Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: SUMMARY: Nikon vs. Canon Optics?
Keywords: Canon Nikon Optics Lenses Sorry Mail
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:32:35 GMT

In <1992Apr7.105345.7990@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> I wrote:

>Sorry to do this to you all.  I'm sure the wounds from wars long past
>have only begun to heal.  Alas, I am naive and looking at a camera
>system and would like to know:

>	Is there a substantial difference between
>	Canon and Nikon lenses?

>To spare total bandwidth carnage, please mail your responses to me.
>If there's an archive I can consult, feel free to point me at that.


Thanks to all of you net folk who responded!  Here's the summary.  It only
considers the AF lenses.  I hope it's accurate.


1. In the low end, quality between Nikon and Canon are similar.

2. The Canon "L" series lenses (high end, $1200+) tend to be optically better
    than Nikon lenses due to Canon's work in aspherical lens fabrication.

3. Nikon lenses tend to be relatively expensive compared to Canons'.

4. Canon makes more zoom lenses.  Nikon has more fixed focus lenses.

5. Each line has lenses with cult followings (Nikon 180/2.8 and Canon 85/1.2
    were cited).

6. Canon USM lenses are silent.  (I couldn't believe it until I heard it
    myself.  I still don't!  Wow!)

7. Canon USM lenses can be focussed manually without flipping the AF-M
    switch.

8. Nikon lenses feel quite solid whereas Canon lenses feel like plastic.
    (I still don't know how this translates into long-term durability.)

9. The lines are both good enough for practically all 35mm photography.
    Decide on other factors.


Depending on the order in which you read the points above, I think one's
decision can be swayed either way.

Overall, it seems that, technically, Canon lenses are optically
superior in the high end.  However, some find the plastic of the Canon
lenses worrysome enough to go with Nikon anyway.

In the low end (where I've decided I'm at), things are pretty even.  I've
decided to go with Canon even though I don't think I'll ever own an "L"
series lens.  The Canon bodies have the features I want, and being able
to focus USM lenses without having to flip the AF-M switch looks like a
real bonus.

Many Thanks to:
	rma@clockwise.att.com (Robert M Atkins)
	asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders)
	asensio@FRULM63.BITNET (Frederic Asensio)
	Tony Arnerich <tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com>
	<pd@sics.se>
	JesseWest@cup.portal.com (Jesse Newcomb)
	KRSCHIMM@WSUHUB.UC.TWSU.EDU (Karl Schimmel)
	robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)

ACS

In case I haven't done the summary justice, here's everything I have
from the aforementioned folk.  If anyone continues this discussion,
please include me!

----

From cbnewsm.att.com!ka1gt Tue Apr  7 17:21:31 1992
Received: from att.att.com ([192.20.239.131]) by yonge.csri.toronto.edu with SMTP id <9>; Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:21:18 -0400
Date:	Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:15:37 -0400
From:	rma@clockwise.att.com (Robert M Atkins)
To:	att-mt!csri.toronto.edu!acs
Subject: Re: Nikon vs. Canon Optics?
News-Path: att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!acs
Message-Id: <92Apr7.172118edt.9@yonge.csri.toronto.edu>
Status: OR

There is no doubt that both Nikon and Canon make some of the best lenses
out there. I would say that the USM technology + the great optical quality
of the long "L" series Canon lenses give Canon a slight edge. These lenses
will cost $1000+ however. In the lower price range quality seems similar.
If you are deciding between Canon and Nikon on the basis of optical quality
you will have a tough decision! It comes down to which individual Nikon
or Canon lens you want. In some cases Nikon will win, in others Canon. I
don't think you can either is better on average. If you want a 20-35mm zoom
or a 400/2.8, or a tilt-and-shift lens then you will need to go with Canon.
If you want a 24-50mm zoom you will need Nikon.


===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================



From Pa.dec.com!uucp Tue Apr  7 19:22:29 1992
Received: from uucp-gw-1.pa.dec.com ([16.1.0.18]) by yonge.csri.toronto.edu with SMTP id <232>; Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:22:22 -0400
Received: by uucp-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA19695; Tue, 7 Apr 92 15:48:55 -0700
Received: from sparta.adobe.com by adobe.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)id AA08948; Tue, 7 Apr 92 15:33:23 PDT
Received: by sparta.adobe.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)id AA16389; Tue, 7 Apr 92 15:28:04 PDT
Date:	Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:28:04 -0400
From:	asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders)
Message-Id: <9204072228.AA16389@sparta.adobe.com>
To:	acs@csri.toronto.edu
Subject: Re: Nikon vs. Canon Optics?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Status: OR

| Is there a substantial difference between Canon and Nikon lenses?

Generally speaking, NO! Both Nikon and Canon make some *great* lenses,
but both lines are as good as they get. If you know in advance which
focal lengths you are most interested in, then it may be possible to
determine that a particular lens is better from Nikon than from Canon,
or vice versa. But if you're just shopping for "the best" quality,
you could hardly go wrong with either brand.

I will say that Nikon lenses (and camera bodies) seem to be more
solidly constructed than equivalent Canons. This factor weighed
heavily in my decision to stick with Nikon when I bought my AF system.
I didn't like the plastic look and feel of the Canon equipment. And
if you tend to be hard on things, you may want to take this factor
into consideration. But as far as performance is concerned, both Nikon 
and Canon are great. 
			-Alan


From ugw.utcs.toronto.edu!FRULM63.BITNET!asensio Wed Apr  8 08:16:25 1992
Received: from ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca ([128.100.102.3]) by yonge.csri.toronto.edu with SMTP id <241>; Wed, 8 Apr 1992 08:16:07 -0400
Received: from FRULM63.BITNET by ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca with SMTP id <8664>; Wed, 8 Apr 1992 08:15:58 -0400
Received: from verveine (verveine.ens.fr) by dmi.ens.fr (5.65c8/ULM-1.0)
Return-Path: <asensio@FRULM63.BITNET>
Received: by verveine (911016.SGI/13/11/91 ENS-ULM JB)
        for @dmi.ens.fr:acs@csri.toronto.edu id AA07591; Wed, 8 Apr 92 14:09:38
Date:	Wed, 8 Apr 1992 08:09:38 -0400
From:	asensio@FRULM63.BITNET (Frederic Asensio)
Message-Id: <9204081209.AA07591@verveine>
To:	acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Nikon vs. Canon Optics?
Status: OR


No general quality difference (some will be better here, others there).
Only Leica lenses are still better.
Look at the choice: Canon tends to have more zooms, whereas Nikon offers
more fixed focal lenses.
Also many recent Canon lenses feel very much like light plastic. This may
or may not worry you.
Try both out, they feel quite different (no aperture ring on Canons for ex).
Anyway don't worry, both are really good.

Frederic

PS: my choice is Nikon fixed-focals, I'm very satisfied.


From hpldsla.sid.hp.com!tonya Wed Apr  8 13:13:01 1992
Received: from relay.hp.com ([15.255.152.2]) by yonge.csri.toronto.edu with SMTP id <9>; Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:12:56 -0400
Received: from hpsid.sid.hp.com by relay.hp.com with SMTP
	(16.6/15.5+IOS 3.13) id AA00857; Wed, 8 Apr 92 10:12:25 -0700
Received: from hpldsla.sid.hp.com by hpsid.sid.hp.com with SMTP
	(15.11/15.5+IOS 3.21+OM) id AA17268; Wed, 8 Apr 92 10:16:26 pdt
Received: by hpldsla.sid.hp.com
	(16.6/15.5+IOS 3.22) id AA23124; Wed, 8 Apr 92 10:08:02 -0700
Date:	Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:08:02 -0400
From:	Tony Arnerich <tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com>
Message-Id: <9204081708.AA23124@hpldsla.sid.hp.com>
To:	acs@csri.toronto.edu
Subject: Re: Nikon vs. Canon Optics?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Status: ORr

> Sorry to do this to you all.  I'm sure the wounds from wars long past
> have only begun to heal.  Alas, I am naive and looking at a camera
> system and would like to know:

	> Is there a substantial difference between
	> Canon and Nikon lenses?

Yes, most definitely. The Nikon lens owners are more gratingly smug, while
the Canon lens owners are more verbally abusive.

Beyond that, Canon lenses tend to fit only Canon bodies, and so on.

In my fully honest belief, these are the only truths that exist about
comparing the whole lens systems. When it gets down to individual lenses,
they each have their stars and their dogs. The best info will come from
querying about lenses of particular spec:

- the Nikon 180/2.8 and the Canon 85/1.2 have fanatical followings, etc.

Either way, you'll have a good chance at a system that's as good as the
35mm format can be. Shop more for features than performance.

tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com

From sics.se!pd Fri Apr 10 00:12:02 1992
Received: from sics.se ([192.16.123.90]) by yonge.csri.toronto.edu with SMTP id <235>; Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:11:23 -0400
Received: from horus.sics.se by sics.se (5.61-bind 1.5+ida/SiteCap-3.0)
	id AA11185; Fri, 10 Apr 92 06:10:39 +0200
From:	<pd@sics.se>
Received: by horus.sics.se (5.61-bind 1.4+ida/SiteCap-3.0)
	id AA04574; Fri, 10 Apr 92 06:10:37 +0200
Date:	Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:10:37 -0400
Message-Id: <9204100410.AA04574@horus.sics.se>
To:	acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Cc:	pd@sics.se
Subject: Nikon vs. Canon Optics?
Status: ORr

Hi!

In rec.photo (Message-ID: <1992Apr7.105345.7990@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>)
you wrote: 

	   Is there a substantial difference between
	   Canon and Nikon lenses?

I always thought that they were about equal, with of course an edge of
one over the other at some focal lengths, but from the various lens
tests I've seen recently I'm getting the impression that Canon just
might be a tad better overall. I'm a Canon owner myself, so I'm biased
of course :-)
I'm only interested in auto focus lenses, so I haven't been paying
attention to tests of manual focus lenses.
So to answer you question: No, I don't think there is a _substantial_
difference between Canon and Nikon lenses.
If you're starting with a clean sheet and buying a completely new
system, I think you should consider other factors more than lens
quality if you are going to choose between Canon and Nikon. For
instance, I very much like Canon's USM lenses, which can be focused
manually without having to flip a switch from auto to manual. And they
are extremely silent, too.

Hope this helps,
PD

From cup.portal.com!JesseWest Sat Apr 11 00:43:08 1992
Received: from nova.unix.portal.com ([192.83.245.2]) by yonge.csri.toronto.edu with SMTP id <237>; Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:42:57 -0400
Return-Path: <JesseWest@cup.portal.com>
Received: by nova.unix.portal.com (5.65b/4.1 1.92) 
	id AA29085; Fri, 10 Apr 92 21:42:47 -0700
Received: by portal.unix.portal.com (1.214) 
	id AA20154; Fri, 10 Apr 92 21:42:45 -0700
Received: by hobo.corp.portal.com (4.1/4.0.3 1.14) 
	id AA03857; Fri, 10 Apr 92 21:42:44 PDT
To:	acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
From:	JesseWest@cup.portal.com
Subject: Re: Nikon vs. Canon Optics?
Date:	Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:42:44 -0400
Message-Id: <9204102142.1.3386@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
Status: ORr

Man oh Man -

You must be getting LOTs of mail on that one!

I have shot both Canon and Nikon, and I have paid particularly close attention
to optical details, as my premise is that it's the lens, and not the body,
that makes the picture.

I could go on for hours, but all I'll say at this point is:

If you aren't going to spend serious money it doesn't matter. Both makers have
similar lenses for the low to medium range.

If you are going to spend money, you will find it easier to spend more
on Nikon. They have a more established name in North America (not true
elsewhere) because of their early penetration here. Nikon prices are higher
for comperable optics.

If you're going autofocus, keep in mind that Canon re-designed their EOS
lens mount and Nikon did not. The new Canon mount provides more of a platform
for the future, with a wider rear element (f1.0 lenses), lens-resident motors
of any size, and more.

For both manual and autofocus, Canon has developed slightly more high-tech
lenses than Nikon. Canon's widest rectallinear is a 14, Nikon's is a 15.
Canon's fastest 24 is the aspheric f1.4, Nikon's is a spherical 2.0. Canon's
85 f1.2 aspheric is considered one of the foremost examples of Japanese
lens design. Canon also offers the 20-35 mm aspheric zoom. This is WAY
more than the Samyang or the Sigma when it comes to image quality, and Nikon
has nothing.

If you're going manual focus, the drawback to Canon is the bodies. The F1n
is great for ruggedness, but it is heavy and dosen't do lockup. It's also
about to be cut. The T-90 is my all-time favorite motorized body. It is
pure feature-packed pro rock and roll. But it has already been cut and used
ones aren't cheap. For manual bodies, I like the Nikon F3 of the two systems.

For autofocus, I'm still undecided on bodies, but the 8008 may be better than
an EOS 6xx, while the trend in EOS-1 vs F4 is EOS-1. (A lot of pros are
switching these days to EOS-1.)

Well, there's my two cents!


- Jesse Newcomb
JesseWest@cup.portal.com

From WSUHUB.UC.TWSU.EDU!KRSCHIMM Sat Apr 11 22:03:56 1992
Received: from WSUHUB.UC.TWSU.EDU ([156.26.1.1]) by yonge.csri.toronto.edu with SMTP id <237>; Sat, 11 Apr 1992 22:03:49 -0400
Received: from WSUHUB.UC.TWSU.EDU by WSUHUB.UC.TWSU.EDU (PMDF #12851) id
 <01GIQGXSCSLC9LV7YC@WSUHUB.UC.TWSU.EDU>; Sat, 11 Apr 1992 21:03 CST
Date:	Sat, 11 Apr 1992 23:03:00 -0400
From:	KRSCHIMM@WSUHUB.UC.TWSU.EDU
Subject: Nikon vs. Canon Optics?
To:	acs@csri.toronto.edu
Message-id: <01GIQGXSCSLC9LV7YC@WSUHUB.UC.TWSU.EDU>
X-VMS-To: in%"acs@csri.toronto.edu"
Status: ORr

X-News: wsuhub rec.photo:154

>From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
>Subject:Nikon vs. Canon Optics?
>Date: 7 Apr 92 14:53:45 GMT
>Message-ID:<1992Apr7.105345.7990@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>

>Sorry to do this to you all.  I'm sure the wounds from wars long past
>have only begun to heal.  Alas, I am naive and looking at a camera
>system and would like to know:
>
>	Is there a substantial difference between
>	Canon and Nikon lenses?
>
>To spare total bandwidth carnage, please mail your responses to me.
>If there's an archive I can consult, feel free to point me at that.
>
>Thanks.
>
>ACS
>
>--
> ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
>|   |   | __|   "Maybe I'm paranoid, but remember, even paranoids have     |
>| - | --|__ |     enemies."--Cal Pryluck, Temple University                |
>|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
>Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|

It depends.  I use nikon because my dad is a pro and he uses it be he has
said all the new camera take great pictures so unless you need the
most durable equipment or are looking for really long lensnes( that no one
can afford in either brand anyway) they are both good.
All i can say is stay away from the canon plasic boxes (ie Rebel line)
my 28-90mm lens weighs more than the whole camera w/30-70mm lens and strap
good luck, remeber you get what you pay for(in either brand) and buy
the next step up from what you thing you need so you and grow into it or
if you want to sell it in the future it will have better resale.
Karl Schimmel


From photo.sys.sweden.dg.com!robert Mon Apr 13 08:55:07 1992
Received: from dgswe.sys.sweden.dg.com ([152.62.192.25]) by yonge.csri.toronto.edu with SMTP id <237>; Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:54:53 -0400
Received: from photo.sys.sweden.dg.com by dgswe.sys.sweden.dg.com with SMTP
	 id AA19848 (5.4.1/dgswe-server-1.14 for acs@csri.toronto.edu);
	 Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:53:50 +0200
Received: by photo.sys.sweden.dg.com
	 id AA00685 (5.4.1/dgswe-client-1.17 for acs@csri.toronto.edu);
	 Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:56:42 +0200
Date:	Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:56:42 -0400
From:	robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Message-Id: <9204131256.AA00685@photo.sys.sweden.dg.com>
To:	acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Nikon vs. Canon Optics?
Status: OR


In article <1992Apr7.105345.7990@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, you write:

|> Sorry to do this to you all.  I'm sure the wounds from wars long past
|> have only begun to heal.  Alas, I am naive and looking at a camera
|> system and would like to know:
|> 
|> 	Is there a substantial difference between
|> 	Canon and Nikon lenses?
|> 
|> To spare total bandwidth carnage, please mail your responses to me.
|> If there's an archive I can consult, feel free to point me at that.

I'm sure you won't be able to tell any difference between a Canon and
a Nikon lens unless you shoot very fine-grained films, uses a tripod and
makes large prints from them.

If you're still curious, Canon's lenses generally have a higher contrast
than Nikon's. Call this better coating or whatever, but this doesn't
affect sharpness as such. But -- Canon has apparently made some great
progress with its optics lately (since the introduction of the EOS
series),
and a recent test in a European photo magazine showed that Canon's
tele lenses (in the 200-300mm range) outperformed lenses from Nikon,
Leica and Zeiss by a wide margin. Canon's new EF 300/4.0L lens was
almost as good as the EF 300/2.8L lens but at a price that makes it a
bargain. Also, Canon's zoom lenses, like the EF 20-35/2.8L, the
28-80/2.8-4L and the 80-200/2.8L are likewise top-notch and outperforms
most fixed-length lenses.

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22

-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|   "Maybe I'm paranoid, but remember, even paranoids have     |
| - | --|__ |     enemies."--Cal Pryluck, Temple University                |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|