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

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Original poster
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
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
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Original poster
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
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
 

compuwar

macrumors 601
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
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
 

VirtualRain

macrumors 603
Aug 1, 2008
6,304
114
Vancouver, BC
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.
 

H2Ockey

macrumors regular
Aug 25, 2008
216
0
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.
 

Westside guy

macrumors 603
Oct 15, 2003
5,383
2,207
The soggy side of the Pacific NW
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.
 

ronjon10

macrumors regular
Dec 9, 2009
214
27
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.
 

TuffLuffJimmy

macrumors G3
Apr 6, 2007
8,989
25
Portland, OR
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.
 

AlaskaMoose

macrumors 68000
Apr 26, 2008
1,519
890
Alaska
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 prefer white because is sheds heat a lot more than black. But I still have some black Canon lenses (Canon has both).
 

panoz7

macrumors 6502a
Nov 21, 2005
903
1
Raleigh, NC
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.
 

AlaskaMoose

macrumors 68000
Apr 26, 2008
1,519
890
Alaska
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?client=safari&q=Manual+lenses+for+Canon+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.
 

Ruahrc

macrumors 65816
Jun 9, 2009
1,344
0
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
 

firestarter

macrumors 603
Dec 31, 2002
5,496
108
Green and pleasant land
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.
 

dpastern

macrumors member
Mar 16, 2010
83
0
Brisbane, Australia
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
 

dpastern

macrumors member
Mar 16, 2010
83
0
Brisbane, Australia
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.
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
 

dpastern

macrumors member
Mar 16, 2010
83
0
Brisbane, Australia
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

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.
 

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,680
68
Sendai, Japan
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.
 

John.B

macrumors 601
Jan 15, 2008
4,097
617
Holocene Epoch
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.
You can always buy covers from LensCoat if the white lenses bother you.

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

pdxflint

macrumors 68020
Aug 25, 2006
2,407
14
Oregon coast
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
 

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,680
68
Sendai, Japan
Spend a day with that 85mm f/1.2L and get back to me. :)
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