Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )
- Thread starter Apop
- Start date
- Status
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,...)
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,...)
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:neuroanatomist said:9VIII said:
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?
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:
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.
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:
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.
Upvote
0
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!
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!
Upvote
0
RGF said:Mt Spokane Photography said:
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.
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:
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.
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:
If there was a problem with fluorite cracking in lenses or being susceptible to heat that might be a valid point. There isn't, they aren't and it isn't.
We all know you are very anti Canon, but try to be a bit more "in the real world" The reality of the situation is that both Nikon and Canon make superb systems and any decent photographer would be able to take good pictures with either.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
ankorwatt said:
Both are true. However, do those facts have any practical relevance in terms of lens use in the field? A 10 M solution of sulfuric acid is more acidic than an eqimolar solution of hydrochloric acid - but if you annoy someone to the point where they push you into a vat of either there no practical difference - you'd be just as dead either way.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:ankorwatt said:
Both are true. However, do those facts have any practical relevance in terms of lens use in the field? A 10 M solution of sulfuric acid is more acidic than an eqimolar solution of hydrochloric acid - but if you annoy someone to the point where they push you into a vat of either there no practical difference - you'd be just as dead either way.
And thats how I had my chemistry lesson for the day.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:ankorwatt said:
Both are true. However, do those facts have any practical relevance in terms of lens use in the field? A 10 M solution of sulfuric acid is more acidic than an eqimolar solution of hydrochloric acid - but if you annoy someone to the point where they push you into a vat of either there no practical difference - you'd be just as dead either way.
Wow...I guess I won't ever be messing with Nero in the future...
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:
I entirely agree that we should rely on multiple sources for test results, but I wouldn't discredit any one tester over the others. The idea is that you have enough tests to get an average and if one or two of them get something wrong it shouldn't affect your overall impression of the lens.
Many (most) of the TDP samples agree with a variety of other tests, so I don't think there's any trickery going on.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:ankorwatt said:
Both are true. However, do those facts have any practical relevance in terms of lens use in the field? A 10 M solution of sulfuric acid is more acidic than an eqimolar solution of hydrochloric acid - but if you annoy someone to the point where they push you into a vat of either there no practical difference - you'd be just as dead either way.
HCl, pK = -7, is a stronger acid than H2SO4, pK = -2. Although H2SO4 has two Hs, the second pK is 2 so only one of them is dissociated in a 10 M solution (pH = -1). Sorry, I am a bit of a chemist.
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:
Sorry, but your just flat out wrong there. Bryan of TDP is very meticulous. He has also provided a page detailing how he does his ISO chart tests here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx
According to his explanation, every shot of the test chart is sampled at least 10 times, often 15-20 times. The best shot out of all the samples is used to produce the samples he puts up on his site. Ten to twenty shots is more than enough to get a good reading on how well a lens performs.
ankorwatt said:
What "real" readings? You have provided no link, no concrete information whatsoever, that explains how they did their test. There is nothing "real" about your anecdote here...its just that, an anecdote. The sample test charts need an explanation about how they were performed...that is missing.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
jrista said:
True.
Supertele lenses optimized for different distances? If so, is that information publicized? RE the testing distance at TDP, lenses under 460mm are tested on an Applied Image QA-77-4-P-RM chart, which meets the ISO 12233 standard and adds features as well (e.g., squares for SFR analysis). The 3:2 region of that chart is 1200x800mm, and if you understand ISO 12233 testing, you'll know you need to fill the frame with the chart - so, tested distance can be determined by the angle of view of a given focal length. In fact, if you look at his specs and measurement tool, one of the specs is '1200x800 subject framing distance' - why that spec? It's the testing distance for the ISO 12233 shots. Lenses longer than 460mm use a smaller chart (QA-77-3, -2 as needed), and the specs page for longer lenses provides those distances for framing the smaller QA-77 charts. The Applied Image charts are quite nice - I have several sizes (I ran across them originally because they produce excellent standards for characterizing microscopic imaging systems, and I have several for use in the lab).
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:
If you want people to believe you, you can't put the burden of doing all the heavy duty work of actually figuring out what the hell the test is, how it was done, with what equipment, and to what methodology and phylosophy to them. YOU are on the hook to PROVE YOUR point. I'm not going to try to manually type in a bunch of test from a photo into a translator to figure out what it says, especially when I am fairly certain the information I want is not included in it. Ankorwatt, YOU need to provide the evidence I've asked for if you want me, or anyone else for that matter, to believe you. Why are the tests of that particular magazine more reputable than any others...such as TDP? At least with TDP, I know exactly how he performs his tests, his methodology, and I have the ability to do direct comparisons myself using his wonderful database.
Upvote
0
- Status
