[Bare]

The bigest problem when you shot to contra-light is loss of contrast(picture is washed), some leses can deal better and some worse with it, what I saw is that Nikkor 70-200 VR II can deal it better than Canon 70-200 IS II. Flare is another story but I avoid it much as possible.



I think that IS II lacks SWC, I know that 14 II have it.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Bare' timestamp='1282419910' post='2012']

The bigest problem when you shot to contra-light is loss of contrast(picture is washed), some leses can deal better and some worse with it, what I saw is that Nikkor 70-200 VR II can deal it better than Canon 70-200 IS II. Flare is another story but I avoid it much as possible.



I think that IS II lacks SWC, I know that 14 II have it.

[/quote]

The lenstip samples show clearly the 70-200 VR II's way of handling it are not special.



Now where did you see the Canon II perform worse?



Anyway, the Canon has a lot less focus breathing (all Canon 70-200mm's have way less, compared to the new Nikon 70-200), so you get at least something near 200mm at 200mm (especially near MFD).



The Canon vignets less (or better: less light fall off towards the corners).



Judging from Photozone's measurements, the Canon has sharper edges.



Judging from Photozone's measurements, the Canon has a lot lower LaCA.



Judging from Photozone's images, the Nikon has a lot more nervous bokeh (seems to be a trend lately, with Nikon, nervous bokeh... 35mm f1.8 DX, AF-S 50mm f1.4 G, and now even the new 85mm f1.4 G seems to have gained nervous double line bokeh).



Yes, the Nikon is quite a nice lens.



I would NOT want to have one, if only for its focus breathing (I do use my 70-200mm (old f4 version) for close up stuff A LOT).



But the Canon just is even better.

[Bare]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282422379' post='2013']

Anyway, the Canon has a lot less focus breathing (all Canon 70-200mm's have way less, compared to the new Nikon 70-200), so you get at least something near 200mm at 200mm (especially near MFD).

[/quote]

Nikkor is longer where that is importsant at long fosus disatnce, for short focus disatnces macron lens is much better choice and 70-200 is to long @200mm even for head shots.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282422379' post='2013']

The Canon vignets less (or better: less light fall off towards the corners).

[/quote]

Nop, Nikkor have less light fall-off.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282422379' post='2013']

the Canon has sharper edges.

[/quote]

Only @F2,8 and not for 200mm, starting from F4 Nikkor is betetr than Nikkor.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282422379' post='2013']

the Canon has a lot lower LaCA.

[/quote]

Yes, it's true.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282422379' post='2013']

the Nikon has a lot more nervous bokeh

[/quote]

Hmh, it's for discussion.







If you don't believe look at dpr, I trust them and their methods much more than photozone. According to pohotozone Sigma 50mm F1,4 sucks but dpr says ''Class-leading image quality''. Whom to believe?

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Bare' timestamp='1282428273' post='2015']

Nikkor is longer where that is importsant at long fosus disatnce, for short focus disatnces macron lens is much better choice and 70-200 is to long @200mm even for head shots.





Nop, Nikkor have less light fall-off.





Only @F2,8 and not for 200mm, starting from F4 Nikkor is betetr than Nikkor.





Yes, it's true.





Hmh, it's for discussion.





If you don't believe look at dpr, I trust them and their methods much more than photozone. According to pohotozone Sigma 50mm F1,4 sucks but dpr says ''Class-leading image quality''. Whom to believe?

[/quote]

So, that is what your opinion on backlight performance comes from, dpr. Well, as you can verify, dpr did NOT publish any comparable shots and did NOT say what you are saying.



Photozone does not say anywhere that the Sigma 50mm f1.4 "sucks". Photozone points out two weaknesses: its edge resolution performance and its nervous foreground bokeh.



And that is not contradicted by the dpr findings, at all (dpr also finds quite exceptionally low res edges on full frame).



So what is with this "believing" stuff? Just follow the measurements.



And if you want to take dpr for gospel, fine, by all means.

Then also just read their conclusion:

"Overall, then, the EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS II USM gains about as close as it gets to an unqualified recommendation, given the price. Its combination of exceptional optics and quirk-free design even manages to surpass Nikon's equivalent that we tested recently, stealing the crown of 'Best in Class' by a whisker. It's a significant improvement over what was already an accomplished lens, capable of consistently delivering results that will satisfy the most demanding of users, and you can't ask for much more than that."



About the Nikon having less light fall off, what do you base that on?



Photozone's tests clearly show the better edge resolution over the entire range.



About the bokeh, just LOOK at images. NO need to discuss anything.



The Nikon has higher light fall off, why do you say it has less?



And the Nikon is NOT longer at long focus distances. Not sure where you get that from.

These lenses are portrait zoom lenses, of course you use them at shorter focal lengths. And of course the focus breathing is an issue. Especially if you only compare the lenses and rate them.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282300383' post='1949']



That is not true either. The Canon macro lenses are BETTER than the Nikon micro lenses. The 60mm from Nikon has worse CA than just about any other macro lens (even other normal prime lenses). For the rest it has nothing that distinguishes it.

The Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR is remarkably not contrasty for a macro lens, and is not any sharper than the competition either, more to the contrary. The 85mm VR DX is not in any way special either. And the out of production 200mm f4... Not exceptional either, and dog slow to focus (especially troublesome at MFD, where its max. aperture starts to be a problem).



On the other hand, the old Canon 100mm f2.8 macro USM already was a great macro lens, and the 100m f2.8 L IS USM improves on it in certain areas. Both are very good. The Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 USM macro also is a very good lens, without the CA problems of the Nikon. The Canon 180mm f3.5 L USM is a very good lens too, and a fast focuser for its class.



Internet myth 422: Nikon makes better wide angle zooms. That is not true. The Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR is NOT better than the Canon 17-40mm f4 L USM. Bigger and heavier, yes. The Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L USM II is NOT worse than the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 either.

That just leaves the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, which is in areas a very good lens. Canon does not have an equivalent. The Nikon is not for everyone, though, with its weight, its protruding front element (with its flare catching ability) and its relatively high barrel distortion.

[/quote]



You're stating opinions like they are facts...

[PuxaVida]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1282238502' post='1932']

... I don't have a lens stock problem, since my lenses are old and need to be renewed. My shooting means that I probably want a 12-24, a 24-70 and a 70-200, plus one macro plus minus 100 and a 50mm f1,4....

[/quote]



Well, I'd say "Be careful with that axe Eugene" <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />... If you want to renew your lens collection and want to get the ones you've mentioned, you must already have the budget (I mean the "budget"). There's a rumour (and it always be), that the Nikon lens line is better than the Canon. But what does "better" mean nobody cares... Anyway, as a Nikon user I've never had problems with my Nikon lenses (since I bought the better samples). But when it comes to compatibility and price, Canon seems to be more "user friendly". Also Canon has a body, which is quite a competitor: 5D MK-II. It is FF and has a very impressive ISO performance, it is robust, rigit and light. If you use Canon and like MF, I think the register difference is another plus against Nikon (although here Pentax is the king). There are some non-Canon & non-Nikon MF lenses which are as sharp as a tack (Tair, Jupiter). And adapting them to Canon is way too easier than Nikon, because if you google these lenses, you get a lot of Canon results with them and a pair of Nikon.



Coming back to choosing body (Nikon side); It seems that the DX bodies will be upgraded with a new sensor and other fancy new technologies. D3100 with 14.2 MP gives some clues. On the FX side, a D700x with less resolution than 24mp could be a very good alternative with less price. I'll wait for Photokina and then choose my upgrade: old friend D700 or the new one. If no FX would be brought to market, I'd definetly wait for the new D300x with the new 14.2 MP sensor. But I'm not planning to shift to Canon, because of the issue I quoted from your post.



Kind regards,



Serkan

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1282464149' post='2017']

You're stating opinions like they are facts...

[/quote]

No, I am just stating some facts, that some do not like and then like to call "opinion".



What fact do you disagree with, and why?

[Guest]

I am kind of lost. Who the f$%& cares about all these optical differences? Are they practically relavant? You buy a camera by the features you need, by the ergonomics you feel comfotable with and by the lens selection available. If you decide on diminuitive differnces in optical quality, you will most likely pick the wrong sytstem for yourself. Neitehr Canon nor Nikon has quality advantages in any major lens category. You want a high quality canon wide angle lens? go for 14mm or 16-35. If you need corner to corner sharpness stop theses lenses down to f/8. If you have a very special application for which you need corner to corner sharpnes at f/2.8( I can imagine what that would be, for landscape you need to stop down because of dof anyway) you buy a Zeiss lens. If you need a 14-24 zoom you go with nikon. If 2.8 70-200 zoom are to big, heavy and expensive you go with canion. If yu need more than 12 mp in a camera for less than 2000 buck, you go canon. If you need the extra bit of weather sealing you go nikon. you like 24-120 f/4 better than 24-105 you go nikon. You like cnaon ergonomics better than nikon you go canon. If you want wideangle zoom and image stabilization, you go nikon etc....



Btw. i would never shoot Nikon because I dont like the feel of the their grips, their menu system and the lack of f/4 telephoto lenses. I also love my 85mm 1.8 to have USM and be affordable. With Nikon I had to shell out 1600 bucks for an 1.4 if I wanted usm in an 85mm prime. But hey all this is entirely personal. Somebody with differnt hands, differnt preferences for ergonomics and more money for lenses might like nikon better.

[Steinar1]

I am watching your discussion with a certain amount of awe and then some incomprehension <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mellow.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':mellow:' /> There are some details and expressions that I don't even understand. However I have seen your advice, looked at your reviews and those from DPR which I find quite good too and my opinion is clear; I can find what I want as well with Canon as with Nikon, I am going to wait for Photokina to make sure that I don't miss out on an obvious choice and in the mantime I have the time to plan a strategy for both brands, both with respect to bodies and lenses. However, when I see what good lenses cost, I wonder whether the right approach is not to pick the lenses you really want and then fit a body to them? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

[Guest]

Good point. However, I wouldnt base my choice entriely on the lenses. Of course they usually last much longer than the body. But then you may have a special need, like video or ergonimcs, which excludes certainbodies. The best way forward would be this.

1. decide if you want full frame or aps-c

2. If you want aps-c evaluate the chance that you may go fullframe in the future.

3. choose the lenses according to your needs, keeping full frame compatibility in mind, if its an option.

4. calculate lens cost from both manufacturers and evaluate if any lens you choose is a stand out, e.g. unique to one manufacturer and indispensible by you.

5. look at bodies independently, which ones from which manufacturer would be fitting your bill.

6. match body and lenses, and evaluate in what areas you would have to make compromises by going with one system over the other.(cost, features of bodies, featrues of lenses)

7. Buy into the system that involves less compromise for you.