Canonians & Nikonians unite!

[Grimace]

I created this topic b/c we frequently see "which is better" threads. Not too far after, the various players dig in their heels and occasionally get nasty. My take on this behaviour is that we don't often know enough about the two platforms.

Here, that changes. This forum topic is for educating each other about various lenses, bodies, lighting, etc.

Ground rules: no fighting, no biting!! Start your own thread if you want to do that.

[Grimace]

Here are the Canon primes from short to long. The long primes are great, but I'm surprised that Canon doesn't offer a 400mm f/4 IS. What does Nikon have to offer for primes?

14mm f/2.8L
15mm f/2.8 fisheye
20mm f/2.8
24mm f/1.4L
24mm f/2.8
28mm f/1.8
28mm f/2.8
35mm f/1.4L
35mm f/2

50mm f/1.2L
50mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.8
85mm f/1.2
85mm f/1.8
100mm f/2
135mm f/2L
135mm f/2.8 (softfocus)
200mm f/2.8L

300mm f/4L IS
300mm f/2.8L IS
400mm f/2.8L IS
400mm f/4L DO IS
400mm f/5.6L
400mm f/5.6L IS
500mm f/4L IS
600mm f/4L IS

Macro:
50mm f/2.5
Life-size Converter lens
60mm f/2.8
65mm f/2.8 1-5x
100mm f/2.8
180mm f/3.5L

[ksz]

What does Nikon have to offer for primes?
Nikon's auto-focus primes:

Wide-Angle Lenses
14mm f/2.8D ED AF Nikkor
16mm f/2.8D AF Fisheye-Nikkor
18mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor
20mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor
24mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor
28mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor
35mm f/2D AF Nikkor

Standard & Telephoto Lenses
50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor
50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor
85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor
85mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor
105mm f/2D AF DC-Nikkor
135mm f/2D AF DC-Nikkor
180mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF Nikkor

Super Telephoto Lenses
200mm f/2G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor
300mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor
300mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor
400mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor
500mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor
600mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor

Closeup (Macro) Lenses
105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor
60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor
200mm f/4D ED-IF AF Micro-Nikkor


Nikon's manual-focus primes:

24mm f/2 Nikkor AI-S
28mm f/2 Nikkor AI-S
35mm f/1.4 Nikkor AI-S
45mm f/2.8P Nikkor AI-S
50mm f/1.2 Nikkor AI-S
85mm f/2.8 PC Micro-Nikkor
135mm f/2.8 Nikkor AI-S
200mm f/4 Micro-Nikkor IF AI-S

The 50mm f/1.2 AI-S. At least "we" have it and it's only $579 at B&H.
http://www.nikonusa.com/images/products/1435_180.jpg

[Grimace]

very impressive lineup. Does Nikon differentiate between consumer and pro lenses? (Canon has its L series)

[Kingsly]

I like Nikon for film, but am exclusively Canon for digital. Why? Because I've had excellent luck with Canon and been told (cannot confirm this) by many-a prominent photographer and uni. photo teachers that Canon basically invented digital photography, thier Digic II is superior and when they advertise a certain megapixel # that is exactly the amount that the CCD is sensing. Apparently (cannot confirm this either) most manufactures may plop in a 7MP CCD but use software to extrapolate the data up to, say, 9MP.

[ksz]

Nikon's LBCAST sensors (D2H/s) produce fantastic images with low noise, but they are stuck at only around 4 MP. Nikon took a lot of heat for its delay in bringing out the D200, but once they did, they captured a fair bit of mindshare. In comparison, Canonites were dismayed by the 30D, and it seemed they were starting to become vocal protesters. Now Canon has announced the Digic III and will soon (we think) be announcing new pro-level bodies to go with that chip. So the tide is turning again in Canon's favor. Meanwhile, Nikonians are waiting for a FF surprise. If Nikon delivers such a thing, particularly if it includes a really well designed CMOS sensor, we may be on equal or near-equal footing.

It's been a game of one-upmanship and it will continue. Everyone will benefit as a result.

[beavo451]

very impressive lineup. Does Nikon differentiate between consumer and pro lenses? (Canon has its L series)

You can usually tell by the price and aperture. Pretty much any 2.8 or faster zoom or prime is a "pro" lens. Also, most of the "pro" lenses have a gold ring around the front of the lens (like Canon with their red ring to denote "L" series).

Another addition to the Nikon primes

10.5mm f/2.8G DX fisheye

Common current digital bodies

Consumer:
D50 - 2.5fps 6.1 MP CCD
D70 - 3fps 6.1 MP CCD (discontinued)
D70s - 3fps 6.1 MP CCD (improved D70)
D80 - 3fps 10.0 MP CCD (Not yet released, possible D70s replacement)
D200 - 5fps 10.0 MP CCD

Pro:
D2H - 8fps 4.1 MP LBCAST (discontinued)
D2Hs - 8fps 4.1 MP LBCAST (improved D2H)
D2X - 5fps 12.2 MP CMOS (discontinued)
D2Xs - 5fps 12.2 MP CMOS (improved D2X)

[Grimace]

Thanks Beavo -- here are the current Canon bodies:

Rebel XT: 8MP @3fps; 1.6x - $799 (discontinued)
Rebel XTi: 10MP @3fps; sensor-cleaning; 1.6x - $799
Canon 20D: 8.2MP @5fps; 1.6x - $1199 (discontinued)
Canon 30D: 8.2MP @5fps; 1.6x - $1299

5D: 12.8MP @ 3fps; 1.0x - $3299
1D: 8.2MP @ 8.5fps; 1.3x - $3999
1Ds: 16.7MP @ 4fps; 1.0x - $7999


I think Nikon has a stronger hold on the lower/middle market. The D80 and D200 are really great cameras for their price points.

[liveexpo]

Apparently (cannot confirm this either) most manufactures may plop in a 7MP CCD but use software to extrapolate the data up to, say, 9MP.

Yeah, Fuji did this with their Finepix range. My old S5000, had a 3MP sensor, but extrapolate to 6m, which was advertised.

[macdaddy121]

IMHO....Nikon has the better entry level digital camera with the D50 and soon to be D80....however, Canon has not answered the D80 yet....and when they do....it could be amazing. Canon's pro line digital cameras are amzing.

[Grimace]

IMHO....Nikon has the better entry level digital camera with the D50 and soon to be D80....however, Canon has not answered the D80 yet....and when they do....it could be amazing. Canon's pro line digital cameras are amzing.
Yeah, the Rebel XTi could be a real entry level contender but it's kinda dinky compared to the D50 and D80; Nikon wins hands down in my opinion. However, at the pro level, Canon takes no prisoners with the 1Ds.

[Kingsly]

I've got an eye on the 5D at the moment... but at the current price point I may end up with a 30D instead. Either way I agree that Canon had cornered the pro market.

[Abstract]

5D: 12.8MP @ 3fps; 1.0x - $3299


The 5D can only shoot at 3fps?

Yeah, the Rebel XTi could be a real entry level contender but it's kinda dinky compared to the D50 and D80; Nikon wins hands down in my opinion. However, at the pro level, Canon takes no prisoners with the 1Ds.

How do you know it's kinda dinky compared to the D50 and D80 if it's not even out yet? I agree that it's still way too small, but if they upped the build quality (and I'm sure Canon did since most people agreed on this, and Canon isn't stupid), it won't be as horrid as before.

[seenew]

:( I don't think the Rebel XT is horrid!

[Abstract]

No way, the 350D isn't horrid. I meant the build quality is really not to be desired. You know I think this since I've always recommended getting a 20D as a starting point with Canon.

My friend who got his 350D when I got my D50 recently used my D50 for a day and told me that his camera felt like a cheap toy compared to my D50. The strange thing was that he didn't notice this before, but after using his camera for the past 8 months, and then using my camera for the 1st time since we got our cameras, he really did take notice. This feeling was reinforced when I had to shoot with his camera during 2 concerts over the past 2 months. The photos were fantastic with his 50 mm f/1.4, but the feel of the camera, buttons, etc, wasn't great. Also, his camera seems much more worn out than mine despite the fact that we've both had our cameras for the same amount of time.

But the photos from the 350D are excellent when the right photographer (ie: people like you) is holding it. ;)

[pdxflint]

I have to agree on the 'build quality' issue with Canons vs. Nikons at the consumer level. I've had an EOS 630 and an EOS A2 35mm bodies for a fairly good run in the photojournalism world, and have sampled several others from the Elan series (35mm) to various flavors of digital Rebels. The only one that didn't suffer from the 'crunchies' was the EOS 630, the most solidly built one of the lot. Every Nikon I tried just felt more solid, and now that I have my first DSLR, a D50, the same applies. I'd have to get up to the Canon 20D level to match the 'feel' of finish and balance of Nikon's entry level DSLR camera. I really wanted, still do, the 20D, or even moreso, the 5D, but just can't spare the money. I got my D50 with kit lens for $489 reconditioned with 5 year extended warranty for $60 extra. Figured I'd take a shot. I'm not disappointed with the build quality of the body (the lens is another matter... but not unlike Canon's 'kit' lens as well..) So, build quality is great. But, control placement, etc., eyepoint information and all the other things aren't nearly as natural to me. Could just be all the years using Canon, but I think Canon's got the 'driver's' setup all figured out for 'on-the-fly' decision making. I fumble around more, and some things just seem backward. But I realize anyone switching from Nikon to Canon might just have the exact same issues... I'm sure I'll get more intuitive with this D50 after awhile.

Ergonomically, I still love, and prefer... the way the EOS system cameras handle, especially the A2 with vertical grip attached. The bigger mount when they went autofocus did away with any mechanical linkage between body and lens, unlike Nikon until much later. All my lenses back in '94 were Ultrasonic, so autofocus was a strong Canon advantage back then (I had a friend who wore out the little lens focus actuating cam on his N90, which also rounded out the slot on his Nikkor 85mm f1.8 prime lense. Then, you could hear it stripping out and slipping... yikes! Pretty expensive problem. Yet, my D50 still has that mechanical cam, and some aftermarket lenses for Nikon mount still use that.)

By the way, adding the vertical grip to the A2 made the camera feel much more solid, and it wound up being a very reliable workhorse, more rugged than it first appeared. A fast handling camera (A2, 5 fps) that I could run through various settings on the fly with ease, and could reload in less than 5 seconds. I liked that I could set it up to leave the film leader exposed after rewind, so I could write a note on the back of it, and fold/crease to tell me it had been shot, and maybe even shoot half a roll, and then rewind, load some different film, and later go back and use the rest of the half shot roll. Oh yeah, the days of processing my own b/w and getting my color processed uncut for about a buck and a half. Light table editing with high quality loupe, and scanning... a whole different world from images on CF or SD cards. To think, I used to put a great deal of thought into which film I'd be using for different situations, and manners of processing for pushing, etc were all things that made it fun, and a bit more 'technical' than shooting digital. In the end, there is a huge part of the experience of photography which is being abandoned with pure digital, a part I really enjoyed, which separated the serious photographers from snapshooters.

Anyway - back on topic. Nikon and Canon, two great companies with a great rivalry over the years. I have great respect for both of them. And Pentax, Fujinon and Olympus, of which I had mechanical SLRs from each (screw-mount Spotmatic, Fujinon ST-801, and Olympus OM-1.)

[Grimace]

The 5D can only shoot at 3fps?



How do you know it's kinda dinky compared to the D50 and D80 if it's not even out yet? I agree that it's still way too small, but if they upped the build quality (and I'm sure Canon did since most people agreed on this, and Canon isn't stupid), it won't be as horrid as before.

Yep, only 5fps. :rolleyes:

I owned a Rebel and never thought that the build quality was substandard when I was using it. I never picked up a Nikon in that timeframe or any other Canon. 8 months later, I ran into a little extra camera cash, and decided (being a real princess) that I wanted the large 30D screen. Same quality photos, slightly faster frame rate, but for most of my purposes -- not a necessary upgrade.

It felt quite different: much heavier, larger, and slightly different materials. (Bigger and heavier can frequently make people think "pro".) My long winded point is that I loved my Rebel XT immensely and never had any issue with the build quality. For selfish/stupid reasons, I upgraded to a 30D and said, "huh, this body feels a little more solid." Maybe if I get my hands on a 1D I'll think that the 30D's build quality is subpar.

It's all based on your perspective and need.

[beavo451]

... I liked that I could set it up to leave the film leader exposed after rewind, so I could write a note on the back of it, and fold/crease to tell me it had been shot, and maybe even shoot half a roll, and then rewind, load some different film, and later go back and use the rest of the half shot roll. Oh yeah, the days of processing my own b/w and getting my color processed uncut for about a buck and a half. Light table editing with high quality loupe, and scanning... a whole different world from images on CF or SD cards. To think, I used to put a great deal of thought into which film I'd be using for different situations, and manners of processing for pushing, etc were all things that made it fun, and a bit more 'technical' than shooting digital. In the end, there is a huge part of the experience of photography which is being abandoned with pure digital, a part I really enjoyed, which separated the serious photographers from snapshooters.
...


I would disagree with you here. Digital is just as, if not more, technical as film. With film, when you decide what film to use, you are choosing from a pool of films with specific characteristics. With digital, you are essentially "making" your own film when you are processing based on your decisions of saturation, color, ISO, white balance, etc. To get an even more solid grasp, you would look into specifics of how light behaves or how specific colors come together as opposed to "Velvia does this and Portra does that etc." Shooting half a roll, rewinding, and going back was a HUGE pain for me. I hated it and usually lost about a frame because I could never rewind it back to it's precise previous point. Digital photography is not any easier than film. It just requires a different understanding of the process than film.

Using your snapshooter/serious analogy.
Snapshooter digital: uses iPhoto or some other basic photo management software to view photos
Serious digital: Established workflow of backup, imports, file conversion, photoshop editing specific details of each photo, and archiving.

[theenigmat]

We forgot to mention the monster lense that Canon has...

1200mm f/5.6L

I think it weighs upwards of 45 lbs.

[Grimace]

We forgot to mention the monster lense that Canon has...

1200mm f/5.6L

I think it weighs upwards of 45 lbs.

Although discontinued in 2005, I think the list on that puppy was over $80,000! :D

[beavo451]

We forgot to mention the monster lense that Canon has...

1200mm f/5.6L

I think it weighs upwards of 45 lbs.

Of course we Nikonians counter with the 1200-1700mm Zoom lens

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/12001700mm.htm

[ksz]

^^^ Holy moly. Did they look through that and finally figure out that Pluto wasn't a planet?

[theenigmat]

^^^ Holy moly. Did they look through that and finally figure out that Pluto wasn't a planet?

:-(

My Very Excellent Mother Just Served Us Nine...???? My life is in shambles without Pluto...

[ksz]

:-(

My Very Excellent Mother Just Served Us Nine...???? My life is in shambles without Pluto...
Haha, My Very Erratic Mother Just Served Us Nothing.

[snap58]

very impressive lineup. Does Nikon differentiate between consumer and pro lenses? (Canon has its L series)

I believe the "ED" on the Nikon Lens would for the most part be the high end glass, it stands for "Extra-low Dispersion", which I think they use in lieu of Fluorite Glass Canon uses. You will note all their super telephoto's are ED.

The "AF" of course is auto-focus, but this is confusing to me, A Nikon friend of mine tried to explain once, (where is Chip when you need him) I may be wrong but I think this is correct,

AF - auto focus mechanically coupled to the camera
AF-I - motor built into the lens, but not the high end silent wave type
AF-S - these have motor built in but use the "silent wave" and allow full time manual over-ride (think Canon USM type)
DX - Made for the crop digital SLR's, like Canon EF-S
VR - vibration reduction
IF - internal front focus
RF - internal rear focus
G - these are newest lenses, no aperture rings, no manual cameras
ED - extra low dispersion glass

I'm sure the Nikon folks can add to / correct this.

[Grimace]

snap, that is very helpful. I've never seen it spelled out so clearly. :)

[beavo451]

I believe the "ED" on the Nikon Lens would for the most part be the high end glass, it stands for "Extra-low Dispersion", which I think they use in lieu of Fluorite Glass Canon uses. You will note all their super telephoto's are ED.


As well as the 18-55mm D50 kit lens. The ED designation is not a good indicator of "pro" lenses. Nearly all new Nikon lenses have ED elements.

[snap58]

As well as the 18-55mm D50 kit lens. The ED designation is not a good indicator of "pro" lenses. Nearly all new Nikon lenses have ED elements.

Would that be the AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED Zoom-Nikkor? : )

Yes, it gets blurry outside the primes, all the new DX Lenses have ED glass and you do have to do a little research to find the premium glass, though like you said the price is a good clue.

Canon seems to make it a little easier with the "L" label.

[beavo451]

Would that be the AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED Zoom-Nikkor? : )

Yes, it gets blurry outside the primes, all the new DX Lenses have ED glass and you do have to do a little research to find the premium glass, though like you said the price is a good clue.

Canon seems to make it a little easier with the "L" label.

Yes, that's the lens

[snap58]

snap, that is very helpful. I've never seen it spelled out so clearly. :)

There will surely be a correction or two, and as Beavo points out it doesn't help spot the premium lenses as all the new DX ones use ED glass. However none of the DX lens are primes, they are all zooms.

I would guess that the DX is for digital crop, seeing Nikon investing like this in the DX line I would not expect to see a FF camera from them. Canon having both crop and FF sensors, will have to split development between two lens lines. I wonder if they (Canon) could develop a camera that would accept both types of lens and automatically set the sensor crop to match the lens?

BTW while I shoot Canon I have several close Nikon friends, and nothing but respect for Nikon equipment. The competition between them (I hope) will keep them both in the front and result in continued great equipment for fans of both camps.

[beavo451]

There will surely be a correction or two, and as Beavo points out it doesn't help spot the premium lenses as all the new DX ones use ED glass. However none of the DX lens are primes, they are all zooms.


Yes the DX designation is meant for the 1.5 crop digital sensors. However, there is a DX prime: the 10.5mm f/2.8 DX fisheye.

[TheAnswer]

Hmmm...Canonians and Nikonians?

Hmm...I always thought of us Canon folk as Canonites, living in the land of Canon given to us by Him™

The others, always called them Niks...good bokeh, but I wouldn't want to be behind one on the freeway. ;)

Humor aside, this is a great thread with lots of potential.

[ksz]

Hmm...I always thought of us Canon folk as Canonites, living in the land of Canon given to us by Him™
I always thought of canon fodder...oops pardon me, canon folk, as Termites. Arg, I mean Canonites.

The others, always called them Niks...good bokeh, but I wouldn't want to be behind one on the freeway. ;)
And Nikonians, well, that just sounds grand like the Great Draconian Army.

Ok, I'm done too.

[FleurDuMal]

Well, here's my contribution to the debate with rather a short experience with Nikon (I bought a D70s about two months ago) and no experience with Canon at all.

Nikon make great lenses. However, I use the term make loosely, as whenever they make a truely great lense, they appear to trickle them out, so when it comes to actually buying one, you end up paying a greatly inflated price on eBay :( .

[Abstract]

I always thought of canon fodder...oops pardon me, canon folk, as Termites. Arg, I mean Canonites.


And Nikonians, well, that just sounds grand like the Great Draconian Army.

Ok, I'm done too.

Ooh, make up a jobe about Pentaxians and....um....."Olympians"?? ;)

[ksz]

Nikon make great lenses. However, I use the term make loosely, as whenever they make a truely great lense, they appear to trickle them out, so when it comes to actually buying one, you end up paying a greatly inflated price on eBay :( .
Valid point and I hope this improves given the negative press surrounding shortages of the D200 and 18-200 VR. I have both of these and did not pay one red cent above MSRP/MAP/Whatever. The 18-200 VR should be sold for US$669, not $699 or $749 or heaven forbid $899. However, supply/demand in a free market will determine the price. As for me, I put my name on a waiting list with the good folks at Roberts Imaging, went away for about 3 months, and got my lens at the original price. Patience is a financial virtue.

[Grimace]

I just checked out Nikon's lens page (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5). The page layout is a lot prettier than Canon's (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111) page, but all the letters are really confusing! (I'm just to a newcomer to Nikon's lingo - but first impressions are important!)

The dictionary of alphabet soup letter designations was posted above (thanks again!) but I think that Nikon needs to simplify things a bit more.

While hunting through lenses, I began to crave Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 VR lens -- Canon, take note! GREAT length/speed.

[beavo451]

I just checked out Nikon's lens page (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5). The page layout is a lot prettier than Canon's (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111) page, but all the letters are really confusing! (I'm just to a newcomer to Nikon's lingo - but first impressions are important!)

The dictionary of alphabet soup letter designations was posted above (thanks again!) but I think that Nikon needs to simplify things a bit more.

While hunting through lenses, I began to crave Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 VR lens -- Canon, take note! GREAT length/speed.

Yeah, but it's $5000.

[snap58]

Yeah, but it's $5000.

And it's 7.2 lbs. But still it would look nice all dressed in white with a red tie on. : )

[Clix Pix]

I just checked out Nikon's lens page (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5). The page layout is a lot prettier than Canon's (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111) page, but all the letters are really confusing! (I'm just to a newcomer to Nikon's lingo - but first impressions are important!)

The dictionary of alphabet soup letter designations was posted above (thanks again!) but I think that Nikon needs to simplify things a bit more.

While hunting through lenses, I began to crave Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 VR lens -- Canon, take note! GREAT length/speed.


I think Canon's descriptions and letters are equally confusing! ;) It's all in what you get used to....

The 200-400mm f/4 VR is a very heavy and very expensive lens. Not really hand-holdable, one needs a good tripod with it.

[Grimace]

I think Canon's descriptions and letters are equally confusing! ;) It's all in what you get used to....

The 200-400mm f/4 VR is a very heavy and very expensive lens. Not really hand-holdable, one needs a good tripod with it.
Really?

Canon has:
EF - standard lens for all bodies
EF-S (for 1.6x cropped bodies only)
L -- professional grade build, glass, price
DO -- diffractive optics
IS -- Image stabilization

Nikon has:
AF - auto focus mechanically coupled to the camera
AF-I - motor built into the lens, but not the high end silent wave type
AF-S - these have motor built in but use the "silent wave" and allow full time manual over-ride (think Canon USM type)
DX - Made for the crop digital SLR's, like Canon EF-S
VR - vibration reduction
IF - internal front focus
RF - internal rear focus
G - these are newest lenses, no aperture rings, no manual cameras
ED - extra low dispersion glass

[Clix Pix]

What's "USM?" That's not in your list.....

[ksz]

Canon also has USM.

However, I don't find either of these nomenclatures confusing. Nikon does not expressly divide its lenses into two classes, which may be clever from a marketing viewpoint because it does not stigmatize the "lower class."

Hence, Nikon's lineup is a classless society and you only pay for the features and quality you need (or want).

[Clix Pix]

Canon also has USM.

However, I don't find either of these nomenclatures confusing. Nikon does not expressly divide its lenses into two classes, which may be clever from a marketing viewpoint because it does not stigmatize the "lower class."

Hence, Nikon's lineup is a classless society and you only pay for the features and quality you need (or want).

What's "USM?" Nikon doesn't have "USM." To me, "USM" means "Unsharp Mask!" :D

The thing with Nikon's nomenclature is that it has developed over time as new technology has been applied to their lenses. It is easy enough for someone to then differentiate quickly between one of the older lenses and and the newer ones. Someone who has been around the Nikon system for a long time would have no problems with this, but I can understand how it would appear confusing at first glance to someone who is not at all familiar with Nikon's lenses.

[snap58]

What's "USM?" Nikon doesn't have "USM." To me, "USM" means "Unsharp Mask!" :D

The thing with Nikon's nomenclature is that it has developed over time as new technology has been applied to their lenses. It is easy enough for someone to then differentiate quickly between one of the older lenses and and the newer ones. Someone who has been around the Nikon system for a long time would have no problems with this, but I can understand how it would appear confusing at first glance to someone who is not at all familiar with Nikon's lenses.

That is their Ultra Sonic Motor they started putting in their lenses in the early 90's, Very fast, silent, full time manual focus over ride. Nikon now puts a version in theirs I believe that's call "Silent Wave"?

[ksz]

What's "USM?" Nikon doesn't have "USM." To me, "USM" means "Unsharp Mask!" :D
Ultra Sonic Motor, equivalent to Nikon's Silent Wave (AF-S) and Sigma's Hyper Sonic Motor (HSM).

And on selected S and SD PowerShots, Canon also has the UA lens. UA means Ultra High Refractive Index Aspherical Lens. Now UHRIA is just too close to that other uhria (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/uria) without the 'h', so they had the decency to shorten it. :D

Anyone notice that the PowerShot Pro-1 is no longer listed?

[Clix Pix]

Thanks, Snap and ksz! Yes, that USM would be the equivalent of Nikon's Silent Wave motor....

Basically the bottom line in all of this is regardless of which system one chooses, Nikon or Canon, there are some really excellent camera bodies and really excellent camera lenses. Both produce quality glass and both offer lenses in various ranges and price levels, so it comes down to the individual making his/her choice based on personal preference and personal priorities. Sometimes the choice of one over the other is dictated if there is a need for some specific item available in one system that is not in the other.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Thanks Beavo -- here are the current Canon bodies:

Rebel XT: 8MP @3fps; 1.6x - $799 (discontinued)
Rebel XTi: 10MP @3fps; sensor-cleaning; 1.6x - $799
Canon 20D: 8.2MP @5fps; 1.6x - $1199 (discontinued)
Canon 30D: 8.2MP @5fps; 1.6x - $1299

5D: 12.8MP @ 3fps; 1.0x - $3299
1D: 8.2MP @ 8.5fps; 1.3x - $3999
1Ds: 16.7MP @ 4fps; 1.0x - $7999


I think Nikon has a stronger hold on the lower/middle market. The D80 and D200 are really great cameras for their price points.

Though to be fair, some might consider the the D200 and the 30D to be "pro" bodies.

I have customers that are truly are working pros that make a very decent living off of the D70/D70s (since in many ways it was better than the the D100).

In the end the body is only part of the tool that a photographer selects to get the job done. I remember reading that that in Iraq that there is a PJ that is using just Olympus C-5050's and C-7070's for his work.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Thanks Beavo -- here are the current Canon bodies:

Rebel XT: 8MP @3fps; 1.6x - $799 (discontinued)

Working for a dealer, all I can say that at this point (till Photokina) that the XT is not been discontinued as of today in our price lists at work. And our buyer is very aggressive in keeping old stuff out. Unless there is something new annnounced in the next few weeks, the XT MAY find itself as the value leader in the $699 w/lens market.

[beavo451]

Though to be fair, some might consider the the D200 and the 30D to be "pro" bodies.

I have customers that are truly are working pros that make a very decent living off of the D70/D70s (since in many ways it was better than the the D100).

In the end the body is only part of the tool that a photographer selects to get the job done. I remember reading that that in Iraq that there is a PJ that is using just Olympus C-5050's and C-7070's for his work.

It doesn't matter if the camera is used for professionally or not. The classification used is what Nikon (or Canon) considers "pro". The D2 series is the current "pro" line while the D50, D70, and D200 are considered "consumer". You don't need a "pro" classified camera to shoot professionally nor do you need a "consumer" classified body to shoot as a hobby. Bottom line here is that you NEED the "pro" bodies to be eligible for NPS (Nikon Professional Services). You could shoot $100,000 worth of weddings a year as a source of income with a D50, but NPS will not let you in because you have a "consumer" class camera.

[Chip NoVaMac]

It doesn't matter if the camera is used for professionally or not. The classification used is what Nikon (or Canon) considers "pro". The D2 series is the current "pro" line while the D50, D70, and D200 are considered "consumer". You don't need a "pro" classified camera to shoot professionally nor do you need a "consumer" classified body to shoot as a hobby. Bottom line here is that you NEED the "pro" bodies to be eligible for NPS (Nikon Professional Services). You could shoot $100,000 worth of weddings a year as a source of income with a D50, but NPS will not let you in because you have a "consumer" class camera.

I see your point. But the D200 is IMO an odd duck out when one looks at only pricing as a condition of a "pro"body. Not with standing the marketing departments of both companies. The stats speak of a lower-end D2 series body. The 30D is close behind, but fails on the weather-proofing.

It does not matter how Canon or Nikon markets a body in the end IMO. There were many that said that the D100 was the "affordable" DSLR to replace the F100. In the end the D70 beat it down for image quality improvements and feature set (internally). It took a couple of years for the D200 to show up - that was a worthy replacement to the F100. Which at the time many "pros" felt was a worthy consideration over the F5.

The problem is that the DSLR is is still in its infancy. But we and the manufactures are still trying to use old labels to define each niche. Despite what we may say the the current XT and D50 are not "true" equals in the marketplace. Not like the Canon Elan 7 series or or the N80.

Some want to pit the D200 vs the 5D. Two very different markets and price points. Would have Canon killed with a 5D with weather-sealing, and 5FPS?Hell yes at the $3000 price point, perhaps.

The "perhaps" comes from the first few posts in this thread - focusing on lens choices. It should be pointed out that Nikon does provide a "weather-seal/dust-seal" on the likes of the 18-70, 18-200VR, and the 105VR;like is what is offered on the Canon "L" glass.

It is also at this point I "defend"my switch from Canon to Nikon. That slippery sloop came with IMO the excellent 18-200VR. This lens and the D50 made the perfect sense for travel. Add the 10.5 fish-eye (and the 14mm reticular conversion in Nikon Capture) - I felt that I had the perfect travel kit.

After my travels with this Nikon kit (18-200VR and the 10.5)- I found myself looking at both my Canon kit and Nikon kit - wondering what should I take out for a shoot.

I was told some years ago; that if that question comes up - then you have too much gear. It was then that I decided that Nikon would be my choice.

I accept that Nikon may never have a FF sensor body. The 10.5 fish-eye was worth the price of admission. As well as the 105VR.Not to mention the Creative Light System (CLS) that is built-in to every body with a built-in flash (wireless flash).

Because of the CLS system I added an R1 close-up flash kit to my Nikon kit. Once I get past some personal issues; I hope to share my experiences with the R1 series.

So as it stands now; my current focus is on the following kit:

- Two D70s bodies (for "speed" shooting like I did with the "Rolling Thunder" pics

- A D50IR - a D50 converted to IR work (see my thread on this topic)

- the Nikon 10.5 fish-eye (also see my threads on this lens)

- a Tokina 12-24(was lucky that I work for a dealer, was able to exchange my Canon mount for a Nikon mount)

- the excellent 18-200VR (IMO)

- the Nikon 35mm/2.0 AFD

- the Nikon 50mm/1.4 AFD

- the 105VR

- the R1 kit

- 2x SB-800 flashes

- an SU-800

On my shortlist of what is known, openly talked about:

- the Tokina 16-50/2.8

- any 50-150/2.8

- the Tamron 200-500 - just in case I can get my but off to Africa

[beavo451]

...

*gasp* :eek: No 70-200 VR in your dreams?!? What kind of a photographer are you? :D

How is the D50 IR? I was thinking about doing a conversion, should make for some interesting wedding photography.

[Chip NoVaMac]

*gasp* :eek: No 70-200 VR in your dreams?!? What kind of a photographer are you? :D

How is the D50 IR? I was thinking about doing a conversion, should make for some interesting wedding photography.

To be honest I would love the the 70-200VR; but I find little need for my type of photography of needing a 105-300VR/2.8 FOV with a DSLR. Not at that size and weight. Remember I am a Leica RF photographer.

[jared_kipe]

While I like the L nameing convention, and quality, I don't like how stingy Canon can be when giving that name/quality out sometimes.

Namely the new EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS. If Canon will not bestow the beloved L label on a lens, they shouldn't expect me to reach into my pocket and pull out $1100 for it. I was recently deciding on a new general purpose lens, and it came down to the 24-70L 24-105LIS and the 17-55IS. From what I see, the 24-105mm is just not sharp enough to be a contender. And while the 17-55 is very sharp and I'd love the IS, looking at that lens makes it very obvious as to who its made for.

From its silver zoom indicator and lack of red ring, to its HUGE zoom ring, and tiny useless focusing ring. I don't need them to label it as an L, I'm not that pretentious, but I need it to be made out with a metal barrel and realistic zoom/focus rings.

[ksz]

...new general perpus lens...
I wish English could be as phonetically true as possible! I especially like the German spelling of 'fotograf.'

[jared_kipe]

I wish English could be as phonetically true as possible! I especially like the German spelling of 'fotograf.'
whoops, yeah I tried to spell that right a few times and gave up. Figuring I'd come back and right click it for the old auto spell check. But forgot...

[Grimace]

Namely the new EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS. If Canon will not bestow the beloved L label on a lens, they shouldn't expect me to reach into my pocket and pull out $1100 for it. I was recently deciding on a new general purpose lens, and it came down to the 24-70L 24-105LIS and the 17-55IS. From what I see, the 24-105mm is just not sharp enough to be a contender. And while the 17-55 is very sharp and I'd love the IS, looking at that lens makes it very obvious as to who its made for.

From its silver zoom indicator and lack of red ring, to its HUGE zoom ring, and tiny useless focusing ring. I don't need them to label it as an L, I'm not that pretentious, but I need it to be made out with a metal barrel and realistic zoom/focus rings.

Hey Jared, I have this lens and for what it's worth, I think it's fantastic. The build quality is solid and the pictures that it takes are L class worthy. It's not cheap, but I don't regret purchasing it for a second.

[jared_kipe]

Hey Jared, I have this lens and for what it's worth, I think it's fantastic. The build quality is solid and the pictures that it takes are L class worthy. It's not cheap, but I don't regret purchasing it for a second.
I know its a good lens. I'm not saying anyone is stupid for buying it. I just think its mean of Canon to kind of dumb down the lens.

Its sorta how Apple dumbed down the emac/mini/ibook lines from imac/powerbook/powermac lines. Except that in the case of the 17-55mm IS , it is the internals of a powermac but in a beige box. I simply refuse to pay so much money for a lens Canon won't bother calling L and giving it a proper suit.

EDIT: I considered buying all three lenses and doing a very special review/test of them all. But I didn't want to have the hassle of making sure I returned the two losers within the 14 days adorama lets me return things.

[sejanus]

what an absolute load of nonsense.

ffs how could you believe something like that

I like Nikon for film, but am exclusively Canon for digital. Why? Because I've had excellent luck with Canon and been told (cannot confirm this) by many-a prominent photographer and uni. photo teachers that Canon basically invented digital photography, thier Digic II is superior and when they advertise a certain megapixel # that is exactly the amount that the CCD is sensing. Apparently (cannot confirm this either) most manufactures may plop in a 7MP CCD but use software to extrapolate the data up to, say, 9MP.

[sejanus]

the problem with the d2h/s and the d2x/s regardless of sensor type (i.e. lbcast vs cmos) is not the amount of noise but the intrusive noise reduction the camera does at high iso.

even when you turn NR off, there still is some being done. They are extemely poor at high iso unfortunately.



Nikon's LBCAST sensors (D2H/s) produce fantastic images with low noise, but they are stuck at only around 4 MP. Nikon took a lot of heat for its delay in bringing out the D200, but once they did, they captured a fair bit of mindshare. In comparison, Canonites were dismayed by the 30D, and it seemed they were starting to become vocal protesters. Now Canon has announced the Digic III and will soon (we think) be announcing new pro-level bodies to go with that chip. So the tide is turning again in Canon's favor. Meanwhile, Nikonians are waiting for a FF surprise. If Nikon delivers such a thing, particularly if it includes a really well designed CMOS sensor, we may be on equal or near-equal footing.

It's been a game of one-upmanship and it will continue. Everyone will benefit as a result.

[beavo451]

I know its a good lens. I'm not saying anyone is stupid for buying it. I just think its mean of Canon to kind of dumb down the lens.

Its sorta how Apple dumbed down the emac/mini/ibook lines from imac/powerbook/powermac lines. Except that in the case of the 17-55mm IS , it is the internals of a powermac but in a beige box. I simply refuse to pay so much money for a lens Canon won't bother calling L and giving it a proper suit.

EDIT: I considered buying all three lenses and doing a very special review/test of them all. But I didn't want to have the hassle of making sure I returned the two losers within the 14 days adorama lets me return things.

You also realize that the "L" stands for the flourite coatings they put on certain lens elements in the "L" series right? If it doesn't have these coatings, it cannot carry the "L" designation.

Why the fixation of having a red ring and black (white) body? What did people do in the times of no L or ED glass, no autofocus, and no fancy metering systems?

[jared_kipe]

You also realize that the "L" stands for the flourite coatings they put on certain lens elements in the "L" series right? If it doesn't have these coatings, it cannot carry the "L" designation.

Why the fixation of having a red ring and black (white) body? What did people do in the times of no L or ED glass, no autofocus, and no fancy metering systems?
First of all, do your homework better. It isn't a fluorite "coating", it a lens element that is ground from a fluorite crystal instead of glass.

Secondly, not every L lens has a fluorite lens element. Here is a list. But it is difficult to tell if this is a lens specifically of fluorite lens elements, or simply an older list of lenses with UD or S-UD elements. Since if you click on the 24-70L and compare it to the 70-200f4L, the later has a symbol on the bottom of the page that says CaF2 which is the symbol for the fluorite lens elements. So if this symbol has to show up to have a fluorite element, then there are few L lenses that do in fact have one.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=CanonAdvantageTopicDtlAct&id=2641

And if you read it, you'll see that a S-UD element gives the same effect as a fluorite element, which the 17-55mm does have.

The things keeping the 17-55mm from being an L are not image quality related, but poor mechanical design and lack of a metal body.

If people recommend the 20D over the 350D because the 350D is small and doesn't feel right, then I can do the same thing at boycotting the 17-55mm based on its little tiny focusing ring, and oversized zoom ring. Not to mention every lens I have right now from both Canon and Sigma have the focusing ring towards the end of the lens, and the zoom towards the camera. A convention that the 17-55mm and all other "consumer" lenses simply do not adhere to. Its not the red ring I want (thats simply a metaphor) I want the overall build quality and control scheme.

[beavo451]

First of all, do your homework better. It isn't a fluorite "coating", it a lens element that is ground from a fluorite crystal instead of glass.

Secondly, not every L lens has a fluorite lens element. Here is a list. But it is difficult to tell if this is a lens specifically of fluorite lens elements, or simply an older list of lenses with UD or S-UD elements. Since if you click on the 24-70L and compare it to the 70-200f4L, the later has a symbol on the bottom of the page that says CaF2 which is the symbol for the fluorite lens elements. So if this symbol has to show up to have a fluorite element, then there are few L lenses that do in fact have one.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=CanonAdvantageTopicDtlAct&id=2641

And if you read it, you'll see that a S-UD element gives the same effect as a fluorite element, which the 17-55mm does have.

The things keeping the 17-55mm from being an L are not image quality related, but poor mechanical design and lack of a metal body.

If people recommend the 20D over the 350D because the 350D is small and doesn't feel right, then I can do the same thing at boycotting the 17-55mm based on its little tiny focusing ring, and oversized zoom ring. Not to mention every lens I have right now from both Canon and Sigma have the focusing ring towards the end of the lens, and the zoom towards the camera. A convention that the 17-55mm and all other "consumer" lenses simply do not adhere to. Its not the red ring I want (thats simply a metaphor) I want the overall build quality and control scheme.

I stand corrected. I think it is kind of dumb to have designations, but okay.


The L-series EF lenses (L for "Luxury") have high-performance glass elements to obtain higher resolution and excellent contrast. They include fluorite elements which effectively correct chromatic aberrations, UD elements which have low refraction and low dispersion characteristics, and ground aspherical elements.


Can't find anything about build quality being a requirement though, but I guess it is implied.

[snap58]

You also realize that the "L" stands for the flourite coatings they put on certain lens elements in the "L" series right? If it doesn't have these coatings, it cannot carry the "L" designation.

Why the fixation of having a red ring and black (white) body? What did people do in the times of no L or ED glass, no autofocus, and no fancy metering systems?

They bought the equipment that best suited them and took pictures. Just like they do now. : )

BTW, I could be wrong, but I believe the White bodies have more to due with solar gain, (black body / white body) as they only do this on the longer glass, not on the wides or medium TF's.

[beavo451]

They bought the equipment that best suited them and took pictures. Just like they do now. : )

BTW, I could be wrong, but I believe the White bodies have more to due with solar gain, (black body / white body) as they only do this on the longer glass, not on the wides or medium TF's.

I could be wrong as well, but I remember reading that the flourite glass used in the telephotos is heat sensitive and that is why the bodies are white. This is also the reason why Canon glass is not used in space optics. Of course, I haven't done my homework and this is all from memory.

[whocares]

I like Nikon for film, but am exclusively Canon for digital. Why? Because I've had excellent luck with Canon and been told (cannot confirm this) by many-a prominent photographer and uni. photo teachers that Canon basically invented digital photography, thier Digic II is superior and when they advertise a certain megapixel # that is exactly the amount that the CCD is sensing. Apparently (cannot confirm this either) most manufactures may plop in a 7MP CCD but use software to extrapolate the data up to, say, 9MP.

Some would argue Apple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake) entered the digital photography world before Canon and Nikon. ;) :p

[whocares]

Of course we Nikonians counter with the 1200-1700mm Zoom lens

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/12001700mm.htm

And don't forget the Nikkor 6mm f/5.6 (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/fisheyes/6mm56.htm) that can actually see behind the camera. :eek: :eek: ;) :D

Really?

Nikon has:
AF - auto focus mechanically coupled to the camera
AF-I - motor built into the lens, but not the high end silent wave type
AF-S - these have motor built in but use the "silent wave" and allow full time manual over-ride (think Canon USM type)
DX - Made for the crop digital SLR's, like Canon EF-S
VR - vibration reduction
IF - internal front focus
RF - internal rear focus
G - these are newest lenses, no aperture rings, no manual cameras
ED - extra low dispersion glass

You forgot:

pre-AI - real oldschool stuff!
AI - auto indexing (ok, it's pre-AF...)
AI-S - auto indexing ??? (still some production)
AI-P - auto indexing + built-in processor
TS - tilt + shift
DC - defocus control
AF-D - distance information is given to the camera


And then you can have some fun:

AF-S are all AF-D.
AF-D are all AF (duh!).
And AF are all AI-S.
And lastly all AI-S are AI.

This means that any (non DX) AF-S should work on any camera that was designed for AI lenses with only minor feature losses (mostly loss of AF).
This also means that any AI lens can be mounted on cameras designed for
for AF/AF-D but with possible lack of many feature: matrix metering, auto diaphragm, etc (modern Nikons lack the mechanical slugs to "read" AI lenses).

And as an AF-S DX is still an AF-S and hence an AI, it will work on 20+ year cameras but with it only fill part of the frame.

But careful, an AF-G lens is not an AI lens (nor is an AF-G DX) and thus won't work on cameras not designed for AF-G lenses. The main difference between AF-G and all other Nikkor lenses is that the diaphragm can only be electronically operated.

This marks a 180 degree turn in Nikon camera/lens manufacture. It is still possible to use a modified 1960-1970s lens on a D200 and not loose any functionality (apart obviously for auto focus). Likewise you can use most non-DX lenses on a 1960-1970s Nikon F or F2 with little modification: you just need to add a small metal bracket for aperture coupling (the pilot holes for this bracket is still/was recently still present on many new AF lenses).


So to summarise a somewhat long post:
1. Nikon's letter soup is quite helpful once you understand it;
2. Nikon has managed to preserve backward compatibility for 30+ years (!) though this has been fading over the last 5 years to accommodate recent technological improvements.

[ScubaDuc]

I believe the "ED" on the Nikon Lens would for the most part be the high end glass, it stands for "Extra-low Dispersion", which I think they use in lieu of Fluorite Glass Canon uses. You will note all their super telephoto's are ED.

The "AF" of course is auto-focus, but this is confusing to me, A Nikon friend of mine tried to explain once, (where is Chip when you need him) I may be wrong but I think this is correct,

AF - auto focus mechanically coupled to the camera
AF-I - motor built into the lens, but not the high end silent wave type
AF-S - these have motor built in but use the "silent wave" and allow full time manual over-ride (think Canon USM type)
DX - Made for the crop digital SLR's, like Canon EF-S
VR - vibration reduction
IF - internal front focus
RF - internal rear focus
G - these are newest lenses, no aperture rings, no manual cameras
ED - extra low dispersion glass

I'm sure the Nikon folks can add to / correct this.


Surely...;)

AI for Automatic Index
PC for Prospective Control

Also, did not see in the lens list (but I might have missed it):
55 mm micro-nikkor (an all time favorite)
500 mm reflex
PC 28 mm
200 medical Nikkor (with bulid-in ring flash)
43-86 one-touch zoom
35-70 macro

[Clix Pix]

Surely...;)

PC for Prospective Control


It's "PC" for "Perspective Control."

[Chip NoVaMac]

The things keeping the 17-55mm from being an L are not image quality related, but poor mechanical design and lack of a metal body.

Partially true on construction details.

BUT IMO it is that the 17-55 is an EF-S lens designed for digital, not the 24x36mm format.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I like Nikon for film, but am exclusively Canon for digital. Why? Because I've had excellent luck with Canon and been told (cannot confirm this) by many-a prominent photographer and uni. photo teachers that Canon basically invented digital photography, thier Digic II is superior

Canon did have an early start in digital photography, but IMO it may have been Apple with the Quicktake digital cameras that may have started the revolution. With Olympus being the one that popularized it. But it was TI that first tried the idea of filmless photography back in 1973.

For a good history check out this Wikilink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera#History

What Canon did was "mature" the digital camera.By taking and developing the Digic chip for faster processing of the images. They also for their DSLR's started to make their own CMOS sensors.

and when they advertise a certain megapixel # that is exactly the amount that the CCD is sensing. Apparently (cannot confirm this either) most manufactures may plop in a 7MP CCD but use software to extrapolate the data up to, say, 9MP.

A bit of bunk here. AFAIK, Fuji is the only one that uses interpolation for greater pixel count with their Supper CCD's.

[jared_kipe]

Partially true on construction details.

BUT IMO it is that the 17-55 is an EF-S lens designed for digital, not the 24x36mm format.
Yeah, but they gave an "L" designation to the Powershot Pro 1 digital camera. So I see no reason why they can't make a L lens for cropped bodies.

And don't forget the Nikkor 6mm f/5.6 (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/fisheyes/6mm56.htm) that can actually see behind the camera. :eek: :eek: ;) :D

I've heard of this, but I think its a superstition. I do not see how one could bend light that is coming from behind you, it would be the equivalent of a negative mm focal length. There is something that does that, but we call it a mirror, not a 6mm lens.

If you look at the dome, and imagine light coming from slightly behind the front of the lens, you see it will have to impact at a very severe angle. This would cause most of the light to bounce off. And I cann't see how the light that doesn't bounce off would make it into the rest of the lens.

[beavo451]

Yeah, but they gave an "L" designation to the Powershot Pro 1 digital camera. So I see no reason why they can't make a L lens for cropped bodies.


I've heard of this, but I think its a superstition. I do not see how one could bend light that is coming from behind you, it would be the equivalent of a negative mm focal length. There is something that does that, but we call it a mirror, not a 6mm lens.

If you look at the dome, and imagine light coming from slightly behind the front of the lens, you see it will have to impact at a very severe angle. This would cause most of the light to bounce off. And I cann't see how the light that doesn't bounce off would make it into the rest of the lens.

So where does the other 40 degrees of the 220° FOV come from?

EDIT: found an image

Notice that you can see "below" where the camera was at if it was pointed straight up.

http://www.nearfield.com/~dan/Photo/wide/fish/

[jared_kipe]

So where does the other 40 degrees of the 220° FOV come from?

EDIT: found an image

Notice that you can see "below" where the camera was at if it was pointed straight up.

http://www.nearfield.com/~dan/Photo/wide/fish/
I have no idea, it just doesn't make sense from an optics point of view.

[sjl]

If you look at the dome, and imagine light coming from slightly behind the front of the lens, you see it will have to impact at a very severe angle. This would cause most of the light to bounce off. And I cann't see how the light that doesn't bounce off would make it into the rest of the lens.
Well, if light hits an interface between elements at a 90 degree angle, it will go straight ahead. At a lesser angle than that, it will be bent at an angle that depends upon the refraction index of the materials at the interface. eg: when light enters glass from air, it will be bent towards the direction of the interface; if it enters air from glass, it will be bent away from the direction of the interface.

So I'd say that the key is the interface as the light moves out of the first element it hits. If it's angled just right relative to the angle of incidence where the light comes in, I can definitely see a fisheye being able to see 'behind' itself. You'd be talking about a severe curve on both sides of the front element, with the rear curve being more severe curve than the forward curve, but I don't see it as utterly impossible.

Have a look at this PDF (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/fisheyes/6mmf56.pdf) for the construction of the original 220 degree FOV fisheye.

[jared_kipe]

Well, if light hits an interface between elements at a 90 degree angle, it will go straight ahead. At a lesser angle than that, it will be bent at an angle that depends upon the refraction index of the materials at the interface. eg: when light enters glass from air, it will be bent towards the direction of the interface; if it enters air from glass, it will be bent away from the direction of the interface.

So I'd say that the key is the interface as the light moves out of the first element it hits. If it's angled just right relative to the angle of incidence where the light comes in, I can definitely see a fisheye being able to see 'behind' itself. You'd be talking about a severe curve on both sides of the front element, with the rear curve being more severe curve than the forward curve, but I don't see it as utterly impossible.

Have a look at this PDF (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/fisheyes/6mmf56.pdf) for the construction of the original 220 degree FOV fisheye.

I'm WELL aware of the principals of optics. But you're only discussing geometrical optics, let me introduce some quantum mechanics. Specifically probability of reflection. Incident light to glass reflects ~4% of light, actually it is 0%-16% but it depends on thickness. Since we cannot yet make glass a perfect even thickness enough to make it reflect either of those, we pretty much always observe 4% for relatively small angles. Reflection skyrockets if the angle approaches 80-90º Thus the front element of lenses try to keep the angle of incidence as low as possible to avoid this. But there is no way around it if you plan on bringing light from slightly behind the front of the lens.

I can see how it could happen, but I just cannot see how such a design would not have severe vignetting. Especially since light from any given angle has to enter at a very specific part of the lens.

[ChrisA]

very impressive lineup. Does Nikon differentiate between consumer and pro lenses? (Canon has its L series)

Nikon does not really make a line of consummer quality lenses. They make a few low-spec'd lenses and some very nice ones but there is no clear division it's more of a range. Except in some claer cases it is debatable if a lens is "pro" or not.

[seenew]

Nikon does not really make a line of consummer quality lenses. They make a few low-spec'd lenses and some very nice ones but there is no clear division it's more of a range. Except in some claer cases it is debatable if a lens is "pro" or not.

Haha, no, Canon's L series is their "pro" series, not their consumer series. The way you said that sounded almost like a jab at Canon.:p