What I'd give up if I switched to Nikon

[jblake]

What would I have to give up if I switched?

[list type=decimal]
[*]My EF 85/1.2L II. That would be the most painful sacrifice. I love this lens, as challenging as it is to use.

From what I have seen with online blur charts, ISO charts and bar graphs, the Nikon 85 1.4G is much sharper, from f/1.4 thru f/11, than the Canon 85 1.2L II lens. It focuses faster and is sharper in the corners at f/8 and f/11 than the Canon 85 1.2l II is in the center at those apertures.

I have owned the Canon 85 1.2L II and loved it too.[/list]

 

[chromophore]

What would I have to give up if I switched?

[list type=decimal]
[*]My EF 85/1.2L II. That would be the most painful sacrifice. I love this lens, as challenging as it is to use.

From what I have seen with online blur charts, ISO charts and bar graphs, the Nikon 85 1.4G is much sharper, from f/1.4 thru f/11, than the Canon 85 1.2L II lens. It focuses faster and is sharper in the corners at f/8 and f/11 than the Canon 85 1.2l II is in the center at those apertures.

I have owned the Canon 85 1.2L II and loved it too.[/list]

I don't doubt those claims (although "much" sharper seems likely to be an exaggeration). But I don't use the 85L for its sharpness, or for that matter, its performance at f/8-11; if I wanted something to use stopped down, I'd use my 100/2.8L macro IS which is in the same focal length range, plus has the benefit of being able to focus very closely if I needed it, and has IS.

I'd say that 99% of my use of the 85L is at f/1.2 to f/1.8; 90% is at f/1.2, in low-contrast situations where sagittal flare is not a concern. I treat it as the specialist lens that it is: as much as I love to use it, I don't try to use it for every photograph I make.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

There is a video by Tony Northrup on youtube, he tests Canon vs Nikon and his biggest Nikon issue was the 70-200mm 2.8.

It's not as sharp as the Canon version, and despite being advertised as 70-200mm is actually around 70-130mm.

Birders will miss also the 400mm 5.6L and the new 100-400mmL IS II with the new 7D2.

 

[AlanF]

There is a video by Tony Northrup on youtube, he tests Canon vs Nikon and his biggest Nikon issue was the 70-200mm 2.8.

It's not as sharp as the Canon version, and despite being advertised as 70-200mm is actually around 70-130mm.

Birders will miss also the 400mm 5.6L and the new 100-400mmL IS II with the new 7D2.

Missing the 400mm 5.6L will be nostalgia - superb for 1993 technology. The 100-400mm II is another matter. Lensrentals has just posted its MTFs. Not only are they simply outstanding, they have just about the lowest variation from copy to copy. Just read:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/08/canon-100-400-is-ii-mtf-and-variation-tests

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Acutance
Something that I always notice. Your signature "I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light" ends in a tautology: "refraction" has by definition to involve "transmission". Perhaps "I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and focusses light" would be more to the point?

Good point, I will look into that.