04-13-2011, 10:30 PM
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1302689007' post='7589']
I do not see why I should downrate the mechanical quality. You may not like the haptics of the outer lens tube, but the lens is no doubt very solid and well constructed.
Regarding the optical quality, I see it below the 24.105 IS in summary. Yes, it has less barrel distortion at the short end, but I consider the large amount of pincushion distortion at the longer focal lengths to be more annoying in the field. And I don't see the Canon far behind in terms of bokeh quality. Both are not really great in this regard.
-- Markus
[/quote]
Distortion is distortion, pin cushion or barrel. Because there isn't a field rating for the Nikon, why do you even mention what more annoying on the field?
As for bokeh quality, the Canon is, subtle but, noticeably worse than the Nikon.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1302694372' post='7591']
It is not like ben4345 is imagining things, regarding construction quality differences between the lenses, lenstip for instance notes:
"I understand that the Nikkor AF-S 24–120 mm f/4G ED VR is supposed to compete with (or supersede) the well-done Canon 24-105 mm f/4.0L IS USM. Optically both lenses are very much alike. The problem is that the Canon, being noticeably cheaper, features also a superior build quality. It is, after all, an L series device produced in Japan. From the mechanical point of view the Thailand-produced Nikkor looks and behaves like a lens with a 300 – 600 $ price tag. A narrow manual focus ring with slacks or the inner tube with plastic elements in the 1140 price segment are simply inappropriate."
[/quote]
Nikon 24-120mm f/4 does have better than $300-600 lenses with out a doubt, but it is not better than the Canon 24-105 f/4.
I do not see why I should downrate the mechanical quality. You may not like the haptics of the outer lens tube, but the lens is no doubt very solid and well constructed.
Regarding the optical quality, I see it below the 24.105 IS in summary. Yes, it has less barrel distortion at the short end, but I consider the large amount of pincushion distortion at the longer focal lengths to be more annoying in the field. And I don't see the Canon far behind in terms of bokeh quality. Both are not really great in this regard.
-- Markus
[/quote]
Distortion is distortion, pin cushion or barrel. Because there isn't a field rating for the Nikon, why do you even mention what more annoying on the field?
As for bokeh quality, the Canon is, subtle but, noticeably worse than the Nikon.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1302694372' post='7591']
It is not like ben4345 is imagining things, regarding construction quality differences between the lenses, lenstip for instance notes:
"I understand that the Nikkor AF-S 24–120 mm f/4G ED VR is supposed to compete with (or supersede) the well-done Canon 24-105 mm f/4.0L IS USM. Optically both lenses are very much alike. The problem is that the Canon, being noticeably cheaper, features also a superior build quality. It is, after all, an L series device produced in Japan. From the mechanical point of view the Thailand-produced Nikkor looks and behaves like a lens with a 300 – 600 $ price tag. A narrow manual focus ring with slacks or the inner tube with plastic elements in the 1140 price segment are simply inappropriate."
[/quote]
Nikon 24-120mm f/4 does have better than $300-600 lenses with out a doubt, but it is not better than the Canon 24-105 f/4.