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

[RMC33]

Jrista and Neuro , you call a manual procedure with live view and 4 small Canon/Nikon flashes a optimal set up?
well I have news for you, I don't compared to a real MTF test

Again, test charts are just that, controlled tests. Real world results trump test results every day. I can handhold my 400 f/2.8 II for 30-45 minutes without a monopod, can't do that with my friends Nikon. He even agrees the ergonomics are far superior for the lens AND the body (1Dx v D4). We shot kayaking for two days straight (slalom, boater X, freestyle and River test) using 200 f/2's and 400 f/2.8's + other gear with extenders at some points. IQ wise I beat him out most of the time, not due to better glass but a much better AF system, focusing speed and ability of the lens and lighter weight gear that does not tire you out as much so you can hoist up and get that shot. Shooting an event all day (7am-7pm) in the hot sun with 20 kg of gear is much different then 12 hours and 15kg of gear.

So, lets see this Swedish photo mag's real world working photographers test results and not charts, which serve two purposes: Forum arguments and lens calibration.

 

[garyknrd]

I have a friend I shoot with some times. He has the Nikon 500 VR II and the D4. With and without t.c.'s that is an excellent lens. Optics are superb. I shoot with Canon and love it. But in the field I cannot tell a difference between the two in sharpness? And the price is 2K cheaper. This is shooting birds only. My views anyway.

 

[Apop]

Wow that 300 graphs looks nice!

Basically your saying that TheDigitalPicture is fabricating or sabotaging the nikon results?

I think the differences are really small and hard to notice in the field?

How do you explains mansurovs experiences with the tc2xIII , where he states that you need to atleast stop down to f8 and preferably f11?, where as with the canon 300 f2.8 +2x 5.6-6.3 is already very sharp

Photographylife(Mansurovs)
For example he found that the 300+1.4@ f5.6-f8 is still less sharp than 400 @ f2.8
and : When stopped down to f/11, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II + TC-20E III looks sharper than Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-14E II wide open , while @ f8 vs f4 more or less comparable.
Read more: http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-400mm-f2-8g-vr#ixzz2TL6jX49v

This post was originally about performance with teleconverters, I don't doubt that the bare lenses are very close if not equal, but it seems that in all reviews that i have seen that canon's like the converters a bit more.



canon 300&400
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

REGARDING TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test target, different combos are optimized for different distance.Different super telephoto lenses are optimized for different distances


So here are a real measurements from real MTF test, and by Hasselblads MTF lab IN GOTHENBURG and for the magazine Foto here in Sweden. They conclude , there are no difference between for example 400/2.8 , 500/4 600/4 FROM NIKON AND CANON, (sorry Krille you can sue me for showing this sides from your excellent Photo magazine FOTO)
THE 4 TESTED LENSES ARE EQUAL NOW you can believe in what you want regarding one or others companies sovereignty and about for example fluorite glass and there are a lot more companies than Nikon, Canon how can build decent lenses . example Zeiss.Leitz, Sigma,Pentax, Tokina,Tamron etc etc
Im sorry that Im erasing yet another myth
And if Jrista or Neuro want to discuss Hasselblad credibility in their measurements, I suggest that they directly address Per Nordlund via e-mail, he is the lens expert expert at Hasselblad

pictures taken from the magazine with a iPhone

 

[Astral]

can anyone tell if those were the Flourite elements that broke in digitalrevTv's real 300mm F4 L lens cup video? the first two front elements seem fine World's First Canon 300mm L Lens Cup (real L lens!)

 

[Hillsilly]

When considering lenses that I've used, I've always thought of the Canon 300mm f/4 as having essentially equal IQ to the Nikon 300mm f/4. Any difference would negligible. But the Canon has IS, which the Nikon lacks, and which would be useful with a teleconverter if hand holding. (And, not that its directly relevant to the question, but I've thought the Canon lens focuses slightly faster (and would probably continue to do so with a teleconverter). Given that they sell for a similar price, Canon seems the better pick.)

Anyways...maybe they are hand holding all of these lenses for the tests and it is the IS that's causing the difference?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Personally, I think there is as greater difference between photographers than their kit or kit brand.
I have yet to use a pro Canon lens that I wasn't happy with...except maybe the 50mm f1.2 L. Every Nikon Pro lens I've used has been very good too. A poor lens will show in the results, a quality optic will always shine in the results. But poor technique, ability, composition, tallent or skill will always show much more than the other results.
Too much time is spent by photographers analysing lens charts, scrutinsing almost tiny descrepencies between comparative optics. A lens which is slightly sharper will not make slightly better pictures, it's down to the skill of the photographer. Top gear helps a photographer in extream circumstances and helps up their keeper rate.

 

[TexasBadger]

I have a friend that shoots only Zeiss glass. I have shot with him multiple times using both Nikon and Canon glass. My photographs are better than his because he sucks as a photographer. What a waste of Zeiss glass. I shoot Canon because in the mid 2000s, they had better autofocus lenses than Nikon. Now I am committed to Canon because of my lens investment. However, the next lens I buy will be a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. From a historical perspective, Canon has always excelled in long lenses. Zeiss had better contrast (t* coating) and Leitz made great wide angle lenses. Their long lenses were lacking. At least compared to Canon. The reality is that skill and timing are often the most important deciders. I honestly believe that once in a lifetime photos depend on what you have at the time the event occurs. I shoot Canon because I had to make a choice. Since when I committed they had better af lenses. If I do not need af (21mm for example) I will buy Zeiss. I cannot afford Leica so that is not an option. Now I wish I was better at Photoshop, but I get better every time I use it and there you go... 8)

 

[jrista]

I have a friend that shoots only Zeiss glass. I have shot with him multiple times using both Nikon and Canon glass. My photographs are better than his because he sucks as a photographer. What a waste of Zeiss glass. I shoot Canon because in the mid 2000s, they had better autofocus lenses than Nikon. Now I am committed to Canon because of my lens investment. However, the next lens I buy will be a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. From a historical perspective, Canon has always excelled in long lenses. Zeiss had better contrast (t* coating) and Leitz made great wide angle lenses. Their long lenses were lacking. At least compared to Canon. The reality is that skill and timing are often the most important deciders. I honestly believe that once in a lifetime photos depend on what you have at the time the event occurs. I shoot Canon because I had to make a choice. Since when I committed they had better af lenses. If I do not need af (21mm for example) I will buy Zeiss. I cannot afford Leica so that is not an option. Now I wish I was better at Photoshop, but I get better every time I use it and there you go... 8)

Factually, Ziess' T* coating is a multicoating, similar to Canon's older SuperSpectra Multicoating. Today, Canon also has SWC, or SubWavelength Coating, which is a nanocoating...and vastly superior to any multicoating. In that respect, modern Canon lenses released over the last few years, the vast majority of which use SWC on the most critical inner elements) have considerably superior microcontrast relative to Zeiss, who has yet to introduce ANY lenses that use a nanocoating. Nikon also has lenses with better microcontrast than Zeiss, as they too use nanocoating on internal lens elements.

TDP also has some reviews of Zeiss lenses. In every comparison, flare and loss of contrast is much worse on all the Zeiss lenses when compared to Canon lenses. Hell, even my older EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II lens has VASTLY superior flare control compared to the relative Zeiss EF mount lenses. So, sorry...but T* is NOT a Zeiss strength these days...it's holding them back.

A few years back, maybe 2005-2006 era, I'd have said Zeiss made better lenses. From a lens construction standpoint, they DO make very solid lenses that can really take a beating...but they tend to be considerably heavier than any Canon lens. Today, I believe Canon, thanks to a variety of advanced materials and technologies, makes a better DSLR photographic lens than Zeiss. Nanocoating definitely improves their lens' transmission and microcontrast, fluorite elements improve their wide-open lens performance (requiring fewer elements, which is always better than more) and help to greatly reduce weight, titanium and magnesium alloy lens barrels which are both very strong and very light weight. One cannot forget the technological improvements as well. Canon's newer lenses include advanced IS and AF technologies paired with high speed firmware, allowing them to operate very responsively when paired with a new Canon body.

 

[jrista]

can anyone tell if those were the Flourite elements that broke in digitalrevTv's real 300mm F4 L lens cup video? the first two front elements seem fine World's First Canon 300mm L Lens Cup (real L lens!)

The EF 300mm f/4 L IS does not use Fluorite. It has two UD elements, the rest are standard optical glass:

 

[jrista]

I have a friend I shoot with some times. He has the Nikon 500 VR II and the D4. With and without t.c.'s that is an excellent lens. Optics are superb. I shoot with Canon and love it. But in the field I cannot tell a difference between the two in sharpness? And the price is 2K cheaper. This is shooting birds only. My views anyway.

Just for clarity, the argument is not that Nikon's lenses are not good lenses. They definitely are...in fact, some of the best in the world, and better than Canon's older generation of telephoto great whites. Canon has a number of superior factors that just make them a bit better. Fluorite is a valuable material in that it offers superior CA control over UD/SuperUD/ED/SuperED (not by a huge margin, but by enough of a margin), but also because it is a little lighter in weight, and in the case of Canon's newer lenses...it allowed them to eliminate an element (600mm f/4 L had 17 elements in 13 groups, two UD one fluorite; 600mm f/4 L II has 16 elements in 12 groups, two fluorite.) The new Canon 600mm II is 8.6 pounds (3920 grams), vs. the Nikon 600mm which is 11.2 pounds (5060 grams).

The other benefit is tighter matching of firmware between Canon's newer generation of lenses and their newer bodies. The 1D X, 5D III, and probably 7D II all have better firmware feedback for IS and AF (particularly AF). People have been getting at least 5 stops if hand-holdability improvement with IS and newer bodies (sourced from TDP, DPR and other review sites). When it comes to AF, phase-detect AF is as good and consistent as contrast-detect live view AF when a new Mark II lens is paired with a new body (1D X or 5D III; sourced from LensRentals Blog.) AF is also extremely snappy with Canon equipment, something that has NOT been demonstrated even with the top of the line D800 and D4. Overall, the improved IS and AF functionality, along with considerably lighter weight and top notch optical design, lead to overall better real-world IQ with the new Mark II Canon lenses, even though the MTFs are similar (both are similar in the center, Nikon loses out a bit more as you reach the corner.)

 

[RMC33]

I have a friend I shoot with some times. He has the Nikon 500 VR II and the D4. With and without t.c.'s that is an excellent lens. Optics are superb. I shoot with Canon and love it. But in the field I cannot tell a difference between the two in sharpness? And the price is 2K cheaper. This is shooting birds only. My views anyway.

Just for clarity, the argument is not that Nikon's lenses are not good lenses. They definitely are...in fact, some of the best in the world, and better than Canon's older generation of telephoto great whites. Canon has a number of superior factors that just make them a bit better. Fluorite is a valuable material in that it offers superior CA control over UD/SuperUD/ED/SuperED (not by a huge margin, but by enough of a margin), but also because it is a little lighter in weight, and in the case of Canon's newer lenses...it allowed them to eliminate an element (600mm f/4 L had 17 elements in 13 groups, two UD one fluorite; 600mm f/4 L II has 16 elements in 12 groups, two fluorite.) The new Canon 600mm II is 8.6 pounds (3920 grams), vs. the Nikon 600mm which is 11.2 pounds (5060 grams).

The other benefit is tighter matching of firmware between Canon's newer generation of lenses and their newer bodies. The 1D X, 5D III, and probably 7D II all have better firmware feedback for IS and AF (particularly AF). People have been getting at least 5 stops if hand-holdability improvement with IS and newer bodies (sourced from TDP, DPR and other review sites). When it comes to AF, phase-detect AF is as good and consistent as contrast-detect live view AF when a new Mark II lens is paired with a new body (1D X or 5D III; sourced from LensRentals Blog.) AF is also extremely snappy with Canon equipment, something that has NOT been demonstrated even with the top of the line D800 and D4. Overall, the improved IS and AF functionality, along with considerably lighter weight and top notch optical design, lead to overall better real-world IQ with the new Mark II Canon lenses, even though the MTFs are similar (both are similar in the center, Nikon loses out a bit more as you reach the corner.)

I can second this from real world testing/working with a Nikon shooter (both using top-end gear/been shooting 10+ years now)~ When we both nail focus on a subject you can not tell the difference, just the Canon lenses/bodies seem to nail it more often/reliably. I know his 200 f/2 had some serious back focus issues too that took 3 trips to Nikon to fix, but it also took Canon almost a month to do the service on my 200 f/2 for the 5D3, and shipped it back sans lens hood. In all honesty IQ is just a fraction of the equation, and both Canon and Nikon do that very very well. Over all use of the system (lens, body etc.) are FAR more important then just IQ, which is on equal footing.

It honestly blew my mind the other night using live view on my 1Dx (never had before) and how good the QOF/Speed was. The contrast detect goes for non-supers as well, my 24-70 f/2.8 II performs like a champ under these circumstances. I will have to try some of my older lenses, but I was just amazed.

 

[RMC33]

Jrista and Neuro , you call a manual procedure with live view and 4 small Canon/Nikon flashes a optimal set up?
well I have news for you, I don't compared to a real MTF test

Again, test charts are just that, controlled tests. Real world results trump test results every day. I can handhold my 400 f/2.8 II for 30-45 minutes without a monopod, can't do that with my friends Nikon. He even agrees the ergonomics are far superior for the lens AND the body (1Dx v D4). We shot kayaking for two days straight (slalom, boater X, freestyle and River test) using 200 f/2's and 400 f/2.8's + other gear with extenders at some points. IQ wise I beat him out most of the time, not due to better glass but a much better AF system, focusing speed and ability of the lens and lighter weight gear that does not tire you out as much so you can hoist up and get that shot. Shooting an event all day (7am-7pm) in the hot sun with 20 kg of gear is much different then 12 hours and 15kg of gear.

So, lets see this Swedish photo mag's real world working photographers test results and not charts, which serve two purposes: Forum arguments and lens calibration.

there are no test who can go against a real mtf test if we are talking about resolution and contrast t, you can think what you want, but no test can compete with a real MTF test and done by for example Hasselblads lab, if you think otherwise its means you have not a clue about resolution and contrast and a real measurements with out any feelings about a brand

Well you must not have read what I posted and went straight off of emotion about my dis-agreement with you. I have loyalty to Canon because they have delivered time and again in quality not of JUST the lens, but the overall camera eco-system.

Real world results/testing can go up against your coveted "real MTF". A real world test will show more useable data then a test chat in a controlled environment. I have a good eye for solid resolution and contrast, trust me. The IQ of any shots my friend (Nikon shooter) or I (Canon shooter) make are identical in a controlled environment. In an un-controlled environment test, say a sporting event, will show the true value of the quality of the WHOLE system and not just the lens.

Stop blindly following this "Hasslebad Real MTF" and go out and shoot. That is the ultimate test.

 

[RMC33]

and what do you think I have, I have tested lenses from Leitz, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon ,Pentax since 1978 , if you even was born at that time, but MTF is the only real test .
no human errors, its a measurements of the lens only
nothing you can explain away

Lens is not the only factor in making great images. If you have been testing for the last 35 years you would know this. Real MTF/any test chart is great for finding out how a lens performs in a controlled test environment, but outside of this environment you do not have this luxury. I trust a test chart and the data it produces to tell me the assumed optical performance and to calibrate my gear for the best shot possible, not how it will do in -30 degree weather, snow storms or other less then ideal (Read: non test environments ) conditions. Also, no human error? Did a Human invent the test and is a Human performing the test? If so, then there is always space for error.

Please start reading my posts and don't stoop to assumptions of my age/experience if you want people to take you seriously.

 

[Apop]

All this to fluorite or not.....

The nikon 800 f5.6 (latest tele from nikon)

''The AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR is a marvel of NIKKOR optical design. The lens is comprised of 20 elements split into 13 lens groups. The front and second elements are fluorite (a lightweight mono-crystal optical material), which provides superior optical characteristics and reduced weight for balanced handling.''

Looks like nikon is also going to fluorite from now on

 

[Apop]

Oh, well not according to themselves atleast

Nikon 800 lens construcion

NIkon 500 lens construction

etc
etc

Nikon 600 lens construction
http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/IMG/Assets/Camera-Lenses/2010/2173_AF-S-NIKKOR-600mm-f-4G-ED-VR/Misc/2173_AF-S-NIKKOR-600mm-f4G-ED-VR_Construction-2.jpg

Nikon 300 2.8 VRII

So if the 800mm is any indication, the next generation of tele's will make use of fluorite elements as well.

 

[Apop]

Well maybe your right, but I just see the latest tele from nikon have 2 fluorite elements (like canon?)

and their own words: The front and second elements are fluorite (a lightweight mono-crystal optical material), which provides superior optical characteristics and reduced weight for balanced handling.''


Which leads me to believe that the next 300 2.8 / 400 2.8 / 500 4 /600 4 will also incorporate fluorite elements, if not for the superior optical characteristics , for the weight.

 

[Loswr]

All this to fluorite or not.....

The nikon 800 f5.6 (latest tele from nikon)

''The AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR is a marvel of NIKKOR optical design. The lens is comprised of 20 elements split into 13 lens groups. The front and second elements are fluorite (a lightweight mono-crystal optical material), which provides superior optical characteristics and reduced weight for balanced handling.''

Looks like nikon is also going to fluorite from now on

But Mikael/ankorwatt says that Nikon's SuperED glass is just as good as fluorite optically, and stronger, too. Why would Nikon need to use fluorite at all, much less state that it "provides superior optical characteristics"? :

 

[Apop]

That is a good point..., so either nikon has a new way of measuring their MTF's , or fluorite is actually used for it's optical superiority?

800mm

600mm

Edit: Sorry, did not notice that superED is not used in the 600mm , it's in the 80-400 though, maybe they will use supered/fluorite in future lenses.

Seems like Nikon does not know their own products at all
-Two fluorite lens elements
The fluorite elements also deliver superior optical performance, achieving high transmission rates with minimal chromatic aberration and lower dispersion properties than even super ED glass, according to Nikon.

Luckily we have ankorwatt to correct Nikon's statements

All this to fluorite or not.....

The nikon 800 f5.6 (latest tele from nikon)

''The AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR is a marvel of NIKKOR optical design. The lens is comprised of 20 elements split into 13 lens groups. The front and second elements are fluorite (a lightweight mono-crystal optical material), which provides superior optical characteristics and reduced weight for balanced handling.''

Looks like nikon is also going to fluorite from now on

But Mikael/ankorwatt says that Nikon's SuperED glass is just as good as fluorite. Why would Nikon need to use fluorite at all? :

 

[ZoeEnPhos]

REGARDING TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test target, different combos are optimized for different distance.Different super telephoto lenses are optimized for different distances


So here are a real measurements from real MTF test, and by Hasselblads MTF lab IN GOTHENBURG and for the magazine Foto here in Sweden. They conclude , there are no difference between for example 400/2.8 , 500/4 600/4 FROM NIKON AND CANON, (sorry Krille you can sue me for showing this sides from your excellent Photo magazine FOTO)
THE 4 TESTED LENSES ARE EQUAL NOW you can believe in what you want regarding one or others companies sovereignty and about for example fluorite glass and there are a lot more companies than Nikon, Canon how can build decent lenses . example Zeiss.Leitz, Sigma,Pentax, Tokina,Tamron etc etc
Im sorry that Im erasing yet another myth
And if Jrista or Neuro want to discuss Hasselblad credibility in their measurements, I suggest that they directly address Per Nordlund via e-mail, he is the lens expert expert at Hasselblad

pictures taken from the magazine with a iPhone

Hello sir!
Thank you for publishing this page from the "FOTO" magazine! Excellent and I hope no one will sue you for this!

So from this page I can read that the EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM is "one of the very best lenses we (ever/so far) tested" freely translated from the page.
Not really understanding the concept of what this is about: " the higher frequency 40 cycles/mm" where the page text tells that for both 500 mm -tele lenses the curves are substantially lower than for the 300 mm - lens.
The test shows that the EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM also gives a better IQ with a small amount and also giving better contrast (compared to the Canon 500/4 II and Nikon 500/4 (10 cycles/mm), but the differences are not significantly big between the 500/4 and the EF300/2.8L II.

In addition the text from this page also, states that the 500mm and 600mm lenses from both Canon and Nikon are optically totally like-valued (lik=same + värdiga=value) [when translated from Swedish.]
I hope my short direct translation from Swedish language into English, might help you native English speaking in order to convey what this magazine FOTO test, is stating in their test with only short text.

Wishing you all the very Best and happy shootings!

C

 

[jrista]

Because they get similar results with theirs ED glass

Similar results, but still not as good. You can't forget the weight savings that can be had with fluorite elements as well...it is a lighter material, and often allows FEWER lens elements to be used in the overall design, thus further reducing weight and improving IQ (as every additional lens element has it's own impact on IQ.)