03-09-2011, 12:26 PM
[quote name='ThomasD' timestamp='1299671933' post='6626']
Canon's 17-55/2.8 is widely considered superior to Nikon's equivalent. Nikon has a very good 35/1.8 for DX, Canon has no such thing.
[/quote]
The Canon 17-55 f2.8 is only considered to be superior "widely" because it offers IS, where the Nikon is VR-less. Optically, both lenses are pretty good.
As for Canon having "no such thing" as the Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX, that is not very true at all. The Canon EF 35mm f2 is only 1/3rd of a stop slower in f-value rating. It is the same size and price. Optically it is not inferior either, or maybe the Nikon is a tad more contrasty and maybe a bit more resilient to veiling due to newer coatings.
The Canon renders OOF areas smoother (nicer bokeh), the Nikon has round highlights where the Canon has 5 sided ones. The Nikon has more CA (of the lateral variety).
Since both are 35mm, f2 vs f1.8, the same size and the same weight, it is safe to say both makers offer a very similar lens.
Canon's 17-55/2.8 is widely considered superior to Nikon's equivalent. Nikon has a very good 35/1.8 for DX, Canon has no such thing.
[/quote]
The Canon 17-55 f2.8 is only considered to be superior "widely" because it offers IS, where the Nikon is VR-less. Optically, both lenses are pretty good.
As for Canon having "no such thing" as the Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX, that is not very true at all. The Canon EF 35mm f2 is only 1/3rd of a stop slower in f-value rating. It is the same size and price. Optically it is not inferior either, or maybe the Nikon is a tad more contrasty and maybe a bit more resilient to veiling due to newer coatings.
The Canon renders OOF areas smoother (nicer bokeh), the Nikon has round highlights where the Canon has 5 sided ones. The Nikon has more CA (of the lateral variety).
Since both are 35mm, f2 vs f1.8, the same size and the same weight, it is safe to say both makers offer a very similar lens.