Maybe, but I like the 35, 50, 85 and 135 offerings from Canon. The 70-200mkII also doesn't suffer as badly at MFD. Ultimately I'll be looking at supertelephoto lenses (we're talking years away here!) and Canon do pretty well there as well. Another massive bonus is the size of the Canon second hand market as well, it's just so much bigger. I will freely admit though, that as a non professional I'd most likely be more than happy with either system. I also don't know how the D800 performs with the screw drive lenses? It is the varying AF speed etc. with different bodies that makes me wary of the system. I admit to a lack of knowledge in this area though!
Canon 7D vs 5D MKII?
- Thread starter alexthecheese
- Start date
The new Nikon 35,50,85mm lens are every bit as good as the Canon lenses really, of course you don't get f/1.2 @85mm but that is really a pretty niche product. I think some were disappointed at the initial pricing but as I have said before, the prices have increased for all new lenses, just look at the Canon 24-70mm mkII. Canon is rumored to release a new 35mm lens this year, i would bet money that it will be more expensive than the Nikon and offer pretty much the same optical performance and build quality.
At the super telephoto end I don't think there is a hairs difference between the quality of the lenses. I don't think a pro Nikon sports tog has ever complained at the sharpness or AF of the super lenses. There is a similar pattern where the Nikon lenses used to be much more expensive (this almost pushed be towards moving to Canon some years back when I objectively looked at lens and camera offerings), but now the Canons are more expensive of the Nikons (actually, the Canon lenses are staggeringly more expensive than the Nikons)
I imagine the D800 handles screw drive lenses very well, the D700. Screw drive lenses can be just as fast as ultrasonic lenses really, partly why Nikon wasn't so fast to update. E.g., my old 80-200 AF-D with screw drive Af was much faster than any of the AF-S ultrasonic motor driven lenses I owned and really not far behind my 70-200mm AF-S I replaced it with.
Not trying to push you towards swapping system, there is far more to it, just thought I would pass on my feelings.
Not all that long ago Nikon's camera were behind in sensor technology like Canon is now, and Nikon had noticeably more missing lenses, and as they released new lenses their prices were much higher than 10 year old canon lenses. Nikon have really improved some aspects a lot, the partnership with Sony and their own sensor design team have put them in #1 position for sensors. they have also released a number of best in class cameras, Nikon's low end had great ergonomics but outdated tech but now everything is cutting edge, e.g. D3200, D5100). They have slowly popped out most of the key missing lens upgrades (most of the Pro primes and zoom, many consumer zooms and usual primes like 35,50,85mm f/1.8), Canons new lenses are more expensive than Nikon now. Meanwhile canon kind of stagnated the last 5 years. Canon also seem to be on a path of reducing features and lowering build quality of each of their lower camera lines so you have to start stepping up to the level above, while Nikon has tended towards the opposite of increasing the relative feature set, increasing size and build quality. The 300D was not so far behind the Nikon D70 build and size, now the xxxD line is very small and plasticky, and even the xxD like the 60D is a big step down the ladder, while the current D70 model, the D7000 is a very well equipped mag-alloy semi-pro body, you need to go 2 models up in the Canon line to find the equivalent , the 7D.
At the super telephoto end I don't think there is a hairs difference between the quality of the lenses. I don't think a pro Nikon sports tog has ever complained at the sharpness or AF of the super lenses. There is a similar pattern where the Nikon lenses used to be much more expensive (this almost pushed be towards moving to Canon some years back when I objectively looked at lens and camera offerings), but now the Canons are more expensive of the Nikons (actually, the Canon lenses are staggeringly more expensive than the Nikons)
I imagine the D800 handles screw drive lenses very well, the D700. Screw drive lenses can be just as fast as ultrasonic lenses really, partly why Nikon wasn't so fast to update. E.g., my old 80-200 AF-D with screw drive Af was much faster than any of the AF-S ultrasonic motor driven lenses I owned and really not far behind my 70-200mm AF-S I replaced it with.
Not trying to push you towards swapping system, there is far more to it, just thought I would pass on my feelings.
Not all that long ago Nikon's camera were behind in sensor technology like Canon is now, and Nikon had noticeably more missing lenses, and as they released new lenses their prices were much higher than 10 year old canon lenses. Nikon have really improved some aspects a lot, the partnership with Sony and their own sensor design team have put them in #1 position for sensors. they have also released a number of best in class cameras, Nikon's low end had great ergonomics but outdated tech but now everything is cutting edge, e.g. D3200, D5100). They have slowly popped out most of the key missing lens upgrades (most of the Pro primes and zoom, many consumer zooms and usual primes like 35,50,85mm f/1.8), Canons new lenses are more expensive than Nikon now. Meanwhile canon kind of stagnated the last 5 years. Canon also seem to be on a path of reducing features and lowering build quality of each of their lower camera lines so you have to start stepping up to the level above, while Nikon has tended towards the opposite of increasing the relative feature set, increasing size and build quality. The 300D was not so far behind the Nikon D70 build and size, now the xxxD line is very small and plasticky, and even the xxD like the 60D is a big step down the ladder, while the current D70 model, the D7000 is a very well equipped mag-alloy semi-pro body, you need to go 2 models up in the Canon line to find the equivalent , the 7D.
Last edited:
Like I said in my post, I'd most likely be happy with either system. I'm looking forward o seeing what An Exception does with his 35mm, when I was looking to change to Nikon earlier in the year I found mixed info on it. I don't see the f1.2 50mm and 85mm lenses as niche at all, they are massively popular lenses. My route to 800mm will be a long and arduous one, along the way the 300mm f4 IS and 400mm f5.6 will surely figure. The 100-400L will also feature I should imagine (although I'm swinging more to a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 at the moment). I forgot about the TSE lenses, although landscape not being my thing at the moment I'm not sure it's something I'll get into at that level.
Ultimately I'm sure most people would be happy whatever system they choose. As I'm already invested in Canon and there are lenses that I desire, I decided to stick with them regardless of the D800 DR advantage. I also don't print large as a rule so the resolution isn't a massive thing for me (Fred M states no difference in prints at 17x22 size, as do others). It wouldn't improve my photography making the switch (unless Nikon now package an "add skills" injection with a camera?!
), which cooled my G.A.S 
Ultimately I'm sure most people would be happy whatever system they choose. As I'm already invested in Canon and there are lenses that I desire, I decided to stick with them regardless of the D800 DR advantage. I also don't print large as a rule so the resolution isn't a massive thing for me (Fred M states no difference in prints at 17x22 size, as do others). It wouldn't improve my photography making the switch (unless Nikon now package an "add skills" injection with a camera?!
), which cooled my G.A.S
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,222
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Dont forget, Lenses > Bodies.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
35's Nikon is sharper but focuses slower (but apparently more accurately).
50's Nikon's 1.4 isn't very sharp wide open, IQ and focus speed isn't as good as the 50 1.8g overall. Canon's 50 goes to 1.2, but isn't that sharp wide open and suffers focus shift (which apparently is why allot of people prefer to use the 35 instead).
85's Nikon's doesn't go to 1.2 like Canon, so it's 0.3 stops slower. Not sure if you can really notice 0.3 stops in aperture difference that much, but it's still advantage to Canon. Apparently Nikon has an AF speed advantage, and considering that Nikon's 85 is a hair faster than it's 35, the 85L must be very slow. Having enjoyed a pretty fast in comparison Sigma 85, that's also tack sharp at 1.4, I would be very hesitant in swapping it out for either the Canon or Nikon. The main reason for swapping it out for Nikon's would be for the weather sealing, and the Nikon badge, but in practical terms of usability other than in rain, I feel this would be an overall downgrade due to the slower AF.
This brings me on to the screw drive AF system. It would have been great if there was an option on the new lenses to choose AFS or instead screw-drive AF from the body.
The reason is while AFS is quieter than SD, from my experience is super fast compared to comparable AFS lenses and also very accurate. I assume this is because the motor in the camera has much more beef to it. My old 85 1.8D was so fast at locking focus on whatever I pointed it at, even in dark conditions, as soon as I pressed the shutter, it had focused and released the shutter with no perceptible delay. I'm not exaggerating, that lens was fast, same went for my 50 1.4 and still does for my 24, however I hear the 85 1.4D was a bit of a AF stinker.
As for Zooms Vs Zooms, I don't really pay much interest as I like primes, however once I'v got myself a second D700 and saved up again, next on my list may be the 14-24 2.8, to replace my 24mm 2.8, it's a little extra weight so I still deciding weather to just get a 20mm 2.8 instead.
Then, I will be saving for a pair of D800E's...
Not if you've got a 500D and want to shoot Rugby under floodlights... trust me I've been there!
It is an oft quoted mantra, but it doesn't always apply to every situation. Of course I could've been using a 1D3 and a Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 and still struggle! Even worse the 500D and 70-300 that I did indeed use to start off with
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Not true (most of the time).
Generally lenses hold value longer, so if your concerned about depreciation on your investment, then 'Lenses > Bodies'.
But generally bodies make the biggest difference to your photography, especially if your going from a crop to FF, or going from a camera with **** AF to good AF or both...
Call me a cynic (or worse probably?!
) but I don't buy the slower to focus but more accurate line that is rolled out a lot (also with regards to the bodies), especially as I don't have any major accuracy issues with Canon. Sure I get misses, but wide open and with moving targets I don't expect 100%.I'd only be picking up the 85L once my daughter has slowed down
I like the drawing characteristics of the f1.2 lenses, although I would most likely be happy using the Sigma 50 and 85. The f1.2 is a want rather than a need. Just don't get me thinking about the 50L f1.0.... must be boxed though As I said my knowledge on the AFS\SD AF etc is limited. When I did look into it early this year there was lots of niggles and confusion on forums and I quite literally thought "stuff this for a game of soldiers I'm going to stick with what I know and like"! Case in point, I was looking at the affordable 85mm f1.8 that I would replace my Canon version with. I looked at the 85G (which is the more recent lens) which wasn't reviewed as having fast AF. Now you mention the 85D and that looking into it, that is a lens I would likely have been happy to move to (and it's cheaper!). Ho hum!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Call me a cynic (or worse probably?!
Haven't experienced both tbh, but that was the impression I got from FM forums...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/975583
This would hold true with my experience of Canon's 50 & 85 1.8, I tried 2 copies on 2 bodies and neither lens/body was consistent enough for me in terms of critical focus on stationary subjects. This was the straw that broke the donkey's back, so I moved to a D7k + 85 1.8D, imo there is no comparison, the Canon 85 didn't come close in terms of AF speed/accuracy.
Whether it's Canon lenses or bodies or both that are at fault, I'm not sure, however I did (and others) notice that in low light or lost contrast, Canon often beeps to tell you it has locked focus, even when it isn't even close to being in focus.
In comparison, from mine and others experiences, Nikon almost never give you a beep if it hasn't correctly locked focus, it may slow down in tough conditions but it doesn't give you load of false positives.
Having said that, I have noticed that my Sigma 85 will give a beep sometimes if it hunts for a while and can't lock focus, similar to how my Canon lenses use to behave for me.
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
Interesting conversation here, keep it going. 
Should I perhaps 2 or 3 primes that I will keep forever, instead of 17-55mm 2.8 or some other zoom lens?
Like a 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 & something else? That kinda does the mid-range but nothing wide, and the wide primes are way more expensive? Oh god.
EDIT: A 35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.8 & 85mm f/1.8 can be had for £645, just a wee bit less than a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. Still no wide though.
EDIT again...: Those above can be had for £581 on DigitalRev. Kinky.
Should I perhaps 2 or 3 primes that I will keep forever, instead of 17-55mm 2.8 or some other zoom lens?
Like a 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 & something else? That kinda does the mid-range but nothing wide, and the wide primes are way more expensive? Oh god.
EDIT: A 35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.8 & 85mm f/1.8 can be had for £645, just a wee bit less than a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. Still no wide though.
EDIT again...: Those above can be had for £581 on DigitalRev. Kinky.
Last edited:
The 50 f1.8 surprised me in how it performed on a 1D3, I almost expected smoke to start coming out of the lens! It wasn't so hot on the 500D though. The 85 f1.8 I've not had issues with, although I note you refer to stationary subjects. That's not something I tend to shoot, although actually thinking about it I have used it for cars and it's been great. This is mainly with the 1Ds2, I didn't use it a great deal on the 7D. It did work well for 5-a-side football indoors though. It get used a lot in Servo AF rather than single shot AF.
My Sigma 50 is a pain for deciding it's focussed in low light (1/60 ISO 3200), much better than the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro though which just hunts and hunts.... and hunts...
Interesting conversation here, keep it going.
Should I perhaps 2 or 3 primes that I will keep forever, instead of 17-55mm 2.8 or some other zoom lens?
Like a 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 & something else? That kinda does the mid-range but nothing wide, and the wide primes are way more expensive? Oh god.
I prefer primes over a standard zoom, but the zoom can be handy to have if travelling light and wanting the flexibility (hence the cheaper Tamron 17-50 non VC (or 28-75 for FF) as a second hand purchase would make a lot of sense for a little used but useful lens). If you go crop, the Sigma 30mm f1.4 is excellent. On Nikon the 35mm f1.8 I believe is also well liked? Canon have the 35mm f2 which I've just picked up cheap and is better than I expected, but I haven't used it much yet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
I tested it on a stationary object to rule out subject movement as the culprit.
The 85 is probably fine if you can get a bit of distance between you and the subject (increase DOF), but for head and shoulders distances it just wasn't consistent enough for me as an inch +/- was resulted in a bin-able image.
My Sigma 50 is a pain for deciding it's focussed in low light (1/60 ISO 3200), much better than the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro though which just hunts and hunts.... and hunts...
Is that with your 1Ds?
For comparison my Sig 85 on my D700 doesn't have issues with false positives at over ISO 12800 1.4 1/60, at least with scenes with at least some contrast. At that light level, AF does become noticeably slower with lower contrast subjects.
I'v found the lens needs to hunt for a while first, before it seems to give in, and give you a beep. I comparison, my Nikon lenses will just hunt, but won't give you a beep.
I tend to use the 70-200 for head and shoulders shots. I'll try the 85 more.
Yes the 1Ds2, with outer focus points I should add. If I fall back to the points nearer the centre or centre only it's generally fine. It's not a lens that I like to use in Servo AF a lot though. It can be fine, but then other times... I'm going to send it in for a service soon as its had a lot of use over the last few years!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Below is how the Sig 85 performs on an outer focus point (non cross-type) on the D700.
Ignore the first 15 seconds, it took a while to get my video camera (tz10) aligned in the viewfinder, it was also difficult to see where I was focusing. Unfortunately it's too dark to really see what I'm focusing on but you can see my camera settings. I have boosted the fill light on youtube (still processing) so hopefully you will be able to make out at least something that I'm focusing on.
I mainly focused on different areas of this box which has high and also places of low/medium contrast, as well as the bottle next to it that has plenty of contrast.
I mainly focused on different areas of this box which has high and also places of low/medium contrast, as well as the bottle next to it that has plenty of contrast.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
^^^
Sorry Lol
But what's really useful, is to be able to select aperture priority, and set your minimum shutter speed in auto ISO. That way you don't have to worry about too slow shutter speed when in the church, you don't have to remember to lower your ISO when you step out the church, and your always using the lowest ISO that you need.
Sorry Lol
But what's really useful, is to be able to select aperture priority, and set your minimum shutter speed in auto ISO. That way you don't have to worry about too slow shutter speed when in the church, you don't have to remember to lower your ISO when you step out the church, and your always using the lowest ISO that you need.
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
That video, where there looked like no light at all, produced that picture there? 
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Haven't had much chance to run it in due to the never ending rain, and haven't got a wedding until Aug, but from messing around indoors so far it seems pretty good. One thing I have noticed though, is I need to watch my vertical lines, as due to the wider angle, pictures can look wonky pretty easily...
From today...
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
That video, where there looked like no light at all, produced that picture there?
No, that picture was ISO 200 or something, I took it after I opened the curtains again. Also While it looks like there is no light, I would actually describe it as a very dim lit room i.e. the curtains were closed. The reason it looks like there is practically zero light in the room is because camera's don't have the same kind of dynamic range + post processing as what are eyes + brain do, that's why the sky often looks blown out in pictures, and don't look how we can see them.
Below is an example of a high ISO image (ISO 6400) and is what a picture would have looked like at that light level, but bare in mind the aperture was at F1.4 and the shutter speed was 1/50.
