Nikon's equivalent to Canons 'L' Series Lens?

Snowball

Snowball

Suspended / Banned
Messages
430
Name
Paul Buttle
Edit My Images
Yes
Can anyone tell me what Nikons 'Pro' series lens are and how you can tell... I have a Canon, but am just curious.

Cheers all
 
Any Nikon lens will be better than Canons L series

fishing2.gif


stir.gif


I don't actually know :coat:
 
Nikon has chosen a policy of NOT telling anyone directly - so no 'White' lenses to give the game away

What they do have is most focal lengths come in 'pricey' and 'bloody expensive' so they leave you to figure it out from that

Canon clearly has a better sales & marketing team - but I agree with Mattyh on all else

:lol:

DD
 
From what I've read/seen/heard, the nikon lens naming protocol is steeped in ancient history and mystery. It chooses not to follow any series of logic or progression and there are stories told that some lenses have actually changed their markings overnight whilst in camera bags.

Most people will tell you that there is no-one alive who really understands what all the lens names mean. Although, one very well worn travel snapper did once tell me, of an elder monk he met in a most remote japanese monastery who had dedicated his life's work to unwravelling the mysteries of Nikon lens codes. This has often been disputed as nothing more than folk lore though.

;):D
 
DiddyDave said:
Nikon has chosen a policy of NOT telling anyone directly - so no 'White' lenses to give the game away


DD
Click to expand...

We Nikon shooters tend to be more discrete than those show-offs with their blingy Canons :lol:

Some will tell you the way to identify a "pro" Nikon lens is by the gold band, but Nikon must have twigged to this as not all the pro stuff has one nowadays :naughty:
 
dazzajl said:
From what I've read/seen/heard, the nikon lens naming protocol is steeped in ancient history and mystery. It chooses not to follow any series of logic or progression and there are stories told that some lenses have actually changed their markings overnight whilst in camera bags.

Most people will tell you that there is no-one alive who really understands what all the lens names mean. Although, one very well worn travel snapper did once tell me, of an elder monk he met in a most remote japanese monastery who had dedicated his life's work to unwravelling the mysteries of Nikon lens codes. This has often been disputed as nothing more than folk lore though.

;):D
Click to expand...



:agree: - I've heard that story before too, so it must be true

Isn't be called Brian (something) ???

:D

DD
 
So apart from the price there is no markings to tell you they are 'pro' optics!

Strange...

I had a play with a D3 the other day at a Polo event I went to, really liked it, but couldn't work out how to tell the 'top of the range' lenses!

Thanks all...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Not really, the 80-400 isn't a pro lens, but it costs as much as a 17-55 f/2.8, which is considered one ;)
Click to expand...

In my earlier post I referred to lenses of the same/similar focal length - and thus the most expensive of a similar range/f-stop would be the 'Pro' one

An 80-400 and 17-55 aren't close enough in range for that to work !!!

DD
 
try finding the canon L equivelant, add 10% then find the nikon with the same focal range for that price.
 
DiddyDave said:
An 80-400 and 17-55 aren't close enough in range for that to work !!!

DD
Click to expand...

Stop nitpicking :p :lol:

Generally anything Nikon with a constant aperture (like a 70-200 f/2.8) is considered "pro" and tends to cost £££, so your big red assertation is correct in that instance ;)
 
fletch5 said:
try finding the canon L equivelant, add 10% then find the nikon with the same focal range for that price.
Click to expand...



Is that...

Add 10% Image Quality; reliability; ease of handling; build quality; desirability; prestige; all of the aforementioned - oh, and price ???

:shrug:

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Is that...

Add 10% Image Quality; reliability; ease of handling; build quality; desirability; prestige; all of the aforementioned - oh, and price ???

:shrug:

DD
Click to expand...

nope, just price of course, remember we are talking bout nikon after all:lol:
 
fletch5 said:
nope, just price of course, remember we are talking bout nikon after all:lol:
Click to expand...



Hmmm... usual Canon delusional issues I feel

:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:

Go see a good doctor m8 - or change to some proper gear (Nikon - obviously), this is the usual 'Medicine' but not available on the NHS as yet

:D

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Hmmm... usual Canon delusional issues I feel

:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:

Go see a good doctor m8 - or change to some proper gear (Nikon - obviously), this is the usual 'Medicine' but not available on the NHS as yet

:D

DD
Click to expand...

typical, the one medical condition i need help with isnt covered by the nhs.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Not really, the 80-400 isn't a pro lens, but it costs as much as a 17-55 f/2.8, which is considered one ;)
Click to expand...

It was in it's day! I was always of the opinion that if a lens had ED glass and a Gold stripe then it was considered a Pro lens.

On a page of their web site (somewhere) is a list of what is considered to be Pro kit. Having written that I think it is only available when registering new kit :(
 
Flash In The Pan said:
But in Nikon's case you are buying lenses made by an optics company - not one that builds photocopiers :exit:
Click to expand...

You mean photocopiers? Devices that are meant to create perfect copies of whatever you show them? Sounds about right :p
 
If we could t-r-y to stop the childish bickering for just one instant... the OP asked a reasonable question and I think he's entitled to a reasonable answer without having to wade through pages of drivel.

For what it's worth, there is no simple way to spot a "pro" lens in the Nikon range. Believe me, I've tried. But there are some clues:
* Price is a clue, but some - not all - Nikon lenses do seem strangely expensive compared to other brands, and I don't think the price is necessarily always justified by the quality.
* Constant aperture in a zoom, especially constant f/2.8, is a good clue.
* A gold band around the lens is a clue, but there's nothing in the nomenclature that tells you whether it's got one.
* ED glass used to be a clue, but they put it in everything now (eg 18-200 VR) so it's not so helpful these days.

The task is hampered by the fact that Nikon still sells some lenses which are very good optically, but which have the clunky old first-generation AF mechanism. For example the 80-400 VR might have been a pro lens in its day, but now its something of an embarrassment compared to the Canon 100-400L. Similarly the 85mm f/1.4 might have been a pro lens in its day, but these days who else would even dare to sell a lens that has a screw-in lens hood? It's so 1960s.

This is one area where Nikon really have got themselves in a mess, in my opinion. Their marketing needs drastic surgery. And their product range is in desperate need of a refresh. Their best lenses are very very good. But they have too many old dogs still in the catalogue.
 
StewartR said:
If we could t-r-y to stop the childish bickering for just one instant... the OP asked a reasonable question and I think he's entitled to a reasonable answer without having to wade through pages of drivel.
Click to expand...

Well said...........:thumbs:
 
Thanks Stewart, that makes a bit more sense...

Thanks for the answer!
 
I always thought it was the gold band and the 'ED' glass that differentiated the pro lenses, but the lines seem a little blurred lately (as do some of their lenses ARF!)
 
sprog said:
I always thought it was the gold band and the 'ED' glass that differentiated the pro lenses, but the lines seem a little blurred lately (as do some of their lenses ARF!)
Click to expand...

Amogst the current crop look for ED and AF-S plus the brass coloured plaque on the lens barrel.

Most of Nikon's best spec lenses tend to be the much pricier and faster variants.

Pre digital there were 2 distinct series the E series lenses that weren't as well constructed but supposedly had the same glass and then the Nikkors were the better contructed variants.
 
Perhaps the easiest way is...examine the photographers shoulder muscles...

The more defined and developed they are, the more likely it's a "pro" lens they have.

To confirm this watch how light on their feet they are when not carrying the lens - the difference being equal to all the cash they don't have from paying Nikon's price for these lenses, this isn't weighing them down ;)
 
yourapocalypse said:
You mean photocopiers? Devices that are meant to create perfect copies of whatever you show them? Sounds about right :p
Click to expand...

Meant to, yes, but this is never the case, so you're right :lol::naughty:

chuckles said:
It was in it's day! I was always of the opinion that if a lens had ED glass and a Gold stripe then it was considered a Pro lens.

On a page of their web site (somewhere) is a list of what is considered to be Pro kit. Having written that I think it is only available when registering new kit :(
Click to expand...


The 80-200 f/2.8 doesn't have a gold stripe, but the 18-135 does, which kinda knocks that arguement into a cocked hat ;)
 
The simple answer is surely that the pro lenses are the ones that get the job done. Mostly that will be the ones with the best IQ but at other times it might just be a great all-rounder. Much like the canon 24-105, it's not great but does things that the better IQ lenses cant.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Meant to, yes, but this is never the case, so you're right :lol::naughty:




The 80-200 f/2.8 doesn't have a gold stripe, but the 18-135 does, which kinda knocks that arguement into a cocked hat ;)
Click to expand...

the 70-200 f/2.8 af's vr if-ed certainly does, I'm looking at one.
 
N1ntend0 said:
Perhaps the easiest way is...examine the photographers shoulder muscles...

The more defined and developed they are, the more likely it's a "pro" lens they have.

To confirm this watch how light on their feet they are when not carrying the lens - the difference being equal to all the cash they don't have from paying Nikon's price for these lenses, this isn't weighing them down ;)
Click to expand...

:lol: Post of the week :thumbs:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The 80-200 doesn't though, he said, examining his........
Click to expand...

I noticed...and don't have the 18-135 to compare...from memory this isn't an f/2.8 constant aperture lens, so I'd be unlikely to be able to compare ;)

That and I'd need to work out to make my shoulder muscles even bigger than Mr Dallaglio's ;)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
But in Nikon's case you are buying lenses made by an optics company - not one that builds photocopiers :exit:
Click to expand...

Better that than letting Sony build your sensors (and I'm a Nikon man)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top