07-30-2010, 01:31 PM
[quote name='obsoquasi' timestamp='1280492359' post='1418']
About my "feeling" what concerns the FF UWA line of Canon. If compared to Nikon, Canon really is lagging behind a little and seeing that they are otherwise selling their 5D MkII really well, I am contemplating that they are trying to catch up soon-ish. On canonrumors one hears repeatedly about a 24-70mm F/2.8L IS version for example. However this is all speculation, I am just trying to understand Canon's strategy to lock-in their customers, they certainly can if they can provide an exellent lens selection all through the zoom range, be it FF or APS-C. And if they can do that with the lower price tag (compared to Nikon) then they are sure to make a lot of money.
Your notion of the bokeh of the 70-200mm F/2.8 was interesting, I haven't really thought of it that way.
[/quote]
It is an internet myth, the continuous repeating that compared to Nikon, Canon really lags behind. That "argument" has been repeated year after year after year.
Reality however is different.
The Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L IS USM II is better in certain areas than the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8. The Canon 17-40mm f4 L USM had no competition from Nikon. The new Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR is not better than the Canon either, resolution wise they are comparable, concerning CA and especially distortion the Canon is better.
The Canon 17mm and 24mm tilt shift lenses are very very good, the Nikon 24mm tilt shift lens does not reach their quality.
The Canon 24mm f1.4 and Nikon 24mm f1.4 are both very good, where the Nikon, by some accounts, has some AF issues.
Only the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 has no Canon equivalent, and in sharpness it is a very good lens.
It has been Nikon who has been playing catch up (with the 24mm TS lens, the 16-35mm VR f4, the 24mm f1.4). And the 14-24mm, which is a new class, where before only the Sigma 12-24mm lens resided.
About my "feeling" what concerns the FF UWA line of Canon. If compared to Nikon, Canon really is lagging behind a little and seeing that they are otherwise selling their 5D MkII really well, I am contemplating that they are trying to catch up soon-ish. On canonrumors one hears repeatedly about a 24-70mm F/2.8L IS version for example. However this is all speculation, I am just trying to understand Canon's strategy to lock-in their customers, they certainly can if they can provide an exellent lens selection all through the zoom range, be it FF or APS-C. And if they can do that with the lower price tag (compared to Nikon) then they are sure to make a lot of money.
Your notion of the bokeh of the 70-200mm F/2.8 was interesting, I haven't really thought of it that way.
[/quote]
It is an internet myth, the continuous repeating that compared to Nikon, Canon really lags behind. That "argument" has been repeated year after year after year.
Reality however is different.
The Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L IS USM II is better in certain areas than the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8. The Canon 17-40mm f4 L USM had no competition from Nikon. The new Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR is not better than the Canon either, resolution wise they are comparable, concerning CA and especially distortion the Canon is better.
The Canon 17mm and 24mm tilt shift lenses are very very good, the Nikon 24mm tilt shift lens does not reach their quality.
The Canon 24mm f1.4 and Nikon 24mm f1.4 are both very good, where the Nikon, by some accounts, has some AF issues.
Only the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 has no Canon equivalent, and in sharpness it is a very good lens.
It has been Nikon who has been playing catch up (with the 24mm TS lens, the 16-35mm VR f4, the 24mm f1.4). And the 14-24mm, which is a new class, where before only the Sigma 12-24mm lens resided.