Swithcing to Nikon, advice on new gear and setup

[compuwar]

Besides, does Nikon actually call it a "pro" lens? I don't think they make that distinction for the customer with a special designation, unlike Canon.

THey put a gold ring on it so that the "mine's better than yours" fanboys can feel good about dropping $1200+ on it. Every time I've said it was marginal on DPR, I've been flooded by fanboys who own the lens and think it's the best lens ever- when I point out that I own one and compare it directly to a true professional lens, then they just whine about the price of the prime.

The Canon 100-400IS is slightly better at the long end than the Nikkor, but anyone who's seen the Luminous Landscape's 100-400 vs 400/5.6 test can see the difference between a "good" and "very good" lens- I owned a Sigma 50-500 which was sharper at 500mm than the Nikon 80-400 was at 400mm, but I never got to compare it to the Canon 100-400.

Both the Canon and Nikon f/2.8 prime 400's spank most everything else supertele except perhaps the 300mm f/2.8 primes. Even with a 1.4x TC, my 400mm @560mm is pretty equal to the 600mm prime in terms of sharpness, and I think it's sharper than the 80-400 with my 1.7x on it- though that may just be bias, I haven't actually done that comparison yet (the 80-400 stays lent out to friends.)

Paul

 

[Westside guy]

That might be true on their latest crop of pro lenses, but my 80-200 f/2.8 (still being sold) doesn't have the gold ring and neither does my 300mm f/4, which is an older design, but definitely still a pro quality lens in build quality and optical quality. Maybe they've started using a gold ring more recently to differentiate 'pro' quality vs. consumer lenses, but it certainly hasn't been a tradition in the past, unlike the red ring and "L" with Canon.

Looks like I was wrong, in any case - the gold ring apparently just means the lens contains ED glass elements... but Nikon hasn't always been consistent about that, since there are ED lenses without the ring.

This whole discussion is getting a bit silly, methinks. I admit I did laugh when I saw OreoCookie's link to a non-weather-sealed L lens... but pdxflint and compuwar are right - people need to look at how a lens performs, and not rely on what any particular company tells us is worthy glass. Heck, people need to look at how they perform behind the camera.

 

[toxic]

I decided to stick with my Canon setup and wait for the 60D. Nikon cameras are ridiculous and deciphering their lens codes is insane. With Canon, it's way more clear cut.

I think Nikon just puts extra stuff you don't really need in the lens name...kinda like Tamron, though not quite that terrible

Nikon AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX
Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

ED doesn't say much since it doesn't automatically mean it has x amount of flare or CA or something. AF = EF. (AF)-S = USM, and the motor is inside the lens, allowing AF with sub-D90 cameras. VR = IS, DX = (EF)-S. G tells you there is no aperture ring, which is important since Nikon kept the same mount when going from manual to autofocus lenses.

Nikon AF 35mm f/2.0D
Canon EF 35mm f/2

D just means screw drive, which is the same as a Canon lens without USM

Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

again, the only thing "extraneous" is ED and IF, which is easy to ignore. I dunno why they include IF, since that's pretty much only significant for macro lenses, but whatever...

if you want to know if it's a "pro" lens or not, look at the price tag.

 

[pdxflint]

I think Nikon just puts extra stuff you don't really need in the lens name...kinda like Tamron, though not quite that terrible

Nikon AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX
Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

ED doesn't say much since it doesn't automatically mean it has x amount of flare or CA or something. AF = EF. (AF)-S = USM, and the motor is inside the lens, allowing AF with sub-D90 cameras. VR = IS, DX = (EF)-S. G tells you there is no aperture ring, which is important since Nikon kept the same mount when going from manual to autofocus lenses.

Nikon AF 35mm f/2.0D
Canon EF 35mm f/2

D just means screw drive, which is the same as a Canon lens without USM

Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

again, the only thing "extraneous" is ED and IF, which is easy to ignore. I dunno why they include IF, since that's pretty much only significant for macro lenses, but whatever...

if you want to know if it's a "pro" lens or not, look at the price tag.

I think both Canon and Nikon include things that could be seen as confusing to someone not familiar with the nomenclature, but if you know what each designation means, it's really not confusing at all.

To correct you on the "D" designation--it doesn't mean screw-drive, it means 'distance' and indicates lenses that transmit distance information electronically to the camera. They have a chip in them for this. Lots of earlier screw-drive Nikkors are not "D" lenses (AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, AF Nikkor 300mm f/4 are two examples.) The newer "G" lenses also transmit distance information, and in newer lenses, "G" replaced "D" so if it's a "G" lens, it's also for all intents and purposes, a "D" lens.

In Nikkor lens names every letter or acronym means something relating to the funtion/technology of the lens. Then there are those designations you'll find on lenses which are more like features... "ED", "VR", "DX", or "N". They're usually shown on the lens using different, larger type, in gold or red and not directly in the lens name itself. These acronyms are more like marketing/promo-type logos, and may be found at the end of the name (ED) or anywhere else on the lens nearby. But, when describing the lens in text, they're usually included in one long string... But, the bottom line is that every acronym or initial translates into something specific about the lens. So, nothing is really "extra" that you don't need in a lens name.

But, on the Canon "L" series... the "L" stands for 'luxury.' So... what does that mean? That's where it can really get confusing. It doesn't refer to anything specific about the lens, and we know all "L" lenses are not equal in many areas. It doesn't mean weather-proofed. It doesn't mean f/2.8. It doesn't mean "white lens." It doesn't mean fluoride coatings. It doesn't really say anything absolute about a lens at all. It just means "luxury." And that implies something special, it just doesn't say what specifically that is. Yes, they're Canon's best lenses. They're better built...top of the line. That's what it means, but it doesn't really say anything more. With the Nikkors, that label of "top of the line" is left off, since most photographers who need those special qualities don't really need a letter to tell them the difference.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

.......With the Nikkors, that label of "top of the line" is left off, since most photographers who need those special qualities don't really need a letter to tell them the difference.

Very well said, you've outlined my main gripe with Canon and Canon fanboys. Too often they rely on the "L" to mean great lens. They'll spend $$$ just because it's an L, and automatically assume it to be the best of the best based on it's "L" imprint. But it's an "L" they'll say; I know way too many who wouldn't ever buy an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 (which is optically supreme I'm told) because it doesn't have that stupid "L" on it. People line up for the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 on the other hand, perhaps because there's no conspicuous lack of some letter to tell people it's a nice lens; so people know what they're getting with the lens.

I prefer to rely on MTF's and lens reviews to decide which lenses are worth my money, not manufacturer nomenclature.

 

[toxic]

But, on the Canon "L" series... the "L" stands for 'luxury.' So... what does that mean? That's where it can really get confusing. It doesn't refer to anything specific about the lens, and we know all "L" lenses are not equal in many areas. It doesn't mean weather-proofed. It doesn't mean f/2.8. It doesn't mean "white lens." It doesn't mean fluoride coatings. It doesn't really say anything absolute about a lens at all. It just means "luxury." And that implies something special, it just doesn't say what specifically that is. Yes, they're Canon's best lenses. They're better built...top of the line. That's what it means, but it doesn't really say anything more. With the Nikkors, that label of "top of the line" is left off, since most photographers who need those special qualities don't really need a letter to tell them the difference.

well, all L lenses have the best construction among Canon lenses, and all have either aspherical or ultra-low dispersion elements, if not both, though that's not exclusive to L lenses. all of them introduced since around 2004 have weathersealing. all of them have ring USM...and, uh, they all have a red plastic band?

but yeah, "L" is more for marketing than anything else.

 

[wheelhot]

well, all L lenses have the best construction among Canon lenses, and all have either aspherical or ultra-low dispersion elements, if not both, though that's not exclusive to L lenses. all of them introduced since around 2004 have weathersealing. all of them have ring USM...and, uh, they all have a red plastic band?

Well you got that part about weathersealing wrong though cause the 70-200 f/4 any perhaps some are not weathersealed.

 

[toxic]

Well you got that part about weathersealing wrong though cause the 70-200 f/4 any perhaps some are not weathersealed.

the 70-200/4 was introduced in 1999. the 70-200/2.8 was introduced in 1995. the IS versions, which are both weather resistant, came out in 2006 (f/4 IS) and 2001 (f/2.8 IS).

I will have to correct that statement though - supertelephoto primes gained weathersealing and IS in 1999. all new L lenses gained weather resistance starting with the 70-200/2.8 IS in 2001.

 

[pdxflint]

the 70-200/4 was introduced in 1999. the 70-200/2.8 was introduced in 1995. the IS versions, which are both weather resistant, came out in 2006 (f/4 IS) and 2001 (f/2.8 IS).

I will have to correct that statement though - supertelephoto primes gained weathersealing and IS in 1999. all new L lenses gained weather resistance starting with the 70-200/2.8 IS in 2001.

That's kind of my point... the "L" doesn't mean weather resistant. Maybe all the newer "L" lenses are weather resistant, but before that they were still called "L" lenses. So the "L" doesn't tell you by looking at a lens that it's weather sealed if you don't know when it was made, or you have an older version. It just tells you you have an "L" lens, which could be different in features from another "L" lens. Now that's a useless label that is actually more confusing than anything Nikon has done, because you can't directly translate it into something specific--it's just a label.