Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

[Mr Bean]

Regarding fluorite v's ED, this link, while it is in the realm of telescopes, has an interesting post (third one down) about the pros and cons of both materials:
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Board/refractors/Number/4135855/page/172/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/2

[mb66energy]

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.

This is a total myth, and why keep on  spreading it?
Nikon tele lenses are good as Canon, Canon can if they want make better wide lenses, they have also the physical conditions (larger bayonete)  that make  it easier to produce a wide angle better than Nikon can do with the smaller bayonet diameter.

And I repeat, the FOTO magazine in Sweden tested supertelen  300, 400,500,600 from both Nikon and Canon in mars  and let Hasselblads MTF Lab  measure this lenses by real MTF test (lenses only) , and  they where equal good, they have also tested Nikon 200-400/4 who is optimized in a range of 30-50m as a sport lens.

Myth? At least with a 2xTC:
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=0

Bayonet diameter doesn*t help for wide angles if the rectangular tube between bayonet and shutter shades parts of the lens' back element.

Do you have a link of that swedish foto magazin test? Would be very interesting how they measured the data!

[Apop]

Also the reviews on other sites than the digital picture

http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f2-8g-vr-ii

Shows that the 300 vrII for exmaple with 1.4 converter needs to be stopped down to 5.6

which seems to match

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=650&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=650&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

maybe it's just the tele converter rather than the lenses.
And that with canon you get more a more usable setup wide open with a teleconverter rather than stopping down. Maybe nikon will come with 1.4 III to fix that.

[mb66energy]

There is a superstition that Canon, Nikon, etc. have patented solutions that make it one of the brand by far better, fluorite is one such example. All big companies has their own solution as Nikon, Pentax, Leits,Zeiss etc
I spoke with Per Nordlund Hasselblad lens designers for the new wide angels to Hasselblad down at Photokina some years ago  , Per had 21 different types of glass to choose from and analyze to the wide angle  lenses (if I recall it correctly). And the glass is made of Hoya,Fuji  etc etc

Shure? There are a lot of things that can be patented within lenses: Glass isn't the point I see - there are a lot of design features which affect lens combinations e.g. Patent texts are designed to protect a very wide area of design solutions to protect the own claim. Something like "front element with concave front surface to correct blabla" might exclude others from using a lens shape and there is no chance to circumvent such a design restriction by using other glass ... and just solve some glass issue isn't as simple as "going into the lab and creating a new mixture". Optical glasses are a product from something like alchemy ...

ADD: Just to avoid that I would like to see Canon in front of Nikon ... I am shure that a good photographer can take good photographs with Super tele lenses of both companies. But I have seen some emanations of patent wars in different fields and I have seen very often that there is only one way to solve a problem for decades. Think about rechargeable batteries for cars: Lithium since two decades and no other technically and economically feasible solution in reach ...

[tron]

What a pity, it seems I will not be able to take my Canon tele lenses on my next space mission! Oh wait! I have nothing to do with space missions... 

I can enjoy however my Canon lenses on earth 

[tron]

Myth? At least with a 2xTC:
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=0

The difference is shocking 

[rumorzmonger]

I've used both Nikon and Canon glass over the past several years, and there's really no comparison when it comes to the super-teles... Nikon's current lenses are at a performance level comparable to where Canon was back in 1999.

Nikon may have an edge when it comes to picking sensor suppliers (would they still even be in business without Sony?) but Canon has a huge lead when it comes to lens design (the Nikon 14-24 notwithstanding,...)

[jrista]

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...    (kidding)

why use fluorite ? when Nikon have  their "new SuperED glass" and  the optical properties of this new glass closely resemble those of fluorite, Super ED glass is more resilient to rapid temperature changes (thermal shock) and not as susceptible to cracking as the crystal structure of fluorite. Super ED glass also boasts a higher refractive index than fluorite, making it highly capable of correcting aberrations other than chromatic aberration.
And fluorite is also one reason that  NASA will not have anything to do with Canons " fluorite lenses" in the space.

Fluorite still offers superior dispersion control over ED/SuperED/UD/SuperUD elements. Canon has both UD and SuperUD glass, which is exactly the same as ED and SuperED, and they have clearly demonstrated the superiority of Fluorite over low dispersion glass for controlling the dispersion of light. SuperED glass is NOT better than Fluorite at correcting CA! It should also be noted that low dispersion glass only offers improved dispersion control...it is not inherently capable of significantly correcting other aberrations unless it is paired with other elements, or aspheric....however those solutions to other aberrations are not limited to low dispersion glass...any glass, or Fluorite, could be used for those purposes as well.

Fluorite IS more fragile, however not as fragile as many might think. Canon has buffered element mounts that reduce shock on the elements these days anyway, so cracking due to a drop or bump isn't a very big concern. Regarding thermal shock...that requires SHOCK, and that can only occur if the temperature changes VERY rapidly. Moving a lens into a house from outside on a cold night is not going to be cracking any fluorite lens elements any time soon.

Finally, you need to back up that last statement. Why wouldn't NASA take a Canon lens with fluorite into space? To my knowledge, none of the Nikon equipment has ever been used outside the spacecraft...so there is no need to be concerned about thermal shock. Nikon's newest lenses are beginning to employ fluorite (anything with the FL moniker is a lens that uses Fluorite elements)...I'd guess because otherwise they could not compete with the kind of IQ Canon is currently pumping out with their fluorite lenses. An example of a fluorite lens from Nikon is the new 800mm, which uses two fluorite elements. So, according to your anecdote...NASA won't be able to use future Nikon lenses either...right?

[jrista]

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.

This is a total myth, and why keep on  spreading it?
Nikon tele lenses are good as Canon, Canon can if they want make better wide lenses, they have also the physical conditions (larger bayonete)  that make  it easier to produce a wide angle better than Nikon can do with the smaller bayonet diameter.

And I repeat, the FOTO magazine in Sweden tested supertelen  300, 400,500,600 from both Nikon and Canon in mars  and let Hasselblads MTF Lab  measure this lenses by real MTF test (lenses only) , and  they where equal good, they have also tested Nikon 200-400/4 who is optimized in a range of 30-50m as a sport lens.

According to Nikon's own MTFs (which, like Canon's, are mathematically generated from the manufacturing models...your notion of a "real" MTF "test" has the fatal flaw of being influenced by the imaging medium used to record the image...total SYSTEM MTF is a convolution of multiple factors, what is effectively the RMS of the MTFs of each and every component of the system combined (including the air between subject and lens, between each lens element, and between lens and sensor)...a mathematically generated MTF is the only way to get a "pure" lens MTF otherwise uninfluenced by system factors), their last generation of telephoto lenses are NOT as good as Canon's. The only lens that currently competes with Canon on the telephoto front is the new 800mm lens, which, as I just mentioned in my last reply, employs fluorite elements just like Canon does. Overall, Canon's lens lineup is more current, and is generally offering superior IQ. The one area where Nikon has a solid lead over Canon is in the ultra wide angle zoom lens range...Canon currently has nothing that can touch the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8.

[RMC33]

Real MTF tests show different results. Please explain in what way the super tele from Nikon are inferior to Canon  except that  the Nikon tele weighs a little bit more.

Yup.. cause we all shoot test charts and that is what matters.

The weight is a huge factor, I can now handhold my 400 f/2.8 II for 30-45 minutes. MK1 400 f/2.8, I could never do that. I can now hike into hills and backcountry with my gear without getting winded, so I can make sure I get the shot. So.. from my standpoint the nikon gear is far inferior.

[tron]

http://www.superwasp.org/index.html

http://www.superwasp.org/technical.htm

The 2 links refer to SuperWASP (W.A.S.P. = Wide Angle Search for Planets) an  extra-solar planet detection program.

They use an array of EF200mm 1.8L   Canon lenses.

So even if Canon lenses are not taken to space they are used in space projects!

[RGF]

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.

Not to mention come close to price of Canon glass.  Perhaps if their lenses were white (not black) the image qulaits would be better 

[jrista]

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.

Not to mention come close to price of Canon glass.  Perhaps if their lenses were white (not black) the image qulaits would be better 

The list price of Nikon's new 800mm lens is $17,899. That stomps all over Canon's 800mm lens, which is $13,499, and still more than Canon's newest 600mm, which clocks in at $12,999.

It doesn't matter who manufactures it...new lenses with top of the line, CURRENT optical technology cost. If Nikon starts producing lenses of similar caliber to Canon's lenses, they certainly won't be cheaper. If their new 800mm is any indication, they could be considerably more expensive.

[neuroanatomist]

I shall ask if I can get Hasselblads measurements of  super telen  and show them here

That would be nice, thanks.

In the meantime, there are TDP's mouseovers for the Canon vs. Nikon 300/2.8, 500/4, and 600/4.  In all three comparisons, the Canon lens is sharper and has less CA.  Or maybe I'm dreaming?

[jrista]

Some of you are dreaming and living in a Canon market dreamworld, I shall ask if I can get Hasselblads measurements of  super telen  and show them here

Fluorite has advantage and disadvantage  and have been used  100years in different lenses in for example microscope, this is not a Canon concept  or patent if any one thinks that. Synthetically-grown fluorite has done that larger surface/element can be produced. It is just a design choice whether to use fluorite or other ultra low dispersion material. Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat , and claim their ED glass performs as well. .

Canon was not the first to use fluorite in a lens, however they were the first to use artificially grown fluorite in lenses (1960s). Canon was also the first to create an ultralow dispersion (UD) glass element for camera lenses (1970, identical to ED elements from Nikon ca. 1975), as well as the first to develop SuperUD elements (1990s, identical to SuperED from Nikon, same timeframe). Furthermore, Canon was the first, and only, company to develop viable diffractive optics using a diffraction grating lens (again, 1990s). Canon was the first to utilize multiple large diameter fluorite lenses in an photography lens (2000s). I suspect Canon will be the first to develop viable particle dispersion diffractive optics (2010s?)

When it comes to glass, Canon has definitely been on the edge, and been the first to either develop or employ new optical technologies in their photographic lenses. Canon was a laughing stock for decades at their insistence that a diffraction grating could be used in a photographic lens to increase refraction while controlling dispersion better than any plain optical glass ever could...yet, despite strong arguments that viable diffractive optics were literally "impossible", they persisted, and are now the only company in the world with diffractive optics (a technology they seem to be developing in earnest, with more than half a dozen lens patents based on the technology produced over the last several years...makes me VERY curious what we might see from Canon in the next decade...a whole new era in photographic lenses?) I give a hell of a lot of credit to Canon for continually pushing the envelope when it comes to optics.

One concession to be made to Nikon is their development of a nanocoating, a superior coating to multicoating. Canon developed their own design which operates on the same principal with a different approach, a year later (mid 2000s...although I believe both approaches were based on a paper written by an independent about the technological applications of moth eye design a number of years earlier, not sure if I have a link.) Nikon's "Nano Crystal Coat" was a significant development, and improved overall lens transmission to around 99.95% from the mid 90% range or less, by avoiding reflection entirely (vs. multicoating, which simply aims to cancel out as much reflection as possible...thus still costing in overall transmission because light IS still reflected.) Canon SubWavelength Structure Coating (SWC) is similar and achieves the same 99.95% transmission ratio, but the initial development of the technique still goes to Nikon.

There is no question that fluorite is a softer material than optical glass. Fluorite elements are never used for the front or back elements of a lens due to their greater succeptibility to scratching. That does not diminish their superiority for dispersion control as inner lens elements, however. From what I've gathered from Canon's information on their artificially grown fluorite, it has a more uniform structure, lacking the impurities of natural fluorite, which improves its strength over what was probably used in lenses nearly 100 years ago. I know that the EF 500mm and 600mm f/4 L IS II lens is a favorite of bird and wildlife photographers, most of whom usually have to tromp through the wilderness to get to good wildlife and birding locations...always risking a trip and a fall (which does happen). I've seen photos of people who've had their cameras mauled and chewed on by bears...and the majority of the time, aside from some cosmetic horror, the equipment usually comes out functioning perfectly.

So I have little worry that a fluorite element would actually crack under normal usage, and for all other cases...well, if you don't have insurance on ten thousand dollar equipment, you deserve whatever disaster becomes you.