Roger Cicala: Canon v. Nikon lenses on optical bench (no camera)

[ScottyP]

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/09/just-the-lenses-canon-vs-nikon-zooms-at-70mm

Roger at Lens Rentals is comparing 24-70's and 70-200's from Canon and Nikon. Interesting because it removes the huge variable of the different camera bodies you usually have.

 

[privatebydesign]

And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

 

[Jim Saunders]

And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

I agree; between the two skill matters more than kit.

Jim

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

You mean uneducated?

Some people want to know how good a lens actually is. When you couple it with a body, that drags down the actual capabilities of a lens to that of the body.

I'd like to know the actual resolution of a lens regardless of body.

 

[ScottyP]

And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

And yet another response from someone who somehow forgets that this is a gear site. An experiment that attempts to shed light on a question unanswerable in ordinary conditions is exactly the sort of thing that is of interest to some people on a gear site. And a test of Canon vs. Nikon gear, done in a way that isolates the lens capability from other variables is the sort of thing people are interested in, whether it has practical relevance or not.

Next thing will be the standard tired pat answer that someone always applies to every thread; "skill matters more than gear". Oh. No, wait that actually IS what the very next person did in fact regurgitate.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

And yet another response from someone who somehow forgets that this is a gear site. An experiment that attempts to shed light on a question unanswerable in ordinary conditions is exactly the sort of thing that is of interest to some people on a gear site. And a test of Canon vs. Nikon gear, done in a way that isolates the lens capability from other variables is the sort of thing people are interested in, whether it has practical relevance or not.

Next thing will be the standard tired pat answer that someone always applies to every thread; "skill matters more than gear". Oh. No, wait that actually IS what the very next person did in fact regurgitate.

I have no problem with users having their own opinion, even when I think its incorrect. Its only when they claim their opinion is the only correct one, is there a issue.

The post was meant for discussion, and we all have our own viewpoints and opinions, lets hear them.

 

[tyger11]

Another reason this is good information to have is because of the respective lifetimes of camera bodies compared to lenses. Expensive lenses typically go through multiple camera bodies because they aren't updated anywhere nearly as often. When CaNikon come out with their new bodies, for the most part, their lens lineup barely changes. It's good to know, and certainly doesn't hurt anything.

 

[helpful]

I'd like to know the actual resolution of a lens regardless of body.

Hearty Amen.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

For those that might not have actually read the report, there is some information on curvature of field that is not accessable using imatest with a lens / body combination. Knowing the limitations due to curvature of field could help select among lenses from the same manufacturer for a project. Would you use a 24-70 at 70mm, or a 70-200, or is there a difference? The answer is in the article.

 

[unadog]

I shoot both Nikon and Canon.

I am a former pro with 20+ years of experience. I own the Canon 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 II. I absolutely love those lenses. I only shoot the beat glass after using versions I and II of those for 10+ years.

The article is directly relevant to me as I decide which system to shoot as full frame and which to keep as a crop.

I have the Nikon D7100 and the Canon 6D right now for high ISO shooting. If I moved to the D610, D750, or D810, I would have to sell the Canon pair to buy the Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 II.

Those are basic, "bread and butter" lenses for a pro kit. But I really can't justify $3,000 used for the Nikon and $3,500 used for the Canon glass. And I'm not willing to sell the Canon glass. Yet.

Also, from the comments at the article:

"This sounds like someone is tempted by the D810 to switch…heehee, is that right?
I am in the same shoe, owning the 5D3 and the 2 Canon you mentioned above. The quality of the lenses is what is stopping me at the moment. And your article kind of confirms that."

 

[sagittariansrock]

The header might be somewhat misleading. The comparison between the Nikon and Canon zoom counterparts are somewhat academic (or for the show), with comparison only at a single focal length. The real comparison is between the standard vs tele zoom at the common focal length, i.e., 70mm. So one can always argue putting a camera into the equation might not have altered the results. Thing is, the cameras aren't there because the testing paradigm doesn't require them, not because Roger wanted to keep them out of the equation.

 

[privatebydesign]

And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

You mean uneducated?

Some people want to know how good a lens actually is. When you couple it with a body, that drags down the actual capabilities of a lens to that of the body.

I'd like to know the actual resolution of a lens regardless of body.

Maybe.

Some might, I was just trying to head off the inevitable 'my ?? is better than your ??' because when taken out of context the result, however interesting and informative, has little practical application.

Nobody in their right mind is going to have their buying decisions, or even their shooting choices, impacted by these results, and anybody with the gear crossover should already know what works better for them. Sure this lens might have fractionally less field curvature than that lens, put in the context of dof, framing, lens changing, exposure, focus, framing, subject, light, artistic merit, post processing etc etc the outcome is so minor as to not make any real world difference.

Say I had two 5D MkIII's and a 24-70 and a 70-200 and was shooting a wedding, I need 70mm, what camera/lens combo do I need? The one in my hand, the one I just shot 35mm with, the one I just shot 180mm with, the one I am going to use after the 70mm shot? On and on, my thought as to what lens is going to give me "more" doesn't factor into it.

Or, I want to shoot a landscape at 70mm, which do I use? Well again the miniscue differences in bench tested aberrations doesn't really matter because my dof is going to cover a mutitude of sins and post processing is going to cover the rest.

Sure this has an academic value, my point was, it is only academic.

To be sure, I really like Roger's blog, he writes some very interesting articles and gives seemingly unbiased views on pretty much everybody, I wish there were more like him, his testing seems very balanced, fair and consistent, his results posted with similar common sense and notes as to practical application. He is well aware of the furor taking these kinds of results out of context can create, how is calling for relevance and moderation a bad thing?

 

[privatebydesign]

And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

And yet another response from someone who somehow forgets that this is a gear site. An experiment that attempts to shed light on a question unanswerable in ordinary conditions is exactly the sort of thing that is of interest to some people on a gear site. And a test of Canon vs. Nikon gear, done in a way that isolates the lens capability from other variables is the sort of thing people are interested in, whether it has practical relevance or not.

Next thing will be the standard tired pat answer that someone always applies to every thread; "skill matters more than gear". Oh. No, wait that actually IS what the very next person did in fact regurgitate.

Not at all, I was questioning the practical value of the question, I don't see why that brings about such negativity. If you can't take a picture without the camera then a test of the lens seems to be of limited value, to me.

Put another way, what difference does it make if I am shooting with a 24-70 and a 70-200 and want a 70mm shot which lens I use? The body free lens test can't tell me! Besides so many other factors impact the image far greater than the small measured body free lens tests differences that even if it did those other factors would almost certainly impact my decision making more.

 

[privatebydesign]

I'd like to know the actual resolution of a lens regardless of body.

Hearty Amen.

Why? Academia? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in and of itself that I can see, but seeing as how we pay thousands of dollars for these lenses that we can't use without bodies I question any results relevance.

 

[LovePhotography]

And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

Science require control of the variables. Too many variables and you can conclude nothing.

 

[privatebydesign]

And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

Science require control of the variables. Too many variables and you can conclude nothing.

Photography isn't a science. If you don't include all the variables you end up with purely academic test results that have extremely limited, if any, real world value.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

For those that might not have actually read the report, there is some information on curvature of field that is not accessable using imatest with a lens / body combination. Knowing the limitations due to curvature of field could help select among lenses from the same manufacturer for a project. Would you use a 24-70 at 70mm, or a 70-200, or is there a difference? The answer is in the article.

I'd use the 70-200 II or 70-300L if I cared about FF edges/corners at 70mm.

All I can say is that having used many copies, the weak spot of all 24-70 II I've tried is 70mm edges/corners on FF, especially in real world scenes.

Maybe the field curvature of the other lenses actually helps them fit many real world scenes better? I don't know what to say. I've seen others find this too, that the 24-70 II is amazing and better than most, except at or near 70mm and FF outer edges and corners.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

But what about the future? Unless Canon has utterly lost the plot they will have a D810 res sensor out soon. With this test we know how the Canon lenses would compare vs. Nikon with all sensors.

 

[privatebydesign]

And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

But what about the future? Unless Canon has utterly lost the plot they will have a D810 res sensor out soon. With this test we know how the Canon lenses would compare vs. Nikon with all sensors.

NO WE WILL NOT.

Without a camera body behind it a camera lenses capabilities are entirely irrelevant.

To quote Roger himself "But hey, I usually find the opportunity to do a meaningless test hard to resist.", he fully understands the very limited practical value of this as a "comparison". Indeed it seems even a standard Imatest, that measures an actual image output, gives the 24-70 MkII the narrow edge over the 70-200 MkII, whereas this decoupled result gives it to the 70-200; so if we take a photo with our lenses we should use the 24-70, if we want to test some esoteric value we should shine a light through the 70-200!

Call me dumb but I'd use the 24-70 unless I had the 70-200 on my camera, it is that close.

 

[eml58]

But what about the future? Unless Canon has utterly lost the plot they will have a D810 res sensor out soon. With this test we know how the Canon lenses would compare vs. Nikon with all sensors.

And this is where I believe this sort of testing is beneficial, at some point one of the manufactures other than Sony (a7r) will develop a +/- 50 MP Body with an interchangeable Lens arrangement, giving Photographers the opportunity to use the Lens line up that best suits their work at any given Lens Length, you may well find you have a collection of Canon, Nikon, Zeiss etc lenses that just do the job better than say all Canon, or all Nikon.

On wether or not Canon have lost the plot ?? seems to me they may have, perhaps they missed the need for a an a7r/D800/Pentax 645z type sensor in the Market, also seems to me enough people out there are buying into this MF DSLR arrangement, perhaps just not enough to convince Canon to get on the Hay Cart, in the meantime I'm sure Sony, Nikon, Pentax etc are quite happy with the status quo, unfortunately, I'm not, but then I'm not unhappy enough to seriously consider a switch, for now.