I am still laughing, ha, ha, ha, but if you look at PAD, THIS IS NIKON. The 135mm f/2.0

I just read a review from a C to N convert who was complaining about the C lenses gave him some worry about softness and with the N brand he was more at ease in his shooting. Now I am just saying....

Guys, honestly, it's obvious OP's intent was to spark a humorous debate between the two lenses. He even said so in his post. No need to take it so seriously. At the same time I really don't understand why so many insist that tools don't matter. I mean yes, I get that skills are important of course but I also think tools, in the right hands, could also be just as important.

If you bring two photographers of equal calibers together and give one a Nikon and the other a Canon then both will produce stunning photos I'm sure but if there is a difference between them it will come from the tools they use. The lens is just one component in the bigger system but it's a component that could make a difference. I don't see anything wrong with comparing different tools and definitely nothing wrong with wanting the best equipment.

I wonder how many here still shoot with AI and AI-S lenses? And then how many shoot professionally with these lenses?

SquamishPhoto said:
*facepalm*

Look, I love my Nikon gear, but I don't feel like I need to proclaim its dominance for all to see. And I'd be dramatically more impressed with some great photos rather than seeing you trot out your list of toys. Just sayin'...

Hey Squamish, you should have checked Cary's photos on his website before you said that... Just saying.

tcole1983 said:
If you shoot Nikon does it matter which one is better?

Thank you!!!! I can see comparisons to 3 party, older versions but crossing companies, is ridiculous. I have never heard anyone switching brands for any lens, let alone a 24-70 (equiv) lens.

Lenses are tools that all have uniqueness that adds to the image if one allows it. Some are better suited to particular situations, but I don't believe any one is better than another if you learn to work with it.

If you shoot Nikon does it matter which one is better? You don't have much choice unless you plan on switching brands for that certain lens. Although it doesn't seem that people find glass as important of a factor as they do bodies. I know both brands have good stuff. I think the biggest difference I ever found between the two were the feel of the bodies, especially the lower end bodies. I have tried several Canon rebel bodies and shot most of Nikon's DX bodies and the build quality and feel seems so much better on Nikons...even the D3000. The Canon entry level stuff feels very cheap.

bjrichus said:
May the FARCE be with us....

(You gotta laugh)...

Ha, ha, ha....... with some of us old folks, the purpose of this thread was to get just that, a laugh. I hope no one really thinks the cameras at the pro level make much difference. Geez, I have to check about three times just to make certain I have the camera in the car....

spraynpray said:
...Or the moderators if the force fails us...

May the FARCE be with us....

(You gotta laugh)...

J Man said:
May the force save us all from playschool fanboy posts

...Or the moderators if the force fails us...

May the force save us all from playschool fanboy posts

This thread is about as dumb as the time when my friend says he only uses the 180-200mm end of his 70-200mm since its the 'sharpest'.

*rolls eyes*

OK, one more time...... oh shucks I forgot....

To throw one in on the lens debate..... I would think Nikon and Canon would bring out the faster (2.8 and bigger) with VR. Although there may be some technical (think big $$$) problems with the fat glass and VR that I am unaware of. Especially with the focal length below 70mm. Otherwise, one might have thought the 17-35mm f2.8 would have been VR. And of course the 24-70mm f2.8 VR Nikkor would be sweet. Oh heck, let's make it a 24-70mm f/2.0 VR, huh? These things may also get heavy. The 135mm f/2.0 is rather heavy. And maybe zooming at f/2.0 is simply an impossible act.

Anyway, I bought the 24-120mm f/4.0 with VR because of the VR. All of these things are sharp.

And the idea of an assistant is to have someone to blame when we screw up. Gosh, I thought everyone knew this. And when we drop a lens or camera, well, another "assistant's "job.

Error's in shooting.... if I can stop laughing, I will tell you a few. Starting with static focus when we are trying to follow a moving object.... review in camera and they are all furry little devils. Oh, yeah, fumble fumble, got it. Then ISO at 200 when 800 is needed. Or, darn, should have charged the batteries last night. Well, change camera bodies or exchange the batteries.
I could have sworn I packed that.
How could I have forgotten to take the lens cap off... well at least it is an SLR so this is noticeable rather quickly.
Finally, once all the glitches are worked out.... shoot some stuff and wonder....should I be shooting Canon? Naw, their lenses are not as sharp......ha, ha, ha.

Hate to be devil's advocate, but new 24-70mkII to be released from Canon may be best in that range.

I actually have read many people claim the old 28-70s from each company are every bit as good as their newer versions (with exception of losing 24-27mm range)

If I were buying zoom, it would be Nikon's 28-70 and save several hundred. I would have my wide angle covered by a true WA lens. My 2 cents

I don't think it makes much sense on a micro level (person-to-person) to argue which lens is better...

...BUT...

what I will say is that good natured arguments, and togs switching from one system to the other, probably pushes all camera companies to try to out-do each other. Will most of us ever need more than 12MP? I doubt it. Do I wish Nikon would put out 400mm lenses at different max apertures and not just the 2.8 that's out of my price range? Sure. But these are quibbles. I buy 2-year-old bodies (like my D90 in October) and once the early adopters are done paying for the R&D I'm glad that Canon and Nikon are pushing each other because two years later my technology improves on-the-cheap.

If, in the mean time, a Canon guy and a Nikon guy want to have a friendly argument as to whose 24-70mm is cock-of-the-walk, I'm happy to live with that as a byproduct of the tech race.

msmoto said:
FACT: the big factor in the way the camera/lens performs is the attached operator. About 99% of the difference is this factor.

+1,000,000 MsMoto.

I had a lesson this weekend that covered exactly that. I did two sessions this last week, one of a series of product shots (man! Can I do stuff that evokes romantic country cottages! "Chocolate box shots" as the phrase goes), and one was a still life - something that LONG AGO I thought I knew how to do.

WRONG! I must have messed up just about every thing you could. Lights (just don't ask as everything was wrong), size of table for subject (too small), backdrop (turns out to the wrong shade of the contrast color, so it looked terrible), then I don't get the tripod set up firm enough and it was wobbly so TWICE, I nearly tipped my D7000 over onto a concrete floor. After that, the battery goes out in my remote followed by me realizing that the focus wasn't right (ALWAYS get eyes IN focus, no matter what else), it was a @$#%&&$#@#ing nightmare.

Oh yes, and then my wife takes a snap shot with her P&S and I think it's pretty darn close a shot as my carefully (and messed up multiple times), results. [SIGH].

So yes, the operator can GREATLY affect what you do.

msmoto said:
.... FACT: the big factor in the way the camera/lens performs is the attached operator. About 99% of the difference is this factor.....

Msmoto, although I would like to believe that the more money I spend, the better my pictures will be, my personal experience has proven you correct, and there is more: the absolute BEST photograph I have ever taken in my life was taken with a borrowed Olympus PEN half frame camera. (remember those?) What made the photo great was composition and very fortunate timing. A father and his infant child happened to be looking in the same direction on a foggy day, with the same expression on each face. The colors of their clothing and the grey of the fog, together with the expressions on the faces just as I pressed the shutter release. I wish I could take credit for my creativity and brilliance as a photographer, but I was just taking a snapshot, and I didn't realize what I had until after I developed the film.

I recall that Steve McCurry said the same thing about his iconic 'Afghan Girl" photograph. He used an FM2 (!) and a 105 mm lens and also said he didn't know what he had until after the film (Kodachrome) was developed. So I submit that 99 percent of the photographs of the best photographers (99.99 % in my case) do not rate as great.

Since I do a very specific kind of shooting, spending money on equipment has some value to me, but I have been doing fine with my F2 and 60 mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor for many, many years. Mostly my spending money to get the best equipment is to indulge myself as I I am too close to retirement to spend any more money on cars or violins, and because I can find clients who will help me pay for it.

BTW: yawn...

link:
http://www.mikekobal.com/blog/?p=128

i am sure you will be glad to hear that the Nikon lens won ... but like he said in his conclusion, all the 3 lenses he tested are excellent - its down to the photographers skill to make good use of any of those lenses.

ps: in case the link gets removed, google for "mike kobal Sigma, Nikon, Canon: 24-70mm 2.8 compared."

El_Pickerel said:
Not to generalize or anything, but this is the kind of anger I see on the main blog comments or the Canon forums. On this board it generally seems to be kept in check and focusing on more positive stuff. Can we just not be getting mad 'n stuff?

Agree. FACT: the big factor in the way the camera/lens performs is the attached operator. About 99% of the difference is this factor. The idea behind arguing is to hide the inability to shoot either good photos, or the inability to properly edit. And we ALL vary in this from time to time. Some of the grunge I produce embarrasses me. Other stuff is OK. If I had a Canon, it would be no different.

Of course I believe we need to have a laugh once in awhile.... at those fools and those gray lenses, ha, ha, ha.....

Golly, what a way for a new member to start....

Oh, yes, I forgot..... yawn....

Not to generalize or anything, but this is the kind of anger I see on the main blog comments or the Canon forums. On this board it generally seems to be kept in check and focusing on more positive stuff. Can we just not be getting mad 'n stuff?

SquamishPhoto said:
*facepalm*

Look, I love my Nikon gear, but I don't feel like I need to proclaim its dominance for all to see. And I'd be dramatically more impressed with some great photos rather than seeing you trot out your list of toys. Just sayin'...

You're more than welcome to visit my website or check out my equipment reviews on the main NR blog. But keep the insults to yourself. I doubt anybody here is interested in your opinion when it includes such harsh and un-warranted belligerence. Since we're on the subject, have you ever compared Nikon's lenses with their Canon counterparts?

P.s. Since when was it a crime to list your equipment in a equipment oriented forum, such as Nikon Rumors? I mean, this whole forum is devoted to Nikon equipment and our experiences with said equipment? If you don't like this fact, you're in the wrong place.

CaryTheLabelGuy said:
Actually, on average Nikon lenses perform better than their Canon counterparts, especially wide-open. There are a few exceptions, however. Another thing you must consider is lens selections between the two. Canon has a few lenses that Nikon doesn't and vise versa (I.e. the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G). I've tested many; I would never give up my Nikkor lenses, not to mention my Nikon D3s, D7K, D700 or D800E. Nikon wins hands-down in my book. This is just the way things are.

He is right...

Sorry to give out yellow snowcones but the best 24-70mm in a fullframe system is the sony one...

CaryTheLabelGuy said:
not to mention my Nikon D3s, D7K, D700 or D800E. Nikon wins hands-down in my book. This is just the way things are.

*facepalm*

Look, I love my Nikon gear, but I don't feel like I need to proclaim its dominance for all to see. And I'd be dramatically more impressed with some great photos rather than seeing you trot out your list of toys. Just sayin'...

Actually, on average Nikon lenses perform better than their Canon counterparts, especially wide-open. There are a few exceptions, however. Another thing you must consider is lens selections between the two. Canon has a few lenses that Nikon doesn't and vise versa (I.e. the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G). I've tested many; I would never give up my Nikkor lenses, not to mention my Nikon D3s, D7K, D700 or D800E. Nikon wins hands-down in my book. This is just the way things are.

One thing you should know is that Nikon 24-70mm G is the sharpest on Nikon bodies and the 24-70mm L is sharpest on Canon bodies. Shouldnt matter there are things that nikon does slightly better and there are things that canon does better and im sure the difference is minor.

SquamishPhoto said:
yawn

This is one of the reasons I don't bother arguing with children - whatever kind of "club" they are in or challenges they throw down.

Life is too busy with more important things to bother. Don't think xopher is a parent yet, or he'd know to just smile and not bother.

yawn