Canon vs Nikon - Lenses

[Clix Pix]

This may work for some peope, but for me it just doesn't do it. I like to shoot extreme macros, and Canon has the only true extreme macro lens I've seen. AFAIK, Nikon's macro lenses only go up to 1:1, while there's a Canon lens that goes up to 5X. I agree (to some extent) with your comments about handling and design on the Nikons, nut I've picked up a 30D and it's just great to handle. I didn't like the D80 so much. It's a pretty subjective topic.

Yes, this IS a very subjective topic, which is why it is extremely important for anyone who is about to buy a new camera to go to a local camera shop and handle all the various camera bodies before making any decisions. Many years ago I used Nikon SLRs, so for me, it was a no-brainer to go to the shop and ask to see a Nikon D70 back when I wanted to buy my first digital SLR. I handled it, shot a little with it in the shop... it felt "right" to me. I am sure that the same holds true for those who have used Canon SLRs in the past who were ready for their first DSLR.... Once I began using the D70, I knew that indeed I *had* made the right choice (for me) and that I would indeed continue to purchase and use lenses with the Nikon mount and eventually move on to other Nikon bodies (which I have since done). If for some reason I had become disappointed in that D70 I would have checked out Canon at that point to see if their series of bodies and lenses would best fit my needs. Much depends upon what fits an individual's preferences, needs and shooting situations. Nikon and Canon both make excellent bodies and lenses. Which system one chooses is very much subjective.

For someone who is not coming from an SLR background who has no previous history, it is all the more important to make the determination first which body feels best, as hopefully this will lead to a long happy relationship with one camera manufacturer and its various lenses and accessories. Most people go with one system, they usually cannot afford to have both, although I do know a few photographers who do own and shoot with both systems. In one case the photographer wanted the full-frame capability of the 5D, so he purchased it and the appropriate lenses for his particular needs, but still uses his Nikon bodies and lenses for other purposes. Another found that for him, Canon lenses really fit the bill better in his sports shooting, so he has a Canon body and a couple of lenses which he uses specifically for that, while choosing his Nikon gear for other situations.

As for macro, I'm curious: which Canon lens goes up to 5x for macro? Wow! Yes, I think most Nikon lenses are 1:1 ratio, but of course that can easily be extended by the use of tubes or a diopter/close focus "filter" added to the lens or even a bellows attachment.

 

[psycho bob]

The problem with forum's like this is that people's views are based upon personal preference; without exception. With the introduction of numerous budget digital SLR's more and more people are buying them. I know 5 people who have bought either D40's, D70's or 400D's within the past 6 months alone yet not one of them has bought a lens other then the standard one included with the kit.

As has been mentioned before prior to digital you invested in lenses. As long as a body was well made with a solid reliable meter you could spend as little as £xx or as much as £xxxx. With the onset of digital though things have changed drastically with consumer digital costing far more (on average) then consumer film ever did. As far as bodies go you buy what your comfortable with. Unless you desire to get really technical or have a special requirement any digi SLR body will give you good pictures far exceeding the compact you currently have. The big factor that Canon fans point out is there superior high ISO performance but having used a large range of models from them (300, 350, 400, 10D, 30D) and Nikon (D40, D70, D200) in real world situations the difference is small. Unless you intend to shoot solely at night it really isn't an issue.

Ergonomically, for me, Nikon win hands down. I find Canon models uncomfortable to hold (and I have small hands) with awkwardly placed buttons. If your used to more traditional cameras you may well find Nikon superior if your starting from scratch it may not matter.

Special features such as dust off are for the most part a load of rubbish. If you look after the camera and your lenses then dust will not be a big issue. All major manufacturers will provide sensor cleaning and maintainance for a low price. From personal experience Sigma charged £30 including shipping for out of warranty sensor cleaning.

Don't get caught up in spending a huge amount of money on a camera body. As you, yourself, said you not aiming to be a pro you just want to take some nice personal photos. Realistically digital SLR's last about 3-4 years before the technology becomes outdated. The latest 10 megapixel sensors give you nice large prints with plenty of usable resolution on a par with film and in many cases way beyond. You can choose to buy a body now for £450 or you can spend £800+. Unless you really need those features then buy the cheaper one, if you decide in a few years you want more or something amazing appears then you can update but only if you want to.

Lenses are a much more complicated subject. To say one make is better then another is rubbish. I've used Canon lenses that have been much softer then their Sigma counterparts but the same can be said the other way. Another, often overlooked, factor is that you could buy the same lens twice and both copies would vary. This is a surprisingly common occurrence even with expensive items. People talk about a lens being soft or having this issue or that but the truth is any lens can give bad results if you don't know how to use it. HSM/USM motors are great but will you see any advantage in them no, only trade off is a few milliseconds in speed and a bit more noise. The truly great photographers are just that not because they take the sharpest pics but because they take the most opportune and memorable. Decide what you want to take more of in the way of landscape or telephoto and choose initially based upon that. My honest advice would be to just stick with the kit lens initially or go with say the Sigma 17-70 which provides a great balance and a really usable focal range.

When you look at pictures on the web or even standard sized prints the individual traits of certain bodies and lenses just aren't that evident. Bottom line enjoy what your photographing, don't get bogged down in the technical ins and outs. A D80 or 400D with the Sigma 17-70 would be ideal for you and will do everything and more you could wish for.

Hope this is of some help, have a great year and I look forward to seeing some of your pictures in the near future

 

[javabear90]

I greatly prefer Nikon ergonomics. Our yearbook staff is mostly Canon's and I find that the buttons / dials are not placed right and most of the cheaper body's feel very flimsy.
I would recommended a Nikon D80 with and a Nikon 18 - 200 VR (stay away from the sigma version, slow, no VR, soft). Ken Rockwell has a good discussion on this lens. It is amazing for an all-round lens. It's not great at low light, but for everything else it excels. For what I do, distortion is not a problem. The only real time you will have a big problem with distortion is architecture photography. And even then it can be corrected in photoshop. Good zoom range, VR, inexpensive for what you get, decent build quality (sealed), fast focusing and more. Then I would defiantly get the 50mm f/1.8 (and possibly the 85 f/1.8, even if you go with Canon) because it is cheap, sharp, very fast, and no distortion. Then if you want a wide angle, go with either the sigma 10 - 20mm or the Tokina 12 - 24mm. With all that, you should be set.
-Ted

 

[dllavaneras]

Yes, this IS a very subjective topic, which is why it is extremely important for anyone who is about to buy a new camera to go to a local camera shop and handle all the various camera bodies before making any decisions.

Definitely the best advice when buying a new anything

As for macro, I'm curious: which Canon lens goes up to 5x for macro? Wow! Yes, I think most Nikon lenses are 1:1 ratio, but of course that can easily be extended by the use of tubes or a diopter/close focus "filter" added to the lens or even a bellows attachment.

No ammount of extension tubes/stackable filters will give you the sharpness and magnification of the incredible, awesome Canon MPE-65. It a Macro lens ONLY. Unlike the other Canon/Nikon/etc maco lenses, this one will not focus on objects more than 15 cm away. It's a dedicated macro lens. Unversatile, yes, but it does extreme macro and it does it VERY well. Definitely not a lens for a begginer in macrophotography. See another review here

 

[EstorilM]

I also do not at all agree with the "choose a body first, the lenses are less important" mantra.
Not at all, actually.

The most important parts for making a good photo, in order, are:
1. The photographer.
2. The lens.
3. The camera body.

And the most important aspect to a camera body, in my opinion, is one thing... the sensor. This determines the smoothness of skin tone variations, smoothness of shadow areas, some detail level, and especially how it performs at high ISO in regards to noise, detail loss due to noise reduction, and contrast loss due to noise and noise reduction.

Not how confusing, and complex you can make an AF system without making it actually better (Nikon D200).

The lens will be a very big factor in what a photo looks like, in subtle but important ways, most of the time giving it a certain "snap" without you knowing/understanding exactly WHY the photo has something special.
My dad was an optics expert somewhat, he had dealings with Nikon for lenses of prototype silicon lithogarphy machines for Philips in the early/mid 1970's. He was very particular in lens choices, and that shows in a lot of the photographes he made. His Nikkormat FTn didn't have AF, didn't have weather sealing, wasn't the size of a 1kilo sugar pack, didn't even have a "grip", and yet photos taken with certain lenses have something special.

And that is the most important thing. That is why I myself chose a Canon 350D about 2 years ago, for its sensor, mirror lock up, size and weight, and the lens line up from Canon. I wanted a light high quality zoom lens, and Canon was the only one offering such a lens (70-200 f4 IS USM). Now this has gotten competition in the Canon 70-300 IS USM. And in future, when I can afford it, I want to get some serious L prime lenses... and Canon's L lens line up is very impressive.

So... that is what my choice was based on... lens lineup (lenses stay with you for decades... cameras keep on changing), sensor performance, and small size/weight so I can put it an a small back pack with some lenses thrown in too, and take it everywhere.

There are a billion more variables in a camera body compared to a lens - if you're starting from scratch, the comfort and performance of a camera that fits you is more important than the lenses, since it's highly doubtful that he's going to run out and but a 400 f/4 tomorrow and be disappointed with its performance when he's on the sidelines of the superbowl. Oh wait. He won't be? Ok then, so stop acting like everyone's going to put their lenses under a microscope in the real world. I'm not saying you shouldn't care about the performance, and I'm certainly not saying that you should buy crap lenses - but there are PLENTY of good lenses from every manufacturer out there, which is something that I can't say about camera bodies.

I've been waiting for you to pull the "sensor card" on me, like every other canon-nikon argument on the internet (after every other aspect of the canon is disproved.) Canon has great sensors, but honestly - that's the only thing going for their non-pro cameras, and even then - there are only a handful of sensors that I'd consider to be better than anyone elses. The sensor in a camera is absolutely worthless if you can't control control it, expose it correctly, catch your subjects in focus, etc etc. I'd much rather have a less than stellar image than none at all! So no, the sensor is not the most important thing to look at when buying a camera, simply because all sensors in mainstream (especially prosumer) markets are becoming very good these days.

Not how confusing, and complex you can make an AF system without making it actually better (Nikon D200).

Is that your conclusion, based on what I just told you about the feature set on the CAM1000 focus system in the D200?

Do me a favor and list the events you've shot with the D200, the lenses you used, and the focus errors you encountered with the system. Oh wait, you can't? That's too bad. When you say "without making it any better" what are you comparing it to? (I've also shown that it has a 1.5 EV advantage with usable light compared to the 30D... -1 to 19 compared to -.5 to 18 of the 30D) I can't look at one review of someone comparing the focus systems of these cameras without the D200 coming out on top - by a long shot. "The 30D's autofocus is solidly inferior to the D200's. " - digitalcamerainfo. One of the many quotes I've found.
I'll actually back up the claims (and facts) with real world performance. I'm not sure how you can get much better than this. This bird wasn't moving in a straight line AT ALL, it was chasing another bird in loops, circles, dives, etc.. didn't keep direction for more than a second. (1/400 shutter btw)

Anyways - knowledge of post production and workflow will have a MUCH greater impact on image quality than spending hours analyzing which lens is "better" by staring at charts and reading subjective reviews, especially from a beginner's point of view, I'd suggest he plays around with PP stuff in photoshop.

 

[Clix Pix]

No ammount of extension tubes/stackable filters will give you the sharpness and magnification of the incredible, awesome Canon MPE-65. It a Macro lens ONLY. Unlike the other Canon/Nikon/etc maco lenses, this one will not focus on objects more than 15 cm away. It's a dedicated macro lens. Unversatile, yes, but it does extreme macro and it does it VERY well. Definitely not a lens for a begginer in macrophotography. See another review here

Wow, thanks for this info! Fascinating lens, isn't it? I'd love to play around with one.... I can see how it would definitely be a challenging lens to use, though -- whew! That 5x magnification really does bring the subject up close and personal....

 

[bhdean]

I agree with most here. Go to a store and feel them out. For your needs, either line will be more than adequate.

Personally, Nikon fits my hands better and I do prefer the button and menu lay out. I do have small hands.

As for the noise performance between Nikon and Canon. Canon does a great job in camera with noise reduction. With Nikon, you have to take care of that in post production. Which is cheap and easy to do. You can pick up good programs for 40-90 USD. At high ISO noise really depends more on your nailing the exposure than anything else. Nikons can get low noise shots at ISO 1600; if the exposure is dead on.

In sports photography, Canons main advantage was coming out with a DSLR with good FPS first. In sports, its very important to be able to get your pictures on the wire as soon as possible. Over the past three years, I have seen more new photographers, who own their equipment, using Nikon on the sidelines, than Canon. But, we are still a minority on the sidelines.

 

[dllavaneras]

There are a billion more variables in a camera body compared to a lens - if you're starting from scratch, the comfort and performance of a camera that fits you is more important than the lenses

Yes, but I think this is only true if you don't plan on taking off the kit lens. Once you do, it's all about lenses.

Wow, thanks for this info! Fascinating lens, isn't it? I'd love to play around with one.... I can see how it would definitely be a challenging lens to use, though -- whew! That 5x magnification really does bring the subject up close and personal....

It's one of the lenses I lust for. If you get a chance to use it, remember to get good lighting, be it from a ring flash, bracket mounted external or whatever.

In sports photography, Canons main advantage was coming out with a DSLR with good FPS first.

I agree, 8.5 fps is not bad at all! But I don't think that's what the OP had in mind

 

[EstorilM]

Yes, but I think this is only true if you don't plan on taking off the kit lens. Once you do, it's all about lenses.

You took that out of context just a little - my point is that for non-professional use, I think initial camera choice will decide far more image quality elements than the "what if" attitude of comparing lenses he may or may not even purchase years into the future. In this case both companies offer lenses that are more than adequate for whatever he'll throw at it.

 

[Counterfit]

**** sensors, go film.

 

[bhdean]

I agree, 8.5 fps is not bad at all! But I don't think that's what the OP had in mind

Yes, you are correct. It was well out side of what the OP needs and off subject. But, then again never underestimate what a good FPS camera can do for portrait and candid family pictures. I use my D2H all the time for non sports photos. I really like being able to take a series of quick pictures and then pick the one with the best facial expressions. Then again, I'm not one, who likes posed pictures.

I wasn't really referring to Mark IIn. I was talking about their previous cameras. Granted the IIn is fast; but I haven't seen too many of those on the sidelines. I was really refering to the fact that Canon came out with a good digital with above 3 FPS and a little shutter lag out before anyone else. At that time anyone shooting Nikon was still using film. The turn around time isn't comparable. That gave them a much larger market share in the sports shooting market. A lot of outlets have stayed with Canon, rightfully so they take great pictures, out of already being in that system as opposed to Canon being far superior in the sports market. The advantage wasn't lens or auto focus systems; it was being first to the digital market at a pro quality. I apologies for going off subject again.

I still think going with what feels best in the OP's hands is the way to go. Both systems have their pluses and minuses and both will deliver quality.

 

[dllavaneras]

You took that out of context just a little

Sorry, didn't mean to. It's just that I believe any DSLR right now have the ability give you great pics, but that's when they are used with the right lens. I've seen a lot of pics taken with consumer cams (D40, XTi) and good lenses that just blow away pics taken with pro cams (1D, D2H) with not-so-good lenses. Do a quick search on Pbase to see what I mean. This is why a lot of people reccommend choosing the lenses before the camera. This and because you'll likely use the lenses a long time. They will probably stay with you after you upgrade your camera body 2-3 times, maybe even more

But, then again never underestimate what a good FPS camera can do for portrait and candid family pictures.

As I've said, I don't take many portraits, but a high FPS count is vital in my macro shots. I never underestimate it

 

[coldrain]

You took that out of context just a little - my point is that for non-professional use, I think initial camera choice will decide far more image quality elements than the "what if" attitude of comparing lenses he may or may not even purchase years into the future. In this case both companies offer lenses that are more than adequate for whatever he'll throw at it.

Lets see. So you do not see how sharpness, contrast, colour and saturation, bokeh, vignetting and CA problems can decide image quality, nor the sensor since you also discount that...

But the actual body will decide image quality? You can not really be serious about this.
And I wonder how on earth I could get good shots with my old FTn Nikkormat with 50mm 1:2 macro and 80mm portrait lens. Because lets face it... that body was clunky, small, had NO features what so ever except a light meter...
I guess the choice of film, and optics, had nothing to do with the image quality . Must have been... uhmm.. Give me time, I will think of something.
And now I understand why photos taken with my EF 70-200mm f4 L at times have that special quality to them that make then attractive... must be that "ergonomics nightmare body of 350D" with all controls on weird places and not a zillion confusing AF settings, that make them good.
Yes, ignore the quality of the optics... very good advice.

Optics are very important. And a 30D actually is a very good camera, also compared to your D200.

Just for fun a different kind of "action shot" of a bee approaching a flower, very low shutter speed because the 70-200 f4 L had a 1.7x teleconvertor from Soligor (great optics) mounted, making it a ~f6.8 lens... Not bad for AF performance. Oh, and this is a 100% crop.
ISO 200, f4.5 (but with 1.7x TC, so light of f7.1 or so?), 200mm x 1.6 x 1.7 = 544mm, 1/200 sec and handheld (!). So that is at its 200mm extreme, and the resolution gets deminished by 1.7x because of the TC (it crops the center of the lens... and the projecting that onto the full sensor).
100% crop... yes, optics do matter. A lot.

 

[EstorilM]

I know what you mean, and I don't have to search - I've had to (rather reluctantly I might add) use a D70s as a backup before (that someone gave me) for sports, and it performed perfectly with an 80-200 2.8 AF-D on it. However, the focus wasn't as fast/accurate, the viewfinder gave me tunnel vision, and in general it felt like I was using a bb gun with a telescope for a sight - but that's ok.

Basically, it goes both ways. Good lenses are very important, but most people define "good" glass as models that cost more than the camera's we're talking about here, which I doubt is in the OP's budget right now.

I rely on a number of specific features and performance specifications to help me improve my chances of getting "keepers" more often than cameras without those features and specs, it has nothing to do with being a good or bad photographer (that was preemptive, since I know a certain someone would chime in with a "learn how to take pictures and not rely on the camera to do the work for you" if I didn't say it!)

For instance, a rather bizarre and unexpected use of the "closest subject priority" AF mode on the D200 was needed last summer when (after shooting dressage pictures of 1 horse all day) a group of 4 horses came into the arena. Most of the routine consisted of split moves - all 4 come down the center, then split, 2 going one way, 2 going the other (leaving the center focus point on the background which would result in unusable pictures.) Really the only focus mode and EASY way to solve this problem was a quick flip of the AF mode switch on the back to Dynamic AF (no menus) which I had programmed to closest-subject.. I could point the camera in the center of the arena, with 2 horses on the right of the frame, 2 on the left, and get perfectly sharp pictures every time. This is a great feature for 1-horse dressage too, as it allows you to quickly re-frame the subject in the viewfinder without worrying about focus points (regardless of how fast he's moving.) I might want more space in front of him to give the feel of him moving into the frame for example (if I simply moved the fixed focus points, I wouldn't be able to switch between portrait and landscape anymore.)

That's just one situation where my camera's features helped me catch the shot that I was looking for, it also happens to be something you can't get on the Canons.

I also went to the beach last fall and set up the camera on a tripod on the balcony, programmed in the rough time of the sunrise the next morning - told it to take a shot every minute for 30 minutes, then I went to sleep. I woke up with a perfect time-lapse of the ocean sunrise. That's another example of a feature Nikon throws in with the D200 that you can't get on a prosumer Canon.

This goes back to what I said about rather being able to get ANY shot than none at all because I went with who I thought had better lenses or something. The fact is, if I had gone with a 30D, I wouldn't have those sunrise pictures, and probably wouldn't have in-focus group dressage pictures either.

 

[dllavaneras]

Lets see. So you do not see how sharpness, contrast, colour and saturation, bokeh, vignetting and CA problems can decide image quality, nor the sensor since you also discount that...

Good points, which are what I think about when I plan to get lenses.

Basically, it goes both ways. Good lenses are very important, but most people define "good" glass as models that cost more than the camera's we're talking about here, which I doubt is in the OP's budget right now.

Not at all. The Canon 50mm 1.8 delivers sharp, sharp pictures. And it doesn't cost you a kidney like the more specialized lenses, like the 600mm f5.6L. Of course, the build quality is not like the L series, but at under 100$, it delivers, big time.

I rely on a number of specific features and performance specifications to help me improve my chances of getting "keepers" more often than cameras without those features and specs, it has nothing to do with being a good or bad photographer

That's a good point as well. If you like the layout of the buttons and feel comfortable with it, your chance of getting the shot instead of fumbling with settings are increased a lot. But still, no matter how well your settings are set, or how quick/efficiently you can change them, if the lens is crap, most likely your pics won't be so good.

 

[EstorilM]

Lets see. So you do not see how sharpness, contrast, colour and saturation, bokeh, vignetting and CA problems can decide image quality, nor the sensor since you also discount that...

I'd advise you to read before you put words in my mouth again. It would save everyone a lot of time and energy in this thread.

I'm not saying you shouldn't care about the performance, and I'm certainly not saying that you should buy crap lenses - but there are PLENTY of good lenses from every manufacturer out there, which is something that I can't say about camera bodies.

I also didn't "discount the sensor" - I said that the sensors of current DSLRs on the market (especially the prosumer market) are very good, and thus shouldn't be argued as a serious decision-maker one way or another - there are more important differences at this point.

PS: It's obvious that you're having issues arguing this one - DO NOT start skewing my own words or quotes to try and make your arguments easier.

You seem to have left out just about everything I said in my other post (you know, all the factual stuff comparing the cameras?) In particular I'm waiting on that part where you know from hands on experience that the D200 has poor AF.

 

[EstorilM]

Not at all. The Canon 50mm 1.8 delivers sharp, sharp pictures. And it doesn't cost you a kidney like the more specialized lenses, like the 600mm f5.6L. Of course, the build quality is not like the L series, but at under 100$, it delivers, big time.

This is exactly my point though, the Nikkor equivalent is every bit as good and affordable.

 

[dllavaneras]

I'd advise you to read before you put words in my mouth again. It would save everyone a lot of time and energy in this thread.

Whoa, whoa... cool down! You do have a point, but let's not let a lens/camera difference in opinion turn into a verbal argument.

I also didn't "discount the sensor" - I said that the sensors of current DSLRs on the market (especially the prosumer market) are very good, and thus shouldn't be argued as a serious decision-maker one way or another - there are more important differences at this point.

This has been said before (by me, for one), and you're right about this.

This is exactly my point though, the Nikkor equivalent is every bit as good and affordable.

Thus proving my point that not every good lens costs you an arm and a leg.

 

[bhdean]

As I've said, I don't take many portraits, but a high FPS count is vital in my macro shots. I never underestimate it

Never really thought about high FPS and Macro before. I don't do any macro photography. I can see, where it would come in handy. Good to know, thanks!

 

[coldrain]

This is exactly my point though, the Nikkor equivalent is every bit as good and affordable.

Hey, didn't you start this debate after my post about what lenses in what category have a Nikon or a Canon advantage? And did I not point out that Nikon has the advantage on 50mm f1.8? And did not dllavaneras agree with my post? So... how is this your point?

My point was pointing out what lenses are better on what platform, and in what they excel or disappoint. I didn't make a blanket statement about "Canon lenses", nor about "Nikon lenses". Just answered the original poster's request, by giving real information about differences, and advice about what I think might be suitable lens categories for him to look at, including my reasoning behind that.

Then you bring up that a body is more important than the lens. And that is where my arguement about "Lets see. So you do not see how sharpness, contrast, colour and saturation, bokeh, vignetting and CA problems can decide image quality, nor the sensor since you also discount that..." comes in.

My position is that the lens and the sensor are more important to what esoteric functions a camera body has. And you apparently seem to think that it is teh body that makes the difference, not the lens. So... place my remark in that context.

And about AF performance, I never said that the D200's AF is "poor". Nowhere have I said that. I just claimed (and claim) that the 30D's AF performance is better. How is it better? In configuration and lots of confusing options? No, that is where the D200 is better. Where then? In tracking of moving subjects, and in actual AF speed (and resulting shutter lag).

 

[EstorilM]

Thus proving my point that not every good lens costs you an arm and a leg.

Yeah I know we're on the same page here, I was just talking about good "expensive" lenses; cheap primes are a must with any manufacturer. My point was that, at his price point, equivalent lenses across different mounts will give you VERY similar results, and thus, I'd rather spend more time looking at a body that fits you well.

 

[dllavaneras]

Never really thought about high FPS and Macro before. I don't do any macro photography. I can see, where it would come in handy. Good to know, thanks!

Yeah, it's an invaluable tool. To the OP: NEVER underestimate rapid fire mode! Here's a sample of using it on macro shots. I've also gotten bees in midflight...

My point was that, at his price point, equivalent lenses across different mounts will give you VERY similar results, and thus, I'd rather spend more time looking at a body that fits you well.

But if you're buying a DSLR, you're going to buy lenses eventually, and more expensive ones at that. It is THEN when you'll see if you made a good or bad choice choosing a manufacturer. I was looking at Nikon for my (eventual) first DSLR, because they have VR in their 100mm macro, which is very important to me. But then I shot with the Nikon VR and the Canon (both 100mm macros) and I liked the Canon better. Sharper and better contrast. On top of that they have the lens I need for my job, the MPE-65. Nikon doesn't have anything quite like it. I'm sure Nikon has a few lenses that Canon doesn't have, but for me, Canon is the way to go, because of the lenses, not the bodies. DSLR bodies will give you much better image quality (than a P&S), regardless of their model or maker

 

[Abstract]

Not at all. Just like you, I don't own this lens and wouldn't recommend it either. Just correcting your repeated false claim that it's not sharp, when the vast majority of reviews and owner's opinions, including the ones you've just quoted, say it is sharp. So Jeff says a prime lens is sharper than a zoom - no **** Sherlock, what an insightful review! Everyone else says it's sharp - for a zoom.

For an extreme zoom that goes down to 18 mm, it's not a bad performer. This lens is essentially one of the sharpest lenses Photozone.de has EVER tested (Photozone.de). It even hit the maximum that Photozone.de can test!!

I'd still rather have the 18-200 mm VR though if I'm going to put up with vignetting, chromatic abberation + fringing, and distortions at 18 mm and 35 mm. Why not? It has a wider range, shake reduction (VR), and just as many flaws. The vignetting is the biggest downside of the 18-135 mm to me because it's in every shot unless you stop down to f/5.6, or to f/8 if you use it at 135 mm. Actually, purple fringing seems to be a bigger issue in the 2 example photos I bothered to look at for this lens (and the OP won't notice it unless in extreme contrast conditions, where many better lenses have this problem anyway), but it won't be in every photo you take, as it depends on shooting conditions.

Personally, I think barrel distortion is generally worse than pincushion. Yes, there's noticeable barrel distortion at 18 mm, but if you're shooting a wideangle (18 mm) of a cityscape or in a forest, barrel distortion won't be a huge issue. It's when you start shooting a photo with a lot of straight vertical and horizontal lines where you're going to REALLY notice! Well that, and group photos, as it may make people standing near the edge of the frame look fatter than they are.

For a lens with 18-135 mm range, which are ALWAYS going to have their drawbacks, it's a decent lens. Think about it: The flaws in this lens are NOT (!) acceptable from a $1500 lens or large focal range lenses that start at 18 mm, but you're buying a ~$300 lens with a large range for general use, the flaws are acceptable. Sharpness is obviously not a flaw, so if you can put up with some purple fringing (in some photos) and distortion (in some photos), then it's a good lens for the price. It covers a huge range, it's inexpensive, and it's a super sharp lens.

 

[sjl]

Sorry I assumed that if a lens suffers from chromatic aberration and distortion that means it is poor.

It does. However, that's not what was stated - it was stated that the lens in question was one of Nikon's sharpest zooms. It's entirely possible for a lens to be very sharp, yet suffer from CA and various distortions at the same time. Sharpness is just one quality a lens designer needs to consider when building up a lens; any lens (especially a zoom lens) is a compromise between the different desirable qualities.

Nikon has a 18-200 VR(=image stabilization). It has quite a lot of barrel distortion at wide angle, pin cushion distortion at longer focal lengths, very soft edges especially in wide angle. Its build quality is a bit of a letdown for a $800 lens.
Canon, does not have a lens like this. A "comparable" lens for the Canon would be a Sigma 18-200, which has no image stabilization, but is half the price of the Nikon.
Advantage: Nikon

If you ignore the cost issue, Canon has the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM, which gives a very similar range to the 18-200mm when mounted on a 5D or 1Ds body.

As for the subject of the MP-E 65mm - fantastic lens, one that I wouldn't mind playing with someday. First priority, though, is the 100mm macro, and learning macro photography with that lens. Remember too that the MP-E is manual focus only (which is no big disadvantage for a macro lens - I doubt any autofocus system could do a good job with 5x magnification.)

 

[Abstract]

I know 5 people who have bought either D40's, D70's or 400D's within the past 6 months alone yet not one of them has bought a lens other then the standard one included with the kit.

Exactly. Some people just want a good overall lens, maybe another when necessary, and just keep using the same 1 or 2 lenses on the camera.

People talk about a lens being soft or having this issue or that but the truth is any lens can give bad results if you don't know how to use it. HSM/USM motors are great but will you see any advantage in them no, only trade off is a few milliseconds in speed and a bit more noise. The truly great photographers are just that not because they take the sharpest pics but because they take the most opportune and memorable.

Good advice, once again. People didn't always have HSM. Didn't matter to them, did it? Yes, certain things have their advantages, but really, the camera is "better" than you. With ANY DSLR, you're going to take photos of wonderful quality, but the photo may still be crap because of you, the photographer.