July 29, 2014, 07:37:38 PM

Author Topic: Have you considered joining the dark side?...  (Read 32682 times)

odie

  • Guest
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #105 on: July 07, 2012, 08:13:11 AM »
I already have after selling the mark III + 35.4L and jumping over the D3S side.

Although I still have a mark II and the 70-200IIL, my main body is the D3S with 35G, 85G and the 105DC.

I am however not 100% happy with the change no matter how much better I think the lenses are etc simply because of one thing I just found out about...

The HK Nikon Customer Services suck big time compared to Canon.

To cut a long story short, I bought a brand new 85.4G and there was a speck of something inside so in it went to the repair dept... 2 weeks later the large speck had gone but it was replaced by 4 smaller specks and a smudge (seems like they wiped it with a dirty cloth or something) and it's spread over different lens elements! The CS didn't even see what I was trying to point out at the time too cos he was holding it up to a bright light source all the time with the light oversaturating the zillions of tiny specks of particles.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 08:15:24 AM by odie »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #105 on: July 07, 2012, 08:13:11 AM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3293
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #106 on: July 07, 2012, 09:12:28 AM »
This is a nice post. The only reason I'm not switching is nikons primes lack any uniqueness in their rendering.

I've shot primes all my life, from many different manufacturers from MF hasselblads, contax/zeiss, yashica, Minolta and of course canon.

Nikons 24mm f1.4G took ages to be released and once it was. It was more expensive than canons offering.

Nikons 50mm's has horrendous bokeh and no f/1.2 offering.

Nikon doesn't make a modern 135mm f/2. It's DC version is horrible compared to the canon.

Otherwise, sure I'd be with Nikon, but there primes lack character.

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #107 on: July 07, 2012, 09:22:27 AM »
I went Nikon D800 around 10 days ago. I bought the 24-70 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8 VRII, 85mm and 50mm 1.8G's.

... snip ....
Hope someone found this useful :-)

A well written, objective post.  8) 8) 8)

hhelmbold

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #108 on: July 07, 2012, 02:29:41 PM »
I have thought many times of jumping ship. I have been waiting over 2 years for the new Canon flagship camera to be launched and when the 1D X was announced I was ecstatic! But this is also where all my doubts started... Delays upon delays just frustrated me and now the way Canon is handling the camera distribution is really annoying me and truth be told... I am not happy with Canon at the moment.

But I also know dumping a top brand you need something better to jump to and in this regard I have absolutely nowhere to go. Doesn't help jumping ship if you will just land in the water - you need something to jump to. The only way I will drop Canon at the moment is if I give up my photographic profession completely... and I have more of a passion for the art than I have a grudge against Canon  ;)

weekendshooter

  • Guest
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #109 on: July 07, 2012, 09:49:30 PM »
This is a nice post. The only reason I'm not switching is nikons primes lack any uniqueness in their rendering.

I've shot primes all my life, from many different manufacturers from MF hasselblads, contax/zeiss, yashica, Minolta and of course canon.

Nikons 24mm f1.4G took ages to be released and once it was. It was more expensive than canons offering.

Nikons 50mm's has horrendous bokeh and no f/1.2 offering.

Nikon doesn't make a modern 135mm f/2. It's DC version is horrible compared to the canon.

Otherwise, sure I'd be with Nikon, but there primes lack character.


Not sure where you're getting the info about Nikon primes. The newer G primes blow Canon's mid-price offerings out of the water. I'm not made of money so I can't comment on the lack of a 50/1.2, but my 50/1.4G is much better than my old Canon 50/1.4, both in build quality and sharpness/bokeh below f/2. The 85/1.8G is mindblowingly good for the price; supremely sharp in the center straight from wide open, sharp across the frame by f/2.8, with very smooth bokeh and very fast AF. Canon does not have a portrait lens even remotely close in the $500 ballpark.

The fact that Nikon is updating their consumer primes without inflating the price is great news for non-professionals like myself.

As for the "horrendous bokeh" of nikon's 50, I don't think these look to bad to me :) http://500px.com/photo/8157866, http://500px.com/photo/8157779

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3293
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #110 on: July 07, 2012, 10:42:50 PM »
This is a nice post. The only reason I'm not switching is nikons primes lack any uniqueness in their rendering.

I've shot primes all my life, from many different manufacturers from MF hasselblads, contax/zeiss, yashica, Minolta and of course canon.

Nikons 24mm f1.4G took ages to be released and once it was. It was more expensive than canons offering.

Nikons 50mm's has horrendous bokeh and no f/1.2 offering.

Nikon doesn't make a modern 135mm f/2. It's DC version is horrible compared to the canon.

Otherwise, sure I'd be with Nikon, but there primes lack character.


Not sure where you're getting the info about Nikon primes. The newer G primes blow Canon's mid-price offerings out of the water. I'm not made of money so I can't comment on the lack of a 50/1.2, but my 50/1.4G is much better than my old Canon 50/1.4, both in build quality and sharpness/bokeh below f/2. The 85/1.8G is mindblowingly good for the price; supremely sharp in the center straight from wide open, sharp across the frame by f/2.8, with very smooth bokeh and very fast AF. Canon does not have a portrait lens even remotely close in the $500 ballpark.

The fact that Nikon is updating their consumer primes without inflating the price is great news for non-professionals like myself.

As for the "horrendous bokeh" of nikon's 50, I don't think these look to bad to me :) http://500px.com/photo/8157866, http://500px.com/photo/8157779


Ok, Lets begin...

Canon 24L II - 1629$
Nikon 24G 1.4 - 1899$
Done.

Canons 1.4 and Nikons 1.4 50MM's have almost identical performance. Feel free to check it here.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=636&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

Here an example of the 50mm 1.2L stunning bokeh that looks awesome swirling around the subject. Nothing i've ever seen besides the leica 50mm's and MF 80mm's zeiss F/2.8

Canons 85mm 1.8 and canons 100mm F/2 both provide excellent performance wide open and have been around for ages with USM. All for Sub-500$ 8)

As for the Canon 135 F2L and the Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC, Feel free to see the stunning amount of CA's in the nikkor here and compare.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=646&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I Know my primes very well, and Like I said earlier, If the nikon primes were better, I'd be shooting Nikon.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 10:46:06 PM by RLPhoto »

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1398
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #111 on: July 07, 2012, 10:53:52 PM »
I Know my primes very well, and Like I said earlier, If the nikon primes were better, I'd be shooting Nikon.


Depends what you shoot, of course.
How about compare the Nikkor 85/1.4 D to the Sigma 85/1.4, Zeiss Planar, and the EF 85/1.2L and Samyang 85/1.4.
And then take a look at Nikon's latest 85/1.4 G. Out of all of them, it's the one i'd pick (if I had a nikon camera, or a G-EF adapter, apparently they're available somewhere).


And how did this go from film to yet-another-5D3-vs-d800 thread?
Should I be buying a Mamiya 645 (with all its history and lens availability), or the Contax 645 (with its nice zeiss glass), or a Pentax 645 (with no interchangeable backs, one main reason i'm thinking of MF at all)?
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #111 on: July 07, 2012, 10:53:52 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3293
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #112 on: July 07, 2012, 11:00:54 PM »
I Know my primes very well, and Like I said earlier, If the nikon primes were better, I'd be shooting Nikon.


Depends what you shoot, of course.
How about compare the Nikkor 85/1.4 D to the Sigma 85/1.4, Zeiss Planar, and the EF 85/1.2L and Samyang 85/1.4.
And then take a look at Nikon's latest 85/1.4 G. Out of all of them, it's the one i'd pick (if I had a nikon camera, or a G-EF adapter, apparently they're available somewhere).


And how did this go from film to yet-another-5D3-vs-d800 thread?
Should I be buying a Mamiya 645 (with all its history and lens availability), or the Contax 645 (with its nice zeiss glass), or a Pentax 645 (with no interchangeable backs, one main reason i'm thinking of MF at all)?


I'd get the 85L personally, Its sharp wide-open and is the GOLDEN STANDARD in which every other 85mm is compared to and wishes it could be. 8) It comes back to my Original post of nikkors glass not having something unique to it.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=732&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The nikkor 85G would be a second choice if the 85L wasn't available. I cannot deny it is a cream machine.  :o
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 11:04:42 PM by RLPhoto »

weekendshooter

  • Guest
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #113 on: July 08, 2012, 02:33:56 AM »
This is a nice post. The only reason I'm not switching is nikons primes lack any uniqueness in their rendering.

I've shot primes all my life, from many different manufacturers from MF hasselblads, contax/zeiss, yashica, Minolta and of course canon.

Nikons 24mm f1.4G took ages to be released and once it was. It was more expensive than canons offering.

Nikons 50mm's has horrendous bokeh and no f/1.2 offering.

Nikon doesn't make a modern 135mm f/2. It's DC version is horrible compared to the canon.

Otherwise, sure I'd be with Nikon, but there primes lack character.


Not sure where you're getting the info about Nikon primes. The newer G primes blow Canon's mid-price offerings out of the water. I'm not made of money so I can't comment on the lack of a 50/1.2, but my 50/1.4G is much better than my old Canon 50/1.4, both in build quality and sharpness/bokeh below f/2. The 85/1.8G is mindblowingly good for the price; supremely sharp in the center straight from wide open, sharp across the frame by f/2.8, with very smooth bokeh and very fast AF. Canon does not have a portrait lens even remotely close in the $500 ballpark.

The fact that Nikon is updating their consumer primes without inflating the price is great news for non-professionals like myself.

As for the "horrendous bokeh" of nikon's 50, I don't think these look to bad to me :) http://500px.com/photo/8157866, http://500px.com/photo/8157779


Ok, Lets begin...

Canon 24L II - 1629$
Nikon 24G 1.4 - 1899$
Done.

Canons 1.4 and Nikons 1.4 50MM's have almost identical performance. Feel free to check it here.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=636&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

Here an example of the 50mm 1.2L stunning bokeh that looks awesome swirling around the subject. Nothing i've ever seen besides the leica 50mm's and MF 80mm's zeiss F/2.8

Canons 85mm 1.8 and canons 100mm F/2 both provide excellent performance wide open and have been around for ages with USM. All for Sub-500$ 8)

As for the Canon 135 F2L and the Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC, Feel free to see the stunning amount of CA's in the nikkor here and compare.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=646&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I Know my primes very well, and Like I said earlier, If the nikon primes were better, I'd be shooting Nikon.


The Canon 85/1.8 and 100/2 are outdated designs with flimsy build quality, straight aperture blades, "horrendous bokeh," and huge amounts of purple fringing. Likewise for the fragile, old 50/1.4. Nikon's 50/1.4G is built like a tank and handles considerably better than Canon's 1.4. I wouldn't shoot either of them at f/1.4, but my experience has been that the Nikon can be left at f/1.8 for center-focused shots, while the Canon should be stopped down further for acceptable contrast.

You've been comparing apples to oranges throughout this whole thread. I'm aware Nikon doesn't make a 50/1.2. I wouldn't buy one if they did; the bokeh in that picture looks terribly distracting and ruins the shot for me.

I'm not a professional photographer, but I do take pride in my hobby and I look for good value in my lenses. Canon does not offer anything worthwhile for me right now, as I am not in the market to spend $1500-2000 on each of my primes. The first two new sub-L primes in ages (24 and 28) are f/2.8 and extremely expensive for what they offer. For my money, I'd much rather buy Nikon's new primes, which are competitive on price with Canon's old midrange primes while featuring new designs and coatings.

I'm not looking to argue, just pointing out that we have different perspectives and that there is really something for everyone in each camp. If i could afford to get a set of 35/50/85/135L primes then I would be shooting Canon, but as it stands the Nikon G primes far exceed the performance of Canon's midrange lineup. I also noticed you pointed out that the Nikon 24G lens is priced higher than the Canon equivalent. You should consider that Canon is planning a $2300 24-70 and two $800 f/2.8 wide primes, along with a $3500 5D3. Nikon's 24-70 is $1800 and they just released a 28/1.8 for $700 to pair with a $3000 D800. I'm scared to think what will happen to prices when Canon decides to update the rest of their aging lineup.

Northstar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1385
    • View Profile
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #114 on: July 08, 2012, 11:16:47 AM »
This is a nice post. The only reason I'm not switching is nikons primes lack any uniqueness in their rendering.

I've shot primes all my life, from many different manufacturers from MF hasselblads, contax/zeiss, yashica, Minolta and of course canon.

Nikons 24mm f1.4G took ages to be released and once it was. It was more expensive than canons offering.

Nikons 50mm's has horrendous bokeh and no f/1.2 offering.

Nikon doesn't make a modern 135mm f/2. It's DC version is horrible compared to the canon.

Otherwise, sure I'd be with Nikon, but there primes lack character.


Not sure where you're getting the info about Nikon primes. The newer G primes blow Canon's mid-price offerings out of the water. I'm not made of money so I can't comment on the lack of a 50/1.2, but my 50/1.4G is much better than my old Canon 50/1.4, both in build quality and sharpness/bokeh below f/2. The 85/1.8G is mindblowingly good for the price; supremely sharp in the center straight from wide open, sharp across the frame by f/2.8, with very smooth bokeh and very fast AF. Canon does not have a portrait lens even remotely close in the $500 ballpark.

The fact that Nikon is updating their consumer primes without inflating the price is great news for non-professionals like myself.

As for the "horrendous bokeh" of nikon's 50, I don't think these look to bad to me :) http://500px.com/photo/8157866, http://500px.com/photo/8157779


Ok, Lets begin...

Canon 24L II - 1629$
Nikon 24G 1.4 - 1899$
Done.

Canons 1.4 and Nikons 1.4 50MM's have almost identical performance. Feel free to check it here.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=636&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

Here an example of the 50mm 1.2L stunning bokeh that looks awesome swirling around the subject. Nothing i've ever seen besides the leica 50mm's and MF 80mm's zeiss F/2.8

Canons 85mm 1.8 and canons 100mm F/2 both provide excellent performance wide open and have been around for ages with USM. All for Sub-500$ 8)

As for the Canon 135 F2L and the Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC, Feel free to see the stunning amount of CA's in the nikkor here and compare.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=646&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I Know my primes very well, and Like I said earlier, If the nikon primes were better, I'd be shooting Nikon.


The Canon 85/1.8 and 100/2 are outdated designs with flimsy build quality, straight aperture blades, "horrendous bokeh," and huge amounts of purple fringing. Likewise for the fragile, old 50/1.4. Nikon's 50/1.4G is built like a tank and handles considerably better than Canon's 1.4. I wouldn't shoot either of them at f/1.4, but my experience has been that the Nikon can be left at f/1.8 for center-focused shots, while the Canon should be stopped down further for acceptable contrast.

You've been comparing apples to oranges throughout this whole thread. I'm aware Nikon doesn't make a 50/1.2. I wouldn't buy one if they did; the bokeh in that picture looks terribly distracting and ruins the shot for me.

I'm not a professional photographer, but I do take pride in my hobby and I look for good value in my lenses. Canon does not offer anything worthwhile for me right now, as I am not in the market to spend $1500-2000 on each of my primes. The first two new sub-L primes in ages (24 and 28) are f/2.8 and extremely expensive for what they offer. For my money, I'd much rather buy Nikon's new primes, which are competitive on price with Canon's old midrange primes while featuring new designs and coatings.

I'm not looking to argue, just pointing out that we have different perspectives and that there is really something for everyone in each camp. If i could afford to get a set of 35/50/85/135L primes then I would be shooting Canon, but as it stands the Nikon G primes far exceed the performance of Canon's midrange lineup. I also noticed you pointed out that the Nikon 24G lens is priced higher than the Canon equivalent. You should consider that Canon is planning a $2300 24-70 and two $800 f/2.8 wide primes, along with a $3500 5D3. Nikon's 24-70 is $1800 and they just released a 28/1.8 for $700 to pair with a $3000 D800. I'm scared to think what will happen to prices when Canon decides to update the rest of their aging lineup.


You both make some good points...Three points I would add, just my opinion:

1. The new Nikon 85 1.8g is a much better lens compared to the canon 85 1.8 or 100 f2 for roughly the same money and focal length.  The Nikon 1.8g is so good that if Canon had it/made it, it would make it seem silly to buy the 85L.

2. The 50's are very comparable at the sub $500 price range...the canon 50 1.2 isn't worth the extra money.

3. Canon clearly has Nikon beat starting at 135 and then again with the 200 2.8.  Nikon has no good answer for these, especially when you consider their price, speed, and IQ.

4. For the money, (and I know I'm early in writing this) the Nikon 24-70 is already legendary and priced several hundred below the new canon 24-70 ii....we'll see soon, but I doubt the canon is any better.

Sport Shooter

1dX and 5d3... 24-70 2.8ii, 70-200 2.8ii, 1.4xiii and 2xiii, 85, 40mm, 300 2.8L IS....430ex

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3293
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #115 on: July 08, 2012, 03:38:23 PM »
This is a nice post. The only reason I'm not switching is nikons primes lack any uniqueness in their rendering.

I've shot primes all my life, from many different manufacturers from MF hasselblads, contax/zeiss, yashica, Minolta and of course canon.

Nikons 24mm f1.4G took ages to be released and once it was. It was more expensive than canons offering.

Nikons 50mm's has horrendous bokeh and no f/1.2 offering.

Nikon doesn't make a modern 135mm f/2. It's DC version is horrible compared to the canon.

Otherwise, sure I'd be with Nikon, but there primes lack character.


Not sure where you're getting the info about Nikon primes. The newer G primes blow Canon's mid-price offerings out of the water. I'm not made of money so I can't comment on the lack of a 50/1.2, but my 50/1.4G is much better than my old Canon 50/1.4, both in build quality and sharpness/bokeh below f/2. The 85/1.8G is mindblowingly good for the price; supremely sharp in the center straight from wide open, sharp across the frame by f/2.8, with very smooth bokeh and very fast AF. Canon does not have a portrait lens even remotely close in the $500 ballpark.

The fact that Nikon is updating their consumer primes without inflating the price is great news for non-professionals like myself.

As for the "horrendous bokeh" of nikon's 50, I don't think these look to bad to me :) http://500px.com/photo/8157866, http://500px.com/photo/8157779


Ok, Lets begin...

Canon 24L II - 1629$
Nikon 24G 1.4 - 1899$
Done.

Canons 1.4 and Nikons 1.4 50MM's have almost identical performance. Feel free to check it here.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=636&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

Here an example of the 50mm 1.2L stunning bokeh that looks awesome swirling around the subject. Nothing i've ever seen besides the leica 50mm's and MF 80mm's zeiss F/2.8

Canons 85mm 1.8 and canons 100mm F/2 both provide excellent performance wide open and have been around for ages with USM. All for Sub-500$ 8)

As for the Canon 135 F2L and the Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC, Feel free to see the stunning amount of CA's in the nikkor here and compare.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=646&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I Know my primes very well, and Like I said earlier, If the nikon primes were better, I'd be shooting Nikon.


The Canon 85/1.8 and 100/2 are outdated designs with flimsy build quality, straight aperture blades, "horrendous bokeh," and huge amounts of purple fringing. Likewise for the fragile, old 50/1.4. Nikon's 50/1.4G is built like a tank and handles considerably better than Canon's 1.4. I wouldn't shoot either of them at f/1.4, but my experience has been that the Nikon can be left at f/1.8 for center-focused shots, while the Canon should be stopped down further for acceptable contrast.

You've been comparing apples to oranges throughout this whole thread. I'm aware Nikon doesn't make a 50/1.2. I wouldn't buy one if they did; the bokeh in that picture looks terribly distracting and ruins the shot for me.

I'm not a professional photographer, but I do take pride in my hobby and I look for good value in my lenses. Canon does not offer anything worthwhile for me right now, as I am not in the market to spend $1500-2000 on each of my primes. The first two new sub-L primes in ages (24 and 28) are f/2.8 and extremely expensive for what they offer. For my money, I'd much rather buy Nikon's new primes, which are competitive on price with Canon's old midrange primes while featuring new designs and coatings.

I'm not looking to argue, just pointing out that we have different perspectives and that there is really something for everyone in each camp. If i could afford to get a set of 35/50/85/135L primes then I would be shooting Canon, but as it stands the Nikon G primes far exceed the performance of Canon's midrange lineup. I also noticed you pointed out that the Nikon 24G lens is priced higher than the Canon equivalent. You should consider that Canon is planning a $2300 24-70 and two $800 f/2.8 wide primes, along with a $3500 5D3. Nikon's 24-70 is $1800 and they just released a 28/1.8 for $700 to pair with a $3000 D800. I'm scared to think what will happen to prices when Canon decides to update the rest of their aging lineup.


I Loled when you mentioned canon using "Outdated Designs". Nikon still makes lenses that AF with a screw in the Body! How outdated are we again? :o

Don't forget that nikon barely made their 85 1.8G while us canon prime users have had the just as good 85mm 1.8 and the even better performing 100mm F/2 since the 80's WITH USM! Check the tests here for yourself and heres a photo of the 100mm's superb creamy bokeh. The Nikon has terrible CA.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Back to 50mm's, Nikon and canon non-pro grade 1.4 lenses have the same build quality. Posh plastics with metal mounts but it took nikon ages to finally make a 50mm with Full time manual focus override. (AF-D series anyone?) While canon has had this for decades.

The 50L has the best bokeh available in an 35mm SLR system from that focal length, Period. It's a lens that has character in which i've never seen in any of nikons 50mm's, which is the whole point. CHARACTER.

Canon has had a 28mm 1.8 for ages again and nikon finally released one a decade later that has full-time manual override. Its 300$ more expensive! Does it perform better? Maybe, but its alittle too late.

The 24 & 28 2.8 IS primes cannot be compared to anything at the moment because frankly, There is nothing to compete against them from any manufacturer. First Wide-Angle IS primes ever.

The Canon 24-70II or Nikon version has no relevance to the subject of Primes. Bodies have no relevance either. I wrote my opinion on canon primes based on solid evidence, Fact's and first hand experience.

As for nikon blowing canons prime offerings out of the water, you are sadly mistaken.

D30 - 100mm F/2 @ F/2
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 03:49:01 PM by RLPhoto »

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #116 on: July 08, 2012, 03:43:36 PM »

As for nikon blowing canons prime offerings out of the water, you are sadly mistaken.

Can I just mention the TSEs and the 8-15L fisheye?

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3293
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #117 on: July 08, 2012, 03:47:22 PM »

As for nikon blowing canons prime offerings out of the water, you are sadly mistaken.

Can I just mention the TSEs and the 8-15L fisheye?

+1 8)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #117 on: July 08, 2012, 03:47:22 PM »

Northstar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1385
    • View Profile
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #118 on: July 08, 2012, 04:45:57 PM »
This is a nice post. The only reason I'm not switching is nikons primes lack any uniqueness in their rendering.


Quote
Don't forget that nikon barely made their 85 1.8G while us canon prime users have had the just as good 85mm 1.8 and the even better performing 100mm F/2 since the 80's WITH USM! Check the tests here for yourself and heres a photo of the 100mm's superb creamy bokeh. The Nikon has terrible CA.


Canonites have had the USM in the 85 1.8 for a long time, BUT, Nikon's 85 1.8d is also very highly regarded and it's just as good as the canon 85 1.8(better in some ways worse in others depending on your preference)  The new Nikon 1.8G is much better than the Canon 85 1.8 or 100 f2.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/100/cat/12

Quote
The 50L has the best bokeh available in an 35mm SLR system from that focal length, Period. It's a lens that has character in which i've never seen in any of nikons 50mm's, which is the whole point. CHARACTER.


It's also a terrible waste of money since 99 out of 100 people couldn't tell the difference between a shot taken with the 1.4 and the way overpriced 1.2.

Quote
As for nikon blowing canons prime offerings out of the water, you are sadly mistaken.


I agree with this...but Nikon is close and has been rapidly closing over last several years. 

Nice shot of the sheperd
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 04:48:29 PM by Northstar »
Sport Shooter

1dX and 5d3... 24-70 2.8ii, 70-200 2.8ii, 1.4xiii and 2xiii, 85, 40mm, 300 2.8L IS....430ex

gary samples

  • Guest
Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #119 on: July 08, 2012, 04:49:54 PM »
18000 k in white lens NO  I have not !!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...
« Reply #119 on: July 08, 2012, 04:49:54 PM »