Canon vs Nikon - Lenses

[coldrain]

The combined reviews of photozone, Ken Rockwell, Thom Hogan and SLRgear do point to that the other reviewers that state the lens to being soft have had bad samples. When you look at the full res. examples of Jeff Keller, you can not come to a much different conclusion than he did with the sample he had though.

So, I have revised my opinion about the sharpness ofthis lens... I still am sceptical of it being a lens of choice for expensive DSLRs though, in respect to its flaws (vignetting, CA, the dirtortion that come with being such a long zoom).

Thanks to Abstract for noticing the photozone review was already posted.

 

[Abstract]

Well again, the 18-135 mm has flaws, but for a large range zoom lens for ~$300 USD, it's fantastic in sharpness, with purple fringing in some situations, and distortion at some focal lengths (which only stands out) in some situations, depending on subject.

If you're going to get flaws like this from a general lens with a big range, fine. It's good performance and range for the price. However, you may as well get the 18-200 mm, as it has an even longer range, equal in the level of flaws (less sharp than the 18-135 mm, but also less CA and vignetting (probably) while still being sharp), and VR/IS/OS (shake reduction) in the lens. It does cost more.

Otherwise, in terms of noise, it's not as big an issue as you think. If you're talking to someone who stares at his photos from a computer screen and zooms in all the way, it'll look bad. If you print them, noise almost never looks as bad as it does on-screen (try making an 8 x 10 print of a "noisy" photo and see just how noisy it is), and even then it's not a huge factor in real world situations. It may be in lab testing or something, but you want to go out and take photographs, right?

Proper exposure is probably a bigger factor in noise levels produced at high ISO than which camera brand you choose. Learn to use your camera, and you'll be fine.

 

[EstorilM]

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?

It's my point because people were acting like you could grab a Nikkor lens off a shelf at a camera store and the odds are that you'd get (noticeably) crappier results with it, when compared to an equivalent canon lens, which isn't the case (for most inexpensive lenses.) Even if I gave the edge to Canon optics, I don't think that the net result and IQ would be really obvious - I'm just saying that this whole thing is being blown out of proportion here. I think both companies have good offerings and that I'd focus more on the bodies and the different philosophies the companies use when engineering them (like Nikon's commitment to good ergonomics and handling.)

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.

..and again, a lot of people would consider many of the differences you pointed out to be trivial. I don't think there is a clear winner here, if there was - one of them would be out of business.

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.

Again, no, I said if all things were equal between two lenses (ie. well qualified lenses such as 70-200 2.8s) better functionality, handling, speed, menu layout, viewfinder, focus, etc.. will lend to better results and an increased number of keepers.

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.

Well, considering that the first Nikkor lens I bought for this camera (at $1700) cost more than the body itself, I'd really like to put an end to this cliche that I don't think optics are important. Obviously, they are, or I would never have been able to justify that purchase. Let's just say that BOTH are important, HOWEVER I would have had the exact same lens option in the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS if I had gone with a different camera company (which makes the lenses less important from a PURCHASING point of view, not a quality point of view - in other words when worrying about which company to go with, I'd rest assured knowing that both offer good lenses when I'm ready for them, so I wouldn't worry about that aspect of the purchase as much.) I think people were misunderstanding me in that respect.

And about AF performance, I never said that the D200's AF is "poor". Nowhere have I said that.

You didn't? Really? Ok.

And since when its the rather appaling AF of the D200 better than the excellent AF of the 5D?

hm

...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).

Hah ok well, Nikon's system is far more complex, has more photosites, lower light requirements for AF, lower contrast requirements for AF - has faster AF activation, acquisition, and tracking. Not to mention the fact that all of these variables are adjustable in the menus (very easily I might add) such as the lock-on time, tracking time, etc.

You still didn't answer my question about when you were able to use the D200 (much less to track subjects in a real-world performance test, and how it came out below the 30D.) It just seems to be a blatantly opinionated comment that I shouldn't even justify it with a response, but I'm tired of people telling less knowledgeable viewers on the forum that one camera is better than another based on opinions, especially when these people call out to us for their help on rather large purchases.


Read around - I've looked at enough formal tests of these cameras with the exact same result of the D200 coming out on top to know that one is better than the other. In fact, DCI has a review of the D200 vs. 5D that put it's AF system above that of the 5D, which is better than the older more simplified version found in the 30D (and 20D.)

The D200's shutter lag of 50ms is still 15ms faster than the 30D's by the way (D200's viewfinder blackout time is also quicker FYI.)

I'm surprised no one has brought up the flash systems of the two companies yet, that's a fairly large part of any camera. The D200 has probably the most powerful internal flash-commander system of any camera on the market (due to the fact that professional cameras require external flash commanders on the hot shoe, unlike the D200 which has the internal iTTL speedlite/commander.) This is where the 3D aspect of the Nikon metering system is worth it's weight in gold (allowing the camera to determine flash information based on camera to subject distances.)

Throw in full support for the new CLS (creative lighting system) and the ability to control 3 independent groups of flashes (unlimited number of flashes in each group) with different settings and exposure for each group of flashes (all based on TTL information obtained before the shot) and well, there's not much that will compete against it in that department - the internal commander can also control the mini sb-r200 ring strobes for macro photography (each one can be positioned differently on the ring) again, without the need to buy a flash commander. It's internal flash can also function as a stroboscobe (with programmable frequency, intensity, duration, etc.)

 

[dllavaneras]

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.)

Well, I've had my fair shares of macros, at big magnifications and basically manual focusing. It's amazing what a Canon S1 (a prosumer P&S, but a P&S nevertheless) can do for you if you know how to handle it... A few macros are in my nature gallery (link in my sig)

This is where the 3D aspect of the Nikon metering system is worth it's weight in gold (allowing the camera to determine flash information based on camera to subject distances.)

AFAIK, Canon has this too. I want to get the Speedlite 580 and the description says it calculates the flash power output based on the distance of the subjects, which is calculated by the lens. Pretty sweet if you ask me

Bottom line is: Both companies have awesome equipment. You're turning this Nikon vs Canon debate into pretty much any Windows vs Mac OS X debate, only in this case both make good products

 

[sjl]

Well, I've had my fair shares of macros, at big magnifications and basically manual focusing. It's amazing what a Canon S1 (a prosumer P&S, but a P&S nevertheless) can do for you if you know how to handle it... A few macros are in my nature gallery (link in my sig)

It's amazing what any P&S can do in the hands of somebody who knows how to handle it. (well, almost; I'm sure there are P&S cameras out there that are utter rubbish, but they'd be the exception rather than the rule.) Knowing how to use the tool is nine tenths of the battle, as with anything.

AFAIK, Canon has this too. I want to get the Speedlite 580 and the description says it calculates the flash power output based on the distance of the subjects, which is calculated by the lens. Pretty sweet if you ask me

The catch there is that not all Canon lenses will provide this information to the camera. eg: I know that my 50mm f/1.4 (and my 50mm f/1.8) will not. Also, the camera will only use the information if the flash is pointed directly at the subject; as soon as you tilt or swivel the flash head, even slightly, the distance information is rendered useless - the camera "knows" that the light won't be travelling directly, so will revert to other methods of figuring out the exposure.

As has been said many, many times in this forum: both Nikon and Canon manufacture products that will more than satisfy the needs of most photographers. I'd not hesitate to recommend either to anybody looking at DSLRs.

 

[janil]

Well again, the 18-135 mm has flaws, but for a large range zoom lens for ~$300 USD, it's fantastic in sharpness, with purple fringing in some situations, and distortion at some focal lengths (which only stands out) in some situations, depending on subject.

I agree. I have the 18-135mm, and it's a really good choice for its purpose-- a general lens for amateur photographers starting out with a new hobby.

My D80 + 18-135mm is much nicer than my previous point & shoot camera.
I'm sure most of the basic Canon and Pentax lenses are good enough as well.

I know and understand that the lens is not perfect, but I still have more to learn until I get to that point. My 105vr micro is a better lens, but it's also much heavier and costs 2-3 times the price.

The original poster mentioned they liked the feel of the 30D more than the D80. If that's the case, it makes sense for the OP to get the 30D.

If the D200 is in the OP's budget, it might not hurt to look at that model as well.

 

[ChrisA]

i've been pondering a sigma lens for my Canon digital. is it any better than the Canon brand lenses?

No. Sihma competes by either being cheaper or making a lens that Canon/nikon does not make. If it is cheaper it is for a reason.

But you can't compare the quality of a brand to another brand you have to compare two specific lenses. Canon makes some low-end stuff and Sigma makes some good stuff. Quality overlaps.

There is much to a lens that is not in the spec sheet. So you have to read reviews and talk to oners and look at the lens.

 

[dllavaneras]

It's amazing what any P&S can do in the hands of somebody who knows how to handle it.

Definitely. That's why my 3 MP camera outperforms my friends' 5-6-7 MP camera every time

The catch there is that not all Canon lenses will provide this information to the camera. Also, the camera will only use the information if the flash is pointed directly at the subject; as soon as you tilt or swivel the flash head, even slightly, the distance information is rendered useless - the camera "knows" that the light won't be travelling directly, so will revert to other methods of figuring out the exposure.

That's even more awesome! I thought it only calculated based on the lens and that was that. Gotta love technology these days

But you can't compare the quality of a brand to another brand you have to compare two specific lenses. Canon makes some low-end stuff and Sigma makes some good stuff. Quality overlaps.

Like the Canon 100mm macro and the Sigma 105mm macro lens. Both really good, sharp, contrasty lenses There are some gems in 3rd party lenses.

 

[psycho bob]

No. Sihma competes by either being cheaper or making a lens that Canon/nikon does not make. If it is cheaper it is for a reason.

Unfortunately the lower cost is not always based upon optical quality. Sigma are one of the biggest optical glass makers, certainly for photographic mediums, and has such benefit from huge economies of scale. All the latest EX DG lenses benefit hugely from test and experience not to mention digital specific designs and coating. The main draw backs usually found with these lenses are size and a lack of refinement when it comes to say auto focus noise levels.

I have my Sigma 24-70 EX DG mounted on my D200 right now, it is as solid as a rock and pin sharp. Yet it cost about a third of the equivalent Nikon lens. In absolute terms would the more expensive lens be better, probably but we are talking a few % difference. I don't care what anyone says unless your being hugely anal and referring to lens charts and MTF tables you will notice no difference.

The vast majority of modern lenses will perform pretty much the same way for 95% of users. To say because a lens has a Canon name on it that it will automatically be on a par or better than say a Sigma is complete bull. The Canon 50mm 1.8 macro is on a par price wise with the Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro yet having used both extensively (and owning the Sigma for my SD9) the Sigma is better without question at any aperture. The Canon is immensely soft. Now this could be argued is down to a bad example but unless an individual spent days with numerous examples you would never know, to an extent you have to trust the manufacturer. Just for reference the Canon lens was used on a 350, 400 and a 30D and with out fail the 3/4 year old Sigma SD9 out resolved it every time in this scenario.

I maintain what I said before. Unless your going to be making money from your shots, and even then it doesn't matter really if your technique is solid and you don't buy a complete dog, just buy a camera your going to enjoy and a reasonable lens that covers a focal length your going to use. As a general rule of thumb the longer the focal range covered the more you need to pay to get the same quality of a lens which covers a shorter range. If your mainly doing family and general snapshots your not likely to need anything over 120mm and if you do get a lens that does just telephoto duties. Something in the 18-80 range on a D80 will give you the equivalent of a 27-120 which covers a huge range of bases.

 

[coldrain]

Unfortunately the lower cost is not always based upon optical quality. Sigma are one of the biggest optical glass makers, certainly for photographic mediums, and has such benefit from huge economies of scale. All the latest EX DG lenses benefit hugely from test and experience not to mention digital specific designs and coating. The main draw backs usually found with these lenses are size and a lack of refinement when it comes to say auto focus noise levels.

While some Sigma lenses are very good, others really do not reach the optical quality of the more expensive Canon counter part.
The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is of course a very good lens, as are Sigma's 50/70/105/150/180mm macro lenses.
But then there are some lenses that are not all that great either. Same with Tamron, and now even with Tokina which has at least 2 winners in its line-up. Some EX lenses really are not all that great.

For instance... my Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC has given me some really nice photos (although with a slight yellow-ish warm cast that is very Sigma). But also, it has given some disappointing shots at times, with a lack of contrast due to maybe internal reflections and CA troubles.
The Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS USM would have done a lot better... it is also almost 3 times the price. So... the Sigma is good for the money, the Canon is just plain very good.

As to AF motors, it is not just about noise levels, but also about precision. And you will find that USM and HSM motors nail focus much more often.

I have my Sigma 24-70 EX DG mounted on my D200 right now, it is as solid as a rock and pin sharp. Yet it cost about a third of the equivalent Nikon lens. In absolute terms would the more expensive lens be better, probably but we are talking a few % difference. I don't care what anyone says unless your being hugely anal and referring to lens charts and MTF tables you will notice no difference.

Yes, your 24-70 f2.8 (and the 28-70 2.8 Sigma too) are nice lenses for the money. But on the whole, they do not quite reach the qualities of the 28-70 f2.8 Nikkor or the 24-70 f2.8 Canon. So, in a way this is in line with what has been said before, you get what you pay for (and also with the law of diminishing returns).

The vast majority of modern lenses will perform pretty much the same way for 95% of users. To say because a lens has a Canon name on it that it will automatically be on a par or better than say a Sigma is complete bull. The Canon 50mm 1.8 macro is on a par price wise with the Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro yet having used both extensively (and owning the Sigma for my SD9) the Sigma is better without question at any aperture. The Canon is immensely soft. Now this could be argued is down to a bad example but unless an individual spent days with numerous examples you would never know, to an extent you have to trust the manufacturer. Just for reference the Canon lens was used on a 350, 400 and a 30D and with out fail the 3/4 year old Sigma SD9 out resolved it every time in this scenario.

Canon has no 50mm f1.8 macro lens. Canon does not even have a 50mm f2.8 macro lens, so it can not be attributed to a typo either...
The Canon 50mm f1.8 is a $80 low cost affair, and for a 50mm lens it performs quite well, especially considering the price. Not sure why you would want to compare it with the 50mm f2.8 macro from Sigma though...
And yes, that 50mm macro from Sigma is a very good lens optically. A steal in macro land, which I will advice to every macro shooter with a small budget. Canon does make a 1:2 50mm f2.5 macro, an old but very sharp design. The 50mm Sigma is best compared to the Canon 60mm f2.8 macro and the Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro. All three are very good for their purpose.

I maintain what I said before. Unless your going to be making money from your shots, and even then it doesn't matter really if your technique is solid and you don't buy a complete dog, just buy a camera your going to enjoy and a reasonable lens that covers a focal length your going to use. As a general rule of thumb the longer the focal range covered the more you need to pay to get the same quality of a lens which covers a shorter range. If your mainly doing family and general snapshots your not likely to need anything over 120mm and if you do get a lens that does just telephoto duties. Something in the 18-80 range on a D80 will give you the equivalent of a 27-120 which covers a huge range of bases.

I disagree with the assessment of getting a cheap "adequate" lens. Contrast, the saturation of colours, and even sharpness and smooth bokeh, they will show up and make a photo a lot more attractive, even if it is in subtle ways... and this works inspirational. Also, people gettinga DSLR will notice (most of them anyway) that their photography will grow... and with it will the appreciation of good optics.

So, my rule is, get the best optics you can afford and that fit your use (my "use" is not too big and heavy since I take my camera with me all the time).

 

[drlunanerd]

Well again, the 18-135 mm has flaws, but for a large range zoom lens for ~$300 USD, it's fantastic in sharpness, with purple fringing in some situations, and distortion at some focal lengths (which only stands out) in some situations, depending on subject.

If you're going to get flaws like this from a general lens with a big range, fine. It's good performance and range for the price. However, you may as well get the 18-200 mm, as it has an even longer range, equal in the level of flaws (less sharp than the 18-135 mm, but also less CA and vignetting (probably) while still being sharp), and VR/IS/OS (shake reduction) in the lens. It does cost more.

I've owned two of the Nikon 18-200 lenses now and I was never that happy with it. Where it fell down for me was at long focal lengths, the vignetting and softness really spoilt too many shots for me. Stopping it down helped, but then you lost what little speed you had and it just becomes too much of a compromise. I'm sure if I was a better photographer I could squeeze more performance out of it, but when I realised I was getting better shots from the cheap 18-55 kit lens I had to ask myself what I was doing with lugging a mediocre £500 lens around? Better to invest in something like a 70-300 VR for when you really need the extra reach over a mid range zoom without breaking the bank, IMO

It's all horses for courses with lenses, and as people had said before there are compromises in all the designs, and some people might not be bothered by them and some will.

 

[psycho bob]

While some Sigma lenses are very good, others really do not reach the optical quality of the more expensive Canon counter part. Zip...

It was a typo I meant the Canon 50mm 2.5 which with Canon Life Size Adapter which will do 1:1 hence the comparison with the 50mm Sigma. The results between these two were night and day in favour of the all Sigma combo.

The Canon 24-70 is a great lens but is far more costly and once again not all of them are created equal. Some people have reported back focusing issues and softness at wider apertures. You obviously have a good eye and have personal experience of most lenses but I don't see many people being able to tell the difference in everyday photography.

The Sigma 18-50 EX DC is a very solid lens for the money and the fact it stands up against the larger, heavier image stabilised Canon costing much more is a huge testament. The new macro edition of the Sigma is a further improvement and refinement.

USM/HSM does indeed make a difference but it is very small even from a precision point of view. For over a decade autofocus has managed with normal motors, designs have been refined and when executed correctly most none pros will see little difference.

I don't advocate the idea that lens quality isn't important, it really really is. But for a none pro buying their first DSLR I just see it as potentially throwing a lot of money away unnecessarily if you say to automatically spend over $xxxx on a lens to gain a few extra % in absolute performance. Far better to get something solid and reliable at a reasonable price while you learn about the equipment and what you really enjoy photographing. When your happy then go and invest in more lenses. I'd rather have a nice selection of lower cost primes and the odd useful zoom than one expensive zoom as my only lens.

In absolute lens range terms Canon probably have the advantage but there is the issue about compatibility. You buy a Nikon lens from 1980 and the chances are it will work (manual focus but with metering) on a modern Nikon DSLR. Buy a Canon lens from a few years back and it might need rechipping something I don't really understand; there is no need for these incompatibilities. When it comes to bodies and features per price point I would give Nikon the advantage.

I just don't see any real differences between the makes be it in the form or bodies or lenses. You can go on for pages and pages saying this is better then that or vice versa, just go to a shop and try for yourself. If this entire topic has raised only one issue it is that one persons gold is another's hell. As a user of both Sigma SD9 and SD10 bodies I was waiting for the SD14 but with its delay I needed a stop gap measure. No one make provided anything to really draw me in. The new Fuji S4 looks good but isn't out, Canon cameras will allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to take solid pictures and offer a lot of bang per buck but I was put off by there design and view finders which I find too small. We won't even discuss the 5D or 1D which because of their full frame nature offer something completely different. The Olympus four thirds system is very nice, the bodies are well designed and offer some unique features but I wanted to stay with one of the big two so there would be a reliable roadmap. That then left me with Nikon. The majority of professionals I've spoken too seem to favour Nikon cameras if for nothing more than the body design and user interface. The D80 all things considered is about the best body you can get right now taking in to account features, quality and price. I decided to go for the D200 to get a sealed body, extra speed and potentially higher resale value.

My point is no one camera really fitted my requirements 100%, it is all about compromise even when a large budget is available. Spending lots of money does not always buy the best tool for that individual But I shall prepare to be corrected!

 

[bluewire]

a tip a friend gave me

See Below....

 

[bluewire]

a tip a friend gave me

I recently bought an 400D XTI (which has been great).

A friend of mine gave me a tip. Take a CF card to a camera store and snap a bunch of pictures at different ISOs and settings with multiple cameras. Take it home and digest out which picture quality and ISO performance is acceptable for you.

Good luck!

 

[coldrain]

...

The Sigma 18-50 EX DC is a very solid lens for the money and the fact it stands up against the larger, heavier image stabilised Canon costing much more is a huge testament. The new macro edition of the Sigma is a further improvement and refinement.

...

In absolute lens range terms Canon probably have the advantage but there is the issue about compatibility. You buy a Nikon lens from 1980 and the chances are it will work (manual focus but with metering) on a modern Nikon DSLR. Buy a Canon lens from a few years back and it might need rechipping something I don't really understand; there is no need for these incompatibilities. When it comes to bodies and features per price point I would give Nikon the advantage.

My point is no one camera really fitted my requirements 100%, it is all about compromise even when a large budget is available. Spending lots of money does not always buy the best tool for that individual But I shall prepare to be corrected!

I myself often advise a Sigma lens, make no mistake. And I myself sometimes advice a Tamron... and even a Tokina.
So, I do not think we vary much on that. I have a Canon Ef 70-200 f4 L, a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC, a Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 Di Macro and a Tokina 12-24mm f4. And a Soligor 1.7x TC.

This thread was about what platfrom was better though, in repect to lenses from Canon and Nikon, in the OP's interests. And that is what I originally adviced him/her about.

About Nikon, Canon and lens compatibility, it is actually the other way around.
Canon changed lens mount and mirror box dimentions with the introduction of the EOS range in the mid/late 1980's. They also decided to put the AF motor inside the lens. All EF lenses produced since then will work fine on any EOS camera.

The rechipping you are referring to is something that is a Sigma thing. Sigma reverse engineered the connection and electronics for the Canon AF system, and made Canon EF mount lenses. The electronic signals that Sigma lenses would work with are not exact to the specification though (impedance stuff and such), and with the more "precise" digital EOS SLRs this can give an incompatibility with older Sigma lenses and the setting of the aperture during the taking of a photo, giving an "err. 99" on the camera. These Sigma lenses will need "rechipping", to bring their electronics up to spec.

Nikon has not changed their actual mount when going from manual to AF lenses, in that you are correct. But... Nikon also cripples their affordable cameras (D40/D50/D70/D70s/D80). If you put a lens on one of these bodies that is pre AF, you can not use the camera to meter for you. You have to use M-mode, and meter for yourself. And this is a big drawback.

Nikon's more expenisive cameras (D200/D2x/h) will meter... strange huh?

It becomes even stranger when you know that if you put a Nikon pre AF lens on ANY EOS DSLR from Nikon with a Nikon to Canon EF adapter, the camera WILL meter for you when you set the aperture on the lens and just let the camera think the aperture doesn't change, and adjust its shutter speed accordingly.

So... for manual pre-AF lenses, a Canon EOS+adapter is a better choice than a sub D200 Nikon.

And all EF lenses will of course work... and you can even mount Nikon AF lenses with that Nikon adapter.

So... the situation in AF lenses is the same for Nikon and Canon, all Nikon AF lenses work on Nikon cameras, all Canon EF lenses work on any Canon EOS camera. Except some Sigma lenses (and maybe some other 3rd party lenses?) which return wrong electrical signals.

That is, if you do not count the Nikon D40, which also will refuse to AF with any lens that is more than a few years old (the non AF-S lenses).

On the XTI and D40, the XTi wins easily, no matter how you look at it. 6mp vs 10mp is a huge difference, the XTi is a lot more complete, and the XTi has backward lens compatibility of 20 years, something that can not be said about the D40. And the XTi comes with good RAW conversion software.
On the XTi vs D80 I would myself give neither an advantage, both are comparable in features that matter, and the XTi is a bit cheaper, while the D80 is a bit bigger.
On the 30D vs D80 I would give the 30D the advantage camera wise, but the D80 the price advantage (but realize the D80 does not come with good RAW conversion software, that adds 150$ to its price).

However... when you compare good lenses from Nikon and Canon, the Canon lenses are quite a bit cheaper over the board.
This has no bearing on people who buy a 3rd party lens though, like you and I. But then again, people who get trapped in buying a Nikon D40 do not really have many 3rd party options.

 

[coldrain]

I recently bought an 400D XTI (which has been great).

A friend of mine gave me a tip. Take a CF card to a camera store and snap a bunch of pictures at different ISOs and settings with multiple cameras. Take it home and digest out which picture quality and ISO performance is acceptable for you.

Good luck!

That would work if all DSLRs would use CF... but some now use SD cards!
CF is preferred by professionals because it is easier to handle because of their size (especially when you have cold hands).
But SD is showing up more and more because it is preffered by camera designers who want the extra space CF would use up inside the body.

So... your tip is fine, if you take 2 cards! 1 CF card and 1 SD card .

 

[bloosqr]

Hey.

I am getting close to purchasing a DSLR. I've had a point and shoot for a while (currently a SD550), but want 'more'.
Thanks in advance.

If you have $3000 to spend (is that US?), look to see if you can get the double rebate (it may have just expired) for canon..

I think $3000 is a lot of money (perhaps too much) to be spending right now before you have a chance to see what you really need.. but I would get

A body 30d (the 40d is about to come out) .. or actually the rebel xti (its only $500 or so) if you can snag the canon rebates you may even be able to snag the canon 5d which is i think $2200 w/ rebates.. its up to you.. the canon 5d is amazing but the xti would probably make more sense financially, since you can use it for 2 years and by then the 5d equivalent will be cheap..

I would then get the 16-35 /2.8 lens..

I would stop there and/or buy the 50/1.8 as well (if you are feeling rich get the 50/1.4 its a bit better (I have that and i like it better than the 1.8))

so your cheap route is xti/16-35 2.8 / 50 1.8. its actually not that cheap since the 16-35 is quite expensive but you'll be happy. This will give you a 25->56 and a fixed 80 (and the kit lens that came w/ the xti since its almost free ).. The trick w/ the 50/1.8 is you can use it indoors w/ no flash and take amazing photos.. (no zoom though .. but no flash will make up for it .. and truth be told those uber expensive 2.8 zoom lenses aren't that good for low light either)

Beyond that I would get the 28-135 IS. I have this lens.. it is an older version of IS, its really an outdoor lens (as in moderate light conditions), its very good. Its also not that expensive! If you are feeling fancy instead of that lens you can get the 24-105 /f4 L IS. Its a newer version of IS but I would wait till you are bored of the 28-135 IS to be honest (and just sell that and the xti)

Beyond that .. instead of getting the 70-200 /f4 L I would get the 70-200 /f4 L IS. IS is definitely worth it in the long end.

The reason I would tell you to wait before you start buying a lot of expensive L zooms etc.. is once you play w/ that I've mentioned, you'll have a sense of what you need. For instance do you want low light zooms (2.8) or is f4 good enough? (or more convenient since they dont weigh 100000 lbs). Only you can answer this not us.. but you'll be able to answer this better when you play w/ what you have first.. and you dont want to spend $1600 on a fancy lens you find too heavy to use in practice..

-best,
-avi

 

[psycho bob]

I myself often advise a Sigma lens, make no mistake. And I myself sometimes advice a Tamron... and even a Tokina.
So, I do not think we vary much on that. I have a Canon Ef 70-200 f4 L, a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC, a Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 Di Macro and a Tokina 12-24mm f4. And a Soligor 1.7x TC.

This thread was about what platfrom was better though, in repect to lenses from Canon and Nikon, in the OP's interests. And that is what I originally adviced him/her about. zip...

The ability to mount nearly 50 years worth of Nikon lenses is an advantage though. The Canon story is quite an intriguing one. The FD system was very good, the final T90 body being quite exceptional and as advanced as just about any EOS mount film body lacking only the obvious auto focus. Canon did in fact experiment with external auto focus but these were abandoned in favour of the current EOS system. Had FD been able to incorporate auto focus there really would have been no need for EOS. If your in the market for some good old film cameras the Canon FD system is very appealing, lots of lens choice at usually reasonable prices. One advantage of the Nikon mount being you can use the same lenses on both their digital and film cameras where as the latest EF-S lenses (like the Sigma DC counterparts) are digital cropped sensor only. But we digress...

The Sigma re-chipping is quite intriguing. The Sigma mount itself is essentially a re-engineered EOS mount using, as it does, the same registration distance and visually, at least, the same contact positions. It is still a little funny that previous lenses which worked fine on EOS film caused problems with the move to Canon digital especially with the launch of the 300D. If the mount is sticking to the standard it created the lens should work. Anyway this is getting way off topic... so I'll move on.

To the last poster suggesting the 5D I really wouldn't have thought this would make a good all around camera for snapping family portraits and general snapshots. It is a large camera, and the full frame nature does have draw backs. Something as simple as the lack of a pop up flash is also a hindrance for this sort of photography. When you start needing to carry speedlights and a full bag of accessories for a trip to the seaside...

Adapters are available as you say but my experience with these is that they do have a very noticeable effect on image quality. A number of FD to EOS adapters can be found but none really produce particularly good results. I believe there is even a Nikon to EOS adapter but die to the different registration distances this is unlikely to produce great results either. I don't think the original poster will need to be particularly concerned with this though as they have no existing lenses.

The D80 is better built than the XTi, more customisable and the use of a solid pentaprism instead of a pentamirror really does make a difference in the viewfinder. Canon will nearly always win on price, bar the D40, but Nikon seem to find a better overall balance although as you noted the software package is poor. The D80 is on a level with the 30D in my opinion if you don't need to use a studio flash or require a more weatherproof body. Personally I lump the D40, D50 (now retired) and 400D all in together with the Sony Alpha and Olympus models. The D80, 30D and above all feel much more substantial and nicer tools but don't necessarily offer anything more from an image quality point of view.

 

[VanMac]

Thanks again for all the great posts. Good Info.

I'm hoping to get into the shop tonight and Manhandle a few bodies. Likely between a 30D, D80, D200. I'll let you know what I find out....

 

[taylorwilsdon]

I've got a Digital Rebel XT and a D80, and even though they're not really in the same category - damn, the D80 is NICE. If I could do it over again, I'd look at a XTi, but with what I've got, the D80 is way better. The large LCD is a real plus. My pop has a D200 and its fantastic, but I don't see it offering that much over the D80.

With that said, I use the XT more. Go figure

 

[bloosqr]

Quite honestly .. and thinking about it..(as per discussion of the 5d above) i would get the rebel xti w/ kit lens and the 50 1.8 along w/ a circular polarizer for one of the lenses and *not buy anything else for at least two months* there is a nikon equivalent to this which will be just as good (I just happen to know canon's stuff). The point of holding off for two months, is it will tell you what you are missing before you spend a lot of money guessing. (i.e wide-angle, low light, IS, telephoto etc )


I know its not as much fun as spending $3k in one go.. but think of it as spending $600 (or so) in one go and having the other $2400 be a much more informed purchase.

People here will point you to a nikon equivalent that will be just as good.. Currently the main advantages that I know of for canon are IS is relatively cheap and works really well, and they also have a "cheapish" full frame camera ..

btw not to throw you completely off I have to say the pentax k10d looks positively amazing.. They have done a lot of right things on that (iso mode for instance) and IS built into the camera!

 

[dllavaneras]

A body 30d (the 40d is about to come out)

Oh no, please don't go there! This will turn into another "Powerbook G5 next tuesday" kind of thing. If Canon keeps to it's 18 month product cycle, the bodies due for a revision are the 1 series and the 5D. This would mean that the 30D would be updated in October. With pressure from Nikon and the D80 you never know, but people were expecting the 40D since last October.

or actually the rebel xti (its only $500 or so) if you can snag the canon rebates you may even be able to snag the canon 5d which is i think $2200 w/ rebates..

That is if you want to live witht the rebate hassle. It's not a discount, you have to have the money upfront.

 

[sjl]

Quite honestly .. and thinking about it..(as per discussion of the 5d above) i would get the rebel xti w/ kit lens and the 50 1.8 along w/ a circular polarizer for one of the lenses and *not buy anything else for at least two months* there is a nikon equivalent to this which will be just as good (I just happen to know canon's stuff). The point of holding off for two months, is it will tell you what you are missing before you spend a lot of money guessing. (i.e wide-angle, low light, IS, telephoto etc )

Sound advice. I'm at the point where I'm debating the pros and cons of keeping the 100-400mm versus selling it and getting the 10-22mm instead. Don't get me wrong, I love the 100-400mm; I'm just not sure if I'm getting my money's worth out of it, whereas I can see myself getting a lot of use from the 10-22mm (especially once I have the money for an underwater housing). There's also the point that, of the shots I have on flickr, the ones I find the most appealing tend to be taken at 50mm or less.

I'm deferring the decision until after I've headed out to the Werribee Open Range Zoo - that's one trip where the 100-400mm will definitely be of value. Lions and tigers (no bears), oh my!

Oh no, please don't go there! This will turn into another "Powerbook G5 next tuesday" kind of thing.

What - you mean that there won't be Powerbook G5s released next Tuesday?! Now I'm feeling really jibbed!

 

[bloosqr]

Oh no, please don't go there! This will turn into another "Powerbook G5 next tuesday" kind of thing. If Canon keeps to it's 18 month product cycle, the bodies due for a revision are the 1 series and the 5D. This would mean that the 30D would be updated in October. With pressure from Nikon and the D80 you never know, but people were expecting the 40D since last October.

heheh did you see these leaks from today?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/22/canon-EOS-40d-on-the-way/

 

[EstorilM]

Nikon has not changed their actual mount when going from manual to AF lenses, in that you are correct. But... Nikon also cripples their affordable cameras (D40/D50/D70/D70s/D80). If you put a lens on one of these bodies that is pre AF, you can not use the camera to meter for you. You have to use M-mode, and meter for yourself. And this is a big drawback.

Nikon's more expenisive cameras (D200/D2x/h) will meter... strange huh?

It becomes even stranger when you know that if you put a Nikon pre AF lens on ANY EOS DSLR from Nikon with a Nikon to Canon EF adapter, the camera WILL meter for you when you set the aperture on the lens and just let the camera think the aperture doesn't change, and adjust its shutter speed accordingly.

So... for manual pre-AF lenses, a Canon EOS+adapter is a better choice than a sub D200 Nikon.

And all EF lenses will of course work... and you can even mount Nikon AF lenses with that Nikon adapter.

So... the situation in AF lenses is the same for Nikon and Canon, all Nikon AF lenses work on Nikon cameras, all Canon EF lenses work on any Canon EOS camera. Except some Sigma lenses (and maybe some other 3rd party lenses?) which return wrong electrical signals.

That is, if you do not count the Nikon D40, which also will refuse to AF with any lens that is more than a few years old (the non AF-S lenses).

What. Are. You. Talking. About. ???

Where are you getting this information?

Here's a very easy to read chart for your viewing pleasure, showing almost all Nikon cameras, and Nikon's lens compatibility with them.

http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html#chart

Skip to the bottom right chart - notice how all the cameras (ie. consumer and professional) have the same functionality?

I'd LOVE to know where you're getting this information from, as it might explain a large amount of your mis-information regarding Nikon equipment.


edit: The bottom line is that it's very foolish to try and argue that Canon has more lens compatibility than Nikon, this is simply not true - there's a 99.9% chance that any Nikon lens you ever run into will function on your camera if you've got an F-Mount. Canon has changed things around quite a few times.