[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299673560' post='6631']

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.

[/quote]

I remember having read the Canon was sharper wide open, but I might be wrong. Thanks for correcting me in favor of Nikon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299673560' post='6631']

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.

[/quote]

I referred to "specific for DX". But you are right, this does not matter in the end. The Nikon also has AF-S, but unfortunately no distance scale.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299673560' post='6631']

The Canon renders OOF areas smoother (nicer bokeh), the Nikon has round highlights where the Canon has 5 sided ones.

[/quote]

Well. Let's keep that in the other thread.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299673560' post='6631']

The Nikon has more CA (of the lateral variety).

[/quote]

That's certainly true.