[buffalolee]

How are the lenses for the Nikon compared to the Canon?

Comparables:
Nikon 24-120 / f3.5-5.6 G AFS VR (72o) = $510
Canon 28-135 / f3.5-5.6 IS USM (72o) = $420
Canon L 24-105 / f4 IS USM (77o) = $1,250

Are the Canon's "L" lenses that much better to justify the higher price?

[Goldfinger]

Err, the L lens isn't exactly consumer level. And the Nikkor is probably superior. But hey, I'm biased, I'm a Nikon man. I know someone who has the Canon 28-135, it isn't bad. Maybe a bit soft. Don't have too much experience with it to be honest.

[Dr Reducto]

If you are using the lenses on a cropped DSLR, the Canon will definitely not be wide enough at 28mm, and the Nikon will be borderline.

If I were you, id look into these lenses (assuming you want a midrange zoom):

Nikon:
-18-70 DX
-18-35 f/3.5-4.5 (if you don't want to buy a DX lens)

Canon:
-17-85 IS (is an EF-S lens)
-17-40L (works on film body)

Personally, I am not too impressed by non-L Canon glass (with the exception of some of the primes like the 85mm f/1.8)

[jebjeb]

The Canon 28-135 IS was my first and only lense for quite a while. Even though I have a number of "L" lenses now, the 28-135 is still my main walkaround lense. It would be nice to have a bit wider on a 1.6x crop camera but the decent reach and the IS make it a cracker!

That said, the new 24-105L looks like a fantastic lense which I may have to replace the 28-135 with. It depends how much you are going to use your kit. Is it worth 3x the price to you or would you be better off putting the money to a nice wide or longer lense (17-40 F4 or a 70-200 F4, both of which I have and love)?

Look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...s/24vs28.shtml for a comparision between the two Canons. I am not going to compare against the Nikon as I haven't used one. I prefer using Canon as it suits me better than the Nikons (Ergonmics, features etc..)

[Eug Wanker]

The Canon EF 24-105L rocks. The Canon 28-135 does not. It's not even in the same league as the 24-105L.

If I had only one lens, this would be the one.

Dunno about the Nikon.

And yes, Canon L lenses in general are very, very good. Unfortunately, they also cost $$$$.

[ASIMO]

Meh, the 24-120VR nikkor is decent at best. I cannot speak for Canon glass other than from experience of my friend's 20D 18-55mm, which is near crap, and his newish superb L-series wide angle, which cost him way too much. My Sigma 10-20mm for my D70 does nearly as well, but he's a Canon guy through and through.

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by ASIMO

Meh, the 24-120VR nikkor is decent at best.

It is a really good lens, but early copies gave it a bad reputation

[Eug Wanker]

Yes, the Canon 18-55 is a pretty poor lens, but then again, it's almost disposable for the price you pay for it.

There is a new 17-55 f/2.8 IS coming out though. I have not seen it, but judging by the specs it should be vastly superior to the 18-55 (but much more expensive too).

[jebjeb]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

The Canon EF 24-105L rocks. The Canon 28-135 does not. It's not even in the same league as the 24-105L.

<snip>

And yes, Canon L lenses in general are very, very good. Unfortunately, they also cost $$$$.

Eug, I think you need to qualify your first comment more than just what you said in the last sentence. The 28-135 does rock... in its price range. Compared to the 24-105 L, yes the 28-135 is not in the same league but for a third of the price, it is darn good. Personally (and I am going to be flipant here) the cost doesn't worry me so much these days. If I didn't already have the 28-135 I would jump on the new 24-105. Also, if I didn't have most of that focal range already covered with other (better) lenses.

As you and most other posters here have said, the two lenses are in very different categories and the OP needs to think about what he wants to do with his setup. A 30D (or whatever) with a 24-105 L would be a fantastic one lense walkaround setup and would be hard to beat. But if the OP wanted to cover more ground in the future with a little less investment, then the 28-135 would be a decent "fill" lense in between other fantastic lenses.

Ideally, I am sure we would all agree that it would be great to get the 24-105 now and then build on it with other L lenses in the future! Thats what I am doing but in reverse.

[buffalolee]

I have visited dpreview.com to read about lenses and such. Unfortunately, when you visit those forums they tend to be biased toward the group you are visiting (Canon for Canon Lenses, Nikon for Nikon Lenses). Macnn.com seems to be a good place for good thoughful opinions.

One setup I have been looking at is a:

Nikon:
D70 + 18-200mm VR2 lens = $800 + $800 = $1,600

Canon:
Rebel XT/20D + 24-105mm L IS = $800+$1,250 = $2,050

I have a Minolta 7D with a 28-75mm lens. I am not too fond of Sony, but I was thinking about trying out another system. Once I got the anti-shake/image stabilization/vibration reduction, it becomes truly addicting because you do not lose as many shots as you would.

I don't like to upgrade lenses, so I just want to buy once, keep forever.

How is the 18-200mm VR Nikon lens? I know it is insanely hard to get, but somehow I hope Canon would make one, too.

[buffalolee]

That is a great link for reviews. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

The Canon EF 24-105L rocks. The Canon 28-135 does not. It's not even in the same league as the 24-105L.

If I had only one lens, this would be the one.

Dunno about the Nikon.

And yes, Canon L lenses in general are very, very good. Unfortunately, they also cost $$$$.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by jebjeb

Eug, I think you need to qualify your first comment more than just what you said in the last sentence. The 28-135 does rock... in its price range. Compared to the 24-105 L, yes the 28-135 is not in the same league but for a third of the price, it is darn good. Personally (and I am going to be flipant here) the cost doesn't worry me so much these days. If I didn't already have the 28-135 I would jump on the new 24-105. Also, if I didn't have most of that focal range already covered with other (better) lenses.

As you and most other posters here have said, the two lenses are in very different categories and the OP needs to think about what he wants to do with his setup. A 30D (or whatever) with a 24-105 L would be a fantastic one lense walkaround setup and would be hard to beat. But if the OP wanted to cover more ground in the future with a little less investment, then the 28-135 would be a decent "fill" lense in between other fantastic lenses.

Ideally, I am sure we would all agree that it would be great to get the 24-105 now and then build on it with other L lenses in the future! Thats what I am doing but in reverse.

Yeah, I agree to a certain extent. However, I've never quite understood why people raved about the 28-135 so much. It's a reasonable lens for the price and it's got a great range, but IMO it's still a mediocre lens in terms of image quality. The contrast in pictures from it really leaves something to be desired. This can be corrected in software, but it's a pain. Furthermore, these days that lens is problematic for the low end buyer, because it's built for FF.

The 24-105L is also built for FF, but the 24-28 range really makes it usable as a walkaround on a 1.6X crop camera for some people (like me).

For a 1.6X crop if you're looking at 28-135 IS level quality and budget, then probably the more appropriate lens is the 17-85 IS. It's $100 more, but it's more usable as a walkaround for most people.

There's always the 17-55 too which seems promising, but it's not out yet and it's too limiting on the long end for my purposes.

Originally Posted by buffalolee

Rebel XT/20D + 24-105mm L IS = $800+$1,250 = $2,050

I don't like to upgrade lenses, so I just want to buy once, keep forever.

Then I would recommend the Canon 30D and 24-105 L IS. The 20D is a capable camera (and I have one), but the 30D does offer some upgrades, not the least of which are the spot meter and the big LCD. Depending on how rough you are with your cameras, I'm not sure the XT is the best idea, cuz it is nowhere near as well-built as the 20D (and presumably the 30D). For lens, just make sure that 24 mm is wide enough for you on a general walkaround. It is for me, but then again I already have an EF-S 10-22.

When I had my 17-85 I found I had fun with it, but the fact that I had to up the contrast for pictures from it so often was very irritating. I did use the 17-24 range sometimes, but the few times I really needed wide angle, 17 mm often wasn't wide enough. I also found 85 just slightly on the short side.

I'm much happier with the 24-105L and 10-22 combo for my outdoor walkaround, and in truth I rarely use the 10-22. In fact, I rarely keep the 10-22 with me now. I'm lusting after the 17-55 f/2.8 IS for indoor shots however. 24 mm isn't quite wide enough for party shots on a 1.6X crop, and f/4 (even with IS) is a little slow for indoors for people, cuz they move too much.

P.S. Here are some snapshotz from the local market taken with the 24-105L. All are handheld, and IIRC none of the shots use flash. Sorry the colour is a bit off, but at the time I was editing these my monitor wasn't properly calibrated.

[ASIMO]

Eug, on which mac are you running Aperture? How do you like it and how is its performance in general? I was very underwhelmed by its RAW converter at its release, but the 1.1 release supposedly improves many areas, including the RAW conversion.

[Dr Reducto]

For $800 in lenses, I would recommend a 2 lens setup.

I bought a Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 and 80-200 f/2.8 from Keh.com for $740 used (they were in great condition when I got them too)

Of course, my lens loadout is more for my job with my paper, but is a great combo in terms of image quality, and the 80-200 is simply an amazing lens in terms of sharness and bokeh. You may prefer a midrange zoom for travel, but I found most of my pictures are either taken at 20-24mm or 100mm-200mm, so buying a superzoom just seemd like a bad move.

[OreoCookie]

First of all, if you are looking for cheap(er) lenses, take a look at Tokina and Sigma. Tokina has some outstanding lenses which even surpass the originals (one example is the f4/12-24 mm lens for roughly $500 (price from the top of my head, I know it's about €500)). Another one is Tokina's 2.8/28-70 Pro SV (for €300).

From my experience (and my cousin, a professional photographer, also agrees with me) that these lenses are (usually) a much better value than original lenses in the cheaper categories.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by ASIMO

Eug, on which mac are you running Aperture? How do you like it and how is its performance in general? I was very underwhelmed by its RAW converter at its release, but the 1.1 release supposedly improves many areas, including the RAW conversion.

I have it running on an iMac G5 2.0 1.5 GBwith Radeon 9600 128 MB. It's quite slow for overall usage and the RAW converter in dark scenes is just so-so. It's outright painful on my iBook G4 1.33 1 GB with Radeon 9550 in terms of both speed and screen size, but at least it runs. Ironically, although it runs on my iBook, Aperture will not run on any 12" PowerBook.

I am also probably getting an iMac Core Duo 2.0 2 GB with Radeon X1600 256 MB and Aperture 1.1, hopefully soon. It should be better on that.

I wouldn't buy Aperture 1.0 for US$500. However, I look forward to 1.1, and I get Aperture for US$172 through my university so it was a lot easier to justify the purchase.

[MaxPower2k3]

I can't wait for Aperture 1.1, either; hopefully they've tweaked the speed on G5s. There's no reason it should be this slow (using it on the same computer as Eug)

As for lenses, I'm partial to Nikon, but, in addition to the general purpose lenses you're looking at, I'd recommend a normal-ish prime lens. They're cheap (there's a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 for $99, I assume Canon has something similar), razor sharp, and the colors and contrast are superb. You won't get a better picture from a lens within $400 of its price. Just remember that it becomes telephoto (75mm or so) on an APS sensor. Sigma makes a 35mm f/1.8 that actually is normal on an APS camera, but it's around $350. I got the Nikkor and am quite happy with it.

[Eug Wanker]

I have a 50 mm 1.8 and it's very sharp (from about f/2.5 up) and it's inexpensive. I never use it.

I get much more usage out of my 35 mm f/2.0, since I have a 1.6X crop camera. However, I don't use the 35 mm f/2.0 that much either, since I have the 24-105L IS. I also think I'd use a 17-55 f/2.8 IS much more than the 35 mm too if the 17-55 were a good lens.

[ChrisF]

Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3

Sigma makes a 35mm f/1.8 that actually is normal on an APS camera, but it's around $350. I got the Nikkor and am quite happy with it.

Sigma's lens is actually a 30mm f/1.4. Like Eug, I also have a 50mm f/1.8... 75mm was never a focal length I ever used when shooting film and I don't now so my 50mm sits essentially unused. I find it's just too long when trying to shoot candid shots in low light but it's still too short to be a great portrait lens.

[jebjeb]

I agree with OreoCookie. If you can't afford the higher end main manufacturers lenses the go for the highend third party lenses from guys like Sigma and Tokina. I knew that I was not going to use my macro lense too much so went for the Tamron 90mm at around half the price of the Canon 100mm macro. I'm glad I did as it does only come out for special things.

The Sigma and Tokina 24-70 2.8 lenses are very good for the price. In a way if you treat them as as an F4 lense with that added bonus of being able to go to 2.8, then they come off well. The reason you pay for the Nikon/Canon 2.8 glass is that they are sharp at their fastest apertures.

Like Eug, I have a 50mm prime but I have the F1.4. I do actually use it quite a bit. It may not be ridiculously sharp wide open (and there is quite a bit of CA at 1.4-2.0) but it can't be beat at that price in low light. I shot a whole wedding reception with that and no flash as the client didn't like the feel of flash-lit shots. It was not the brightest of locations (an Airforce Officers mess) but I did 90% of it between F1.4 and F2.0. Had to be careful of the table shots due to the low depth of field though.

One thing I must recommend for any lense you go for is to test a few different examples. This is where spending the money on better glass helps as qulity control is much better. Even though I was singing the praises of the 28-135 IS lense before, I had to try four different example before I was happy so I can understand people like Eug and such who may not be big fans as I guess for me it was only 25% of lenses were decent. This is why buying from a brick and mortar store does make life easy as you can try lots of lenses (or buy online from someone with a good exchange policy).

[Eug Wanker]

Even though I was singing the praises of the 28-135 IS lense before, I had to try four different example before I was happy so I can understand people like Eug and such who may not be big fans as I guess for me it was only 25% of lenses were decent.

Hmmm.... Yeah, that does make sense.

Like Eug, I have a 50mm prime but I have the F1.4. I do actually use it quite a bit. It may not be ridiculously sharp wide open (and there is quite a bit of CA at 1.4-2.0) but it can't be beat at that price in low light.

Who knows but maybe if I had the 50 1.4, I'd use it more. I don't like the bokeh of the 50 1.8. No full time manual focus on the 1.8 either.

[Goldfinger]

If you want quality there are two basic options:

Go with prime lenses
Pay out of your ass for zooms

I only have primes.