Quote Originally Posted by Keith B


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.