nikon pro lenses

[BuddyRockefella]

im looking in getting my first dslr soon and im doing some research in to lenses i would like to get in the future so i can decide on a brand i would like to get. im leaning towards canon because of their L series lenses and their large range. i dont know much about nikon lenses and would like to know m ore.

im looking to purcase a canon 450d or 40d but may go for a d80 or d60 with a nifty fifty f:1.8

 

[synth3tik]

Not only is Canon L glass just awesome, but Canon also has the largest diameter lenses. This means that with a small adapter you could use basically any lens. With some exceptions. Also the adapters are so slim that the lens can still (technically) focus to infinity.

I use a Canon XT with old Nikon AI prime lenses. These lenses are great and rather inexpensive. For me it is great as my old man used to shoot with Nikons in the 70s and I just got a big bag of Nikon AIs.

 

[BuddyRockefella]

yea i heard nikons have great compalibility thats one of the features im looking for. when i upgrade my camera in a few year i plan to get a full frame camera. so the lens would have to be compatible.

 

[BuddyRockefella]

what are some equivalent nikon lenses to canon L series lenses. im looking for something like

Wide angle: Canon 16-35mm
Standard Angle: Canon 24-70mm
Telephoto: Canon 70-200mm

what would be the nikon equivalent to them lenses

 

[OreoCookie]

what are some equivalent nikon lenses to canon L series lenses. im looking for something like

Wide angle: Canon 16-35mm
Standard Angle: Canon 24-70mm
Telephoto: Canon 70-200mm

First of all, with very, very few exceptions, for each Canon lens, there is an equivalent Nikkor. Unless you are interested in something very particular (loupe macro lenses or Nikon's DC lenses), all lenses have an equivalent. Judging from your list, you are only interested in standard focal length ranges which is covered not only by Nikon and Canon, but by all dslr manufacturers. Although Nikon doesn't have something similar to the `L badge', the price tag will unambiguously tell you what kind of lens it is.

Regarding your list:

Wide-angle zoom: 14-24 mm f/2.8 or 17-35 mm f/2.8
Standard zoom: 24-70 mm f/2.8
Standard tele zoom: 70-200 mm f/2.8 or 80-200 mm f/2.8

No matter if you go for Nikon or Canon, this is several thousand Euros/Dollars in glass, are you sure this is practically relevant for you at this stage?

Also, these lenses are not going to be optimal if you have a crop camera. These lenses are meant for full-frame cameras (which add 3k+ in your favorite currency to the tab).

Unless you know that you will have this type of money in the foreseeable future, you should look into a different lens line-up (which, again, is catered by all lens manufacturers). Unlike Canon, Nikon also has pro-grade glass for crop sensors (professional Canons are either full-frame or `almost full-frame' by their definition and their crop glass is officially not L). E. g. Nikon's 17-55 mm f/2.8 is a pro lens.

Regarding `larger diameter lenses', the lenses are not larger in diameter, the lens mount is. In case of Nikon, the point is pretty much moot, you can still use lenses from the 50s with some bodies and all AI lenses will work (in manual, but they will work).

In any case, with the cameras on your list, you should look into different focal length ranges (again, independent of manufacturer):

wide-angle zoom: 10-22/12-24 mm. Don't just look into Canon and Nikon, Tokina, for example, makes an excellent 11-16 mm f/2.8 zoom
standard zoom: 16-55 f/2.8 (Canon makes a non-L lens which is optically very good, but made of high-quality plastic; Nikon makes a lens with pro-grade built quality as well; you should definitely have a look at Tokina's 16-50 or Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8 which is optically very good as well, especially considering the price).
tele zoom: both manufacturers disappoint here, there are only third-party offers that cover 50-150 mm f/2.8

I know that you wrote you would like to switch to full frame, but switching to full-frame will be a major investment. There is no use getting a full-frame camera and paired with a cheap lens. You will benefit a lot more from quality glass and a crop body than the other way around.

 

[wheelhot]

Well guess what I have the same problem too, I know that the L series is Canon pro lenses, but I wonder what is Nikon pro lens series? Yeah, there is an adapter which allows you to run Nikon lenses on Canon bodies. Pretty cool if you ask me and convenient.

 

[OreoCookie]

Well guess what I have the same problem too, I know that the L series is Canon pro lenses, but I wonder what is Nikon pro lens series?

Nikon doesn't have such a simple badge, the price is very telling. Try the lenses yourself and you will be able to tell right away

In any case, there are also a few Canon lenses that don't have the L designation, but probably deserve one anyway (or could have been made as L glass): the 80 mm f/1.8 comes to mind as well as the 17-55 mm f/2.8. Both come as high-quality plastic/metal construction with L-grade optics. At least the latter hasn't received such a designation, because (IMO) Canon wanted to push its full-frame line-up. After all, what will the professionals think if you can take pictures professionally on a crop body

 

[compuwar]

what are some equivalent nikon lenses to canon L series lenses. im looking for something like

Wide angle: Canon 16-35mm
Standard Angle: Canon 24-70mm
Telephoto: Canon 70-200mm

what would be the nikon equivalent to them lenses

The Nikon and Canon lens lines are so close to one another that it really shouldn't be a deciding factor unless you want a specific lens that one manufacturer makes and the other doesn't (Canon makes both an f/2.8 and f/4 version of the 70-200, Nikon only makes a 2.8, Nikon makes a 200-400/4, Canon doesn't.) With the latest lens announcements from Nikon, the tilt/shift lines are pretty much on par, and in terms of number of lenses, it's close with Nikon making a few more manual focus lenses than Canon. In terms of coverage, the last time I checked, Canon went 2mm wider at the wide end with rectilinear manufacturer's lenses, though I think Nikon had a wider fisheye- the extra 2mm can be shored up with a Sigma 10-20mm.

Nikon makes both a 24-70 and 70-200, the wide end on the pro side is covered by the 14-24mm f/2.8 or if on a crop factor body, the 12-24mm f/4 or 17-55/2.8.

Really before comparing lenses though you should figure out if you're going to use a crop factor or "full frame" body long term, otherwise it's more difficult to do. The AF-D 50mm won't autofocus on a D60 and the new AF-S is more expensive, but 50mm on a crop body isn't as attractive and the Sigma 30mm prime is more suited to a crop factor body in terms of a normal angle of view lens.

 

[Padaung]

Canon L lenses have a line of red around the end of the lens, Nikon pro lenses have a line of gold going around them.

As others have said, Nikon don't use any specific naming convention for their pro lenses. The spec (ie fast fixed wide aperture through entire zoom range or very fast aperture for the fixed focal lenses) and the price easily allow you to tell them apart from the rest of the range.

Each manufacturers lens range pretty much mirrors the others, with a few deviances along the way with specialist kit etc. Canon have more USM/SW lenses from what I remember too.

 

[wheelhot]

aaah okay so for Nikon, the most expensive it is the better. That's easy , anyway I thought all Nikkor lenses has the gold ring?

 

[termina3]

anyway I thought all Nikkor lenses has the gold ring?

Not all do, but I'm not sure that only pro-level glass does. Anyways, the red line is much more apparent than the gold line.

Also, if you're in a store, the difference will be very obvious. Heft and sturdiness vs. a lightweight, weak feel. Metal vs. Plastic. ƒ2.8 vs. ƒ4.5-5.6.

 

[ChrisA]

im looking in getting my first dslr soon and im doing some research in to lenses i would like to get in the future so i can decide on a brand i would like to get. im leaning towards canon because of their L series lenses and their large range. i dont know much about nikon lenses and would like to know m ore.

im looking to purcase a canon 450d or 40d but may go for a d80 or d60 with a nifty fifty f:1.8

Nikon does not lable their "better" lenses with a letter. The idea is that people can simply read the specs. As for as quality goes the two lines are very much the same.

If you are going with Nikon and thinking about spending $$ on lenses get at least the D80. Having a body with it's own built-in focus motor will allow you to use the full range of Nikon lenses. For example the 50mm f/1.8 would not auto-focus on the d40/60

 

[SimD]

Any lens Nikon or Canon has, the other company will mimic it sooner or later. Else, one of the two companies would win the everlasting "battle".

I shoot Canon, not for the name, not for the look, not for the red ring, but for the comfort and the fact I can share my gear with fellow colleagues.

Go to a store, pick up a Canon body, try it out, shoot test shots, play with it for as long as you need, then smell some coffee beans.. err.. I mean clear your mind and do the same with Nikon. Find the one that feels right, and stick to it. After all, if you're not comfortable while holding it, you've just wasted money, because a good shot comes from concentration and if you're thinking about buttons and how uncomfortable your hand is, you won't get that desired shot. Trust me, I speak from experience.

Now for the whole crop vs full frame. It comes down to what you need. The best cameras in the Canon line up at least for sports, is a crop factor (1.3x, the 1D) which boasts 10 fps. The fasted full frame is the 1Ds which is only 5fps. If however you're shooting extreme low light, the new 5D II and the new 50D II boast very high ISO settings, one being full frame, the other a 1.6 crop. If you're into extreme telephoto, clearly the crop will win as a 600mm lens becomes a 960mm zoom. Take all these things into consideration. It's what matters and what makes or breaks a shot.

Full frame is nice, but only if you need it, otherwise it's a waste. On a crop, L glass is amazing. Take the 24-70mm f/2.8 L for example. On a crop, the lens becomes a standard zoom, meaning it isn't wide anymore, but seeing how the frame size has become smaller , the sensor doesn't have such a large area to process, meaning corner softness is reduced by a lot. Of course, if it's wide angle landscapes that interest you, full frame sure helps, but you can still achieve astonishing angles on a crop frame (see 10-22mm ef-s). What I'm trying to say, is that needs outweigh company.

The big thing that erks me about canon is the white... it looks "cool" during sporting events, but when you're on the street trying to capture the facial expressions, people freeze in front of the white because it's so "professional".

So to sum up, Canon > Nikon.

Seriously, both companies are great. Unless there's one lens that really catches your eye, don't judge based off glass, but go with comfort, ease of use and features.

Also, don't worry if one day, the opposite company comes out a feature/lens/body that is newer and cutting edge, because within 3-4 months, your company will come out with it too.

Sim (a proud Canon user)

 

[jake-g]

I would kill for a Nikon equivalent of the canon mpe-65.

That said, some lenses each company produces would only interest a very small percentage of shooters. So why would a rival company invest in all the R+D to make a lens that not many people would be interested in. There are superior lens in every line up, but to say that they are all the same, or about to become the same is incorrect.

 

[termina3]

Now for the whole crop vs full frame. It comes down to what you need. The best cameras in the Canon line up at least for sports, is a crop factor (1.3x, the 1D) which boasts 10 fps. The fasted full frame is the 1Ds which is only 5fps.

[...]

Full frame is nice, but only if you need it, otherwise it's a waste.

FF is essential in low-light, indoor, or nighttime sports (that is, if you intend to get the best shot possible). In pro venues this doesn't apply because the lights are 10x better and usually there're ceiling-mounted strobes. Currently the Nikon D3 combines FF ISO sensitivity and 9fps, 11fps in dx crop mode.

So to sum up, Canon > Nikon.

Seriously, both companies are great.

I know you're joking…*but actually Nikon is ahead right now with the D3. In a few months Canon will undoubtedly leapfrog them.

 

[OreoCookie]

I fail to see how big pro bodies are relevant here. Canon could have a 40 MP triple Foveon sensor beast that competes against a Nikon D4 that incorporates quantum corrections to get decent shots at ISO52k.

The OP is looking into buying an amateur-level camera, talking about full-frame cameras or pro-level sports cameras doesn't really help here.

 

[SimD]

I fail to see how big pro bodies are relevant here. Canon could have a 40 MP triple Foveon sensor beast that competes against a Nikon D4 that incorporates quantum corrections to get decent shots at ISO52k.

The OP is looking into buying an amateur-level camera, talking about full-frame cameras or pro-level sports cameras doesn't really help here.

Chill buddy,

The OP is clearly interested in L-grade lenses, meaning he's not the everyday amateur. And when choosing a company, long term planning is vital.

 

[termina3]

I fail to see how big pro bodies are relevant here. Canon could have a 40 MP triple Foveon sensor beast that competes against a Nikon D4 that incorporates quantum corrections to get decent shots at ISO52k.

The OP is looking into buying an amateur-level camera, talking about full-frame cameras or pro-level sports cameras doesn't really help here.

Chill buddy,

The OP is clearly interested in L-grade lenses, meaning he's not the everyday amateur. And when choosing a company, long term planning is vital.

Thanks SimD, but OreoCookie has a point; I strayed too far from the OP's query. If you're not going to the high-end now, the companies might as well be equal… before the D3, Nikon was behind Canon, and (as I said previously) in a few months Canon will leapfrog Canon at the highest levels.

 

[cube]

in a few months Canon will leapfrog Canon at the highest levels.

Why do you assume this when Canon is in a megapixel race?

 

[Padaung]

Oh dear, looks like this is descending into the usual Canon v Nikon debate.

To the OP. Draw up a budget. Go into a shop and hold several camera bodies, decide which one you like the feel and handling of the most. Don't worry about the lenses on offer by either company at this stage - they both have fantastic optics on offer and to suit any budget. Then buy the best lenses that the remainder of your budget will allow. Look at the lenses as a long term investment as all modern camera bodies take great photos - even the very cheapest models. However, the lenses can be mostly transferred (ie full frame bodies and lenses for cropped sensors and older Nikon optics on the newer Nikon consumer grade bodies excluded) to future camera bodies. Not all lenses take great photos though (bad ones ones can drag a good camera body down, but a great body cannot drag a bad lens up) - get the best you can afford at the time (by which I don't necessarily mean get the very best money can buy), or save up and buy once. It is not worth getting a lens you are not entirely happy with as you will end up never using it, sell it at a loss and still buy the one you wish you had in the first place!!!

Whether you go for full frame or a cropped sensor is up to you and your budget. But bear in mind that for full frame you have to pay a lot more for the body and then to get the best out of those larger sensors it is wise to pay for the best lenses available too.

Whatever camera you choose, be happy and take lots of lovely photos. Ignore all the Canon v Nikon v Pentax v Sony v Leica rubbish, it has been going on for the last goodness knows how many decades.

 

[termina3]

Whatever camera you choose, be happy and take lots of lovely photos. Ignore all the Canon v Nikon v Pentax v Sony v Leica rubbish, it has been going on for the last goodness knows how many decades.

Now v. Leica is a legit arguement…*assuming (ooops) that you're talking about the M series, that's different technology and a different camera. But then again, if the OP were looking at Leica seriously money wouldn't be an issue with Nikon or Canon.

 

[BuddyRockefella]

im an amateur. i have little experience with slrs other than using my sisters 400d. i have decided to go with canon because of their range and prices. ill be shooting landscapes,people and alot of buildings. im thinking of getting a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as my first lens or Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.8.

when i upgrade lens i will get the Canon 24-105 EF f/4L IS USM

i dont plan on getting a full frame for a few years. by then i should have some L lens and some experience.

the reason i started this thread was to help me decide on a brand to choose based on future glass. that way if i change my miind i dnt have to sell all my stuff. i want to pick one brand and stick to it. my sister has a canon 400d so i can sell her my glass when its time to upgrade.

thanks for all your reply

 

[OreoCookie]

im thinking of getting a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as my first lens or Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.8.

Those are good lenses to start, although I would forgo the Sigma, it has the wrong zoom range.

when i upgrade lens i will get the Canon 24-105 EF f/4L IS USM[/url]
The focal length range is not ideal and you won't gain too much from this new one. On the contrary, the zoom range is not well-suited for crop sensors and the initial aperture is smaller.

If I were you, you'd be better off observing what you need for now. Perhaps it turns out that you like wide-angle photography, so you'll get a 12-24/10-22 mm lens instead. Or a tele zoom. I'm sure we can give you advice once that happens.

Very often, third-party manufacturer lenses offer a better bang for the buck, so you don't really need feature xyz of the original manufacturer lens. People will never look at your photos and say: oh my, you could have gained 10 % in sharpness in the corners by using lens xyz. (Professionals may do that in a professional environment.) They won't notice pixels either when you have your pictures printed 50x70 cm^2 or larger.

For people like you (and I don't mean that in a demeaning way, I fall under the same category), all camera companies offer a full range of lenses, be it Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax or Sony. And I would encourage you to look at all manufacturers and to try the bodies in a store. For example, Pentax and Sony tend to have more features than Nikons and Canons at the same price-point (anti-shake/image stabilizer/vibration reduction built into the body so all lenses are `stabilized'). Olympus tend to be smaller than the competition.

Also, take things into account that don't fit on the feature list on the box: size of the viewfinder (very, very important), for instance. The Nikon D60 and the Canon 400D have a much smaller viewfinder than the Nikon D80, for instance. I've sold my perfectly good Nikon D70 for a D80 just because of the viewfinder. Right now, the D80 is a very good buy, because Nikon has just released a successor.

Oh, and just because your sister has a Canon (and I venture the guess that she's also an amateur) doesn't mean she'll buy all your lenses at once down the road, just because you decide to switch to full frame at one point far away in time. Don't buy glass pretending you have a full frame body, buy glass to serve your needs now. You can always sell glass which depreciates very little over time. In some cases, you get almost the same prices as new (even nifty fifties, I got the Made in Japan version of mine for pretty much the same price as a new one).

Also, no matter which camera you get, you should definitely get a sturdy bag and an external flash. Nikon has the SB-400 flash gun for $100 which is very small and much, much more capable than the built-in flash. There are similar flashes for other camera manufacturers.

So independent of manufacturer, a recommendation for a very nice starter kit would be:
- body of choice
- Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
- nifty fifty if you can
- good bag with room to spare (I like Loewe Pro bags, Crumpler is a more fashionable choice)
- 2-4 GB of memory (it's cheap, 2 GB give me more than 170 pictures in RAW on my D80)
- $100 flash

Then go out and take a few thousand pictures, not worrying about specs, megapixels, L or not L. Don't start out with RAW right away, add complexity little by little. Then you'll know what you want next.

 

[wheelhot]

Dont ruin this thread into a Canon vs Nikon debate!!!! :chill...take a break...have a kit kat :

Anyway wow, Im really impressed at some of you guys respond, very good. I pretty got nothing much to say except for the top message

 

[Padaung]

Going back to the origins of this thread, here is a list from the Nikon UK site with their list on what they consider professional kit.

http://www.europe-nikon.com/home/en_GB/local_content/broad/25/1.html



Here is a link to the US version of the NPS, but I can't find the equivalent equipment list.

http://www.nikonpro.com/AboutNPS.aspx