Which company has the best quality set of lenses?

AndyWest

AndyWest

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,400
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I love my 500D but am having problems choosing a std zoom/kit replacement and a 24mm fast prime. I'm now thinking that if say Nikon had a better IQ range of lenses that the best thing to do would be to go Nikon or whoever so I can get the right glass which is the most important thing about photography equipment to me.

I'm not trying to start a manufacturers war but would just like your honest opinion.

Thanks
 
You would be hard pressed to see any differance between Canon's best and Nikon's best at any chosen focal length.
 
What about the canon lens range is giving you trouble choosing?

As far as I can see, nikon doesn't offer significantly better standard zooms (though people say the nikkor 24-70 is sharper than the canon version (which is also more expensive though)).
I have no idea about the canon/nikon fast 24's though.

The way I see it, nikon generally has a better range towards the wide end with the 14-24, the 16-35 vr and the 24-70, but canon has a better range toward the telephoto end with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, the 100-400L and such, but both brands do pretty well in any focal length range.
 
Canons 17-55 f/2.8 i a fantastic lens, so that would be my std zoom of choice. Nikon do two 24 fast primes, but they are either very expensive, or not all that great. The 24 f/1.4 is about £1600!

I dont think you'd see any benefit to changing TBH.
 
OK thanks. When ever I read comparisons between Nikon and Canon the Nikons always usually come out tops. There is also Olympus, Panasonic and Pentax to consider!!??

I do prefer the wider end of the focal scale.

One of the problems I have for example is 24mm. It's my fave focal length on a crop sensor and i would like to buy a decent prime. Now...the Canon 24mm f2.8 is a very nice lens but i would like something faster. if i did decide to go with the Canon 24mm f2.8 i may as well get the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 as at 24mm it will be damn near identical to the Canon prime. Also as good as the Tamron is i do need Vibration reduction and the VC version some say is worse than the non VC lens plus some also say that the VC makes images more blurry!! I really should stop reading reviews!!:D

So 24mm f1.8 alternatives, Sigma..too many bad reports
Canon 24mm f1.4 Way over budget

Nothing else out there?

Again the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS would be the best lens to go for and I will consider it but it is out my budget by £200 plus it sucks in dust (filter may stop this problem) and the motors have a habit of failing. This is of course what others have reported and i know that thousands of others have been more than happy with theirs. It is also quite a heavy lens, something which I really have to consider as I hate heavy lenses. Some more research is needed on this lens I think!!

Thanks for the help so far! :thumbs:
 
If you want good glass, you gotta spend the money. Doesnt matter what system you have..
Thats the bottom line sadly.
 
TCR4x4 said:
If you want good glass, you gotta spend the money. Doesnt matter what system you have..
Thats the bottom line sadly.
Click to expand...

Yup, sadly you are dead right! I think I'll wait, save up and see what's what in a few months.

The other 'problem' I have is the Kit lens, it's SO DAMN GOOD!! OK it feels like a toy but the IQ I get from mine is really good (IMO) and it's hard to find anything better that doesn't cost the earth. I only produce images at 1024 pixels on the long side for Flickr and never print but I may be printing no bigger than A4 in the near future.

Here is a sample from the 18-55 Kit lens: DOF is a bit off but that was my fault.

Hastings Apr 2011 'OUR LADY' by andywest1, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
If you are so happy with the kit lens, then why change? If it does the job, then it does the job!

No point buying stuff just for the hell of it.
 
AndyWest said:
I will look closely at this lens while I save my pennies! :D
Click to expand...

I used to be fairly happy with the IQ on my Tamron 18-250 lens when used on a EOS 40D body, however, once I moved to the 7D I started to see big differences between the Tamron and the 17-55 IS f/2.8.

The quality of the body changes your opinion on the glass - using the 17-55 f/2.8 on your 500D may be overkill at the moment and you'll maybe not see significant differences between it and a much cheaper Sigman or Tamron equivalent, or even the kit lens you're using.

But you'll keep the 17-55 f/2.8 even after upgrading the body, whereas the kit lens, Tamron or Sigma may well start to show it's weaknesses.

If you're in it for the long haul, my opinion is go for the best glass you can afford as you'll have it for a long time, whereas buying cheaper glass means you'll tire of it sooner and end up wanting a new lens.

I think it's cheaper in the long run to just stump up for the expensive glass - The tamron lenses I've had never sell as well second hand, the Canon lenses often sell for the same as I paid for them (second hand) and in some cases, I've sold glass at a profit.

Just my take on it :)
 
Nikon do not have anything in the f4 zoom range that is comparable to the Canon Ls, neither do they have anything like the TSE-17L or TSE 24L Mk2 or MPE-65, people have bought into Canon for that lens alone. Nikon on the other hand have the outstanding 14-24 f2.8, but other than that the range is pretty similar with some Nikon lenses out performing their Canon counterparts and vice versa, basically you pay your money and take your choice.
 
For some of the smaller primes and zoom lenses I don't think you can beat Pentax, only problem comes when you want something above 300mm in either design.
 
tijuana taxi said:
For some of the smaller primes and zoom lenses I don't think you can beat Pentax, only problem comes when you want something above 300mm in either design.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with that, i think the K5 is a cracking camera, but getting hold of long lenses is a nightmare.
 
This is why I moved from Pentax, I was ready to move to a more advanced camera from my K200 DSLR but as I didn't have a lot of glass i sold everything and am now looking at the Nikon D7000, much better choice of lenses.
 
Side-note:
Some folks use long old Nikkor lenses on Pentax bodies with the Pentax 1.7x teleconverter (which provides limited range AF to MF lenses).
 
TCR4x4 said:
If you are so happy with the kit lens, then why change? If it does the job, then it does the job!

No point buying stuff just for the hell of it.
Click to expand...

I do really like the images from the 18-55 which is why the 24mm was mentioned in my orig post. I can live with the kit lens but i do want a fast 24mm for low light and DOF images which is why I thought just getting 1 fast zoom may do the trick. I guess saving just for a prime will be easier and quicker.

OK I'm keeping the Kit lens so it's just finding a decent 24mm f1.8 or 1.4.
 
Last edited:
As many have said, the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS would always be my pick of the bunch. It's incredibly sharp, it's well built and delivers on IQ, plus it has IS. I don't know where all the b******* about it being a dust magnet comes from, I certainly haven't experienced it, and it gets used a lot.

It covers your preferred focal length of 24mm which is around it's sweet spot, and it's almost up there with L glass. Save the money and look for a used unit, if you buy anything else you're only keep wanting one anyway.

Steve
 
Olympus or Panasonic, as unlike Canon, Pentax, Sony or Nikon, there are no duff kit lenses in the line up!
 
Despite my admiration for Nikon and long time happy ownership experience I think that looking at it from a lens point of view, and coldly, maybe a Canon body makes more sense. My thinking is that Canon and Nikon both have their own strengths and weaknesses in their lens ranges and the same access to Sigma and Tamron etc lenses but I think I'm right in saying that with a Canon body you have better usability than with a Nikon to lenses in other mounts?

Regarding Siggy troubles, I personally have always got good ones but even if I'd had one with a focus or softness problem that wouldn't put me off as that's what warranties are for. I'm perfectly happy to buy the best Canon, Tamron or Siggy lens for my needs and I'm perfectly willing to take a duff copy back to the shop and swap it should the need arise.

I have a perfectly good Siggy 20mm f1.8 and as far as I know the 24 and 28mm f1.8's are very similar.
 
if you like wide then have a look at images from the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 lens
this thing is awesome :thumbs: ( could be wrong? but i don't think canon have a lens to rival that one?):thinking: :shrug:

i've just bought the Tamron 17-50 non vc so i'll let you know how that works out. everything i've read indicates its good for the money :naughty:
 
AndyWest said:
When ever I read comparisons between Nikon and Canon the Nikons always usually come out tops.
Click to expand...
Let's see your sources. As others have said, overall there's little to choose between them. Each offers lenses that the other doesn't, but across the range there's no real consistent quality difference. So if your sources are talking about the ranges, then they are wrong; and if they aren't, then they are not relevant here.
 
AndyWest said:
I love my 500D but am having problems choosing a std zoom/kit replacement and a 24mm fast prime. I'm now thinking that if say Nikon had a better IQ range of lenses that the best thing to do would be to go Nikon or whoever so I can get the right glass which is the most important thing about photography equipment to me.
Click to expand...
Does it matter who has the best range if you only need a subset?
Surely it's more important who has the best for what you need (& your budget)?

I'm sure that the Pentax etc. users can say similar but for example for your above stated wants on Sony you would have the option of the Sony Zeiss 16-80 f3.5/4.5 (rumoured to be a 16-50/2.8 coming this summer) & Sony Zeiss 24/2.0 as well as access to current Sigmas, Tamrons & a few Tokinas. If s/h is acceptable then things like the Minolta 24/2.8 also become options.
& they would all be image stabilised if that's a concern.
 
Andy, I would stick with Canon unless you can replace your kit without having to add money. I managed to lose £££££ doing this as you may remember and looking back on the whole thing wish I'd have taken a step back and come to my senses. The whole thing got out of hand and I eventually ended up selling everything and stepping back from photography - it became more about the kit than my photos.

Each company offers a good range of lenses in terms of focal lengths and quality, where one wins out in one area they are just as easily beaten in another. Canon bring out a great camera and sail on top for a few months, then Nikon come back and grab the top spot.

Looking back I think it's more about what feels right in your hand and an easy to use layout of the controls. My 5DMKII took great pictures, but then so did my Nikon D700, and my Canon 7D, and my Nikon D300 etc.....

I don't have specific experience of the lenses you're discussing sorry, but I felt this may be relevant?
 
AndyWest said:
...The other 'problem' I have is the Kit lens, it's SO DAMN GOOD!! OK it feels like a toy but the IQ I get from mine is really good (IMO) and it's hard to find anything better that doesn't cost the earth. I only produce images at 1024 pixels on the long side for Flickr and never print but I may be printing no bigger than A4 in the near future.

Here is a sample from the 18-55 Kit lens: DOF is a bit off but that was my fault.

GF1 Rose Buds by andywest1, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Andy, there's something strange going on : this picture is apparently taken with an Olmypus m4/3rds Prime on a Lumix GF1, not with a Canon kit zoom ...
( If I'm late to the discovery I apologise.)
 
AndyWest said:
...... whoever so I can get the right glass which is the most important thing about photography equipment to me.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously, Leica.
Of course you would then need to buy the correct body.

:naughty:

Allan
 
Andy, don't forget Sony, some great old minolta lenses available not to mention all the old M42 stuff, I've just picked up a mint 300mm F4 Pentacon preset with a 19 blade aperture for £75 and don't forget with a chipped adapter, now available with exif info, the on board steady shot is a huge bonus.
 
Well, judging from numerous reviews out there (and my own experience), Olympus Zuiko digital lenses are among the best ever made. Shining examples are the 14-35/2.0 and the 35-100/2.0. Unfortunately, Olympus bodies don't live up to this high standard. The lackluster C-AF perfomance of my E-30 made me jump ship recently to Nikon. Birds in flight are now no problem, but I do miss the great Zuiko glass.
 
pasterw said:
Well, judging from numerous reviews out there (and my own experience), Olympus Zuiko digital lenses are among the best ever made. Shining examples are the 14-35/2.0 and the 35-100/2.0. Unfortunately, Olympus bodies don't live up to this high standard. The lackluster C-AF perfomance of my E-30 made me jump ship recently to Nikon. Birds in flight are now no problem, but I do miss the great Zuiko glass.
Click to expand...

No need to miss the Zuiko glass http://www.leitax.com/OlympusOM-lens-for-Nikon-cameras.html David is a good bloke and very helpful
 
Last edited:
I wasn't referring to OM-lenses, but the Zuiko digital lenses of the E-System.
 
Its a personal thing, just look at the companies lenses. IMO Canon has a better set then Nikon (For my requirements) The F4 L's and the 17-55mm IS F2.8 are excellent for people who want pro quality without the price tag.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Olympus or Panasonic, as unlike Canon, Pentax, Sony or Nikon, there are no duff kit lenses in the line up!
Click to expand...

Agreed.

It's about what quality you can produce at any given price point, and no matter what price level, there's simply no digital Zuiko lens that's sub-par. I know from experience of Canon's entry level kit lenses, the 14-42mm Zuiko just outclasses the Canon counterpart in every possible way.

The Zuiko 50mm f2 Macro is thought to be simply one of the sharpest lenses ever made, and being sharp wide open is a common trait amongst the Olympus digital line up, which is not something a lot of lens ranges can claim to be brilliant at.

Best lens in the Zuiko arsenal? For Zooms it has to be the 35-100mm f2, primes, maybe the 300mm f/2.8 or the 150mm f2.

I watched a video recently from a scientist in the Japanese factory where the pro Zuiko lenses made and he said the error tolerances in the lenses were less than a match stick in a football field.... :eek::eek:
 
Actually if the OP wants the short answer it would be Fuji the longest is probably Panasonic.
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
Andy, there's something strange going on : this picture is apparently taken with an Olmypus m4/3rds Prime on a Lumix GF1, not with a Canon kit zoom ...
( If I'm late to the discovery I apologise.)
Click to expand...

Oh....nuts!! Sorry!! Wrong image :lol:

I'm still no nearer to deciding what direction to go in. Too many choices!! I'm now also looking at a high end compact with built in lens so i can't be tempted to buy more lenses!! I can't afford more lenses anyway as i have a budget of about £450 and then that's it, no more dosh for equipment for another 2 years or so.....which is when half our mortgage gets paid off - Woohoo!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top