Canon 28-135 F3.5-5.6 IS Macro VS. Nikon 24-120 F3.5-5.6 VR IF ED for digital, baby

[evan_parker]

I'm considering getting a Digital Rebel, but being a Nikon person I'm

a little bit scared about the lens quality from Canon (although

admittedly, this is probably paranoia induced by fellow Nikonians and

not anything based on fact). Basically, I'm going to be getting

either the Digital Rebel (300D) or the Nikon D100, and I want to know

what a good starter lens is (besides the kit, and yes I know about

the crop factor).

 

When comparing the two lenses mentioned in the subject line, they

seem very, very similar, although I've hard that Canon's IS is less

effective than Nikon's VR. Is the absence of ED glass going to make a

noticeable difference with pictures taken through the Canon lens? On

Canon's side, their lens is considerably less expensive, at least at

KEH.

 

Any opinions would be super ultra greatly appreciated.

[john_yu]

I think Canon is a lot better than Nikon. Focusing with Nikon is a little too slow. It seems to me that more and more professional photographers started to use Canon these days. But Rebel is no good. You should buy Canon 10D.

[idealguy]

Personally, after reading Tons of articles and internet resources. I decided to go with the Canon 10D because of the Metal Body and the Image Stabilization that is available only from Canon Lenses. Nikon does make great equipment and Excellent Glass from what I have read and gathered. I think it is a matter of personal preferrence and features. I would suggest that you go to the camera shop and hold each one in your hand. The Canon 10D is heavier and feels much more solid to me than the Nikon D100, or the Digital Rebel. However, Some people like the D100 because it is lighter because is made from polycarb plastic. The only feature that I feel is missing from the 10D that the D100 has is the LCD protector. Other than that for my preference I feel that the 10D is hands down a better camera, especially over the Digital Rebel Just because of the feel of it. If you don't mind the plastic body the Rebel is a great camera, it even focuses in lower light than the 10D. As for the Canon EF 28-135 Lens with Image Stabilization I think it is an excellent lens and unless you are doing work that requires superior optics I don't think you would even notice the difference in this lens versus the Nikon pro or the Canon L series lenses. The Image Stabilization feature on the lense makes it worth the money in my oppinion because it works as advertised.

[stanley_rogouski]

I used both an n80 and a Digital Rebel.

 

Comparing the n80 with the 28-105 and the Digital Rebel with the 24-85, I'd have to say that:

 

Nikon = Better metering

Canon = Better autofocus

 

If you're used to the very precise spot metering on the n80, the Rebel or even the 10D is going to seem primitive.

 

But the USM focusing blows Nikon away.

[peter_foiles2]

The other posters have pretty well outlined the differences. The 10D is a better match for the D100 than the 300D. As for VR vs IS Nikon claims 3 stops Canon claims 2 stops. I think this is a case of Canon being more conservitive. Reports of real world use seem to indicate that either system give you 2-3 stops depending on technique etc. There is not really an objective measurement of the technology anyway.

 

Beware of brand zelots from either side, it sounds like you have been talking with some of the Nikon variety. Both Nikon and Canon make high quality photographic tools they would have their status in the market if they didn't. Anyone who tells you different should not be listened to. Step back and look at the whole system offered by each manufacturer. Who is going to have the equipment you want to use 5 years from now? Which system do you feel most comfortable using? Decide that and then go from there. Different people will come up with different answers you have to decide what is righ for you.

[m_.]

none is great in my opinion. so pick nikon to utilize your Nikon glasses.

[blueviews]

Wentong:

Why do you think none is great? I think a lot of folks would have strong disagreements with that statement.

[james_mcpeak]

I am a recent convert from Nikon to the Canon 300D. I was getting by with an N65, but decided it was time to move up in cameras, and into a digital SLR. Frankly, I really enjoyed my N65. I do most of my photography in aperture priority, and I don't do any high-speed action photography, so my needs were relatively conservative. The things I didn't like the about the N65 was that I could only do matrix metering with it (but center-weighted in manual), it had a really slow flash sync speed of 1/90, and it didn't take a cable release. But I was able to resolve all those shortcomings with the 300D

 

I ended up getting the 300D because it gave me everything I needed. It gained partial metering, a 1/200 flash sync, and cable release compatibility. Plus with Canon's flash system, you can do high speed flash sync all the way to 1/4000, which you can't do with the D100. Also, the 300D has ISO 100 which offers lower noise and cleaner images than Nikon's minimum ISO 200. That's important for me since I do a lot of landscape photography.

 

The other factor was pricing. I was able to outfit myself with the 300D plus 18-55 lens ($1000), 550EX flash ($300), extra camera battery ($35), and 512mb memory card ($120) for less than the price of a D100 body alone ($1500). That was a huge advantage, IMHO. I also plan on adding the Canon 28-135 IS, which is a very good lens equal in sharpness to the Nikon 24-120 VR. But there's an advantage there, too. The Canon 28-135 IS is $400, versus the $560 that Nikon charges for their 24-120 VR. I also prefer the Canon's focal range because there is less overlap at the short end and more at the long end where I think it is more useful on an IS/VR lens.

 

So in the end, I would have paid MUCH more if I had gone with the Nikon. You would also have to spend a couple hundred dollars to get something to cover the 18-to-whatever (28mm equivalent) focal on the Nikon that the suprisingly good Canon 18-55 lens does on the 300D for only $100! The 300D has everything I need to do good, serious photography. In the core specs that I am most interested in, the 300D compares very favorably to the much more expensive D100. The 300D does have a partial meter compared to the D100's spot meter, but I'm finding that with digital photography the difference is inconsquential, particularly since you now have a histogram and instant review.

[bob_katz1]

<html>

 

<head>

<meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en-ca">

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">

<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">

<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">

<title>New Page 1</title>

</head>

 

<body>

 

<p>Based on the shaky reviews the Nikon lens has received, I think the Canon

would be a safer bet.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom.html#AFS24-120VR">http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom.html#AFS24-120VR</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.imagepower.de/IMAGES/imgEQUIPMENT/AFS24120VR.htm">http://www.imagepower.de/IMAGES/imgEQUIPMENT/AFS24120VR.htm</a></p>

 

</body>

 

</html>

[Jim_Tardio]

I'm really begining to suspect that Canon has spies planted here on photo net. That's the only way so much nonsense gets posted.

<p>

As to the original question...I'd say it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. If you're a Nikon person, you'll be used to the Nikon system.

<p>

Personally, the 24mm end of the zoom is much more attractive to me than 28mm. They're both mediocre zoom lenses, but that's not to say they're bad by any means. They'll get the job done for all but the most critical applications.

<p>

The bigger question is what system do want to live with? Canon seems to have a greater selection at the moment, but that could & will change...then it will change again. If you have Nikon lenses now, it's sensible, to me, to stay with that system.

[peter_phan]

In comparing the Canon 28-135 IS and the Nikon 24-120 VR, you're not likely to see any difference in optical quality. The "ED" label on the 24-120VR is inconsequential. ED (Extra-low Disperson glass, from Nikon) and UD (Ultra-low Dispersion glass, from Canon) tends to be more of a significant factor at longer focal lengths where the light must travel farther and where dispersion needs to be better controlled. On shorter focal lengths, the "ED" label is more for marketing than practical optical value. But even though you won't see any optical difference between these lenses, your wallet will see a big difference. Nikon prices the 24-120VR a lot higher than Canon's 28-135IS. In fact, as you probably know, Nikon prices most of their stuff higher than Canon.

 

I have had the 28-135IS for a few years now. Great lens. Great for travel. It used to be my standard zoom, but since getting a 10D my standard zoom has been the 17-40/4L.

[bob_katz1]

"<i>In comparing the Canon 28-135 IS and the Nikon 24-120 VR, you're not likely to see any difference in optical quality</i>"<p>

 

Assuming you get a 24-120 VR without a decentered element, that is... ;-)

<p>

If you check out the lens review links I posted above, it would seem that the two established, highly-respectd professional photographers, both of whom are die-hard Nikon users, have both found the same problems with their 24-120 VR zooms. This suggests that decentered elements (or whatever is causing the poor optical performance) may be a common fault in these lenses. <i>Caveat Emptor</i>

[ilkka_nissila]

Both have similar features, but the focal length range of the Nikkor is far better suited for the small-sensor digital cameras. Of course, neither is a top quality lens; I've seen truly soft pictures in magazines even in sunlight from the 28-135.

 

I don't know which lenses you have already, but I would get the Nikon body and augment your lens system with a 18-55/2.8 AF-S DX Nikkor which takes care of the general purpose zoom needs in digital cameras. It's a lot more money but a good range and optimized for digital.

[john_grable]

<i>I don't know which lenses you have already, but I would get the Nikon body and augment your lens system with a 18-55/2.8 AF-S DX Nikkor which takes care of the general purpose zoom needs in digital cameras. It's a lot more money but a good range and optimized for digital.</i> <p> I think you might be refering to the Nikon 17-55/2.8 AF-S DX. Hmmm, Canon 300D + Canon 18-55/3.5-5.6 EF-S for $1000. Or Nikon D100 ($1500) + 17-55/2.8 DX ($1500?) for $3000? That's a pretty big price difference. Also, I don't know if you've heard, but the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX has been delayed until mid-2004. So you can't get it even if you wanted it. <p> The Canon 17-55/3.5-5.6 is obviously a much cheaper option. And I understand it's a pretty good lens, if you don't need the fast aperture and pro build. If you want a truly excellent, top-quality lens (in construction and optical quality), I would highly recommend the Canon 17-40/4L. I have this lens and can honestly tell you it is beautiful. It sells for $800. A 300D ($900) + 17-40/4L ($800) is a lot cheaper ($1700) and will still give you pro-quality results. And unlike the Nikon 17-55 DX, the Canon 17-40L is fully compatible with full frame cameras (film and digital). So your lens investment is more future-safe with the Canon 17-40L than it is with the Nikon 17-55 DX, especially since Nikon has announced that they are eventually going to go full frame digital.