Nikon reviews?

[Daniel Browning]

I love having the Nikon information, this is great!

[Sheiky]

I love having the Nikon information, this is great!

If anyone posts a photo shot with a Nikon I will say it's bad!

[Sheiky]

Just joking of course [:P]

[Keith B]

I love having the Nikon information, this is great!

If anyone posts a photo shot with a Nikon I will say it's bad!

NICE!


I commented earlier on this, but I am really surprised at the ISO Charts. I've always heard that Canon was the way to go if you shoot primes but I am surprised at the less than great results for most Nikon lenses with the exception of the 12-24. It is mind boggling.


EDIT:


Nikon 24-70 looks really good too.

[malfunctions]

Good morning! As a relative newbie and perhaps at some risk at not fully understanding all of the nuances of this forum, I would just like to add some of my experiences to this thread. I actually quite like to try to understand the world of photography and the transfer of the photographed image into something that I appreciate and maybe others will to. To that end whether it is nikon, olympus, pentax no matter. Medium format, rangefinder, pin hole. I have used leica in photomicroscopy, hasselblad for portraits, disposable underwater cameras.... All different purposes and different variations. Best of all though is that by understanding a little of this and with a view to the next photo opportunity, even though I am a heavy canon user, I can still find interest and discussion with all other systems and try to find the best way of conveying my photographic message. Better still, when I am clearly a canon user, a delighted nikon person will come up to me every now and again and ask for me to photograph them using their gear.... It helps to now how to turn a nikon on and focus! Perhaps I am just a jack of all trades and a master of none but any camera will give you a reason to immerse yourself in any number of exciting, challenging, reflective, peaceful settings. Enjoy the moment. I enjoy reading and learning about Nikon gear as much as anything.

[wickerprints]

NICE!


I commented earlier on this, but I am really surprised at the ISO Charts. I've always heard that Canon was the way to go if you shoot primes but I am surprised at the less than great results for most Nikon lenses with the exception of the 12-24. It is mind boggling.


EDIT:


Nikon 24-70 looks really good too.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I too have been rather surprised by the test chart results. Aside from the aforementioned reddish/magenta color cast I see in many of the Nikon results wide open, I have noticed a few other trends:

1. Nikon lenses (for FX format) are generally more optimized for better corner performance than Canon lenses.
2. Most Nikon primes do not outperform their respective Canon counterparts wide open.
3. Transverse/lateral CA is much less apparent in Nikon lenses in general.
4. When stopped down about 1-2 stops smaller than max aperture, most Nikon lenses are extremely sharp in the center.
5. Comparable AF-S designs are lacking.

Regarding the last point specifically, we see that there are no Nikon offerings comparable to the following Canon designs:

• EF 35/1.4L USM
  
• EF 50/1.2L USM
• EF 85/1.2L II USM
• EF 135/2L USM
• EF 400/5.6L USM
• EF 800/5.6L IS USM

Indeed, I feel like the absence of these designs in the Nikon lineup is a significant disadvantage with respect to prime lens photography. The one caveat I must point out is that the Nikon 50/1.4D AF is a superior lens to the EF 50/1.2L and EF 50/1.4 in terms of overall sharpness. If anything, I would say that the existence of certain zooms (14-24/2.8, 200-400/4 VR) with no Canon counterpart means Nikon would be a better choice for zoom shooters--the exact opposite conclusion.


Truly, it can't be denied that Nikon's relatively late adoption of ultrasonic motor technology and the unwillingness to migrate to an all-electronic mount has hampered their lens development in the long run. Canon users paid the price of the FD to EF mount transition, but the technological rewards are huge. Canon was first with USM, IS, EMD, and we have AF f/1.2 designs. We even had the EF 50/1.0L USM back in 1989. More than twenty years later and with the benefit of improved production techniques, I am hoping that Canon might see fit to refresh and reintroduce this design.


That said, Nikon is certainly not without some very impressive glass. Especially when you look at the center performance, they can clearly make some extremely sharp lenses, and when stopped down, the corner-to-corner performance is enviable--some Canon lenses do not achieve such results even at f/8. In a way, I think this reflects the different design philosophies between the two companies. But if I am to trust the test chart results, I would hate to be a Nikon shooter if most of my images were taken at f/2.8 or faster.

[Jarhead5811]

I would hate to be a Nikon shooter if most of my images were taken at f/2.8 or faster.

What's the point in fast glass if it has to be stopped down to be sharp?

[Keith B]

Regarding the last point specifically, we see that there are no Nikon offerings comparable to the following Canon designs:

• EF 35/1.4L USM
  
• EF 50/1.2L USM
• EF 85/1.2L II USM
• EF 135/2L USM
• EF 400/5.6L USM
• EF 800/5.6L IS USM

Indeed, I feel like the absence of these designs in the Nikon lineup is a significant disadvantage with respect to prime lens photography. The one caveat I must point out is that the Nikon 50/1.4D AF is a superior lens to the EF 50/1.2L and EF 50/1.4 in terms of overall sharpness. If anything, I would say that the existence of certain zooms (14-24/2.8, 200-400/4 VR) with no Canon counterpart means Nikon would be a better choice for zoom shooters--the exact opposite conclusion.


Truly, it can't be denied that Nikon's relatively late adoption of ultrasonic motor technology and the unwillingness to migrate to an all-electronic mount has hampered their lens development in the long run. Canon users paid the price of the FD to EF mount transition, but the technological rewards are huge. Canon was first with USM, IS, EMD, and we have AF f/1.2 designs. We even had the EF 50/1.0L USM back in 1989. More than twenty years later and with the benefit of improved production techniques, I am hoping that Canon might see fit to refresh and reintroduce this design.


....I would hate to be a Nikon shooter if most of my images were taken at f/2.8 or faster.

I don't know if this is for certain but I have read that the Nikon mount is too small to achieve apertures larger than 1.4 where the EF mount will allow for 1.2 or even 1.0 in certain ranges.

[wickerprints]

I don't know if this is for certain but I have read that the Nikon mount is too small to achieve apertures larger than 1.4 where the EF mount will allow for 1.2 or even 1.0 in certain ranges.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

No, this is not quite accurate; Nikon has made a 50/1.2, 55/1.2, and 58/1.2, all manual focus lenses in variations on the F-mount. However, they have not made any such lenses with AF capability.


Strictly speaking, the f-number relates only to the focal length (at infinity focus) divided by the diameter of the entrance pupil; the flange diameter does not directly relate to this ratio. Otherwise, one would not be able to construct lenses like a 300/2.8, in which the entrance pupil has a diameter of approximately 107mm, much larger than any 35mm format lens mount. A telephoto lens has a pupil magnification ratio of less than 1 (i.e. exit pupil dia. / entrance pupil dia. &lt; 1), and it is this asymmetry that relates to the light-gathering ability of the lens. Hence a small mount diameter does indirectly impose constraints on the optical formula, in the sense that it requires asymmetric construction of fast lenses for shorter focal lengths. This is part of the reason for Canon's decision to design the EF mount with a fairly large diameter.


In short, while it is not absolutely necessary to make the mount especially large, it does have the effect of expanding the possible design parameters of lenses for the system.


Something else that must be taken into consideration when designing large-aperture lenses with AF is that the design is further constrained by the requirements of the AF motor in two important ways:

1. The AF motor and supporting electronics require additional space inside the barrel.
2. The focusing group must be designed to permit efficient operation with the AF design.

The first point should be fairly obvious, but the second is more subtle. What I mean by this is that an AF lens must be designed in such a way that the focusing group's travel cannot be very long or its mass too heavy. Manual focus lenses often have focusing rings that turn well over 200 degrees from MFD to infinity, and they are geared in a way that permits very fine control of focus via the ring since this is the only way to focus the lens. An AF lens cannot afford this luxury as it compromises the AF speed, as does a design in which the focusing group is made of many elements or heavy elements. An example of such a lens is the EF 85/1.2L II USM, which is a front-focusing design that uses Canon's most powerful USM motor to move well over a pound of solid glass with pinpoint accuracy. It is the only EF lens, other than the supertelephotos, to use the 77mm ring USM.


This is why I often feel it is unfair to compare AF lenses against MF lenses in terms of "feel." They necessarily feel different because they are constrained by different requirements--the former has to have a short focusing helical to be "snappy," and the latter has to have a long one to facilitate accurate focus.


In light of these considerations, I believe that the real reason why Nikon has not designed a f/1.2 AF lens has less to do with the mount diameter than it has to do with their relative lateness in developing AF motor technology. This conjecture is supported by the fact that there still remain relatively few AF-S FX lenses in the Nikon lineup.

[clemmb]

I commented earlier on this, but I am really surprised at the ISO Charts.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I have seen this comment but not much discussion. When I look at the ISO charts I can not believe Nikon is that bad. What am I missing?


Are my eyes so canon biased that I see purple in most of the Nikon ISO charts?


Mark