November 28, 2014, 05:00:39 PM

Author Topic: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )  (Read 26872 times)

Apop

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
    • Apophoto
Hey ,
How come that it seems that canon lenses (seems to) play a lot better with Tc's?

for example: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=653&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=745&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

600mm's
or: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=654&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=748&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

300mm's
or:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=650&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=651&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

70-200's
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=621&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

It looks to consistent to be a flaw from the digital picture, also the nikon lenses without teleconverter look plenty sharp., also photographylife lens comparisons seems to confirm that the nikons are affected more by teleconverters ( in reviews i compare the crops form 300+1.4 to a 400 and the difference seems a lot more pronounced than in canon crops)


Just interested to an explanation, because it seems that the bare lenses perform really good.

canon rumors FORUM


pierceography

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2013, 02:42:20 PM »
Two words: Better glass.

Both for the lenses themselves and the teleconverters.
5D mark III, 7D, Sigma 12-24mm II, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, 24-70mm f/2.8L II, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Sigma 50mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, 85mm f/1.2L II, 100mm f/2.8L, 135mm f/2L, 2x TC III

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • *********
  • Posts: 9189
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2013, 03:36:55 PM »
The Canon lenses without TC's are noticeably better.  TC's magnify any flaws, so the difference becomes grossly apparent.
The lack of Nikon top quality telephoto lenses is one reason I sold my D800.  They are finally upgrading them (example 80-400, 800), it will take years though to get to where Canon is today.

Apop

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
    • Apophoto
Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2013, 04:01:52 PM »
Interesting, i was not aware that the difference was that 'big'

Does that mean nikon has to update all their tele's and converters within 5 years if the MP's keep increasing ?

I can imagine 40-50+ mp sensors will expose flaws even more ( especially with tc's?)

9VIII

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 666
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2013, 01:43:02 AM »
I still think there's a severe lack of direct comparisons between the big lenses from both companies, one sample from one person is not enough. Ideally we should be looking at dozens of comparisons to average things out, but instead I can only find one or two direct comparisons between the various lenses. What's more, it seems like there's a lack of testing on Nikon lenses in general.
You almost get the feeling that everyone knows the Canon version is better, so all the Nikon owners just say "stick with the system you have", while Canon guys run around doing lots of tests, but don't have any Nikon lenses to compare with. So the IQ of Nikon lenses ends up being this enigma with no definition outside the usual comments.
-100% RAW-

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14998
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2013, 08:51:26 AM »
So the IQ of Nikon lenses ends up being this enigma with no definition outside the usual comments.

There are lots of tests of many lenses - photozone, SLRgear, DPReview, etc. all test both Canon and Nikon lenses. There's no mystery-wrapped enigma, in general (although there are obviously exceptions) where both have a similar lens, the IQ of the Canon lens is better.

Now, if you specifically mean the supertele lenses, there aren't many tests of those from either brand.  What tests there are favor Canon, which given their advantage at shorter focal lengths, use of fluorite elements, etc., makes logical sense.

Who knows - maybe the Nikon camp is running the tests, but are too embarrassed to publish the data...  :P  (kidding)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

9VIII

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 666
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2013, 01:54:39 PM »
So the IQ of Nikon lenses ends up being this enigma with no definition outside the usual comments.

There are lots of tests of many lenses - photozone, SLRgear, DPReview, etc. all test both Canon and Nikon lenses. There's no mystery-wrapped enigma, in general (although there are obviously exceptions) where both have a similar lens, the IQ of the Canon lens is better.

Now, if you specifically mean the supertele lenses, there aren't many tests of those from either brand.  What tests there are favor Canon, which given their advantage at shorter focal lengths, use of fluorite elements, etc., makes logical sense.

Who knows - maybe the Nikon camp is running the tests, but are too embarrassed to publish the data...  :P  (kidding)


The enigma comment was concerning the supertele lenses. I've been looking for comparisons of the 300f2.8 specifically since it's a good chunk cheaper than the Canon. Reviews are slim and cross brand comparisons almost non-existent.
-100% RAW-

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2013, 01:54:39 PM »

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • *********
  • Posts: 9189
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2013, 03:44:53 PM »
So the IQ of Nikon lenses ends up being this enigma with no definition outside the usual comments.

There are lots of tests of many lenses - photozone, SLRgear, DPReview, etc. all test both Canon and Nikon lenses. There's no mystery-wrapped enigma, in general (although there are obviously exceptions) where both have a similar lens, the IQ of the Canon lens is better.

Now, if you specifically mean the supertele lenses, there aren't many tests of those from either brand.  What tests there are favor Canon, which given their advantage at shorter focal lengths, use of fluorite elements, etc., makes logical sense.

Who knows - maybe the Nikon camp is running the tests, but are too embarrassed to publish the data...  :P  (kidding)


The enigma comment was concerning the supertele lenses. I've been looking for comparisons of the 300f2.8 specifically since it's a good chunk cheaper than the Canon. Reviews are slim and cross brand comparisons almost non-existent.

Unless you start adding TC's to one, they are both pretty good.  I don't have a Canon version, but here is a shot with a older Nikon AF 300mm f/2.8 mounted to my Canon 40D, so it was manual focus and at f/2.8, the depth of field was very shallow.
 

 
 
Here it is with a D40X I had at the time.  It appears to have been front focusing.  Nikon had those issues too.
 

pierceography

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2013, 06:01:15 PM »
Two words: Better glass.

Both for the lenses themselves and the teleconverters.

Better glass?
in what way?

Canon glass has much better contrast and resolution when shooting black BBQ grills.
5D mark III, 7D, Sigma 12-24mm II, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, 24-70mm f/2.8L II, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Sigma 50mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, 85mm f/1.2L II, 100mm f/2.8L, 135mm f/2L, 2x TC III

Skulker

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 409
  • PP is no vice and as shot is no virtue
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2013, 03:33:08 AM »

And fluorite is also one reason that  NASA will not have anything to do with Canons " fluorite lenses" in the space.

That's interesting where did you get that detail?
If you debate with a fool onlookers can find it VERY difficult to tell the difference.

mb66energy

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 408
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2013, 05:11:59 AM »
Perhaps differences between brands' technologies have much simpler reasons: Patents.
Canon holds patents which make their teles outstanding, Nikon holds patents which make their wides outstanding (at least the 14-24). Sony holds patents which make their sensors outstanding (at least in DR/dark noise).

Another thing I observed: Different companies' products have different tendencies. I observed 20 years ago that Nikon lenses made sharper images, but Canon lenses had a more 3Dish look with much better micro contrast and texture fidelity. Now I have no comparison because I know only one person who has a Nikon but uses Zeiss glass - the rest uses Canon.
TOOLS: EF-S 10-22 | 60 || EF 2.8/24 | 2.8/40* | 2.8 100 Macro* |2.0/100 | 4.0/70-200* | 5.6/400* || 2 x 40D | 600D | EOS M  [* most used lenses]

Skulker

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 409
  • PP is no vice and as shot is no virtue
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2013, 04:27:04 PM »

And fluorite is also one reason that  NASA will not have anything to do with Canons " fluorite lenses" in the space.

That's interesting where did you get that detail?

I have got it from my last trip out in the space, and it toke about 1liter  single malt
no- there have been a documentaries about  cameras who have been in the space , Hasselblad and Nikon and also  we have been able to follow Fugelstam the Swedish astronaut, where he show the Nikon equipment, about fluorite glass you can google how fragile it is , there are lot information.There are also one link from 2004 who now is down or gone  about the subject Cracking due to shock and rapid changes in temperature:
http://alice.as.arizona.edu/~rogerc/chapters/Chapter%204a.html

and last, I have a great contact net since 30 years back, I have as a member of the press been at Photokina in Köln  every second year since my first time  (I think it was) 1978 so I have heard and seen many things during the years, like the first OLED monitor by Kodak when Kodak still was big  or Hasselblad with 3 ccd Foveon sensor, buried as quickly as it appeared, or Contax, Pentax 24x36mm digital cameras  who didn't get a long life etc

That link does not work for me. It seems I did not explain my question clearly. But what I was meaning to ask was "were did you learn that NASA will not have anything to do with Canons "fluorite glass" in space." I was hoping you would be able to give a reference for that statement.
If you debate with a fool onlookers can find it VERY difficult to tell the difference.

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600, EOS-M, 18-55, f/2 22.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2013, 05:34:24 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14998
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2013, 05:55:07 PM »
Quote from: Nikon
Super ED glass also boasts a higher refractive index than fluorite,
making it highly capable of correcting aberrations other than
chromatic aberration.....

So it can correct other aberrations (as can other elements in Canon lenses)...but does Super ED correct CA as well as fluorite?  Nikon carefully didn't state that...
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Skulker

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 409
  • PP is no vice and as shot is no virtue
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2013, 06:10:11 PM »
Is this link of use?
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/9970197

Ta, that link worked for me. But its just another version of the story.

I was wondering if there was anything behind the claims. I've not heard of problems with L lenses cracking all the time and was wondering if there is any substance in the claims that there is a problem in space. I would be interested in a statement from NASA or something like that. Not that its all that relevant until a problem with L lenses cracking on earth comes up.
If you debate with a fool onlookers can find it VERY difficult to tell the difference.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2013, 06:10:11 PM »