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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SLC Flyfishing, Mar 23, 2010.

  1. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #1
    I've been reading some of the "Switching to Nikon" and "Reccomend me a lens" threads lately, and the discussion of "L" vs "Whatever Nikkor" has got me thinking.

    I shoot Nikon, and I have what I feel is pretty nice equipment for what I do. Each of my lenses are among Nikon's finest, and lenses that people generally lust after, and I feel lucky to have been able to acquire them. But obviously I only have Nikon mount lenses, no Canon's and No Sony's or Pentax's etc.

    So my question for each of you is this:

    What lenses from other Manufacturers do each of you covet?

    Me personally, I think most of all I covet the ultra fast Primes in Canon's lineup, specifically the 50 mm f/1.2 and the 85 f/1.2

    From Pentax, there are some very nice primes that I also wanted very much when I was shooting Pentax cameras, specifically the 77 f/1.8 limited.

    From Sony, there's really nothing unique that I'm aware of, everything they have that's nice is pretty much covered by Nikon already.

    Olympus has some really cool constant f/2 zooms that I would drool over if they were possible for full frame cameras.

    So what about the rest of you?

    SLC
     
  2. SLC Flyfishing thread starter Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #2
    Not sure why I limited the question to Nikon and Canon shooters only, everyone please feel free to respond regardless of shooting platform.

    I think it was because the thread that sparked my interest was a Nikon compared to Canon thread.

    Anyway, have at it please!

    SLC
     
  3. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #3
    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
     
  4. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #4
    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.
     
  5. H2Ockey macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    #5
    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.
     
  6. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #6
    I can adapt a lot of great lenses to Canon and Olympus bodies so, none really...
     
  7. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #7
    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.
     
  8. cr2sh macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #8
    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.
     
  9. ronjon10 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2009
    #9
    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.
     
  10. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3

    TuffLuffJimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #10
    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.
     
  11. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #11
    I prefer white because is sheds heat a lot more than black. But I still have some black Canon lenses (Canon has both).
     
  12. panoz7 macrumors 6502a

    panoz7

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #12
    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.
     
  13. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #13
    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.
     
  14. HBOC macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
  15. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #15
    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
     
  16. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #16
    Ooh, am I allowed to mention this Canon 1200mm lens? It apparently comes with a very pretty girl...

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    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...

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Jaro65 macrumors 68040

    Jaro65

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #17
    Now there's a great walk-around set of lenses. :)
     
  18. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #18
    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.
     
  19. dpastern macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    #19
    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
     
  20. dpastern macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    #20
    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
     
  21. dpastern macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    #21
    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

     
  22. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #22
    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. ;) :p

    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.
     
  23. John.B macrumors 601

    John.B

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Location:
    Holocene Epoch
    #23
    You can always buy covers from LensCoat if the white lenses bother you.

    Spend a day with that 85mm f/1.2L and get back to me. :)
     
  24. pdxflint macrumors 68020

    pdxflint

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon coast
    #24
    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! :D
     
  25. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #25
    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) :D
     

Share This Page