Quote Originally Posted by wickerprints


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.