Nikon and Canon shooters, I have a fun question to ask...

I don't particularly lust over any Canon lenses. If I had the money and a Sherpa, I'd love the Sigma 300-500 f/2.8. I've also been trying to get the math to work on a 200-400VR to replace my 80-200, and if I ever find a 200/4 Micro for the right price, it'll be mine. Otherwise, I'm pretty happy with my current lens line-up.

Paul

Being a Canon shooter, I'm not fond of the white paint used on L telephotos... so I guess I'd opt for the equivalent Nikon lenses in black if it were possible. Other than that, I'm really not familiar with other brands product lines.

I recently picked up a Sigma 105mm macro. From all the reviews and what-not that I read while shopping that compared:

Tamron 90mm
Tokina 100mm
Nikkor 105mm
Canon 105mm
Sigma 105mm
macro lenses the Canon had the most positive reviews and by most accounts is the best of that bunch. The amazing quality of the Sigma makes me wonder a bit just how good or if I would even be able to tell the difference between any of them. But so far I see a marked difference in quality, contrast and sharpness in the Sigma over my others, including the 80-200mm @ 105mm.

I now also lust over the 100mm Zeiss but that is out of my range likely forever.

I can adapt a lot of great lenses to Canon and Olympus bodies so, none really...

As a Nikon shooter, I'd like an analogue to Canon's 24-105 f/4 L IS. I've got the Nikon 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, and it's a nice lens; but it's not stabilized, plus it's short 20mm compared to the Canon.

Nikon does currently offer a variable aperture 24-120 VR, but it's only considered "okay" glass - the 24-85 is better optically.

The good news is I suspect Nikon is likely to release the lens I want in the reasonably near future.

Funny you asked, this caught my eye this morning. I didn't know it was physically possible to make a lens wider than f/1.

Count me as a Nikon shooter who really likes the Canon 85 f/1.2. However, I wouldn't use it enough to justify the price so it doesn't really matter.

I also like the Canon f4 zoom lens line. It's a really nice prosumer level and it looks like Nikon is catching onto that. I expect we'll see more in this range from Nikon.

I shoot canon, but I've really been digging some Nikon bodies lately, just because of their sweet ability to shoot at crazy high ISOs without much noise.

VirtualRain said:

Being a Canon shooter, I'm not fond of the white paint used on L telephotos... so I guess I'd opt for the equivalent Nikon lenses in black if it were possible. Other than that, I'm really not familiar with other brands product lines.

Click to expand...

I prefer white because is sheds heat a lot more than black. But I still have some black Canon lenses (Canon has both).

I'm currently lusting after the Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8. It seems to be in a league of its own when it comes to sharpness, though I've read so-so things about its bokeh.

I shoot Canon, but if somebody would donate any of the lenses below to poor me, I would be more than happy:
http://www.google.com/products?clie...non+EOS&oe=UTF-8&lnk=vbrsugg&brand=Carl+ZEISS

That said, I would not mind at all owning a Canon 135-L. But one of the things I like about Canon is that I can use just about any old manual-focus lens with a EOS mount. Some of the mounts have electrical contacts for most of the lens functions except focusing and zooming. I have a very nice Nikkor f/1.4 lens on my old (film) F3 that I plan to use on my 40D.

Carl Zeiss or Leica

I am highly impressed at the Canon tilt shift lenses. They have better movements than the nikon and are supposedly ultra sharp and plus they've got a 17mm tse!

aside from that I'm not sure it's really lens lust but I have been becoming more curious about high end manual focus primes like the ones from Zeiss. But this is not really manufacturer lust as those lenses are available for f mount, just expensive

Ruahrc

Ooh, am I allowed to mention this Canon 1200mm lens? It apparently comes with a very pretty girl...




Now I realize that Nikon has its own 1200-1700mm zoom, and normally I love Nikon glass - but for some reason this lens is much less appealing to me. I can't quite put my finger on just why though...

Westside guy said:

Ooh, am I allowed to mention this Canon 1200mm lens? It apparently comes with a very pretty girl...

Now I realize that Nikon has its own 1200-1700mm zoom, and normally I love Nikon glass - but for some reason this lens is much less appealing to me. I can't quite put my finger on just why though...

Click to expand...

Now there's a great walk-around set of lenses.

As a Canon shooter I'm pretty happy. I switched back to Canon from Nikon, because I was disappointed with Nikon's lack of good wide primes... that's something that Canon is doing quite well (although a refresh of the f2.8 lenses would be nice).

I mainly envy Pentax, Olympus and Panasonic for their wider prime pancake lenses... it would be great if Canon had a good normal or wide pancake.

I'd also like to play with some of Voigtlander's wide rangefinder lenses.

mmm covet...

Canon EOS 300mm f2.8 IS L
Canon EOS 400mm f2.8 IS L
Canon EOS 500mm f4 IS L
Canon EOS MPE-65

The 300 for shorter end sports and wildlife shots, the 400mm for outdoor sports in general requiring a bit more range, and the 500mm f4 for birding/sports/motorsports. The 500mm f4 is on my priority list to acquire in the next 3-4 years.

Dave

VirtualRain said:

Being a Canon shooter, I'm not fond of the white paint used on L telephotos... so I guess I'd opt for the equivalent Nikon lenses in black if it were possible. Other than that, I'm really not familiar with other brands product lines.

Click to expand...

There is a technical reason for Canon using White - it keeps the lens tube cooler, which means cooler air inside the lens, thus resulting in less disturbances and image quality degradation.

Dave

All of those lenses are razor sharp, hard to go wrong. I've seen some super shots coming from the Siggie 105mm from LordV (Brian Valentine). It's an outstanding lens. I use the biggie brother Siggie 150mm myself, but it's a different beast altogether (heavier and more cumbersome, takes a lot of practice to use well imho). It's far better to go a shorter focal length macro lens when starting out.

Dave

H2Ockey said:

I recently picked up a Sigma 105mm macro. From all the reviews and what-not that I read while shopping that compared:

Tamron 90mm
Tokina 100mm
Nikkor 105mm
Canon 105mm
Sigma 105mm
macro lenses the Canon had the most positive reviews and by most accounts is the best of that bunch. The amazing quality of the Sigma makes me wonder a bit just how good or if I would even be able to tell the difference between any of them. But so far I see a marked difference in quality, contrast and sharpness in the Sigma over my others, including the 80-200mm @ 105mm.

I now also lust over the 100mm Zeiss but that is out of my range likely forever.

Click to expand...

No, not really. I don't get too excited over lenses I don't need, don't want to buy or cannot afford. I'm not overly enthused by Canon's 17 mm tilt-shift lens because I have no plans to buy a tilt-shift lens in the foreseeable future. So even if I were shooting Canon, I wouldn't buy one. Ditto for some special Nikon lenses, who cares if there exists a 1200-1700 mm zoom, I don't need one and I certainly don't have the money to buy a slave to carry that thing on its back day-in and day-out.

There is one Canon lens which I think is kinda neat: the 17-40 mm f/4. It's relatively cheap, has pretty good optics and mechanics and works on full frame. The focal length range is useful even on crop sensors. Even though Nikon has released a 16-35 mm f/4, it's twice as expensive.

I'm not very excited about the two f/1.2 primes that Canon offers either: they're too expensive and too heavy. I'd rather get a 50 mm f/1.4 and a 80/85 mm f/1.4 rather than just one 50 mm or 85 mm f/1.2.

I'm a little bit jealous that Canonites can get used full frame bodies at an affordable price: I'd like to have one. Now I have to wait a little longer, c'est la vie. I also envy the people who use Sony cameras: they have access to the cheapest new full frame dslr, the alpha 850.

VirtualRain said:

Being a Canon shooter, I'm not fond of the white paint used on L telephotos... so I guess I'd opt for the equivalent Nikon lenses in black if it were possible. Other than that, I'm really not familiar with other brands product lines.

Click to expand...

You can always buy covers from LensCoat if the white lenses bother you.

OreoCookie said:

I'm not very excited about the two f/1.2 primes that Canon offers either: they're too expensive and too heavy. I'd rather get a 50 mm f/1.4 and a 80/85 mm f/1.4 rather than just one 50 mm or 85 mm f/1.2.

Click to expand...

Spend a day with that 85mm f/1.2L and get back to me.

I can remember all those times when my black Nikkor lens wound up vibrating in the heat and jumping out of focus...made me wish for a can of Canon gray paint... that darn sun... oh, wait... No, I don't!

John.B said:

Spend a day with that 85mm f/1.2L and get back to me.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt it's a great lens and that I may crave one after trying. In a world with unlimited funds, I probably would consider getting one (although that puppy is heavy!). But in the real world, I'd rather get two toys than one

Besides, I know what it's like to have a depth of field of a few cm, it's damn difficult to get things in focus (e. g. eyes and eye lashes)