 3/5 while he gave the Nikkor 20/2.8 5/5, Nikkor 14/2.8 4/5 (on film), Nikkor 24/2.8 4/5, and AF Nikkor 18/2.8 3/5. There is a lot of differences between different lenses it seems.

 

The EF 17-35/2.8 got 3/5 while the Nikkor 17-35/2.8 got 5/5. However, he said that the EF 16-35 is far superior to the EF 17-35 but he hasn't tested it yet.

 

Of course, these are always subjective evaluations. But he does give EF teles very high marks. Scott Eaton who has used both EOS and Nikkor lenses seems to think the Nikon wides are better.

 

I think this is a very long tradition; Canon's superteles have always had the edge over comparable Nikkor lenses but in wides, the situation is the reverse. Michael Reichmann recently complained about the quality of EF wide angles but he didn't say anything about Nikon lenses.

[umd]

You say this:<br><br>

 

<i>Interestingly no one saw the need for explaining this position and I also found no direct comparison for example between the Nikkor 17- 35/2.8 and the EF 16-35/2.8.</i><br><br>

 

and this:<br><br>

 

<i>Looking at my recently acquired 17-40/4 (used at 1.6 crop) this seems to be an urban myth</i><br><br>

 

in the same post! Have you done a comparision with the equivalent Nikkor? And you just shot at 1.6 crop!

[Greg M]

Martin,

 

The great thing with the web is everyone gets to chime in with their own OPINION, which is all anything or any review is. Surely you don't believe everything you see on the internet as gospel, do you? There is no one great truth about any one thing, much less who makes the best wide angle lens.

[paul hart]

What is a wide angel? Gabriel with love-handles?

[chrisjb]

Hi, great system Eos its adaptable to more other lenses then any other

systen if you like one lens better just get an adapter and use it I`ve ordered hassleblad, nlkon ,FD and will get a olympus om soon,I am not happy with some EF wide open so trying other lenses that I have in the closet. BTW Ron I know your at Gympie Shaun at M`chy cam repairs has closed any idea where to get old EOS mounts around here I`m at Mooloolaba.

 

Good luck

[brad_w]

Martin, I think this comes from the "traditional" w/a's that each company made:

20/2.8, 24/2.8, 35/2 and 17-35/2.8.

 

My Nikkor 35/2 and 24/2.8 gave warmer, more saturated colors and better

contrast my Canon EF's. Canon's 20/2.8 and 17-35/2.8 have spotty

reputations and are a bit lacking in resolution and flare control, while the

Nikkors are just about perfect, especially in controlling distortion.

Photodo.com's test are a bit dated but confirm this impression.

 

IMO, current-production Canon L's rock and roll, both the zooms and the fast

primes.

 

-b

[grant_.]

whats this got to do with photography again?

[._._z]

The photography of test charts is an art. We should give it its own forum.

[thomas_sullivan]

nah...they'll argue over which test chart is better

[beauh44]

Man, I wish I'd known about this before I bought all my crappy Canon gear! FWIW, Nikon *does* beat Canon's 20mm f/2.8 lens, according to Photodo. They rate Nikon's lens at 3,5 and the poor Canon just got smeared, coming in at 3,4. I doubt Ansel Adams could overcome that whopping difference! ;-)

[jim_larson1]

One thing to bear in mind. . while people say Nikon wide angles are better. . .many also say the Canon telephotos are better.

[nabeeko]

I have THE ULTIMATE solution!

Buy a Nikon for the wide angle, Canon for the Telephoto,

Buy a Film SLR for the Velvia, DSLR for the computer,

Medium format for the Prints...So on and so forth...

The difference isn't going to be much to the naked eye, if in fact there is a difference.

If you want the best equipment, find the best photographer in the world and use exactly what he/she uses. Because it's the equipment that takes the pictures not the photographer, right?

[psoriano]

According photodo, the Nikkor AF 24/2,8 has "Grade 3.7" and Canon EF 24/2,8 has "Grade

3.9"

 

Maybe that's a legend from those ancient times when, as Homer Simpson says, "there were

dinosaurs out of the zoos"

[ilkka_nissila]

What does photodo ratings have to do with image quality? About as much as a random number. Why? Because you can not describe the quality of a lens with one number. It's always going to be an arbitrary weighting of distict aspects of the performance of a lens, nothing to do with real world performance.

[John Crowe]

Hmmmm...funny I just received my first Nikon lens to-day, a 14mm f2.8 D ED to go with my Canon FD 400mm f2.8 L. Within a couple of weeks both can be attached to my wife's Elan IIe along with various other EF lenses. Hope those "Nikon for wide, Canon for long" comments are accurate!

 

It won't be particularly fair but I will pit the 14mm against my Canon FD 17mm just for the fun of it.

[erol_a.]

Well, before I switched, I owned Nikon 35/2, 20/2.8, and 17-35/2.8 lenses. In the Canon

realm, I own the 16-35/2.8L. I will say, the Nikons were all superior to the L lens to my

eyes - images looked sharper and with a more pleasant tonal scale.

 

But like a previous poster said, in the tele ranges, I'm liking Canon lenses more. My 70

-200/2.8IS is giving me better results than the 80-200/2,8AFS did.

 

Of course, the differences are pretty freakin' minor, and if the picture is halfway decent,

the quality of the content overwhelms any tiny technical quibbles.

[r._j.]

My clients and customers have never assessed my images against a test chart nor demanded to see a lab report on my lenses. Buying good glass, not cheap stuff, is the most important factor in terms of getting reliable performance, generally.

 

It has worked for me, and I have even had lots of great experiences with independent lenses such as the Tokina AT-X optics, although I generally buy L-series lenses and fast primes in preference to zooms.

 

I can be required to work in any and all circumstances ansd clients do not care about the practical difficulties (low light, flash not permitted, its indoors, etc, etc, etc) this entails. Hence my fixed lenses are all f/1.4 or faster and my telephoto lenses and zooms are all f/2.8 and 'IS' equipped - I would not even bother buying or using anything else.