08-22-2010, 08:02 AM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282300383' post='1949']
That is not true either. The Canon macro lenses are BETTER than the Nikon micro lenses. The 60mm from Nikon has worse CA than just about any other macro lens (even other normal prime lenses). For the rest it has nothing that distinguishes it.
The Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR is remarkably not contrasty for a macro lens, and is not any sharper than the competition either, more to the contrary. The 85mm VR DX is not in any way special either. And the out of production 200mm f4... Not exceptional either, and dog slow to focus (especially troublesome at MFD, where its max. aperture starts to be a problem).
On the other hand, the old Canon 100mm f2.8 macro USM already was a great macro lens, and the 100m f2.8 L IS USM improves on it in certain areas. Both are very good. The Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 USM macro also is a very good lens, without the CA problems of the Nikon. The Canon 180mm f3.5 L USM is a very good lens too, and a fast focuser for its class.
Internet myth 422: Nikon makes better wide angle zooms. That is not true. The Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR is NOT better than the Canon 17-40mm f4 L USM. Bigger and heavier, yes. The Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L USM II is NOT worse than the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 either.
That just leaves the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, which is in areas a very good lens. Canon does not have an equivalent. The Nikon is not for everyone, though, with its weight, its protruding front element (with its flare catching ability) and its relatively high barrel distortion.
[/quote]
You're stating opinions like they are facts...
That is not true either. The Canon macro lenses are BETTER than the Nikon micro lenses. The 60mm from Nikon has worse CA than just about any other macro lens (even other normal prime lenses). For the rest it has nothing that distinguishes it.
The Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR is remarkably not contrasty for a macro lens, and is not any sharper than the competition either, more to the contrary. The 85mm VR DX is not in any way special either. And the out of production 200mm f4... Not exceptional either, and dog slow to focus (especially troublesome at MFD, where its max. aperture starts to be a problem).
On the other hand, the old Canon 100mm f2.8 macro USM already was a great macro lens, and the 100m f2.8 L IS USM improves on it in certain areas. Both are very good. The Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 USM macro also is a very good lens, without the CA problems of the Nikon. The Canon 180mm f3.5 L USM is a very good lens too, and a fast focuser for its class.
Internet myth 422: Nikon makes better wide angle zooms. That is not true. The Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR is NOT better than the Canon 17-40mm f4 L USM. Bigger and heavier, yes. The Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L USM II is NOT worse than the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 either.
That just leaves the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, which is in areas a very good lens. Canon does not have an equivalent. The Nikon is not for everyone, though, with its weight, its protruding front element (with its flare catching ability) and its relatively high barrel distortion.
[/quote]
You're stating opinions like they are facts...