The new Nikon f1.8 primes (35mm, 50mm, 85mm and the new 28mm) are all better than the canon counterparts, sometimes substantially, and their resolution is near the theoretical nyquist limits becoming diffraction limited- you just cannot manufacture sharper lenses. Heck, the Nikon 50mm f1.8 G is Nicer than the canon f/1.4 version...
The reviews I've seen have shown them to be around the same, which makes sense as all the lenses are renowned for being very sharp. As I already pointed out though the random price variation is just odd (why is the 35 f1/8 £150 while the 28 f/1.8 is over £600?).
Prices between the systems vary and it is easy o find else's on both systems that are more expensive r lower quality, but look at canons new price model = more expensive than Nikon. I don't see that changing, e.g on canonrumours the new canon 35mm f/1.4 will be much more than the current Nikon.
Oh I agree, however for me the majority of lenses I have looked at have been more expensive on the Nikon system, except the ones ones Nikon don't have.
Canon do seem to have significantly more "prosumer" lenses, an area Nikon didn't seem to want to compete in, with either the basic lenses or the Professional series, very little in between.
The Nikon 300 f/4.0 is due to be updated to have VR soon enough.
The Nikon 70-300 VR s just as god as te anon 70-300L, but much cheaper.
And lately, Nikon is coming out with f/4 ese.here is already the 16-35 and 24-120, Nikon have had a 200-400mm f/4.0 since 1983 while anon still has not released theirs. A 70-200 f4 is likely, currently Nikon sels newly made 80-200mm f2.8 lenses at this price point, truly great value lenses. Instead of a 70-200 f4.0 they at make a 50-150mm f2.8
Due to be... but I'm buying now (and Canon have had their 300 f/4 IS out for almost 15 years).
The 70-300 VR is as good as the 70-300 f/4-5.6. The 70-300L is the next step up, although like most of the +100mm area they have significantly more choice than Nikon.
For example:
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM £500
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM £900
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L USM £980
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II £1800
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM £350
Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM £1000
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III (non USM) £200
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 USM III £200
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6L IS USM £1150
Nikon have
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II £1600
Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED £1700
Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR £400
There are obviously gaps in both systems (like Canon not having a 200-400 and Nikon not having an 800 or the mythical 1200) but overall Canon are normally seen as the better option for longer lens choice.
As for the 80-200 f/2.8. I know they were the precursor to the 70-200 f/2.8 they have now, however I can't find it on Nikons site (sure I saw it the other day...) and none of the big stores I just looked at actually sell it. It is also not going to match the £500 of the 70-200 f/4.
The Nikon 17-55 is a pro lens built like a tank, basically the 24-70 for crop. The canon version is better value but not the same type of lens. The Tamron or sigma variants may make mor sense on a Nikon crop. It is another lens that is expected to be updated soon to have VR.
I'd disagree a bit with that, although it's not as well built as the Nikon it is leagues ahead of the third party options in this sector. The point was however that I'm just grumpy because Nikon don't make the lenses I currently rely on with Canon, making any jump significantly harder to justify...
(Yes I am taking your advice from the other thread, but will probably end up with the 70-300 f/4.5-5-6 rather than a used 70-200 f/2.8 because the latter is just too big to justify for travelling, whereas the 70-200 f/4 is perfect with a TC.)
