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

fontmoss

fontmoss

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,227
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
Having a quick look recently I realised canon seem to have a fast and in some cases a fast and very fast lens in almost every flavour. Whilst Nikon have some ace fast lenses like the 50mm f1.2 almost all the really nice ones are manual. Plus there seems to be gaps like 135mm where f2.8 is the biggest aperture, why is this?
 
Nikon are a relatively small company, and have to prioritise their resources. Canon are huge.
 
Canon have tried to make some decent lenses and keep trying, Nikon sucseed first time round? :lol:
 
Why don't Nikon have a fast normal zoom with VR? It's a huge hole in their lineup.
A 17-50 f/2.8 VR would be real nice.

My friend recently bought a new dslr system..I tried to get him to go with a D90, the 70-200/2.8 VR and the 17-55/2.8 but he was tempted by the 17-55/2.8 IS from canon and ended up with a 50D, 17-55/2.8 IS and 70-200/2.8 L IS.

If I ever switch from Pentax (unlikely in the near future), it will be to Nikon, but only if they have stabilized fast wide-moderate zoom.
 
surely with a fast lens particularly a relatively short one then VR is less of an issue?
 
There are plenty of holes in Nikon's lens lineup, which I wish would be closed. 70-200mm f4, 400mm f4, macro lens with more than 1:1 magnification etc etc.
 
fontmoss said:
surely with a fast lens particularly a relatively short one then VR is less of an issue?
Click to expand...

Speaking from personal experience, it's always nice to have VR/IS/SR, even with fast, 'short lenses'. I find that it makes a difference..even 'just' a 2 stop advantage is useful..if it means being able to use ISO 400 for static subjects, instead of going higher. Even otherwise, shots with SR enabled come out sharper in the 1/10-1/50 sec range on my 16-50/2.8, atleast for my level of handshake. If the photographer has a steady hand, then ofcourse, VR is less of an issue.
 
Pentaxprism said:
Speaking from personal experience, it's always nice to have VR/IS/SR, even with fast, 'short lenses'. I find that it makes a difference..even 'just' a 2 stop advantage is useful..if it means being able to use ISO 400 for static subjects, instead of going higher. Even otherwise, shots with SR enabled come out sharper in the 1/10-1/50 sec range on my 16-50/2.8, atleast for my level of handshake. If the photographer has a steady hand, then ofcourse, VR is less of an issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure- I don't miss VR on my normal and wide zooms and I don't think that this is particularly high on my widh list. I would like them to update their primes though - and not release a DX lens next

Hugh
 
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.
 
f2.8 glass isn't for consumers with no experience, its a pro tool. You should be able to hold a short lens for all of your handheld stuff, except for the long exposure landscape type stuff, in which case you need a tripod not VR/IS/OS!!!

I'd maybe agree that a good stabilisation system is useful on long telephotos, but not the short stuff!
 
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...
Good point.:D
 
puddleduck said:
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.
Click to expand...
desantnik said:
f2.8 glass isn't for consumers with no experience, its a pro tool. You should be able to hold a short lens for all of your handheld stuff, except for the long exposure landscape type stuff, in which case you need a tripod not VR/IS/OS!!!
Click to expand...

Do I detect an unpleasant whiff of arrogance here?

I'm not a pro by any means, but I know how to hold my camera properly. I know I can hand-hold a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS down to about 1/3rd of a second, which means I can take photos hand-held in appalling gloom. That simply would not be possible without the IS.

Now you might well argue that pros don't need to shoot hand-held in such poor light, and that might well be a sound argument. But it's not what I'm hearing.
 
I wanna know where the fast AF of the title, changed to a fast max app question.
 
fast as in big aperture, AF is in brackets because whilst nikon have fast lenses the proper fast ones aren't manual
 
Yes, I assumed he was referring to something like that.

I would have jumped at a Nikon 17-50 f2.8 or similar. Instead I went for the Tamron after having seriously considered Nikon's 16-85 first.
 
sdb123 said:
What's wrong with the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8? :thinking:
Click to expand...

It ain`t got VR, and you really need VR at 55 or less.........................:cuckoo:
 
StewartR said:
Do I detect an unpleasant whiff of arrogance here?

I'm not a pro by any means, but I know how to hold my camera properly. I know I can hand-hold a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS down to about 1/3rd of a second, which means I can take photos hand-held in appalling gloom. That simply would not be possible without the IS.

Now you might well argue that pros don't need to shoot hand-held in such poor light, and that might well be a sound argument. But it's not what I'm hearing.
Click to expand...

I agree Stewart. One of the reasons I got a Canon 17-55 2.8 was the IS. You could argue that it's a consumer zoom, which is why both Nikon and Canon full frame 24-70s do not have IS/VR.

But then there's the Canon 24-105 4 L with IS, which I wouldn't mind guessing outsells the 24-70. It is also newer. I wonder if an upgraded 24-80 2.8 with IS/VR might be along soon? I don't think the manufacturers are snobby about this kind of thing, if it sells.

Edit: the more you look at Nikon and Canon lenses, the more it looks like Nikon is favouring the consumer crop market, while leaving their professional D3 and D700 owners a little short.
 
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...

stick IS on the 24-70 and I bet you my dinner (It's chicken tonight) it'll be canon's fastest selling pro lens in the whole entire history of lenses yes sir...wanna know why they don't put it on the 24-70? a very good reason? because it's a banker...they know it'll sell well, so once they've done a nice long run with the vanilla version they'll hit the same market again...then nikon will follow...
 
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
 
I had an enquiry today about this picture taken hand-held on a ferry crossing Hong Kong harbour with a 40D and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

37mm, f/2.8, ISO 1600, 1/6s, most definitely IS.
 
Al de Man said:
I had an enquiry today about this picture taken hand-held on a ferry crossing Hong Kong harbour with a 40D and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

37mm, f/2.8, ISO 1600, 1/6s, most definitely IS.
Click to expand...

That's a very good example :) I guess we all have something taken under similar conditions but TBH I have yet to get my head around using long shutter speeds and high ISO - shooting quality pictures under those conditions just doesn't occur to me. I'm guessing that that picture shows more than you could actually see at the time :eek:

And walls, you have dinner at a very unusual time of the, erm, morning ;)
 
Al de Man said:
Absolutely. The water without any reflection would have appeared to have been pitch black.
Click to expand...

That's it. People brought up on slow film cameras would never dream of trying for a photo under those conditions. IS opens up new possibilities - it's almost an electronic tripod. As good as a monopod at least :)
 
StewartR said:
Do I detect an unpleasant whiff of arrogance here?
Click to expand...

Nope.

This thread might as well be asking why the D3x doesn't have face detection, video mode and a range of multi-coloured snap on facias.
 
desantnik said:
f2.8 glass isn't for consumers with no experience, its a pro tool.
Click to expand...

:lol:Hilarious!:lol:

VR/IS/SR is extremely helpful in locations like museums where prohibit flash and tri/monopods. If you can consistently get sharp images at 1/10sec and 25-50mm without some sort of stabilization, then congratulations!
 
walls said:
stick IS on the 24-70 and I bet you my dinner (It's chicken tonight) it'll be canon's fastest selling pro lens in the whole entire history of lenses yes sir...wanna know why they don't put it on the 24-70? a very good reason? because it's a banker...they know it'll sell well, so once they've done a nice long run with the vanilla version they'll hit the same market again...then nikon will follow...
Click to expand...

I think you pretty much nailed it.
 
Pentaxprism said:
I think you pretty much nailed it.
Click to expand...

I'd bet thats not the case- sorry but its very cynical. If Nikon were going to add VR to the 24-70 and the 14-24 then they'd of done it at the last release in 2007. I just don't need VR in those lens and if I want a monopod I'll take my £60 one - not a new lens costing £1k +. I don't think these lens need VR

Hugh
 
boyfalldown said:
I'd bet thats not the case- sorry but its very cynical. If Nikon were going to add VR to the 24-70 and the 14-24 then they'd of done it at the last release in 2007. I just don't need VR in those lens and if I want a monopod I'll take my £60 one - not a new lens costing £1k +. I don't think these lens need VR

Hugh
Click to expand...

Absolutely - the prices of these lenses is mental and its just not needed.

I don't believe it'll be possible to maintain the optical capabilities of these lenses with a floating VR unit in any case.

What would it add to the price? £100, £200, £300?!
 
And besides, you'd pay another 300 quid for an already expensive bit of kit?? A VR system to move big heavy f2.8 elements will be more expensive than one to shift around a light f4-5.6 bit of glass. They wouldnt make a non-VR version... so we'd all pay more money for something most in the market for expensive glass wouldn't use.

The example of the museum is better resolved with a high ISO low noise body anyway - then you pay once for the enhancement rather than on every single bit of glass you pay for.

Of course the answer if you really wanted IS/VR would be to put it in the body... but Canon and Nikon believe this to be an inferior solution.

*edit* PD seems to agree!
 
I've got a feeling that for very wide angle lenses, a sensor based IS system might be a better solution.
 
I'm totally amazed at how many people are waxing lyrical about high-end lenses as if they're the only option – can you guys all actually afford them or is it just a case of pub ammo?...

If buying my own gear I'd love to see some of the 'gaps' in the Nikon line-up filled in just to bring real-world costs down a bit. I could never justify spending £1500 on a 70-200mm VR for example when I could buy a 3rd-party lens for a thri of the price. Okay, the overal quality may be slightly less and there wouldn't be any VR but what the hell – do I actually need VR on a f/2.8 lens?

To me IS/VR is a gimmick that attracts a good many users because it acts as a safety net in tricky situations. Equally, it has its uses in the real world for photograaphers who truly want the help of an extra stop or so, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all, especially for short zooms that are very manageble in the hand anyway. My boss uses a Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 and I can see why it's got IS built-in; because it's got a rubbish max aperture. He is pants at holding a camera too, but that's another matter (professionals aren't nesseccarily Gods when it comes to handling a camera by the way:) ).

On something like a 17-55mm f/2.8 why could you need it – you could hand hold that down to 1/15th or maybe slower; if you need to shoot at f/22 @ 1sec then stick it on a tripod. I can see the benefits of IS/VR on long lenses like a 70-200mm and 300/400mm (and longer), but why on everyday zooms? You'd think we were all taking pics in dark rooms!!

I suppose a lot of it comes down to whether it's easier and cheaper to build in IS/VR than make an f/5.6 lens into an f/4 and so on. If you can afford the egar then go for it; buy the best lens with the fastes aperture and VR/IS built-in and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. If you can't afford it then you either go for the consumer f/5.6 lens with VR built in or... well, with Nikon there isn't another option. With Canon at least you have mid-range f/4 lenses.

I've made my bed by buyig into Nikon and I have to deal with it. It would be nice to get a 70-200mm f/4 for about £500 but it's not going to happen – I'll just have to rent off Stewart while I wait for my employer to buy me a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR :)
 
desantnik said:
And besides, you'd pay another 300 quid for an already expensive bit of kit?? A VR system to move big heavy f2.8 elements will be more expensive than one to shift around a light f4-5.6 bit of glass. They wouldnt make a non-VR version... so we'd all pay more money for something most in the market for expensive glass wouldn't use.

The example of the museum is better resolved with a high ISO low noise body anyway - then you pay once for the enhancement rather than on every single bit of glass you pay for.

Of course the answer if you really wanted IS/VR would be to put it in the body... but Canon and Nikon believe this to be an inferior solution.

*edit* PD seems to agree!
Click to expand...

Yes I also agree - this works both ways.

IS should be standard 'In Body' for shorter length lenses, which keeps the cost down and improves IQ (no moving elements)
And for longer lenses IS should move into the lens, since not being able to see the IS while looking through the viewfinder with 'In Body' IS is also a disadvantage, as well as improves IS (more stops)

So what we are saying is that we should have the options for IS both 'In Body' and also 'In Lens' if there is an advantage, but only use one of the other depending on application.
I'm sure I saw some of the newer (unreleased) Sigma lenses stating 'OS' for Sony and Pentax bodies, but I think the wording came from a translation (so might be wrong)

I must admit, I find IS useful when shooting with my 50/85mm primes. Body IS might only get you two stops, but on a Sony camera (with not so great High ISO), the difference between ISO1600 and ISO6400 is huge (usable vs unusable)

IS can be of more use than a fast lens, since sometimes you need a decent amount of DOF for the shot.

But IS is just a feature that can be used to solve problems. It's not the answer to all problems.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top