why do canon have so many more fast (AF) lenses than nikon?

Gary Coyle said:
i seriously miss my Canon EF 24-105mm L IS F/4 since switching to Nikon, i miss it so much i would kill for a Nikon version
Click to expand...

Given Nikon's recent lens pricing history, you could maybe buy the Canon lens plus a body to put it on for less than the price of a (theoretical) Nikon version.

Given the D5000 pricing (more than the D90 FFS!) and the new 10-24 pricing, I think a lunatic is in charger of the beans at Nikon.

If they make one (and I don't think they will), expect it to be £400 more than the Canon...
 
puddleduck said:
I can't understand why folks want VR in fast short zooms?

There is a very good reason that Canon and Nikon do not make f/2.8 VR / IS 24-70s - and to put it bluntly - Pros know how to hold their cameras properly.

VR is such short zooms is a marketing feature.
Click to expand...
Thats a good point but as you get older your grip isnt the same as younger folk :)
 
boozybill said:
Thats a good point but as you get older your grip isnt the same as younger folk :)
Click to expand...

Sure, I'm not anti-VR, but do question the need (as opposed to "it would be nice to have") on fast f/2.8 short zooms.

Nikon and Canon does make nice little 18-55 VR / IS lenses already.

The fast zooms are already large and expensive, and given we won't get a free lunch here - adding this feature is going to add more bulk and more cost. And I just don't see a real need here.
 
Personally I think this is a bit redundant...
I have a tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for my Canon 40D. I think it's great. good for portrait, gets surprisingly close to subjects, nice DOF and versatile.
I shoot fight gigs with his lens and it's surprisingly good for the money. I also shoot some music gigs when I get the chance.

However, I'd like the 17-55mm IS Canon and will get it eventually. Why? well the f2.8 is great for gigs I shoot, versatile and also the mid light music gigs. The same as above really.

However, who shoots at f2.8 all of the time?
if you were taking pictures of a landscape hand held, would you use f2.8?
taking family group pics, or a 2nd shooter at a weddings for wannabee pros...would you use f2.8?
also if you like shooting at f4 or f5 then that's on the limit of some other lenses. Surely that's not going to quite have the sweetest quality from the glass?

The point is for me that when you do want to shoot at f5 or f8 then the IS is there for when you want it.
Nothing said so far has convinced me that "pros know how to use their camera so this lens is for morons". If you shoot ALWAYS at the max aperture of the lens then great. I don't.
 
david1701 said:
IS could be useful, giving an off the wall abnormal example of say a location portrait where say the subject is flash lit at f11 iso 100 and you decide to bring in some light on the background (say black at 1/250s) then the ability to hand hold below 1/10s could become very useful, just one example mind. Whether it would be worth the extra weight on already heavy glass is another matter entirely
Click to expand...

IS doesn't have to make a lens heavier, the 300 f/4 IS is only around 30g heavier than the 300 f/4 non IS. Nothing, when you consider both lenses weigh in at 1.1kg.:)
 
Amp34 said:
IS doesn't have to make a lens heavier, the 300 f/4 IS is only around 30g heavier than the 300 f/4 non IS. Nothing, when you consider both lenses weigh in at 1.1kg.:)
Click to expand...

But lets compare what we are talking about here - f2.8 glass. On the Canon 70-200 f2.8 it adds an extra 160g to the lens for IS (1310g vs 1470g).
 
It seems VR and IS in reality, occupy a fairly narrow band of usefulness.
Anybody can dream up circumstances where VR could make a difference.
I mean, it has to be for a specific use, nobody leaves the house intending to shoot landscape for instance in dim conditions without a tripod, that would be either daft or not really a serious attempt, after all we don't know what the conditions are till we get there.
It can't stop sports, or any kind of movement, so that's out, so we're left with static poses and "just in case".....just in case what ?
Static poses are doable with flash, but not always, so where's the value in VR IS....music gigs, weddings :shrug:

Nice to have but ultimately, not that useful.
 
joxby said:
It seems VR and IS in reality, occupy a fairly narrow band of usefulness.
Anybody can dream up circumstances where VR could make a difference.
I mean, it has to be for a specific use, nobody leaves the house intending to shoot landscape for instance in dim conditions without a tripod, that would be either daft or not really a serious attempt, after all we don't know what the conditions are till we get there.
It can't stop sports, or any kind of movement, so that's out, so we're left with static poses and "just in case".....just in case what ?
Static poses are doable with flash, but not always, so where's the value in VR IS....music gigs, weddings :shrug:

Nice to have but ultimately, not that useful.
Click to expand...

Yes, when you put it like that (which I wouldn't) but here's another thought. Camera shake is ever-present. There is no such things as a shake-free image, it is just reduced to acceptable levels by faster shutter speeds. When you're looking to get the last drop of sharpness out of a sensor like the 15mp fitted to the Canon 50D, then even at relatively high shutter speeds you're going to need all the help you can get.

It would be interesting to put that to the test. I suspect that if you did, you would find that the old focal length = shutter speed rule would prove highly optimistic. And in terms of ultimate sharpness, an IS/VR lens would show benefits even at medium shutter speeds where absolute sharpness is normally taken for granted.

As for the cost of IS, here are a few comparison figures (WEX prices):

Canon L 70-200 2.8 Non-IS
1310g, 18 elements, £1050.

Canon L 70-200 2.8 IS
1470g 23 elements, £1550.

Canon L 70-200 4 Non-IS
705g, 16 elements, £550.

Canon L 70-200 4 IS
760g, 20 elements, £970.

Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS
630g, 15 elements, £426.

Canon EF-S 55-250 4-5.6 IS
390g, 12 elements, £222.

The incorporation of IS into both L lenses costs a lot of extra glass, and money, but there's not much difference between the f/2.8 and f/4 versions in terms of extra elements and price.

The 70-300 IS is very well regarded, and doesn't appear to carry a significant penalty for having IS.

The EF-S 55-250 IS is a lovely little thing. Sharper than it has any right to be, light as a feather, and very cheap. It's not full frame though.

On the basis of this very simple comparison, there doesn't appear to be a huge penalty with wide aperture lenses with big elements (other than the obvious weight of the glass). And it seems that if a lens is designed with IS from the start, it doesn't cost much at all - no more glass, no more weight, no noticeable price hike.
 
I find the Vr in my 70-200 a waste of time. It is a bit hit and miss on panning, to the point that I can get a better hit rate turning it off! The lens does have more contrast than the older 80-200AFS and is quite a bit lighter - my mainreason for liking it!

What is wrong with Nikon line up of lenses? They can give you everything from 14mm to 200mm in 3 lenses. 14-24. 24-70 and then 70-200. That is all you need carry, want more? Add a 1.4x or 1.7x conv then. I find myself taking less and less as I get older and less willing to lug long toms around - I took the 300 2.8 with each day this week on top of the usual array.....I felt it!
 
^^^ The point is that Canon will take you from 16mm to 200mm at f/2.8, and they will also take you from 17mm to 200mm at f/4. All L-Series lenses.

The f/4 lenses are much cheaper, and much lighter. Good for when you get older :D ;)
 
specialman said:
Think he's just using quotation marks to isolate and give extra impact to his point.:)
Click to expand...

true true....
if I was quoting I would have used the QUOTE boxes
I was paraphrasing in fairness after being a bit miffed...however I don't have "paraphrasing marks" so I improvised
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top