Nikkon lense better or Canon lense better?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

I intend to buy a SLR camera either Nikkon F65 or EOS 300. Can someone tell me which camera body and lense are better?

-- CCT (gto_nite@yahoo.com), April 26, 2002

Answers

This is the eternal question.

What kind of photography are you interested in, now and in the future? What kind of lenses are you thinking about? Zooms? Primes?

People will be able to give you some advice if you talk a little bit about your needs and concerns.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 26, 2002.


There is becoming less and less to choose between them.

Canon offer consistency of camera/lens abilities (all EOS bodies can use all EF lenses to the full), as well as more wide-spread technology (USM and IS are much more widespread within the Canon range than AF-S and VR (the nikon equivalents) are within Nikon's).

Nikon offer a limited backwards compatibility to very old lenses, but that means that some lenses prevent cameras doing some things, and some cameras can't use some features of some lenses.

Canon offer a wide range of specialist lenses (Eg TS-E, MP-E, 1200 F5.6L) which Nikon have no equivalents to, but Nikon also offer a few which Canon don't (8mm 180degree circular fisheye). These are extremes, which you're unlikely to use as an amateur.

Basically, go to the shop, handle both cameras with the lenses you want, and see which feels best to you.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), April 26, 2002.


Canon certainly has an advantage in USM and IS terms. Unless those are requirements, either system will do.

Nikon does have a very cool "de-focus" lens though, and there are some old manual focus lenses that are pretty nice (and cheap). I'm not sure what "Nikkon" has in the way of lenses or bodies though.

-- Steven Fisher (steven_fisher@hotmail.com), April 26, 2002.


This is the Canon forum, so you may expect most members to prefer Canon. You may have a look at Minolta as well. I have no first hand experience with Minolta but it seems that the Dynax/Maxxum 5 is very competitive and their entry level zoom lenses (which almost everybody on this forum will advise against) might be just a bit better than their Canon counterparts. OTOH if you go for quality glass Canon is the better choice in my opinion for the reasons cited above.

-- Jos van Eekelen (jos@compuserve.com), April 26, 2002.

Canon and Nikons lenses:

Optically equal. Canon lens system mechanically and technologically superior. Nikon is trying to catch up, but Canon is still way ahead for a long time to come.

Canon has Ultrasonic Motors (USM) throughout their lens line. This type of focus motor has the advantage of being very quiet and fast. Nikon has their version called Silent Wave (AF-S). Nikon currently has 9 AF-S lenses available, none of which are below $1,000. Canon has 42 USM lenses available, some as low as $90. With Nikon, you pay extra for the AF-S "feature". With Canon, USM is the standard autofocus motor and you don't pay more for it. In fact, Canon USM lenses are generally cheaper than their Nikon AF-S equivalents, even though they are optically, mechanically, and structurally equivalent.

Canon has a large selection of Image Stabilizer (IS) lenses. Nikon has their version called Vibration Reduction (VR). Canon currently has 10 IS lenses available, each equipped with USM. Nikon currently only has one VR lens available, and it doesn't have AF-S.

Canon has three tilt-shift lenses (24mm, 45mm, and 90mm). These lenses are very useful for landscape and architectural photography, as well as creative control of the plane of focus. Nikon only has one lens, and it is 85mm which isn't very useful for landscapes or architecture.

Canon is always investing in new lens technology. This includes numerous types of special glass for their lens elements. This includes Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) glass, Super Ultra-low Dispersion (Super UD) glass, and Fluorite, which is not a a glass by strict definition but a crystal with an extremely low dispersion index. One Fluorite element is considered to be equal to two UD elements. What's even better is that Canon has been able to put these high- quality glass elements into very affordable high-quality lenses such as the excellent but relatively inexpensive 70-200/4L. Canon has also recently developed Diffractive Optical (DO) lenses, which allow great reductions in size and weight of larger lenses and offer new design flexibility for future lenses.

Although Nikon also has nice glass, the don't have the same variety of glass materials. Their single premium glass is Extra-low Dispersion (ED) glass. They have no equivalent to such things as DO lenses. Any investment in lens technology Nikon makes is usually to catch up with a lens type or lens technology that Canon came out with a few years earlier.

As a whole, the Canon lens selection is superior and actually more affordable than the Nikon selection. Nikon equipment is notoriously more expensive than comparable equipment in other systems. And, no, it's not because it is more durable or better. Many Nikon users bemoan having to pay more for the Nikon name, but not getting more for it.

As for the Canon EOS 300 versus the Nikon N65, the EOS 300 is superior because it has the inclusion of 9.5% partial metering and manual film DX override. With the N65, there is no partia/spot metering and you can't change the automatic film speed setting (for uprating, downrating, or pushing film).

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.



Peter's comments cover a lot of reasons why I prefer the canon system, although he does not mention the mind-boggling array of various incompatibilities within the nikon system. For example, Nikon's NEWEST body, the F55, is unable to use their VR lenses. ANY Canon EOS can use IS lenses.

However, Peter was wrong about one thing. Nikon are bringing AF-S into the mainstream, and have just released a 24-85 AF-S F3.5-4.5, which is extremely similar to the Canon 24-85 USM F3.5-4.5...In fact, it's INCREDIBLY similar, with the design looking identical, dimensions almost identical, number of elements/groups identical...I don't know how come they are SO similar, but at the very least I think the design of the nikon owes a lot to the Canon. Nikon also have one AF-S VR lens in the pipeline, but who knows when it will be released.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.


The answer to your question is "Yes."

-- Willhelmn (wmitch3400@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.

Though it might not seem like it now, partial metering and the ability to set DX coding are extremely important--especially for shooting in very low light.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 27, 2002.

Neither. Both are equal. Try them out and do some research. If anyone tells you one is better than the other, they are wrong. Decide for yourself which you like and stick to that system. You will not be disappointed in either system.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), April 27, 2002.

Buy Canon. Reasons listed above. If you can streach for the EOS 30, go get it. ECF is a very nice thing to have (Nikon has none).

-- Yakim Peled (yakim.peled@orange.co.il), May 14, 2002.


Nikon AI and AIS lenses are clearly superior to Canon FD, this is comparing built quality, resolution, and durability, only Leica M series can compete with the popular AI 28mmf2.8, AI 28mmf3.5 ,105f2.5, or the 180f2.8. However, Canon L series EF lenses are the best AF lenses on the market.

-- adian (adoba@vt.net), May 14, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ