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

Another thread that has descended into idiotic drivel, well done all.
 
Not all of Nikons pro lenses are weather sealed

not all of them have a gold band

not all them have a plaque

You just cant tell by looking, simple as.

You can tell by the price though......

Ok, they're generally more expensive than the canon equivalents but I get the impression that canon sells more gear than nikon so the economies of scale and all that. It's certainly not down to quality.
 
Gandhi said:
Ok, they're generally more expensive than the canon equivalents but I get the impression that canon sells more gear than nikon so the economies of scale and all that. It's certainly not down to quality.
Click to expand...

Nope, currently Nikon has more market share than Canon. A few years ago this wasn't true though. AFAICT, the main reason the Nikon glass is more expensive is that, even after tripling production in the last three years, they still can't keep up with demand, and so there's no incentive to cut prices to increase sales volume. In a few years it will equalize a bit.

In general I'm happy to pay a little more for the ED glass, which seems to make a perceptible difference in colour and contrast compared to canon's L series.
 
This is one of the main reasons I went for a Canon system, you know where you stand when it comes to lenses...
 
I know Nikon are renowned for build quality, but is the pro glass even better built?
 
Jamougha said:
Nope, currently Nikon has more market share than Canon. A few years ago this wasn't true though. AFAICT, the main reason the Nikon glass is more expensive is that, even after tripling production in the last three years, they still can't keep up with demand, and so there's no incentive to cut prices to increase sales volume. In a few years it will equalize a bit.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see some data to back this up.

Over the last few years, the DSLR market shares have generally been Canon 45-50%, Nikon 30-35%, the rest 15-20%. The D3 and the D300 will certainly have helped Nikon make gains at Canon's expense, and of the others Sony in particular seem to be doing well - but I havent seen any recent figures.

However, for lens sales, it's not just the current DSLR market share that's relevant, but the total installed user base. I expect Canon still have a larger market share here. It's quite possible that some of Nikon's popular modern lenses such as the 24-70 and 70-200VR are outselling their Canon equivalents, but Canon have more DSLR users out there and more lenses with modern technology (IS, USM etc) in their catalogue than Nikon, so their lens sales are probably higher than Nikon's.
 
markta said:
I know Nikon are renowned for build quality, but is the pro glass even better built?
Click to expand...
Probably. But it's hard to say for sure. The acid test is to knock them about a bit and see what happens, but who wants to do that? So what follows is all based on my impressions of handling the lenses mentioned.

My impression is that at the top end, Nikon and Canon both build some extremely robust lenses. You could probably beat somebody to death with a 100-400L or an 80-200D and the lens wouldn't even be marked. Ditto the 300/2.8s from both camps.

Nikon seem to have the edge on build quality in the mid-range. For example the Nikon DX 17-55 f/2.8 feels more solid than the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. And the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 feels more solid than the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L.

On the other hand, sometimes the design seems to get in the way of build quality. The Nikon 80-400VR is an example - when fully zoomed, the extended portion feels quite fragile. (It might not be - but it feels like it.) And the Nikon 70-200VR seems like it might be less robust than its shorter and chunkier Canon equivalent.
 
As of April 2008 the following was the latest I could find.


IDC (International Data Corporation) recently released its report on global trends and sales in the digital-SLR-camera market in 2007, and there are some interesting numbers.

Total shipments of digital cameras totalled around 131m last year, up 24pc from 2006, and 45pc from 2005.

dSLR year-on-year growth was 41pc, up to 7.5m units, helped by strong demand in the US, Eastern Europe, and parts of Asia.

Canon remained the no.1 dSLR company with approximately 3.2m units shipped. However, the report noted that Nikon, with 3m units, was catching up fast. Sony and Olympus made up the third and fourth places with around 450k apiece.

In the grand scheme of things, Canon remained the no.1 vendor for digital cameras, followed by Sony, shipping some 20.1m units. Kodak came in third, with Samsung, shipping around 12.6m, making the top-four.

Which digital camera do you own? Have you thought about purchasing a dSLR, if you don't own one already, and, if so, which brand and model?

Canon and Nikon own the dSLR market, but Sony and Samsung are slowly, but surely, launching models that can be considered viable alternatives.

We'd love to hear your thoughts.
Click to expand...
 
fracster said:
Well said...........:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Seconded!..or should that be Thirded ;)

If folks believe they chose the 'best' system (body & glass), why not be happy with what they chose?

Why is it necessary to bitch about the other folks choice(s)?

My 2 cents worth.

Glad the OP got some decent replies in the end :clap:
 
the pro lens have the gold band on 'em (i think someones already mentioned this)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
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:
Click to expand...

Showoffs? woh :)
I gaffer the red ring away on my lens :D
 
anyone who owns the pro lenses are rich b***** that need shootin-jealous me?? Noooo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top