Nikon to Conon EOS Lens Adapter

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>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.</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Nikon optics are <strong>not</strong> 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.</p>

<p><em>However, I have read dozens of lens reviews indicating Nikon optic superiority over Canon.</em></p>

<p>I'm calling that bluff. I've researched this and I'm hard pressed to remember one <strong>review</strong> that claimed this. I've seen this <strong>unsubstantiated opinion</strong> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>If you're buying new glass, choose your system and buy your body. Adapters are for people with older lens collections.</p>

[drpath]

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>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.<br /> 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.<br>

I've stated this before as JDM's Law of Camera Advances:<br>

<br /> <strong>If at a time N, Canon is "ahead" of Nikon, then at N+1, Nikon will be "ahead" of Canon. </strong><br /> "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.</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

<br />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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>extreme lenses, the kind of thing that average people never used, while Canon always focused on what the general market wanted.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This does not correspond to actual history.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>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.<br>

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 <strong>"N</strong>ippon <strong>IKON</strong>". So there you go. The Eastern Zeiss Ikon company.<br>

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!</p>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

<p>Thank you all (well, most of you) for your thoughtful responses. <br>

<br>

You have adequately answered my questions. </p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>Bill,<br>

:). Didn't realize a simple half-joking phrase about a one camera company being better than other could start a war did ya?</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>I know the "Official" Nikon history says the name comes from "Nippon Kogaku".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[m_m7]

<p>"So far nothing I've seen in 35mm outshines the Nikon Ai and AIS series from the 70s".<br>

Of course in your opinion -:) .I happen to disagree.I believe every manufacturer has some stellar lenses and quite a few dogs ...<br>

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 </p>