Have you considered joining the dark side?...

[RLPhoto]

This is a nice post. The only reason I'm not switching is nikons primes lack any uniqueness in their rendering.

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

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.

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

99% of people don't even know what f/stop is, let alone tell the difference. When I look at my photos, I tell the difference. Thats what matters.

The discerning photographer will choose his lenses carefully on a particular look he/she wants. Some are willing pay more, some aren't willing to do so, nothing new. Name some 50mm F/1.2 lenses or faster that are or we're cheap when released?

That's right, None, because these ultra-speed lenses develop character in there compromises in design to get such insane speeds.

The nikon 85mm 1.8G DOES NOT surpass the 100mm F/2 canon. NOT ONE BIT, and its a very old design. Why fix what ain't broke? Did you even look at the crops? Nikon barely caught up but still has tons of CA's.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

 

[AvTvM]

The nikon 85mm 1.8G DOES NOT surpass the 100mm F/2 canon. NOT ONE BIT, and its a very old design. Why fix what ain't broke? Did you even look at the crops? Nikon barely caught up but still has tons of CA's.

As a owner and user of the EF 100/2.0 I must say, that CA are really BAD on that lens. Not only wide open but quite visible all the way up to f/5.6. Especially purple fringing (loCAs). Of course, that will not show an black and white portraits of dogs. ;-) The bokeh is not bad, but suffers from cornered bokeh highlights due to non-rounded aperture blades.

So, yes - the 100/2.0 is a very decent 1980's lens and I like it qquite a bit. I use it frequently for concerts, because it is very sharp, has very fast Ring-USM AF and is 1 stop faster and way more compact than the 70-200 2.8. But, it certainly is due for a Mark II makeover! Give it 9 nicely rounded aperture blades and super spectra (sub wvaelength) coating on front lens and rear lens and an IS ... but keep the price reasonable and it would be fit for the next 30 years!

While I have not tried the Nikon 85/1.8 myself, looking at the specs and at sample pics from one of my Nikon pals ... it is superior to the 100/2.0.

Here 3 samples with 7D and 100/2.0: first @f/2.2, second @ f/2.0 and last one @ f/3.5 (see octagonal bokeh highlights!).

 

[RLPhoto]

The nikon 85mm 1.8G DOES NOT surpass the 100mm F/2 canon. NOT ONE BIT, and its a very old design. Why fix what ain't broke? Did you even look at the crops? Nikon barely caught up but still has tons of CA's.

As a owner and user of the EF 100/2.0 I must say, that CA are really BAD on that lens. Not only wide open but quite visible all the way up to f/5.6. Especially purple fringing (loCAs). Of course, that will not show an black and white portraits of dogs. ;-) The bokeh is not bad, but suffers from cornered bokeh highlights due to non-rounded aperture blades.

So, yes - the 100/2.0 is a very decent 1980's lens and I like it qquite a bit. I use it frequently for concerts, because it is very sharp, has very fast Ring-USM AF and is 1 stop faster and way more compact than the 70-200 2.8. But, it certainly is due for a Mark II makeover! Give it 9 nicely rounded aperture blades and super spectra (sub wvaelength) coating on front lens and rear lens and an IS ... but keep the price reasonable and it would be fit for the next 30 years!

While I have not tried the Nikon 85/1.8 myself, looking at the specs and at sample pics from one of my Nikon pals ... it is superior to the 100/2.0.

I never said the 85mm 1.8G was a bad lens. All I said is that Nikon barely caught up and to claim that is vastly superior to either the Canon 85mm 1.8 or 100mm f/2 is non-sense. Especially as the canon alternatives are 100$ cheaper and they provide equal performance to the ALL NEW NIKON 85mm 1.8G! Fancy!

As for black & white portraits not showing CA's, I had a beer and took a photo. I don't see any CA's at f/2.8, so I don't see this remark of CA's at F/5.6 being solid. If your shooting tree branches all day into the afternoon sun, show me a lens that doesn't show CA's.

D30 - 100mm F/2 @ 2.8

 

[canon816]

Many of us have thought about it. But my investment in Canon glass makes it really tough to make the jump. Also, you won't really be gaining any advantage to jump to Nikon. Or from Nikon to Canon for that matter.

Both companies make excellent products that perform exceptionally well.

If I were to be just getting into photography I would make the decision the same way I made it 5 years ago.... Which brand felt more ergonomic in my hand. The Canon seemed to fit like a glove and the Nikon just wasn't quite right.

I get a kick out of the venom that is spit from one camp to the other... but the reality is... if you are in either canon or nikon... you made the right choice. ;D

 

[Northstar]

The nikon 85mm 1.8G DOES NOT surpass the 100mm F/2 canon. NOT ONE BIT, and its a very old design. Why fix what ain't broke? Did you even look at the crops? Nikon barely caught up but still has tons of CA's.

As a owner and user of the EF 100/2.0 I must say, that CA are really BAD on that lens. Not only wide open but quite visible all the way up to f/5.6. Especially purple fringing (loCAs). Of course, that will not show an black and white portraits of dogs. ;-) The bokeh is not bad, but suffers from cornered bokeh highlights due to non-rounded aperture blades.

So, yes - the 100/2.0 is a very decent 1980's lens and I like it qquite a bit. I use it frequently for concerts, because it is very sharp, has very fast Ring-USM AF and is 1 stop faster and way more compact than the 70-200 2.8. But, it certainly is due for a Mark II makeover! Give it 9 nicely rounded aperture blades and super spectra (sub wvaelength) coating on front lens and rear lens and an IS ... but keep the price reasonable and it would be fit for the next 30 years!

While I have not tried the Nikon 85/1.8 myself, looking at the specs and at sample pics from one of my Nikon pals ... it is superior to the 100/2.0.

I never said the 85mm 1.8G was a bad lens. All I said is that Nikon barely caught up and to claim that is vastly superior to either the Canon 85mm 1.8 or 100mm f/2 is non-sense. Especially as the canon alternatives are 100$ cheaper and they provide equal performance to the ALL NEW NIKON 85mm 1.8G! Fancy!

As for black & white portraits not showing CA's, I had a beer and took a photo. I don't see any CA's at f/2.8, so I don't see this remark of CA's at F/5.6 being solid. If your shooting tree branches all day into the afternoon sun, show me a lens that doesn't show CA's.

D30 - 100mm F/2 @ 2.8

RL...after further consideration, I take back what I said about the nikon 1.8g being much better than the canon 85 1.8 and 100 f2...it's only minimally better IMO..and I'm mostly referring to the 85. I'm not trying to offend you and I offer my apologies, I realize now that the 100 f2 must be a favorite of yours, and you're right about it being a great lens.

I shot with the nikon 85 1.8g on my d7000 earlier this year before my switch to the canon system. It was very sharp wide open and produced exceptional images. I reluctantly returned it(grace period) when I decided to switch systems. Here's a review of the lens on the d7000 at slr gear, note how sharp the lens is on a d7000 (maybe the reason for my strong opinion of it)

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1480/cat/12

 

[tron]

I do like my Canon gear a lot. I realize that there is room for improvement but ... I am satisfied and used to it.

Also having about 15 lenses and ... 1 digital body (5DmkII) it would be funny to switch! (Actually I am not interested. I use Canon since 1988!)
However, I am an amateur. I can chose whatever I like! I would not judge someone if he/she wanted to switch.

I do not think though that Nikon would surpass my:
17TS-E L, 24TS-E L II, 35 1.4 L(this is just ordered actually!), 135 f/2L, 300 f/4L (non-IS) 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L II

On the other hand Canon price policy is outrageous. When a next version is being introduced instead of keeping the price almost the same or at least a little higher to cover for R&D they increase it A LOT! As a result the previous version lenses cannot be found at reasonable prices. So most probably the 35mm 1.4 L will not be followed by another lens for a long time... (especially a new long white one... )

I believe Canon probably deserves a lesson purely for pricing reasons. Now by saying pricing reasons I do not mean the 500$ difference in prices of 5DmkIII and D800. I have read once in this forum a member got a body and a Nikon 200-400 for a price much less than Canon would charge for the lens alone! I am talking that big!

Digital quality wise maybe Canon is lagging a little behind if we are to believe the tests. I do not own Nikon to compare but I believe the tests. However I wonder. A few years ago professionals used Canon and Nikon gear to produce excellent results. The fact that newer and better models are made does not negate the work that has been done up to now. It is still good and professional.

So the tendency to always have the latest and greatest is half necessity and half ... desire (or maybe 100% desire?)

 

[drummstikk]

You say it's for simpletons. Partially true. But it's more for people without s*** tons of money to waste switching brands every generations. :

I was waiting for someone to say it. One sure way to tell the hobbyists from the people making a "living" from photography is to monitor how often a system switch occurs. If you are a dentist who birds on the weekend, you may just be with Canon the even-numbered years and Nikon the rest. If your actual livelihood is contracts with Universities, businesses, publications, and wire services, a system switch would cost about half of last year's profits, and thus ain't happening anytime soon.

The only time I even think about Nikon is when I see a manual focus 400mm 2.8 go unsold on eBay for sub $2500.00. I'm old, and therefore manual focus has been second nature to me for decades. D3's are pretty reasonable on the used market now. The idea of kitting up with a 300mm 2.8, 400mm 2.8, (MF) and a couple of D3's for under 10K is pretty tempting. Well, except for the "re-learning to focus backwards again" part. (My last system switch was Nikon FM-2's to Canon EOS-1 in 1990, and it took 6 months for manual focus to get back to "auto.")

 

[dr croubie]

The only time I even think about Nikon is when I see a manual focus 400mm 2.8 go unsold on eBay for sub $2500.00. I'm old, and therefore manual focus has been second nature to me for decades. D3's are pretty reasonable on the used market now. The idea of kitting up with a 300mm 2.8, 400mm 2.8, (MF) and a couple of D3's for under 10K is pretty tempting. Well, except for the "re-learning to focus backwards again" part. (My last system switch was Nikon FM-2's to Canon EOS-1 in 1990, and it took 6 months for manual focus to get back to "auto.")

Well, you'll always have better luck sticking old Nikkor glass on a Canon Body than on the newest Digital Nikon bodies.
There's also FD lenses and Ed Mika's adapters (which let you infinity-focus on EOS bodies with no extra glass), they go very rarely on ebay but when they do i've seen FD 300/2.8 and 500/4 go for sub-$2k...

 

[briansquibb]

You say it's for simpletons. Partially true. But it's more for people without s*** tons of money to waste switching brands every generations. :

I was waiting for someone to say it. One sure way to tell the hobbyists from the people making a "living" from photography is to monitor how often a system switch occurs. If you are a dentist who birds on the weekend, you may just be with Canon the even-numbered years and Nikon the rest. If your actual livelihood is contracts with Universities, businesses, publications, and wire services, a system switch would cost about half of last year's profits, and thus ain't happening anytime soon.

As a hobbyist then I guess I break the rule as I have been with Canon over 20 years now.

As a full time worker for most of that time I couldn't spare the time to play at switching - if I was lucky I might get 1 day a week off and after 70+ hours of irregular working hours, to relax with something familiar was about as much as I wanted.

I dont see why people try to differentiate between pros and hobbyists

 

[FunkyCamera]

I never said the 85mm 1.8G was a bad lens. All I said is that Nikon barely caught up and to claim that is vastly superior to either the Canon 85mm 1.8 or 100mm f/2 is non-sense. Especially as the canon alternatives are 100$ cheaper and they provide equal performance to the ALL NEW NIKON 85mm 1.8G! Fancy!

As for black & white portraits not showing CA's, I had a beer and took a photo. I don't see any CA's at f/2.8, so I don't see this remark of CA's at F/5.6 being solid. If your shooting tree branches all day into the afternoon sun, show me a lens that doesn't show CA's.

D30 - 100mm F/2 @ 2.8

Funny thing is, that beer bottle is optically better than the Nikon 85mm

 

[vuilang]

for what i do.. Nikon D800 doesnt have ISO 25600 for video, or sRAW, mRAW... So, NO WAY

 

[psolberg]

I do not think though that Nikon would surpass my:
17TS-E L, 24TS-E L II, 35 1.4 L(this is just ordered actually!), 135 f/2L, 300 f/4L (non-IS) 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L II

having used both, I'll comment on it:
17TS nikon version is coming per the leaks and patents, but for now canon has the edge, although I prefer the 14-24 anyday over the 17TS personaly but that's because I really don't find 17mm anywhere near wide enough for anything I shoot.

24TS-E nikon has one, only it is older and doesn't do independant Tilt/shift axis configurations, but optically it is just as good. After my switch, I don't miss the canon. what can I say.

351.4L nikon wins hands down. the canon is way old and way worse. I actually wouldn't use the canon because it was so bad compared to the 24L.

135 f/2. Both suck. no really. Nikon has one with defocus control which produces superb bokeh. Much nicer than the L canon, but the canon has faster AF and less CA, but both lack VR. In terms of which one I'd get, it would be the sony Zeiss 135 f/1.8 which wipes the floor with both both optically and spec wise. I wish I had that instead.

300 f/4 non IS (the nikon version is superb) Unless you neede IS, it's a tie.

70-200 f/4. Nikon lacks it for now so definitively a win for canon. Although I'd never use that lens on any system as I prefer shallow DOF.

70-200 f/2.8II. The nikon version nearly identical performance wise with the canon have a slight edge and better MFD. But unlike something like the 17TS, or the fisheye zoom, there just isn't all that much practical difference.

The only canon glass I would consider worth sticking for it is the 65mm macro, the DO line, and the 800mm prime...but Nikon just announced theirs so it is down to very very little. Compare that to a decade ago when it wasn't even close. And all the better for having two systems to choose from means cheaper and better gear for everybody. I'm glad canon has been in a slide for the last decade losing share to nikon/sony because otherwise we'd be shooting 5DmkI's with ancient canon gear.

Lenses I prefer on nikon:

14-24 f/2.8 (since canon lacks it, I compare it to the 14mm prime which gets spanked)
24 f/1.4
35 f/1.4
85 f/1.4 (better optically at 1.4 and beyond, cheaper lighter).
16-35 f/4 (it's no that but the canon 17-35 is way worse and lacks IS)

Lenses I found to not matter which one you have:
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
50 f/1.4 vs f/1.2
24 PCE vs TS
45 PCE vs TS

Lenses I used to prefer on canon, or would consider as being unique enough to the system to have no equivalent in nikon land.

fisheye zoom. It is a useless feature to have zoom on it but the nikon fisheye is very old.
65 macro (although with tubes that may be a different story but the canon is more convenient with its 5X magnification)
I'm not listing the 17TS because I honestly wouldn't care unless it was a 14mm TS.

The nikon 85mm 1.8G DOES NOT surpass the 100mm F/2 canon.

I don't know but thats a silly comparison. who cares really. Neither lens is really interesting. I could believe some would pick systems because of the 14-24, or 17TS. But for the 100 f/2. that's a joke.

Well, you'll always have better luck sticking old Nikkor glass on a Canon Body than on the newest Digital Nikon bodies.

When I switched I tried that. But I found modern nikon glass destroys the old nikkor glass without exception. So I don't know how what you say makes any sense. I guess if you didn't care about image quality that would be the case....I'll keep my newly aquired nano coated nikkors thanks.

You say it's for simpletons. Partially true. But it's more for people without s*** tons of money to waste switching brands every generations.

switching brands is relatively painless these days if your gear is in good shape. 10 years ago it wasn't. this isn't wife swapping. Take it from somebody who did it.

for what i do.. Nikon D800 doesnt have ISO 25600 for video, or sRAW, mRAW... So, NO WAY

that's right. the nikon isn't for low resolution shooters or people that want to shoot in very dark conditions. there are better cameras suited for that such as the D4 or 1DX.

Digital quality wise maybe Canon is lagging a little behind if we are to believe the tests. I do not own Nikon to compare but I believe the tests. However I wonder. A few years ago professionals used Canon and Nikon gear to produce excellent results. The fact that newer and better models are made does not negate the work that has been done up to now. It is still good and professional.

I switched because the nikon glass is just as good for all my needs, and Nikon's high resolution offerings suite my goals better. I couldn't care less if it was nikon or canon or sony that I had to purchase. If I'm going to spend so much money, it will be the system that fits me the best. I'd encourage everybody to do the same instead of suffering from stockholm syndrome...canon or nikon version. These are just tools.

 

[tron]

having used both, I'll comment on it:
I prefer the 14-24 anyday over the 17TS personaly but that's because I really don't find 17mm anywhere near wide enough for anything I shoot.

Of course if someone needs 14mm so be it but comparing 14-24 to 17TS-E is like comparing apples to oranges since if you need the TS functionality the 14mm zoom setting does not help.

 

[wickidwombat]

changing from nikon to canon the lens I miss the most is the 50 f1.4G
canon has nothing that touches this lens, the 1.2L is massive and 4 time the price
the nikkor 1.4G is the same price as the ancient canon 1.4 and kicks its arse

the other lens psolberg didnt mention which is unbelievably good is the nikkor 105 f2.8 Micro
it is build like a tank and I think its even better than the 100 f2.8L IS macro (which is a brilliant lens)

the 105 is an awesome portrait lens and wicked sharp its a bit wierd when you are actually shooting macro in that is adjusts the aperture value to the actual light so for very very close up stuff it will actually only hit a max aperture of say f4.5 due to the reduced light entering the lens. no big deal really

Nikon doesnt have APS-H either though

 

[vuilang]

I

Find me an F1.2 Lens on Nikon then switching will be in slight consideration..

 

[briansquibb]

I switched because the nikon glass is just as good for all my needs, and Nikon's high resolution offerings suite my goals better. I couldn't care less if it was nikon or canon or sony that I had to purchase. If I'm going to spend so much money, it will be the system that fits me the best. I'd encourage everybody to do the same instead of suffering from stockholm syndrome...canon or nikon version. These are just tools.

I just love the way that you elaborate when Nikon glass is better and dismiss the Canon offerings when they are better 8) 8) 8)

 

[drummstikk]

One sure way to tell the hobbyists from the people making a "living" from photography is to monitor how often a system switch occurs. If you are a dentist who birds on the weekend, you may just be with Canon the even-numbered years and Nikon the rest. If your actual livelihood is contracts with Universities, businesses, publications, and wire services, a system switch would cost about half of last year's profits, and thus ain't happening anytime soon.

As a hobbyist then I guess I break the rule as I have been with Canon over 20 years now.

As a full time worker for most of that time I couldn't spare the time to play at switching - if I was lucky I might get 1 day a week off and after 70+ hours of irregular working hours, to relax with something familiar was about as much as I wanted.

I dont see why people try to differentiate between pros and hobbyists

I didn't mean to differentiate. Nor did I intend to suggest pros have more "soul" than those who photograph for the love of it. (if anything, the opposite may well be true.)

What I meant to comment on is the increasingly common phenomenon where the best equipped photographer on the scene is an amateur. I'll be on a job with my 7d and my 5D mark nothing and my 70-200 IS mark nothing and my other 4-plus year old lenses, and up walks a guy with a 1d markIV and a 5D mark III 70-200 IS II and a 2 or 3 L fixed lenses and maybe a big white. Is this new competition I need to worry about? Usually not. It's most likely a tax attorney with a fat line on his visa card who, while very nicely equipped, is just out having some fun. He or she might get some great pictures, but due to lack of depth in experience, would most likely leave substantial gaps in the coverage my client needs.

One photographer I see doing volunteer work at the annual Komen for the cure event has been from Nikon to Canon back to Nikon on three consecutive years. That's something you will almost never see a working photographer do, only hobbyists with six-figure jobs or rich spouses. On a job you need the kind of "do it with your eyes closed" familiarity with equipment that will simply not develop if you switch systems often. I'd have to justify a system switch to my accountant, and perhaps more importantly, to my wife. Mostly I can't even justify it to myself. (And believe me, back when the D3 was new and I compared images from it to what I was getting with my 40D, I *really* tried.)

Plus, not to burst any bubbles out there, but except for a very small minority of photographers who not only have exceptional photo skills AND great talent for marketing and self-promotion (that's what I suck at), photography is simply not lucrative enough to support a system switch more than once a decade at most.

If I sound like I'm bitching, I'm not. I make most of my income doing what I love. But, as I write this, I'm on my lunch break from the third shift custodian job I do to earn health insurance and supplemental income. That's my reality and I'm OK with it.

 

[RLPhoto]

I do not think though that Nikon would surpass my:
17TS-E L, 24TS-E L II, 35 1.4 L(this is just ordered actually!), 135 f/2L, 300 f/4L (non-IS) 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L II

having used both, I'll comment on it:
17TS nikon version is coming per the leaks and patents, but for now canon has the edge, although I prefer the 14-24 anyday over the 17TS personaly but that's because I really don't find 17mm anywhere near wide enough for anything I shoot.

24TS-E nikon has one, only it is older and doesn't do independant Tilt/shift axis configurations, but optically it is just as good. After my switch, I don't miss the canon. what can I say.

351.4L nikon wins hands down. the canon is way old and way worse. I actually wouldn't use the canon because it was so bad compared to the 24L.

135 f/2. Both suck. no really. Nikon has one with defocus control which produces superb bokeh. Much nicer than the L canon, but the canon has faster AF and less CA, but both lack VR. In terms of which one I'd get, it would be the sony Zeiss 135 f/1.8 which wipes the floor with both both optically and spec wise. I wish I had that instead.

300 f/4 non IS (the nikon version is superb) Unless you neede IS, it's a tie.

70-200 f/4. Nikon lacks it for now so definitively a win for canon. Although I'd never use that lens on any system as I prefer shallow DOF.

70-200 f/2.8II. The nikon version nearly identical performance wise with the canon have a slight edge and better MFD. But unlike something like the 17TS, or the fisheye zoom, there just isn't all that much practical difference.

The only canon glass I would consider worth sticking for it is the 65mm macro, the DO line, and the 800mm prime...but Nikon just announced theirs so it is down to very very little. Compare that to a decade ago when it wasn't even close. And all the better for having two systems to choose from means cheaper and better gear for everybody. I'm glad canon has been in a slide for the last decade losing share to nikon/sony because otherwise we'd be shooting 5DmkI's with ancient canon gear.

Lenses I prefer on nikon:

14-24 f/2.8 (since canon lacks it, I compare it to the 14mm prime which gets spanked)
24 f/1.4
35 f/1.4
85 f/1.4 (better optically at 1.4 and beyond, cheaper lighter).
16-35 f/4 (it's no that but the canon 17-35 is way worse and lacks IS)

Lenses I found to not matter which one you have:
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
50 f/1.4 vs f/1.2
24 PCE vs TS
45 PCE vs TS

Lenses I used to prefer on canon, or would consider as being unique enough to the system to have no equivalent in nikon land.

fisheye zoom. It is a useless feature to have zoom on it but the nikon fisheye is very old.
65 macro (although with tubes that may be a different story but the canon is more convenient with its 5X magnification)
I'm not listing the 17TS because I honestly wouldn't care unless it was a 14mm TS.

The nikon 85mm 1.8G DOES NOT surpass the 100mm F/2 canon.

I don't know but thats a silly comparison. who cares really. Neither lens is really interesting. I could believe some would pick systems because of the 14-24, or 17TS. But for the 100 f/2. that's a joke.

Well, you'll always have better luck sticking old Nikkor glass on a Canon Body than on the newest Digital Nikon bodies.

When I switched I tried that. But I found modern nikon glass destroys the old nikkor glass without exception. So I don't know how what you say makes any sense. I guess if you didn't care about image quality that would be the case....I'll keep my newly aquired nano coated nikkors thanks.

You say it's for simpletons. Partially true. But it's more for people without s*** tons of money to waste switching brands every generations.

switching brands is relatively painless these days if your gear is in good shape. 10 years ago it wasn't. this isn't wife swapping. Take it from somebody who did it.

for what i do.. Nikon D800 doesnt have ISO 25600 for video, or sRAW, mRAW... So, NO WAY

that's right. the nikon isn't for low resolution shooters or people that want to shoot in very dark conditions. there are better cameras suited for that such as the D4 or 1DX.

Digital quality wise maybe Canon is lagging a little behind if we are to believe the tests. I do not own Nikon to compare but I believe the tests. However I wonder. A few years ago professionals used Canon and Nikon gear to produce excellent results. The fact that newer and better models are made does not negate the work that has been done up to now. It is still good and professional.

I switched because the nikon glass is just as good for all my needs, and Nikon's high resolution offerings suite my goals better. I couldn't care less if it was nikon or canon or sony that I had to purchase. If I'm going to spend so much money, it will be the system that fits me the best. I'd encourage everybody to do the same instead of suffering from stockholm syndrome...canon or nikon version. These are just tools.

I lost all respect for this post when you mentioned "135mm F/2L Sucks".

 

[Northstar]

I do not think though that Nikon would surpass my:
17TS-E L, 24TS-E L II, 35 1.4 L(this is just ordered actually!), 135 f/2L, 300 f/4L (non-IS) 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L II

having used both, I'll comment on it:
17TS nikon version is coming per the leaks and patents, but for now canon has the edge, although I prefer the 14-24 anyday over the 17TS personaly but that's because I really don't find 17mm anywhere near wide enough for anything I shoot.

24TS-E nikon has one, only it is older and doesn't do independant Tilt/shift axis configurations, but optically it is just as good. After my switch, I don't miss the canon. what can I say.

351.4L nikon wins hands down. the canon is way old and way worse. I actually wouldn't use the canon because it was so bad compared to the 24L.

135 f/2. Both suck. no really. Nikon has one with defocus control which produces superb bokeh. Much nicer than the L canon, but the canon has faster AF and less CA, but both lack VR. In terms of which one I'd get, it would be the sony Zeiss 135 f/1.8 which wipes the floor with both both optically and spec wise. I wish I had that instead.

300 f/4 non IS (the nikon version is superb) Unless you neede IS, it's a tie.

70-200 f/4. Nikon lacks it for now so definitively a win for canon. Although I'd never use that lens on any system as I prefer shallow DOF.

70-200 f/2.8II. The nikon version nearly identical performance wise with the canon have a slight edge and better MFD. But unlike something like the 17TS, or the fisheye zoom, there just isn't all that much practical difference.

The only canon glass I would consider worth sticking for it is the 65mm macro, the DO line, and the 800mm prime...but Nikon just announced theirs so it is down to very very little. Compare that to a decade ago when it wasn't even close. And all the better for having two systems to choose from means cheaper and better gear for everybody. I'm glad canon has been in a slide for the last decade losing share to nikon/sony because otherwise we'd be shooting 5DmkI's with ancient canon gear.

Lenses I prefer on nikon:

14-24 f/2.8 (since canon lacks it, I compare it to the 14mm prime which gets spanked)
24 f/1.4
35 f/1.4
85 f/1.4 (better optically at 1.4 and beyond, cheaper lighter).
16-35 f/4 (it's no that but the canon 17-35 is way worse and lacks IS)

Lenses I found to not matter which one you have:
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
50 f/1.4 vs f/1.2
24 PCE vs TS
45 PCE vs TS

Lenses I used to prefer on canon, or would consider as being unique enough to the system to have no equivalent in nikon land.

fisheye zoom. It is a useless feature to have zoom on it but the nikon fisheye is very old.
65 macro (although with tubes that may be a different story but the canon is more convenient with its 5X magnification)
I'm not listing the 17TS because I honestly wouldn't care unless it was a 14mm TS.

The nikon 85mm 1.8G DOES NOT surpass the 100mm F/2 canon.

I don't know but thats a silly comparison. who cares really. Neither lens is really interesting. I could believe some would pick systems because of the 14-24, or 17TS. But for the 100 f/2. that's a joke.

Well, you'll always have better luck sticking old Nikkor glass on a Canon Body than on the newest Digital Nikon bodies.

When I switched I tried that. But I found modern nikon glass destroys the old nikkor glass without exception. So I don't know how what you say makes any sense. I guess if you didn't care about image quality that would be the case....I'll keep my newly aquired nano coated nikkors thanks.

You say it's for simpletons. Partially true. But it's more for people without s*** tons of money to waste switching brands every generations.

switching brands is relatively painless these days if your gear is in good shape. 10 years ago it wasn't. this isn't wife swapping. Take it from somebody who did it.

for what i do.. Nikon D800 doesnt have ISO 25600 for video, or sRAW, mRAW... So, NO WAY

that's right. the nikon isn't for low resolution shooters or people that want to shoot in very dark conditions. there are better cameras suited for that such as the D4 or 1DX.

Digital quality wise maybe Canon is lagging a little behind if we are to believe the tests. I do not own Nikon to compare but I believe the tests. However I wonder. A few years ago professionals used Canon and Nikon gear to produce excellent results. The fact that newer and better models are made does not negate the work that has been done up to now. It is still good and professional.

I switched because the nikon glass is just as good for all my needs, and Nikon's high resolution offerings suite my goals better. I couldn't care less if it was nikon or canon or sony that I had to purchase. If I'm going to spend so much money, it will be the system that fits me the best. I'd encourage everybody to do the same instead of suffering from stockholm syndrome...canon or nikon version. These are just tools.

I lost all respect for this post when you mentioned "135mm F/2L Sucks".

RL...totally agree with you on this one.

psolberg...regarding the 135 - nearly EVERYONE thinks highly of this lens. To say that it "sucks" is simply crazy.

i think i'll pour a little gas on this particular fire....quote from a famous review guy: (wink)

"The Canon 135mm f/2 L is extraordinarily good optically". "Don't take my word for it, ask anyone else who owns this lens and he'll tell you it's one of Canon's best lenses of all time. Great lenses like this are why so many people shoot Canon cameras; Nikon simply has nothing that competes with this"

 

[tron]

I lost all respect for this post when you mentioned "135mm F/2L Sucks".

+1: The Canon 135mm f/2L is superb