Gear Talk > Lenses
35mm L vs. 135mm L. IQ?
Mt Spokane Photography:
--- Quote from: Leopard Lupus on January 13, 2012, 01:40:42 PM ---Thank you all for the quick and informative replies! Now the next question is, how do you convert a Nikon shooter to Canon? haha :P
--- End quote ---
If I were a Nikon Shooter, I'd stick with Nikon unless there were some particular must have feature that another manufacturer offered, and it was going to allow me to acomplish something that I badly needed to do.
The real world differences between Nikon and Canon cameras tend to be fine points that do not effect most of a shooters images.
Three years ago, video was one of the things that drove many to the Canon 5D MK II. Now, everyone has it, so its much less of a reason.
I maintain that 90% of the equation depends on the photographer using his knowledge of photography and properly getting the most of his equipment. Some get some pretty good images from a camera phone that I'd wished I had taken.
Sometimes, there are situations where having the right equipment can allow capture of a image in extreme low light, for example, but now, even a point and shoot like the G1X appears to take reasonably clean images at ISO 3200, so those barriers are going down as well.
JR:
--- Quote from: Leopard Lupus on January 12, 2012, 10:40:59 PM ---I own both the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L and the 135mm f/2 L, and love them for certain situations. Both are tack sharp, which is great. But while speaking with a Nikon shooting friend of mine, he asked "which is sharper?"
--- End quote ---
Having owned both myself as well I would echo Neuro and Mt Spokane conclusion that the 135L might win this photo finish in terms of shapnest. This is based on simply looking at the various sample I have from both lens (recently sold my 35 1.4L because I am hoping for the mk II soon!)
--- Quote from: Mt Spokane Photography on January 13, 2012, 02:11:59 PM ---[If I were a Nikon Shooter, I'd stick with Nikon unless there were some particular must have feature that another manufacturer offered, and it was going to allow me to acomplish something that I badly needed to do.
--- End quote ---
What about the lens argument? Am with you that differences are getting slimmer, but for example, the 85 1.2L II from Canon does not really have an equivalent with Nikon. Same for the 50 1.2L. Not sure how is the current Nilon 135mm compared to Canon but the point is can one use "the better lens" argument as I have heard on many occasion on this site as the reason to pick Canon? Or do you feel it is more or less a wash now with some of the newer lens Nikon came out with (35, 24 and 85 1.4G for example).
Cosk:
You should have just confidently said 'this one, but only by about 6%'
(It doesn't matter which one you hold up... Your friend is not going to verify your numbers anyhow.)
After all, 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
DavidRiesenberg:
If he's into macro, there's always this argument: Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro Lens
But for me, the original reason I went to Canon many years ago still holds true today. Ergonomics. The general shape, the buttons placement, rear dial .etc made more sense to my hands and brain. So I don't know how much experience he has with handling Canon cameras but you could try to use the MIGHTY REAR DIAL as a selling point. :)
jcns:
2 very different tools for very different situations.
That's not even close to being a valid question.
To illustrate my point; if the 135 is sharper, are you going to leave the 35 behind and use the 135 instead?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version