Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses

Andrew Haley
Nov 9, 6:50 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
From: Andrew Haley - Find messages
by this author
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 10:50:36 -0000
Local: Wed, Nov 9 2005 6:50 am
Subject: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

Joseph Chamberlain, DDS wrote:

To be very honest with you what I see is basically the type of edge
distortion that is noticeable by the naked eye and one does not need
to be a specialist to see it. Distortion and lack of sharpness that
are simply absent with the Nikkor equivalent to these lenses. The
difference between Canon and Nikon is more pronounced on the zoom
lenses (Nikkor's 17-35mm is way superior to Canon's 16-35mm), but
Nikkor's 28mm f/1.4 lens is also a lot sharper than Canon's 24mm
f/1.4 lens.

Lens tests do not reveal the Canon lenses to have worse performance
than their Nikon equivalents.

Where can these tests be seen? Which DSLRs did they use to perform
them?
If Canon lenses were really any good, why would people be cobbling
Nikon or
Zeiss lenses onto Canon bodies, especially when they lose the ability
to autofocus
or stop down the lenses automatically? You rarely hear about people
adapting Canon
lenses to other DSLRs, except for ones (like the older Kodaks) that
were made to take them.
-Rich

RichA wrote:
If Canon lenses were really any good, why would people be cobbling
Nikon or Zeiss lenses onto Canon bodies, especially when they lose
the ability to autofocus or stop down the lenses automatically?

Because they already have these lenses?

You rarely hear about people adapting Canon lenses to other DSLRs,
except for ones (like the older Kodaks) that were made to take them.

AFAIK, this is not possible with Nikon bodies without loosing infinity
focus because of the difference in the lens mount registration.

Bolek

Have you tried the lens mount adapter to put the Nikkors on the Canon?
For your level of investment that would be a wise thing just to verify
the results. I'd be curious of the results!

Joseph Chamberlain, DDS wrote:

Dear group members:

I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new equipment to
obtain some feedback from you as well as have you share your own
experiences.

This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the first real
serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses I purchased
along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM zoom and the
EF 24mm f/1.4L USM.

I am surprised with the low quality of the images I got from both lenses. I
am coming from film cameras and used two very similar lenses with my Nikon
Pro film body. My expectations for both Canon lenses were that they would
meet Nikon's quality since they are both "L" lenses and the price is about
the same but they don't even come close. My Nikon lenses are the 17-35mm
f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor and the 28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor. The performance
on these lenses is just outstanding. The zoom is an all-around great lens
that I like to take with me to places where I may want to capture a large
area and may not have the room to stand back and embrace my landscape. The
28mm is a great lens for low light situations where I don't like to use
tripod and/or flash. They are both very sharp and even with the zoom opened
to 17mm coverage, there is the natural distortion found at this type of
focal length but the image is extremely sharp.

I thought it might be just my impression and decided to check a few sites. I
couldn't really find one that had objective tests with a specific technical
protocol for testing lenses, but found several sites with reviews from other
users and photographers such as Fred Miranda's site. It seems all reviews
corroborate my initial impressions about flaws with Canon lenses. The
16-35mm is claimed to be a disappointment but many who reviewed it and the
24 f/1.4 also has its flaws including lack of sharpness.

What is the deal with Canon lenses ? I can't believe I've just purchased a $
10,000 + digital set up with what should be the best high end digital SLR
system in the market and this is the type of photos I'm getting from these
lenses. My opinion about the camera couldn't be any better. It is indeed
very well built and a work of art in terms of engineering. The lenses, on
the other hand, don't seem to even come from the same manufacturer or to
have been designed with serious photographers in mind.

One of Fred Miranda's review compares the sharp quality of Nikkor's 28mm
lens to a Leica Vario-Elmar 21-35mm zoom lens. This is how good Nikon lenses
are.

The other option of lens I had in mind for my camera was the new EF 24-105mm
f/4L IS USM lens because of its versatility and the ability to use it as the
preferred lens for those photo shooting situations where you can only take
one lens with you. After searching for this lens I found out that it has
been pulled from the market because of some serious design flaws that caused
flaring and other problems.

Canon could follow Sony's approach. Since they realize they don't have the
expertise required to design and build truly professional grade lenses, they
went to Carl Zeiss. Now that Kyocera decided to discontinue its Contax line
of cameras and is only keeping the Yashica line, Canon could very easily
approach Carl Zeiss to produce its lenses as Kyocera did in the past.

It is hard to accept that after a $ 10,000+ purchase the results I'm
obtaining are not matching those I was able to obtain from my Nikon $ 2,000
film setup. Maybe my expectations were too high. Maybe I was under the wrong
impression when I presumed that Canon's lenses were of similar quality to
those made by Nikon.

The bottom line is that one company gives you great lenses but still can't
seem to develop a decent body with full frame sensor that doesn't change the
characteristics of all the lenses you invested your money on. The other
produces great bodies with outstanding resolution, full frame sensor and
great overall performance but the lenses are of average rather than
professional grade image quality.

It seems that digital photography is not ready for prime time yet. Close -
but no cigar !

I am sorry for the long post - just needed to share my frustrations.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com

RichA wrote:
Lens tests do not reveal the Canon lenses to have worse performance
than their Nikon equivalents.

Where can these tests be seen?

Lots of places. Photodo, for example.

Which DSLRs did they use to perform them?

None. They're testing lenses, not cameras.

If Canon lenses were really any good, why would people be cobbling
Nikon or Zeiss lenses onto Canon bodies, especially when they lose
the ability to autofocus or stop down the lenses automatically?

People get to like lenses. You'd have to ask them.

You rarely hear about people adapting Canon lenses to other DSLRs,
except for ones (like the older Kodaks) that were made to take them.

It can't be done in most cases. Nikon lenses on Canons is one case
where it is possible.

Andrew.

DD wrote:


Have you totally lost it?

Really Doug, it's no wonder you get flamed so often. Posts like these
only serve to show that its not photography you are interested in, but
playing with us!

How did you discover this Nikon colour capturing problem during the
shoot? Do you carry around a laptop with you and examine every shot in
RSE during the wedding? You can't possibly assess colour using the LCD
on a DSLR.

BTW, if colour accuracy is so vitally important to you, why not just
stick to the technology that has been keeping photographers happy since
midway through last century: colour film. Pick one, shoot it, stick with
it.

Oh Dallas... You are so innocent to the real world. You really should
get on the program. Don't you use the Epson P-2000?

This thing is absolutely essential for seeing your images *before* you
leave the scene as well as dumping your card's contents to it as an
image bank and printing pictures for sale at the event. I can understand
how you wouldn't know much about Photography at a secure level.

To read your post, you'd have everyone think digital capture is as
uncertain as film... Wait until it's too late to see the results. It
might surprise you to here this Dallas... It's 2005 right now in the
real world and 'real' photographers who make a living from the craft,
can't afford to take chances the images they took might be OK or
recoverable with Photoshop when their livelihood depends on it.

Within 15 minutes of taking photographs at a wedding, I have them on
sale to the guests. I also go through all the essential shots and
formals on the spot so if something like has happened here happens, I
can re shoot the scenes before the people in the Wedding party leave the
site.

I know many otherwise "professional" photographers just press the
shutter button and hose away like a sub machine gun and think if they
shoot 1000 images, they'll at least get a hundred or so salable ones but
I don't.

I take the care to ensure the pictures of someone's wedding - which are
a once in a lifetime event that cannot easily be repeated at another
time, are actually properly recorded and securely backed up before I
depart the location... Maybe this is why I get the ****s with idiots
like you who all seem to think it's just watch the birdie stuff.

For all the drama I had with the 20Ds, they never once shifted colour or
showed any signs of overheating the sensor. They sure as hell overheated
the on-board flash capacitor and I fried one of them but even then, the
sensor performance was still stable.

I'll put up with the rest of Canon's crap to get stable recording in
Australia's harsh sunlight. Where I live and work, we don't have the
protection of a photovolactic layer of smog... We get our light direct
from the sun and it is hard on film, hard on sensors and hard on
photographers.

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.

JimKramer wrote:
I have a novel suggestion: Try the lenses out on a Canon film body and
compare the results to the images you took with the Nikon? Better? I
wonder why?

Jim

When the EOS 1 was announced, a promenent camera magazine editor was
heard to remark: " Now if we can just couple Nikon lenses to Canon
bodies, we'll have the perfect camera".

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.

Douglas... wrote:

Ahrrr Nikon lied to me. It worked so well all during winter and then
when the first really hot day arrives and I had to use it in the sun, it
heated up it's sensor, started capturing colours that weren't there.

"A poor tradesman always blames his tools".

--
Jeremy |

Thanks for the explanation. Makes plenty of sense to me. Too bad those
"personal" lenses aren't working out for you.


"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message
.. .
On 11/8/05 7:52 PM, in article ,
"Sheldon"
wrote:

Just curious: Why buy the Canon when you already had some excellent
Nikon
lenses? I don't want to get into the Canon vs. Nikon debate, but many of
us
chose a digital body based on what we already had in the way of
equipment.


Sheldon:

I really like the camera body and think it is a superbly engineered piece
of
equipment. I don't think the lenses match the camera. I had a lot of money
invested on Nikkor lenses but decided to switch to Canon when I realized I
wasn't being able to get a good setup for close-up medical photography
using
Nikon equipment. I have used Canon for medical photography and been happy
with their equipment compared to what Nikon offers for the same type of
application. This should show how open minded I am about new equipment and
how unbiased my opinion is in regards to either company. My switch to
Canon
was motivated by the fact that while Canon offered two macro flashes
(MR-14EX and MT-24EX) that sync with its digital SLR bodies in auto TTL
mode, Nikon doesn't even offer one (it is about to introduce its first one
now along with the new D200). Also whenever I needed to obtain
magnification
superior to 1:1 (as is sometimes necessary when photographing biopsy
samples, for instance) with Nikon equipment I was forced to use a bellows,
a
bellows extension, double cable release, an adapter ring, a lens mounted
in
reverse at the end of the bellows, compensate for light loss with the
bellows and many other technical issues. It was a mess. All this done
without the benefit of immediate feedback one usually gets from using a
digital camera. Canon solved this problem and simplified this whole
process
by introducing one single lens that takes care of all these issues: the
MP-E
65mm f/2.8 1x-5x macro lens. This lens achieves the same level of
magnification achieved on the first stage of a clinical laboratory
microscope (5x). This is truly amazing.

I now found myself using a Canon EOS 10D setup mostly for professional
close-up medical photography and using Nikon for my personal shooting.
However, the time came when I needed to move on to something with more
resolution. The advantage of a camera such as the EOS 1Ds Mark II is that
the image displayed on a computer screen can be magnified until it reaches
100% the original number of pixels and the image provides the type of
enlargement that is similar to performing surgery with the aid of a
surgical
microscope. This is fantastic for documentation as well as for reviewing
post-operative results. Cropping also allows you to display smaller
details
when you wish to prepare material for a lecture, for instance.

Since I invested on a new Canon body and already had the macro flashes and
lenses for my professional photography, I thought I could also purchase a
few lenses and move from my decent but lower resolution Nikon D70 to using
the 1Ds Mk II as an all around camera. The lenses I used the most with my
film cameras were the ones that the D70 rendered useless because of the
typical 1.5x magnification factor - the 17-35mm and the 28mm f/1.4 for
night
flash-less photos. This is the reason I chose these two Canon lenses -
they
represent the lenses I use the most outside of the macro lenses which I
use
everyday for work.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" writes:

Dear group members:

I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new equipment to
obtain some feedback from you as well as have you share your own
experiences.

This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the first real
serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses I purchased
along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM zoom and the
EF 24mm f/1.4L USM.

I am surprised with the low quality of the images I got from both lenses.

In what particular way?

I
am coming from film cameras and used two very similar lenses with my Nikon
Pro film body. My expectations for both Canon lenses were that they would
meet Nikon's quality since they are both "L" lenses and the price is about
the same but they don't even come close. My Nikon lenses are the 17-35mm
f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor and the 28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor. The performance
on these lenses is just outstanding. The zoom is an all-around great lens
that I like to take with me to places where I may want to capture a large
area and may not have the room to stand back and embrace my landscape. The
28mm is a great lens for low light situations where I don't like to use
tripod and/or flash. They are both very sharp and even with the zoom opened
to 17mm coverage, there is the natural distortion found at this type of
focal length but the image is extremely sharp.

I thought it might be just my impression and decided to check a few sites. I
couldn't really find one that had objective tests with a specific technical
protocol for testing lenses, but found several sites with reviews from other
users and photographers such as Fred Miranda's site. It seems all reviews
corroborate my initial impressions about flaws with Canon lenses. The
16-35mm is claimed to be a disappointment but many who reviewed it and the
24 f/1.4 also has its flaws including lack of sharpness.

Perhaps it would have been good to do this research *before*
buying. Every manufacturer has better and worse performers in its
line.

What is the deal with Canon lenses ? I can't believe I've just purchased a $
10,000 + digital set up with what should be the best high end digital SLR
system in the market and this is the type of photos I'm getting from these
lenses. My opinion about the camera couldn't be any better. It is indeed
very well built and a work of art in terms of engineering. The lenses, on
the other hand, don't seem to even come from the same manufacturer or to
have been designed with serious photographers in mind.

One of Fred Miranda's review compares the sharp quality of Nikkor's 28mm
lens to a Leica Vario-Elmar 21-35mm zoom lens. This is how good Nikon lenses
are.

The other option of lens I had in mind for my camera was the new EF 24-105mm
f/4L IS USM lens because of its versatility and the ability to use it as the
preferred lens for those photo shooting situations where you can only take
one lens with you. After searching for this lens I found out that it has
been pulled from the market because of some serious design flaws that caused
flaring and other problems.

Canon could follow Sony's approach. Since they realize they don't have the
expertise required to design and build truly professional grade lenses, they
went to Carl Zeiss.

Sigh. They went to Carl Zeiss for the name, at least. At least in one case,
it seems that the same digicam zoom was labeled "Carl Zeiss" in a Sony,
"Canon" in a Canon, and, as I recall, "Leica" in a Leica.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0103/01031301sonycarlzeiss.asp

As for Canon not having the expertise, I'm sure others will correct
you on this. At Photodo (www.photodo.com), the highest resolution
score ever recorded was for a Canon lens, the EF 200/1,8L
USM. Unfortunately, these people seem to have stopped testing lenses
several years ago, so your 24mm lens is not rated. The EF 28-70/2,8L
USM, however, shows a respectable 3.9, actually higher than the
corresponding Nikkor.

Now that Kyocera decided to discontinue its Contax line
of cameras and is only keeping the Yashica line, Canon could very easily
approach Carl Zeiss to produce its lenses as Kyocera did in the past.

No, no, no! Kyocera produced a number of lenses for Zeiss. This was
much cheaper than making them in Germany.

It is hard to accept that after a $ 10,000+ purchase the results I'm
obtaining are not matching those I was able to obtain from my Nikon $ 2,000
film setup. Maybe my expectations were too high. Maybe I was under the wrong
impression when I presumed that Canon's lenses were of similar quality to
those made by Nikon.

Maybe you should tell us just what the problem is; perhaps someone here
would know how to fix it.

The bottom line is that one company gives you great lenses but still can't
seem to develop a decent body with full frame sensor that doesn't change the
characteristics of all the lenses you invested your money on. The other
produces great bodies with outstanding resolution, full frame sensor and
great overall performance but the lenses are of average rather than
professional grade image quality.

Piffle. Canon is apparently dominant in photojournalism, particularly
for their lenses.

I am sorry for the long post - just needed to share my frustrations.

Well, how about being specific enough that we can give an intelligent
answer? That might actually reduce your frustration.

Here's an idea: take the same shot with your Nikon film setup and with
your new Canon. Scan the negative and put both images on the Web
somewhere with some explanation of just where and how you deem the
Nikon to be better.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" writes:

snip

Chuck:

I haven't done any post processing at all. I took general photos without any
specific test in mind.

No post processing was done. The photos were taken as RAW (CR2), opened with
Bridge (Adobe's latest CS2) and viewed with Camera Raw 3.2 hosted by Bridge
(3.2 is the latest version and I just downloaded it from Adobe's web site a
few days ago).

Thank you for the suggestion about the in-camera processing parameters. Mine
remain as the factory defaults and I didn't feel the need to change them. I
am going to look into this and try a few different options to see how much
improvement I can obtain from it.

To be very honest with you what I see is basically the type of edge
distortion that is noticeable by the naked eye and one does not need to be a
specialist to see it.

So straight lines are not straight? I'm not sure that it's fair to
complain that a 24mm lens shows more distortion than a 28mm. The lens
design problem gets much harder as focal length gets shorter but the
clearance to the film plane has to remain the same. I know from
personal experience, for example, that the Nikon 20mm f:2.8D has
visible distortion, whereas the 28mm f:2.8D doesn't.

As for the zoom, I think you need some controlled comparisons before
reaching a conclusion.

Distortion and lack of sharpness that are simply
absent with the Nikkor equivalent to these lenses.

At least, when the Nikkor equivalent is imaging on film, which is then
printed optically. Does it occur to you that you might just have a
few uncontrolled variables in your experiment?

The difference between
Canon and Nikon is more pronounced on the zoom lenses (Nikkor's 17-35mm is
way superior to Canon's 16-35mm), but Nikkor's 28mm f/1.4 lens is also a lot
sharper than Canon's 24mm f/1.4 lens.

The camera is superb but the lenses (at least the ones I've chosen so far)
do not match it. Another lens I had chosen which is the new 24-105mm zoom
f/4L has been recalled.

No, it hasn't. Canon has announced a free repair program for certain
examples from early production.

The next one I am going to purchase is the 135mm I
am planning to purchase for my in-office portraits of my patients. I have
read reviews that this lens fairs favorably when compared to the 85mm f/1.2
in terms of overall sharpness. I will post my initial impressions as soon as
I try it.

Why not try the 85mm f:1.8? Or the 100mm f:2.0? Lower stakes.

My only wish was to get the same image quality I had become accustomed to
with my Nikkor lenses.

On film. As others have pointed out, you may have some adjusting to do to
make the digital images appear as sharp as those from film.


Why not buy a Nikon adapter for your Canon and see if the difference
is really in the lenses?

Thank you again for your feedback and I will definitely check the camera
settings and to what degree they impact this issue.

I hope you realize that with your raw image files, the original camera
settings can be overridden when the image is imported to
Photoshop. Try tweaking sharpness in ACR first.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.