Check the Nikon forum to confirm what you've always known!

[steve_phillipps]

<p>Thread title "All Canon lenses are better than Nikon"<br>

All good fun!<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WjdU</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Funny thing is that there have been, here and elsewhere, a number of posts by people switching to Nikon because they think the lenses are better. The grass is always greener (and the lenses better) on the other side of the fence...</p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>I think, as has been discussed in other threads, that they are so comparable in terms of quality and range, in lenses and bodies, from amateur to pro, that it's entirely, 100% down to personal preference/past experience/current compatible equipment. There really is absolutely nothing in it.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Yeah, but G Dan, there have also been a number of posts switching from Nikon to Canon. There is a certain crowd of easily influenced people with large disposable incomes who are likely to switch over just about any hot new feature was just released on one or the other. </p>

<p>For all I know (I haven't cared enough to look that deeply), many of the Nikon lenses were tested on 6MP sensors against 10MP sensors on the Canons. Just because one has more pixels and perhaps better "resolution" as a result, does not mean the lenses are 'better' in some particular dimension. Of course, we <em>here</em> all believe that Canon has the edge in innovation, but that view may not be universally held. ;)</p>

<p>I stand with feet in both camps, since I was a Nikonista for many years in film cameras before going to digital with Canon. It may not be uncalled for to switch every 20 or 30 years, "just for a change."</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>JDM, I think we are saying the same thing. In my view <em>the grass is equally green on both sides of the fence</em>. In almost all cases, one should pick a brand and get on with the business of making photographs. Switching either direction because brand X will be better than brand Y (or brand Y will be better than brand X, or brand W or brand Z...) is rarely going to pay off in improved photography.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>How very odd. Even the Sigma 50/1.4 for Canon mount tested higher than the Sigma 50/1.4 for Nikon mount. And with less distortion and vignetting too, though with more chromatic aberration. Which leads me to believe the underlying story is probably rather complex.</p>

[robert_turner]

<p>Alan, keep in mind that anecdotal reports strongly suggest Sigma has the highest degree of sample variation of major third party lens makes, and their 50mm f1.4 is notorious for variation. But your point is probably valid that the story and any conclusions are more complicated (and likely less relevant) that whatever blog fodder has been added to this endless debate.<br>

Now, I must go wash my hands, as I feel "dirty" typing in this thread... ;-)</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>Very interesting! I remember taking Canon's overall lens rating average on photodo and comparing it with Nikon's. Canon's was slightly higher, but not significantly so. I have to say that these results make me smile just a bit, because there's an awful lot of Nikon snobbery out there. However, in reality, it looks to me like the lens lineups are largely similar. (Let's not forget to credit Sony/Minolta for their strong showing!) I notice that perceptions about which lenses are good and which ones are not often come down to popularity. One lens will be in vogue one day, and passe the next.<br /><br />The weaknesses of the DxO data are first that they are incomplete. They have tested some popular lenses, but only some of them. Many of Nikon's supposedly best lenses are untested, and many of Canon's best are similarly untested. Secondly, they only test one sample of each lens, not accounting for sample-to-sample variability. When I compare two of the lesser Canon lenses I own against each other, I KNOW that the testing of one of those lenses is way off. It's quite obvious. So I question the relevance of these results. The same can be said of slrgear.com's data, which show DxO's top-rated Canon 85/1.8 as having rather serious edge sharpness issues (that don't really exist).<br /><br />The one thing Nikon shooters should think about, though, is that they generally pay more for their optics than we Canon shooters pay for ours. If they're to be upset about anything, I think it should be that. Otherwise, I think their optics are every bit as good as Canon's. We're all lucky to have such good lens choices these days!</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>Robert, I'm sure sample variation comes into play; but actually all four Sigmas (50/1.4 plus the 18-50, 17-70, and 18-250) were ranked slightly higher in the Canon mount than in the Nikon mount. So I have to wonder if there's some kind of bias.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>We're all lucky to have such good lens choices these days!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes indeed.</p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>Maybe the flange back distance has a slight effect on how easy it is to design a particular lens for a particular mount. You know all the Leica people have been raving about how having the lens so close to the film gives them better designs etc. and the EOS mount is known for its short distance where the Nikon F is known for its long distance. Just speculating...<br>

Nowadays though, Canon and Nikon are pretty much equal. One of the people I know just switched from Canon to Nikon. Its all personal preference.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Sarah Fox wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The one thing Nikon shooters should think about, though, is that they generally pay more for their optics than we Canon shooters pay for ours. </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but Canon is doing its best to fix that "problem" with the pricing on the newer lenses. ;-)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Tell me about it! :-(</p>