Nikon VS Canon glass

[bennett_richards]

<p>Does it matter that Nikon makes almost all lenses outside of Japan while Canon still makes MOST if not sl of their L lens line in Japan.</p>

<p>Would the 24-120 play nice with the D810?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>No it doesn't matter; it's not in Nikon's interest to let any kind of quality control and manufactering best practises slip once a lens is produced outside of Japan. So you can expect the same level of quality, same warranty, same service. I've never seen any proof that there is a measurable and evident difference between lenses produced in Japan and those outside. Well, apart from the usual anecdotes from either side of the tale, which make nice fillers of the internet but which proof absolutely nothing.</p>

<p>There are various versions of the 24-120; the latest and most expensive 24-120 f/4VR is listed in <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/o/Y6wrkA9OU_z04IreazIXl_22UII/PDF/D800_TechnicalGuide_En.pdf">the D800/D800E technical guide</a> (page 16) as a recommended lens for these cameras. So it'll play nice with the D810 as well, if this lens fits your needs and wants.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The only piece of Canon L glass I've bought from new had a bad decentring fault and had to go back. I've never had to return any Nikon lens in that way. OK that's a sample of 1, but it shows that Japanese workers and inspection procedures can be just as slipshod as anywhere else in the world.</p>

<p>"Would the 24-120 play nice with the D810?" - Not if you want to make the most of the 36Mp sensor. It's a 5x zoom, and that should tell you all you need to know about its performance. If you can live with poor corner sharpness at all apertures and focal lengths, it'll be fine.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I keep reading frequently about this poor corner sharpness of the 24-120 f/4VR - a lens I actually own and regularly use - what is the source of that? Even photozone doesn't mention this problem very explicit, and usually they're pretty clear on matters as these.<br>

I don't use it with a D800/D810, but if the performance is really that poor, I guess I should see it on my D700, and well.... I really don't. Wide open, yes, not perfect, but stopped down I really fail to see it.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"- what is the source of that?" The yellow to red areas in DXOmark's sharpness and CA measurements; KR's sample pictures in his 24mm lens roundup; Photozone's resolution column charts that hover around the "fair" to "poor" region for the corners at nearly every focal length; the few pictures I took myself while I briefly had my hands on a sample.......</p>

<p>The D700 is quite forgiving compared to the D800 and variants Wouter. I used to use an old 200mm f/4 Ai Nikkor on the D700 quite happily. It just doesn't cut it on the D800 I'm afraid, and now sits pretty much unused, replaced by the 200mm setting on a Tamron 70-300 VC. Shame, because it's such a neat and lightweight little lens, but I see little point in using a 36Mp sensor if your glassware can't keep up with it.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>You mean <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff?start=1">Photozone </a>where they state:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Borders and corners follow a good bit behind wide open, but manage to catch up mostly stopped down, offering very good sharpness at f/5.6 or f/8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>which translates to "<em>poor corner sharpness at all apertures and focal lengths</em>"?<br>

I know the D700 is more forgiving and implied that in my previous post. But that doesn't explain the number of times that people with little or no experience with this lens have told me it is downright "poor", while I can see nothing of that kind. But I guess I should trust Ken Rockwell and DxO over my own eyes then.<br>

As I've said before, it's not the best lens, nor the best value. But it's competent, with a very useful range and still quite manageable in size and weight. It gets more right than wrong, and will also get more right than wrong on a D800, if used with some competency. Yes, you can do better, but every lens is a compromise in ways, and this lens really isn't the worst out there.</p>

[Two23]

<p>The optics in lenses are now made by robots rather than people. I doubt it matters where the robots are set up.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I've seen too many awesome photos taken with sub-standard lenses to think we should care about this at all.</p>

[nigel_farmer]

<p>What if the canon lens robots are not made in Japan, but the Nikon lens robots are made in Japan :-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>While where a lens (or for that matter a camera body) is made hardly matters as far as quality goes, it is not quite true that Nikon makes almost all of their lenses outside of Japan. Pretty much all consumer Nikon lenses are made in either Thailand or China now, but all high-end lenses are still made in Japan, including all f2.8 zooms and super telephoto lenses.</p>

<p>For those Canon and Nikon lenses made in Japan, you are merely paying for the higher labor and production costs in Japan and therefore get less value for your money.</p>

[jonb]

<p>Whether the 24-120 plays well with the D810 will depend to some degree on what you're using it for. I'm actually still using its predecessor AF-S 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 lens. That lens has a poor reputation, but I must have gotten the only decent sample of it Nikon ever made -- in Thailand, no less! (I'm kidding, of course. I'm sure most of them were fine.) It's even a little weaker in edge sharpness than the 24-120 f/4, but that doesn't bother me because I use it 1) for event/people photography, where the edges of the composition are generally out of focus by design and the 5:1 zoom range comes in very handy, and 2) for some landscape, where it's stopped down enough to where it's decently sharp across the frame and the distortion isn't important to me.</p>

<p>When I want better optics or fast aperture, I put the 24-70 on the camera, but my 24-120 works just fine for most of the uses I have in that focal-length range. So far, I've shot one event with the D810 and 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 and was quite pleased with its performance. The f/4 model is even better.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>If you can't make a good photograph with a cheap consumer lens, you not going to do it with a 2000 dollar equivalent lens either.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the 24-120/4 is a 5x zoom whose weaknesses will be more apparent on a 36mp camera than a 12mp camera. whether you can live with that or not depends on what you use it for. if you need critical sharpness for landscape photography, that wouldn't be my first choice. if you want a walkaround lens which can do a bunch of things reasonably well, it's probably better for that than the 28-300 super-duper-zoom. of course, this raises another question, do you really need a 36mp camera for casual shooting? obviously the d810 is going to perform best with high-end lenses; the 24-120/4 is a consumer-grade lens. i don't really think of the d8xx bodies as all-purpose cameras -- more like hi-res specialists which optimize image quality, especially at low ISOs. for non-critical applications, a d610 (or d700) would probably be just fine, depending on how large you need to print. besides having larger files, a 36mp sensor requires more careful technique and as others have pointed out, can magnify the shortcomings of some lenses.</p>

<p>i do a lot of event photography myself, mainly with a D3s and 24-70/70-200 combo; i rarely find the need for triple the resolution, except maybe for cropping. when i shoot events, i tend to shoot so many frames that large files would only get in the way. also, i dont always shoot events at base ISO. if i had a d810, i'd probably be very judicious in how i used it -- with the best glass, and in situations where i could make the most out of that sensor.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Nikon and Canon pretty much match each other, dollar for dollar and IQ for price by IQ for price.</p>

<p>Now that the Peoples Republic is beginning to exploit that last great labor reserve in the world, I suspect that before too long we'll be seeing cameras, lenses, and other gear made in Africa. It is the production control that is the issue, not the geographic location --</p>

<p>Even within Japan, Nikon had troubles with subcontracting the production of their "lost" camera, the Nikkorex. Later, when they did acknowledge it, they said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nippon Kogaku K. K. was not much experienced in mass-production of relatively low cost cameras. Besides, this was the first time that the company outsourced assembly operations for one of its cameras. There was confusion caused by the difference of company culture. The subcontractors had much diffculty in doing things which were easily accomplished in Nippon Kogaku K. K. Engineers and technicians were frequently sent to teach and train them. But improvement was slow.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, and an old friend came in from out of town, the dog ate it, and they ran out of gas too.<br>

The chart shows lens prices.</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>I can't comment on the manufacturing question.</p>

<p>I tried the 24-120 f/4G on my D800E. It was considerably less sharp than my 24-70 f/2.8G, so I returned it.</p>

[kparratt]

<p>It is actually rather amusing to be reading about concerns as to where a lens is made, and in particular, that many are no longer made in Japan. When Kyocera Corporation took over Contax cameras, all the sulking "Made in Germany" cult were watching as fewer and fewer of their beloved Contax lenses were being made ... where? The same earlier, when Leica had production plants in Portugal, for the Leica R 3 (based on a Minolta body) .. and a plant in Canada, which actually produced some of the best Leica lenses ever. But oohhh dear .. "Made in Canada" ??? And in fact, in order to catch up with Nikon, the Leica optical division made a serious study of Minolta lenses, and selected a few to build up the R-System lens range. Minolta supplied the glass elements, and Leica (supposedly) applied their own coatings to some, and mounted them in their own German built lens barrels. This saved Leica from certain doom. They had so doggedly plodded on with the Leicaflex (effectively an M with built with integral reflex housing) .. beautifully built but so expensive it was sold at cost, with the only profit margin being in the three R lenses offered.<br>

I have few Minolta lenses from That Leica-Minolta era. They are superb! There was also the Sigma 35-70 zoom for the R system. It was a great performer. Very few Leica owners knew it's origin until years later. The same Leica "aficionados" would never be seen dead with a Sigma lens. Silly<br>

As <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1841065">JDM von Weinberg</a> says, "it is the production control that is the issue, not the geographic location --"</p>