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

[Apop]

Hey ,
How come that it seems that canon lenses (seems to) play a lot better with Tc's?

for example: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=653&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=745&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

600mm's
or: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=654&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=748&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

300mm's
or: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=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=651&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

70-200's
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=621&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

It looks to consistent to be a flaw from the digital picture, also the nikon lenses without teleconverter look plenty sharp., also photographylife lens comparisons seems to confirm that the nikons are affected more by teleconverters ( in reviews i compare the crops form 300+1.4 to a 400 and the difference seems a lot more pronounced than in canon crops)


Just interested to an explanation, because it seems that the bare lenses perform really good.

 

[pierceography]

Two words: Better glass.

Both for the lenses themselves and the teleconverters.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

 

[Apop]

Interesting, i was not aware that the difference was that 'big'

Does that mean nikon has to update all their tele's and converters within 5 years if the MP's keep increasing ?

I can imagine 40-50+ mp sensors will expose flaws even more ( especially with tc's?)

 

[9VIII]

I still think there's a severe lack of direct comparisons between the big lenses from both companies, one sample from one person is not enough. Ideally we should be looking at dozens of comparisons to average things out, but instead I can only find one or two direct comparisons between the various lenses. What's more, it seems like there's a lack of testing on Nikon lenses in general.
You almost get the feeling that everyone knows the Canon version is better, so all the Nikon owners just say "stick with the system you have", while Canon guys run around doing lots of tests, but don't have any Nikon lenses to compare with. So the IQ of Nikon lenses ends up being this enigma with no definition outside the usual comments.

 

[Loswr]

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)

 

[9VIII]

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)

The enigma comment was concerning the supertele lenses. I've been looking for comparisons of the 300f2.8 specifically since it's a good chunk cheaper than the Canon. Reviews are slim and cross brand comparisons almost non-existent.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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)

The enigma comment was concerning the supertele lenses. I've been looking for comparisons of the 300f2.8 specifically since it's a good chunk cheaper than the Canon. Reviews are slim and cross brand comparisons almost non-existent.

Unless you start adding TC's to one, they are both pretty good. I don't have a Canon version, but here is a shot with a older Nikon AF 300mm f/2.8 mounted to my Canon 40D, so it was manual focus and at f/2.8, the depth of field was very shallow.

Here it is with a D40X I had at the time. It appears to have been front focusing. Nikon had those issues too.

 

[pierceography]

Two words: Better glass.

Both for the lenses themselves and the teleconverters.

Better glass?
in what way?

Canon glass has much better contrast and resolution when shooting black BBQ grills.

 

[Skulker]

And fluorite is also one reason that NASA will not have anything to do with Canons " fluorite lenses" in the space.

That's interesting where did you get that detail?

 

[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.

 

[Skulker]

And fluorite is also one reason that NASA will not have anything to do with Canons " fluorite lenses" in the space.

That's interesting where did you get that detail?

I have got it from my last trip out in the space, and it toke about 1liter single malt
no- there have been a documentaries about cameras who have been in the space , Hasselblad and Nikon and also we have been able to follow Fugelstam the Swedish astronaut, where he show the Nikon equipment, about fluorite glass you can google how fragile it is , there are lot information.There are also one link from 2004 who now is down or gone about the subject Cracking due to shock and rapid changes in temperature:
http://alice.as.arizona.edu/~rogerc/chapters/Chapter%204a.html

and last, I have a great contact net since 30 years back, I have as a member of the press been at Photokina in Köln every second year since my first time (I think it was) 1978 so I have heard and seen many things during the years, like the first OLED monitor by Kodak when Kodak still was big or Hasselblad with 3 ccd Foveon sensor, buried as quickly as it appeared, or Contax, Pentax 24x36mm digital cameras who didn't get a long life etc

That link does not work for me. It seems I did not explain my question clearly. But what I was meaning to ask was "were did you learn that NASA will not have anything to do with Canons "fluorite glass" in space." I was hoping you would be able to give a reference for that statement.

 

[AlanF]

Is this link of use?
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/9970197

 

[Loswr]

[quote author=Nikon]
Super ED glass also boasts a higher refractive index than fluorite,
making it highly capable of correcting aberrations other than
chromatic aberration.....
[/quote]

So it can correct other aberrations (as can other elements in Canon lenses)...but does Super ED correct CA as well as fluorite? Nikon carefully didn't state that...

 

[Skulker]

Is this link of use?
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/9970197

Ta, that link worked for me. But its just another version of the story.

I was wondering if there was anything behind the claims. I've not heard of problems with L lenses cracking all the time and was wondering if there is any substance in the claims that there is a problem in space. I would be interested in a statement from NASA or something like that. Not that its all that relevant until a problem with L lenses cracking on earth comes up.

 

[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 ;D