nikon vs canon

[compuwar]

While I very much respect your thoughts, compuwar, you cannot realistically expect to hold up the 14-24 as a replacement for top-notch WA primes, mainly because of the cost issue (not quality, as the 14-24 gives up nothing to anything).

Look at the MTFs for those "top-notch" lenses. I don't know how many times you've shot into the sun with older Nikkors, but I'll tell you- the 14-24 wins. By a large margin. Frankly though, if you need AF on a wide angle prime, go buy a Canon Rebel. The new 35mm DX is a good lens- while I haven't looked at its MTFs, I'd bet it's competitive with lots of older glass. With DX, those WA primes aren't that wide anyway- other than the 14mm, which is what, about $100 less than the 14-24mm?

You also cannot possibly be serious about the 85/3.5 being the top lens at that focal length. The 85/1.4 must still be considered as such, and the new macro lens cannot be used normally on the D3/x/s/700 or any film camera

That's my bad, I had the 85 listed as an exception, then thought I saw an announcement for an AF-S version that I'd missed. But the Tamron 90mm SP Di fits that notch just fine and all the newer versions have a built-in AF motor. And yes, the new macro lens CAN be used on a D3/x/x/700. Nikon's DX compatibility is just fine- at least on my D3x it is. I used the Sigma 10-20mm, which is a DX lens at 10mm on my D3x about a week ago- no problems at all and the images are close enough to my D2x in terms of overall size and IQ that it's moot which camera body I shoot with- where did you get the idea that DX lenses don't work on FX bodies?

To be fair, I also neglected the 17-35 AF-S too.

The same goes for the 50/1.8 to some extent, though the 50/1.4 has already been updated.

The 50mm isn't a great FL on the DX sensor for a lot of shooters- and it's been updated, and Sigma also offers an HSM version, so we're back to price (but look ath the MTFs and new formula for the Nikkor 50mm, it's NOT the same lens.)

My point remains though- there's plenty of coverage for lenses that work on the low-end bodies, and for most people buying them, there's zero impact on not having AF-D compatibility. Throw in the price increases on all the "good" used AF-D lenses over the last 18 months and you pretty-much get out of their price range anyway.

If you look back, you'll find that I used to advocate the 35-70mm AF-D as a great all-purpose lens with good to great quality and a great price. I think I paid about $325 for my current copy. An equivalent EX+ is about $600 at KEH now, and I've seen them selling in lots of other places for $800+. Ditto the 20-35mm AF-D, which I prefer at 24mm to the 24mm prime- it's only real issue is lens flare into the sun for me, but it's no longer the $450 bargain that it was- now going for $850 at KEH in excellent condition and $950+ in other places!

Heck, the one time I forgot about AF-D compatibility and lent my 80-400mm to a friend to shoot track on his D40, he came back with about as many keepers as he'd have had in AF mode anyway. But again, for the target market, it's much ado about nothing IMO.

Paul

 

[compuwar]

Compuwar - after your promising first post in this thread calmly stating how any camera is adequate, you now seem to have switched back into full Nikon fanboy mode.

Call it what you wish- the fact is that Nikon's best lenses are almost all AF-S.

This post of yours is completely misdirected. You're arguing that Nikon's top lenses aren't AF-D, they're AF-S. Well guess what, you're completely correct! Nikon's new expensive great glass is AF-S, but these aren't the lenses that a low end SLR owner will buy as their second lens after the kit one!

Well. just in case you haven't been watching the market (and trust me, Nikon watches the market) you'll find that Nikon was the first DSLR company to get past the 1.2-1.3 lenses per body figure that's been relatively stable a number for quite a number of years. They got to ~1.8 in the last ~3 years, and guess what? They've done it with the 18-200VR, which seems to be the second lens of choice for low-end DLSR owners after the kit lens. They also did it by offering two-lens factory kits, which have been selling quite well for them. The 18-200 isn't stellar, and it isn't cheap- but they sell very well.

More importantly, few of the folks who purchase a 50mm lens after buying the kit use it with any regularity. Most of those who do update to higher-end bodies inside of two years anyway. It's just not the big deal that people make it out to be- I'm sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

The advantage of the Canon, Minolta/Sony and Pentax systems is that the newbie owner has their pick of pretty good autofocus prime and zoom lenses for not much money. How about a 20mm 2.8 / 50mm 1.8 / 85mm 1.8 kit? Can on a Canon, can't on the Nikon (at least not with autofocus).

You're making the strawman argument that those focal lengths in a prime lens are the target of our theoretical newbie. I've been shooting seriously for decades and I don't own a prime in any of those focal lengths, so I'm going to have to again disagree that it's an important issue. More importantly, many of the folks I know don't shoot with any of those focal lengths with any regularity- unless they're shooting with a zoom and just happen to hit one. I do know a couple of folks who use the 85mm for macros- but the Tamron fits that need for our budget-conscious newbie just fine.

If it is an issue for you, then Nikon's low-end bodies aren't right for you- that should be obvious to anyone- and I've never made the argument otherwise- but the empirical evidence of Nikon's recent market share advances seem to indicate that it's not the issue people here make it out to be. Moreover, their lens sales data from the D70 and D50 would probably argue that the cheap 50mm wasn't all that big a seller for new DSLR owners either- because they do track and act on what sells.

My entire argument is that for a new DX user, there are plenty of lenses to cover their needs. I can get any almost Nikon lens made since Nikon started making AF lenses on either of my two Nikon cameras- the only "wide angle" prime I own is the 24mm, and I don't think I've had it on a camera body in at least 4 years.

And while we're at it, a newbie with a low end body isn't typically going to be in the market for manual focus.
And the fact that Nikon's AF-D wide angle primes suck so badly that 'the 14-24mm is good enough to take out all three AF-D primes' isn't something to be proud of.

You might want to look at the MTFs of the 14-24 against say the Canon 14mm L II before you make such sweeping fanboy-sounding statements- because the Canon 14mm prime, which is better than the Nikon 14mm prime also gets its butt spanked by the 14-24mm

 

[El Cabong]

There have been "rumored prime refreshes" for the last 5 years. Nikon's lens folks haven't been driven by marketing outside of the superzoom and kit lenses that get released with each new body. They still get to work a lot on what interests them.

If you've spent less money on your body and you need a macro, then the Tamron 90mm SP Di works fine on your low-end body and works well for portraits too- no big hole there.

...except that there's a big difference between an f/3.5 and a f/1.4. Also, your list was of Nikon AF-S lenses, not third party lenses, so I was pointing out a hole. The prime refresh rumor was beside the point, and was tossed in as a concession to your original argument that Nikon's AF-S lineup is (or will be, should the refresh go through this year) fairly complete (but if you want to argue against it, go for it).

The 105 DC was never a heavily popular lens, and frankly the DC portion is generally better-served with PS these days anyway. [...] Like the 105 DC, the 135DC is a specialty lens, and hardly something a beginner is going to pick up. [...] Frankly, if you need AF for a fisheye, you've got way bigger problems than we have time to talk about here.
[...]
Nikon had a choice- they could make the D40 and the bodies that followed it really inexpensive, or they could choose to include a screwdriver focus motor. They chose the right way for the market, otherwise they wouldn't have been selling boatloads of new entry-level cameras and taking market share from pretty-much everyone.

Nikon's marketing strategy is beside the point; I was simply pointing out missing lenses in your list. Regardless of whether all entry-level shooters would want these lenses (really, the DC lenses are better used with manual control as well), full functionality is simply not an option with them, and the focal lengths remain missing in the AF-S lens lineup.

I don't think you've been watching used prices on the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D if you think there's a "good deal" out there anymore. While you used to be able to pick up a good sample for ~$350, they now start at $650, and good samples tend to be in the $800 range.

I feel like I'm really nitpicking now, but still:
http://www.keh.com/Search-Products/1/NA/7/35-70/Grade/0/0/SE.aspx

Here, they seem to start at around $450 and go to about $675 for a "like new" sample. Adorama currently has one in "Excellent" condition for about $500. Regardless of what might be said about the generosity of these ratings or the typicality/longevity of these prices, the lens is still a bargain compared to ~$1800 for a new 24-70mm f/2.8, which is the point.

There are plenty of budget lenses available that AF on the low-end Nikon bodies. The market is full of consumer-grade zooms that AF just fine. [...] Worrying about the corner cases who aren't going to purchase new lenses would be silly at this point as the strategy is working well enough.

I'm well aware of the proliferation of ~18/55-whatever millimeter consumer grade lenses. They don't replace the larger (than f/3.5) aperture primes that are cheaper alternatives to their AF-S cousins, most notably the 50mm f/1.8. Again, it's less about Nikon's business strategy (good for them!) than with the frustration experienced by new users who feel like they've wasted money. The point was not that Nikon must be a terrible company run by inhuman monsters because they released the D40 (though many might agree with the sentiment); the point was that it's very possible to consider the purchase of a D40/60/etc to be a mistake, because of its compatibility issues.

re firestarter: Try not to feed the troll.

 

[luminosity]

Look at the MTFs for those "top-notch" lenses. I don't know how many times you've shot into the sun with older Nikkors, but I'll tell you- the 14-24 wins.

Absolutely it wins. You're preaching to the choir on that one. The 14-24 has but one competitor in all of existence, and that's the 20mm Zeiss. That's the only lens in its focal length range I've read about that can meet the 14-24 on even ground.

I've seen numerous head to head lens tests where the 14-24 embarrasses whatever it's competing with.

What I'm getting at is that Nikon does not have anything like the Canon 24/1.4 II (not the original version, but rather the new one, and that I have to clarify it tells you how much more work Canon has done on WA primes). The 24/1.4 weighs 533g, which is a lot less than the 14-24. I've seen some excellent work done using the 24/1.4, and I wish Nikon had an equivalent lens. Canon does not have the 14-24 either, but for me, the 24/1.4 makes more sense. Of course, I do have the 24-70, which is what I use for my WA needs at the moment.

I want revised wide angle primes that are relatively light and made with the latest optical advances. The 20/24/28/35 lenses are all light and all pretty old. Is that too much to expect? If it is, just say so. I'm not militant, only expectant.

And yes, the new macro lens CAN be used on a D3/x/x/700. Nikon's DX compatibility is just fine- at least on my D3x it is

Well, remember that your DX megapixel crop on the D3x is almost what my entire sensor complement is on the D700. It works, of course, but not without vignetting in FX mode.

The lenses work, of course, but with limitations. Either you're using it in DX mode (5 megapixels on the D3/700) or or you're using it in FX mode (vignetting). Am I missing something?

Ditto the 20-35mm AF-D, which I prefer at 24mm to the 24mm prime- it's only real issue is lens flare into the sun for me, but it's no longer the $450 bargain that it was- now going for $850 at KEH in excellent condition and $950+ in other places!

And the 28-70/2.8 hit $1,500 and even a bit more at KEH for EX+ copies, at least as of a few months ago. That's a couple hundred more than new 24-70s were going for at B&H before the price increase.

 

[AllieNeko]

I have money in Canon glass from the film days, thus I have no choice. That's really how it works. I like Canon well enough. They work, they take good pictures. Nothing really wrong with them.

I sometimes look at Samsung and Sony DSLRs with a bit of longing but if I was buying into a system today, I'd still go Canon. Because Canon has the history of showing your system investment won't be outdated when you're ready to replace one component.

 

[luminosity]

I don't know if that's true. Canon ditched an entire mount system in 1987, whereas Nikon is still using the same mount it created in 1959. All Nikon lenses made since 1977 are good to go on any DSLR made today, though of course metering differs depending on the body.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

All the arguments about Canon versus Nikon are quite serious (as ulcers or hypertension). Both (not ulcers and hypertension, of course) are doing very well on the market, and both produce enough cameras and lenses to make anybody rich (or poor), so it would be nice to get along better than arguing about such silly things. I am certain that successful photographers don't have time to be arguing in this and other forums. Time is gold, you know
http://hierophyte.blogspot.com/2009/01/canon-and-nikon-tops-market-share.html

 

[compuwar]

I don't know if that's true. Canon ditched an entire mount system in 1987, whereas Nikon is still using the same mount it created in 1959. All Nikon lenses made since 1977 are good to go on any DSLR made today, though of course metering differs depending on the body.

There are few 35mm lenses from before 1977 that are really worth using, so though you were screwed if you used Canon at the time, that ship has really sailed.

 

[compuwar]

What I'm getting at is that Nikon does not have anything like the Canon 24/1.4 II (not the original version, but rather the new one, and that I have to clarify it tells you how much more work Canon has done on WA primes).

I find that these days I shoot at 35mm if I'm going to stitch and 20mm or father out if I'm not- but as I said, if you want WA primes, Canon is the system to use- I just think that most of the people griping are overplaying it- they likely don't even shoot that often (if at all) with the lenses they're harping about. I'd be happy to be proven wrong with some actual statistics though...

The 24/1.4 weighs 533g, which is a lot less than the 14-24. I've seen some excellent work done using the 24/1.4, and I wish Nikon had an equivalent lens. Canon does not have the 14-24 either, but for me, the 24/1.4 makes more sense. Of course, I do have the 24-70, which is what I use for my WA needs at the moment.

The only time lens weight worries me is when I'm either hand-holding the 400/2.8 or going to the top of a ridge with it. A tiny lens like the 14-24 wouldn't bother me a bit- but I'm admittedly larger than lots of people.

I want revised wide angle primes that are relatively light and made with the latest optical advances. The 20/24/28/35 lenses are all light and all pretty old. Is that too much to expect? If it is, just say so. I'm not militant, only expectant.

I think those days are mostly gone- unless the 35mm DX sells very well- Nikon is producing some very fine zooms, and the people who always complain about primes aren't always the people who purchase them- at this point in time, I'd bet that Nikon is selling more 24-70's and 70-200's than any of its primes. To meet the standards of today's photographers and produce wide angle lenses that will look good on high-end bodies it takes lens elements and non-simple optical formulas- especially at the wide end- so I think you're not too likely to see the four lenses above all roll out. Let's face it- the 24, 28 and 35mms aren't astoundingly wide, if I were in charge, I'd drop at least two of them completely- maybe three.

And yes, the new macro lens CAN be used on a D3/x/x/700. Nikon's DX compatibility is just fine- at least on my D3x it is

Well, remember that your DX megapixel crop on the D3x is almost what my entire sensor complement is on the D700. It works, of course, but not without vignetting in FX mode.

The lenses work, of course, but with limitations. Either you're using it in DX mode (5 megapixels on the D3/700) or or you're using it in FX mode (vignetting). Am I missing something?

Remember, you get to pay a premium for the D3x so that you get basically the equivalent of a D2x in DX mode. You either pay the piper, or you live with the consequences- only you can say if it's "worth" it to get a D3x over a D3 and D300- took me two months to come to the decision point.

Just the fact that for most folks not shooting for a living, the images from 5MP are good for most uses.

Ditto the 20-35mm AF-D, which I prefer at 24mm to the 24mm prime- it's only real issue is lens flare into the sun for me, but it's no longer the $450 bargain that it was- now going for $850 at KEH in excellent condition and $950+ in other places!

And the 28-70/2.8 hit $1,500 and even a bit more at KEH for EX+ copies, at least as of a few months ago. That's a couple hundred more than new 24-70s were going for at B&H before the price increase.

Yep, the used market is crazy right now, which is one of the reasons that folks on a tight budget aren't going to get a bargain out of a D5000 and older good glass. It may still be cheaper than new, but it's still over the price range of people who can only afford the D5000.

 

[compuwar]

Nikon's marketing strategy is beside the point; I was simply pointing out missing lenses in your list. Regardless of whether all entry-level shooters would want these lenses (really, the DC lenses are better used with manual control as well), full functionality is simply not an option with them, and the focal lengths remain missing in the AF-S lens lineup.

No, pretty-much all of the focal lengths are available in AF-S or HSM lenses, they're not available as primes, but they're represented. The last time I went through the entire Nikon and 3rd party list of current lenses I don't recall anything missing except the fisheyes, but I'm not going to spend half an hour on it again (I did find one Sigma lens listed as HSM that wasn't, but it overlapped two others.)

The fact that Zeiss is selling ZF lenses shows that many people who care about primes aren't as picky about AF as you- but more importantly Nikon's sales figures let them know how many people are going to buy new primes- and that number hasn't been large enough to prioritize them over money-makers like the 18-200- so the imaginary demand seems larger than the actual demand.

In fact, if the demand were anywhere near what people in this thread were making it out to be, Sigma, who already make motorized versions of their primes for Canon bodies would be churning out F-mount variants left and right. I don't think they're seeing the market either. Nikon doesn't seem to be losing any share to Canon either- so despite your assertions, I see no evidence that it's a significant issue for a significant number of people.

I feel like I'm really nitpicking now, but still:
http://www.keh.com/Search-Products/1/NA/7/35-70/Grade/0/0/SE.aspx

Here, they seem to start at around $450 and go to about $675 for a "like new" sample. Adorama currently has one in "Excellent" condition for about $500. Regardless of what might be said about the generosity of these ratings or the typicality/longevity of these prices, the lens is still a bargain compared to ~$1800 for a new 24-70mm f/2.8, which is the point.

I've looked at probably ~50 samples of the 35-70mm AF-D, I specifically said "Good sample" because it's easy to find bad samples, it was a much-abused newspaper lens for decades. For KEH, I'd only look at EX+ or better, which start, as I said at around $650 (In general, EX is the bottom line at KEH, but the 35-70 and 80-200's are often more heavily used than say a 135DC ) For about $250 more, you can get a brand new Sigma 24-70 (with a warranty), which will have a better AOV for your crop sensor body and perform significantly better overall. That works out to less than $2/month over the life of the lens.

I'm well aware of the proliferation of ~18/55-whatever millimeter consumer grade lenses. They don't replace the larger (than f/3.5) aperture primes that are cheaper alternatives to their AF-S cousins, most notably the 50mm f/1.8. Again, it's less about Nikon's business strategy (good for them!) than with the frustration experienced by new users who feel like they've wasted money. The point was not that Nikon must be a terrible company run by inhuman monsters because they released the D40 (though many might agree with the sentiment); the point was that it's very possible to consider the purchase of a D40/60/etc to be a mistake, because of its compatibility issues.

Once again, few users "feel like they've wasted money" because a very low percentage of them will ever own more that the kit lens. An infinitesimal percentage want a prime lens that the 35mm f/1.8 won't substitute for.

Once again though- prove your point for me- which of the DC lenses do you own and how many shots a year do you take with them? Because if it's none, then all the complaints about those lenses are basically moot- there are lots of people who like the *idea* of having primes available who spend no money on them- even fewer of the folks who go buy a D40 or D5000 want a fast lens for it's DoF, they just want low-light pictures, and sensor evolution is taking care of that.

Everyone I've met who owns a D40 is perfectly happy with the kit lens and/or the kit lens an the 18-200, so show me your muddled masses- because DPR isn't full of people moaning about it- and that's probably the one place you'd see them in throngs.

I can easily count the AF-D lenses I see on D90s and D300s when I'm photographing somewhere that's popular with tourists or other photographers. In the last two months, I've easily seen 100 Nikon AF-D compatible cameras out, and if I exclude myself I've seen three or four with AF-D lenses attached, and most of that is out shooting birds, where going long and AF-S is generally not cheap. I suppose all the D90 and D300 owners could be lottery winners though. Perhaps though it's your assertion that the folks with AF-D compatible cameras are atypical Nikon users?

 

[DELINDA]

(Yes, that's all very well - but how is that relevant to the OP, who just wants to prove to his buddy with a Nikon D90 that a Canon G10 is better?)
There was nothing to prove , just a good natured debate . As you (I hope ) can see from this forum what a question can do . In debate and with questions a lot can be learned . This has been an education on both brand name and related equipment . Not to mention personalities . In the end , its all personal . what you like , can afford , and are passionate about . Thanks

 

[firestarter]

You're making the strawman argument that those focal lengths in a prime lens are the target of our theoretical newbie. I've been shooting seriously for decades and I don't own a prime in any of those focal lengths, so I'm going to have to again disagree that it's an important issue.

How on earth can you use yourself as an example in this discussion? You are an advanced or pro photographer and have money to burn on Nikon's most expensive glass and bodies... what is/is not an issue to you has no relevance to someone picking a second lens for their low end camera.

You probably don't own any of Nikon's wide end primes because they're mostly quite poor and slow. You can't admit that, because you're a fanboy - and instead prefer to write page after page of justification regarding who might/might not buy a lens, what Nikon't engineers spend their time on, yadda yadda. FYI my last camera was a D300, I owned the 20 f2.8 and 50 f1.8 (amongst others). I'm a person who chooses to shoot primes - a habit I got into back when I shot exclusively Hasselblad.

More importantly, many of the folks I know don't shoot with any of those focal lengths with any regularity- unless they're shooting with a zoom and just happen to hit one.

You're being deliberately obstructive - I used 24mm as an example, but could have said 18mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm. They're all old lenses that need a refresh. Do you use any of those focal lengths?

My entire argument is that for a new DX user, there are plenty of lenses to cover their needs. I can get any almost Nikon lens made since Nikon started making AF lenses on either of my two Nikon cameras- the only "wide angle" prime I own is the 24mm, and I don't think I've had it on a camera body in at least 4 years.

Again, you can't use yourself as an example here.

Just to reiterate the original point I made - I think someone entering the Nikon system at the low end should be aware of the status of Nikon's prime lenses and the fact that AF-D isn't going to autofocus. For certain groups of people wanting value for money and a light weight rig (I travel a lot and like to keep weight down) this may be a big deal. That is all.

It's a shame too... Nikon made a big deal of their lens compatibility back when Canon switched lens mount to EF - but this is now something they're turning their back on.

You might want to look at the MTFs of the 14-24 against say the Canon 14mm L II before you make such sweeping fanboy-sounding statements- because the Canon 14mm prime, which is better than the Nikon 14mm prime also gets its butt spanked by the 14-24mm

What is the purpose of this statement? I don't care about the 14mm - I shoot full frame and never really use anything wider than 20mm. I have no problem with the 14-24mm being a good lens (and some Canon body owners actually use it with an adapter - because it is so good).

This last statement of yours is quite revealing of your character. Lens-A-from-Canon-beats-Lens-B-from-Nikon-but-Lens-C-from-Nikon-beats-both-so-there! isn't something I generally loose sleep over.

 

[luminosity]

The only time lens weight worries me is when I'm either hand-holding the 400/2.8 or going to the top of a ridge with it. A tiny lens like the 14-24 wouldn't bother me a bit- but I'm admittedly larger than lots of people.


Maybe you're so accustomed to what you shoot that you've somewhat lost touch for how life is for most of the rest of us. The 14-24 is not a "tiny" lens for most people, and certainly not for me. Street photography is what I love most and it is not a lens I would take on the street with me. Comparing a lens to a 400/2.8 is silly, because of course most lenses would seem small compared to it. But that's not life for most photographers, and it isn't a realistic standard.

 

[El Cabong]

Jesus F. Christ.

Keeping it as short as possible.

No, pretty-much all of the focal lengths are available in AF-S or HSM lenses, they're not available as primes, but they're represented. The last time I went through the entire Nikon and 3rd party list of current lenses I don't recall anything missing except the fisheyes

Your original list was supposedly of Nikon AF-S lenses. HSM is not AF-S. Third party is not Nikon. I was just pointing out that there were focal lengths (with certain apertures - not counting consumer zooms) missing from it. You disagree? Fine.

The fact that Zeiss is selling ZF lenses shows that [...] Nikon's sales figures let them know how many people are going to buy new primes- and that number hasn't been large enough to prioritize them over money-makers like the 18-200- so the imaginary demand seems larger than the actual demand.

In fact, if the demand were anywhere near what people in this thread were making it out to be, Sigma, who already make motorized versions of their primes for Canon bodies would be churning out F-mount variants left and right. I don't think they're seeing the market either. Nikon doesn't seem to be losing any share to Canon either- so despite your assertions, I see no evidence that it's a significant issue

Once again, I'm not talking about Nikon's business strategies to market cameras to the masses (to do so would bring in the Coolpix line, which is a whole other kettle of fish). However, since you bring it up, Sigma (and Tamron) have been updating a few of their F-mount lenses to include AF motors. So.

I've looked at probably ~50 samples of the 35-70mm AF-D[...]KEH, I'd only look at EX+ [...] 35-70 and 80-200's are often more heavily used [...] $2/month over the life of the lens.

In any case, the point remains that the 35-70 is a cheap Nikkor alternative that doesn't autofocus on a D40/etc. The main point was not the price, about which I said I was nitpicking. Glad you could join in. Third party yada yada yada.

Once again, few users "feel like they've wasted money" because a very low percentage of them will ever own more that the kit lens. An infinitesimal percentage want a prime lens that the 35mm f/1.8 won't substitute for.

Maybe the percentage of users who regret their purchase is beyond trivial and is equivalent to the ratio of the surface area of a deer tick to that of China; the fact is, I know more than one user who has, so I used it as an example of Nikon buyer's remorse.

Once again though- prove your point for me- which of the DC lenses do you own and how many shots a year do you take with them?

You're missing the point by harping on the DC lenses. It'll give you a warm fuzzy feeling to know that I don't own a DC lens, as much as I'd love to (not in the budget - saving up for one of them purdy 85mm AF-Ds). Again, the point, copied and pasted from a previous post:

I was simply pointing out missing lenses in your list.

Tada.

Everyone I've met who owns a D40 is perfectly happy with the kit lens and/or the kit lens an the 18-200, so show me your muddled masses- because DPR isn't full of people moaning about it- and that's probably the one place you'd see them in throngs.
[...]
Perhaps though it's your assertion that the folks with AF-D compatible cameras are atypical Nikon users?

You're still missing the point. Or maybe you're setting up more strawman arguments. I never said that the townsfolk were out with the pitchforks and torches over this, I simply said that I personally know a couple of people who have regretted buying a D40. I suppose that we can now get into an argument about the validity of anecdotal evidence, but I'd prefer that we don't.

As far as your strawman argument, sure: I do believe folks with AF-D compatible cameras are atypical Nikon users. Everyone knows that all people who buy Nikon only ever use D40s (I know I don't!). Prove me wrong!

 

[compuwar]

How on earth can you use yourself as an example in this discussion? You are an advanced or pro photographer and have money to burn on Nikon's most expensive glass and bodies... what is/is not an issue to you has no relevance to someone picking a second lens for their low end camera.

Because I have never owned a Nikon camera body that won't AF with an AF-D lens (and we're at about 19 years now for me.) So- these hoards of theoretical newbies clamoring for AF-D compatibility on their very first camera body are a stretch.

You probably don't own any of Nikon's wide end primes because they're mostly quite poor and slow. You can't admit that, because you're a fanboy - and instead prefer to write page after page of justification regarding who might/might not buy a lens, what Nikon't engineers spend their time on, yadda yadda. FYI my last camera was a D300, I owned the 20 f2.8 and 50 f1.8 (amongst others). I'm a person who chooses to shoot primes - a habit I got into back when I shot exclusively Hasselblad.

You keep using that word- but you're the one who brought other manufacturers into the conversation- and frankly there are at least two or three times where I've recommended people shoot Canon if they want wide primes- but make it personal- if I'm a fanboy, you're an imbecile.

I have simply stated the case that (a) unlike the original posting I responded to, it is my assertion that "most of Nikon's best lenses" are AF-S NOT AF-D. Now you're trying to drag your quality inferences on Nikon's primes into it- compared to other manufacturers- which (a) wasn't part of the initial conversation and (b) smacks of fanboyism (Pot. Kettle.) Then when the fact that the 14-24 spanks not only Nikon, but Canon and Zeiss's efforts in primes is brought up, your'e suddenly not so interested in 14mm- sounds hypocritical to me.

You're being deliberately obstructive - I used 24mm as an example, but could have said 18mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm. They're all old lenses that need a refresh. Do you use any of those focal lengths?

Yep, as a matter a fact I use 20mm and 35mm- which you'd see if you actually read the postings in the thread. You are aware that there's a 35mm DX prime that's a new lens, aren't you? You assert that they "need" a refresh, but up until last year, Nikon didn't have an FX sensor to put in front of any primes- limiting the market even more.

Again, you can't use yourself as an example here.

Just to reiterate the original point I made - I think someone entering the Nikon system at the low end should be aware of the status of Nikon's prime lenses and the fact that AF-D isn't going to autofocus. For certain groups of people wanting value for money and a light weight rig (I travel a lot and like to keep weight down) this may be a big deal. That is all.

I think they should be aware of it too- but I also think they should put it into perspective, and not have it blown out of proportion. The people in this thread are blowing it all out of proportion- funny how you can use yourself as an example, but I can't- hypocrite.

It's a shame too... Nikon made a big deal of their lens compatibility back when Canon switched lens mount to EF - but this is now something they're turning their back on.

Ok- now you're going to pin a decades-old marketing strategy on them? Plus, you do understand the difference between "all of my expensive glass won't fit on anything" and "this lens won't autofocus on teh cheapest bodies we make?" don't you? Or- let's take your tack "I don't care about statements made by a company in the 1970's. Only a Canon apologist would hald a grudge that long!"

What is the purpose of this statement? I don't care about the 14mm - I shoot full frame and never really use anything wider than 20mm. I have no problem with the 14-24mm being a good lens (and some Canon body owners actually use it with an adapter - because it is so good).

Becuase you said

And the fact that Nikon's AF-D wide angle primes suck so badly that 'the 14-24mm is good enough to take out all three AF-D primes' isn't something to be proud of

So, you can't have it both ways- either it's a travesty that it's better than the primes, or it's "so good" that people decide to use it in manual focus mode on Canons. Funnily enough- they could pick up a D40 for about $350 and use it in AF mode (Oh! the Irony!)

This last statement of yours is quite revealing of your character. Lens-A-from-Canon-beats-Lens-B-from-Nikon-but-Lens-C-from-Nikon-beats-both-so-there! isn't something I generally loose sleep over.

Again with the personal attacks. I was responding to your assertion that the 14-24mm was supposedly an embarrassment to Nikon because it's IQ beat their primes by giving an example of a very good non-Nikon prime that it also beats. The fact that instead of acknowledging the fact that your assertion was silly you stoop to character assassination says more about your character than mine. Hypocrite.

 

[compuwar]

Keeping it as short as possible.

Your original list was supposedly of Nikon AF-S lenses. HSM is not AF-S. Third party is not Nikon. I was just pointing out that there were focal lengths (with certain apertures - not counting consumer zooms) missing from it. You disagree? Fine.

Let's keep it very short- my original list was a rebuttal that "most of Nikon's best lenses are still AF-D." You're the one who went off on a DC lens Jihad.

 

[firestarter]

<4 feet of screen-space filled with text>

Paul, you have a unique turn of logic which I (and it seems others) on this thread have difficulty dealing with.

I have better things to do with my time. Good day!

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Worrying so much about camera/lens brands probably makes it quite difficult to sleep at night.

 

[El Cabong]

Let's keep it very short- my original list was a rebuttal that "most of Nikon's best lenses are still AF-D." You're the one who went off on a DC lens Jihad.

My mentioning two DC lenses among a more than a half dozen other lenses = DC lens Jihad? You just chose to focus on minutiae instead of substance. I mentioned two 85mm lenses and a couple of fisheyes as well, you know. You wanna call a fisheye Jihad, too?

Terrorists armed with fisheye lenses... truly frightening.

 

[Earendil]

Something often times missed in these discussions, is if you know anyone with one type or another. I went with a Canon over a Nikon back in the day because 2 good friends both had Canons and associated Lenses.

Now days my father and I both have Canon's. He prefers wide angle stuff with his 10-22mm, and I prefer the nature/sports with a 70-200mm 4.0L. In both cases, when we desire we borrow the other persons lens. This would not work out if he had a Nikon, and I a Canon.

If you know no one with a DSLR, or anyone who is about to purchase one, than this point becomes moot.

 

[pdxflint]

After slogging through this whole thread... I'm not really sure what the dust up is all about... Would it be possible to simply have an honest debate here, including opinions where we agree to disagree, without it breaking down into personal attacks on someone's character, etc.?

There are certain kinds of words which are labels, implying something personal about someone else, that only serve to inflame feelings, create hostility and in the end don't contribute anything useful. Think... and reconsider before hitting "submit." It's easy to see where this "labeling" began to enter the "conversation" and if we just take that "moment," and people worked a little bit harder on trying to find the right words that aren't offensive, this could have actually been an informative, lively discussion. Instead, it broke down into a p!ssing match. Too bad.

"... can we all just get along?"

 

[pdxflint]

Without getting into a debate...(well... maybe I am just a bit...) but just to comment on my own experiences with Nikon. I started out with an entry level D50, which does have the screw drive. As it turns out, because I wasn't limited in my use of AF-D lenses, I bought 4 lenses that are all screw-drive lenses - Tokina 12-24, Nikkor 50 f/1.8, Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 and Nikkor 300 AF f/4. But, I also bought a D300 body at about the same time, so if I had started out with a D40 I think my choices of lenses would have been exactly the same. One of the reasons I opted for the older Nikkor glass was because of budget, image and build quality, and the ability to keep them if I ever upgraded to FX. After using the D300 for a time, I've found I'm not in as much of a hurry to move to FX, so I am seriously considering the 17-55 f/2.8 DX lens, since it is widely available second-hand mint for around $850-900, and has excellent IQ, and gives me more useful FL than a 24-70 f/2.8. As for the AF-D primes, I seriously debated with myself the merits of the older 35mm f/2 vs. the new DX 35mm f/1.8. Still not sure which would be better, but one thing I like about the older glass is the lack of built-in AF motor. While this is a "benefit" in AF focus speed (sometimes) and is quieter, there is the additional chance for something to break (I've had two USM lenses fail when I shot Canon.) I also like the more 'retro' look of the older Nikkors and the ability to use them on older 35mm film bodies. Having said that, I'm not in the market for more than 1 prime wide angle, so even if Nikon refreshed them, I probably would skip them (unless they were spectacular, and fairly affordable.) I just don't want to be changing lenses all the time for different shots. If the pro zooms suffered in comparison image quality-wise, that might be different, but that's not the case, at least not with Nikon.

So, do I, as one individual Nikon shooter, really care if Nikon updates their wide-angle primes? Not really. I'd probably only use one, the 35mm, for a "normal" focal length on DX, but otherwise go with more modern zooms, as Compuwar suggested. Even if I had a D40 I could choose between the 14-24, the 17-35 (excellent for landscapes,) the 17-55f/2.8 for street, everyday stuff, including some portraiture. But, if I can afford those lenses, I'd probably get rid of the D40 anyway, and then I'd still have my 85 f/1.4, 100 f/2.8 micro, 135 f/2, 50mm f/1.4... heck, I'd have the whole Nikkor family to choose from. I'm not sure I'd hold my breath waiting for Nikon to make a whole bunch of wide-angle primes in AF-S for the limited market they'd be selling to - and somehow I don't think all the D40, D60, D3000 or D5000 buyers would really even be that market. The pros I know all have the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and so forth. Very few of them shoot with primes anymore, and I'm only speaking of the guys I know. So in the end, I don't see where the market would come from at this point... it would probably be limited, at best. Just my guess.

And, the only cameras that Nikon has failed to be "compatible" with as far as the original mount system and original AF is the very bottom of the dSLR line, which is mainly going to sell to folks moving up from point and shoot cameras, who will probably not be agonizing over the inability to use some legacy lenses. And, usually Nikon and all the third-party lens manufacturers clearly state, and any salesperson worth his commission, will inform the buyer about the limitations of screw-drive incompatibility, and it's then the buyer's choice. If they have regrets later that they bought the entry-level model when they really should have bought a little higher up in the food chain, well, that happens sometimes. It's not really a disaster. Just sell the D40 or D3000 and get a D90 and all the screw-drive glass you want. It's not that difficult to figure out. And if someone decides they're regretful they bought an entry level Nikon because they can't AF with a nifty-fifty or 85mm f/1.8 or similar, and they want to switch to Canon, or Olympus, or Pentax, or Sony...etc. instead of moving up to a more advanced Nikon camera (than their first Nikon,) more suited to growing their skills as a photographer, that's their choice. It doesn't make sense to me, but it is an individual choice.

 

[luminosity]

If anything were ever to either drive me to Canon or cause me to start using a Canon system alongside my Nikon stuff, it would be their wide angle primes, along with the 135/2. The 200/2.8 wouldn't go amiss either (of course, we have the 180/2.8 as a counter to that).

 

[compuwar]

My mentioning two DC lenses among a more than a half dozen other lenses = DC lens Jihad? You just chose to focus on minutiae instead of substance. I mentioned two 85mm lenses and a couple of fisheyes as well, you know. You wanna call a fisheye Jihad, too?

Terrorists armed with fisheye lenses... truly frightening.

What I'm saying is that you completely ignored the substance of my post (qantity of Nikkors that are AF-S vs AF-D) and went for the minutiae- so pot, this is the kettle, you're still black. For someone who often uses sarcasm in posts, you're very sensitive to it.

Shoot at Conowingo Dam with a fisheye and the anti-terrorist forces may actually come after you!

 

[compuwar]

Something often times missed in these discussions, is if you know anyone with one type or another. I went with a Canon over a Nikon back in the day because 2 good friends both had Canons and associated Lenses.

Now days my father and I both have Canon's. He prefers wide angle stuff with his 10-22mm, and I prefer the nature/sports with a 70-200mm 4.0L. In both cases, when we desire we borrow the other persons lens. This would not work out if he had a Nikon, and I a Canon.

If you know no one with a DSLR, or anyone who is about to purchase one, than this point becomes moot.

This is good advice so long as you temper it with the fact that either your bank account or your friendship or both can handle having a borrowed lens dropped- or you can insure the lenses you borrow. I've seen horrendous stories of friendships broken up by a dropped $1500 lens that the borrower simply couldn't afford to replace.