«

"SneakyP" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9DB51DD82567448umofa02sneakemailc@127.0.0. 1...
> Looking for recomendations on stepping up from that horrid 18-55mm zoom
> kit
> lens in a Canon to a decent zoom lens for a sharper picture. Problem
> is,
> what is the better option? Get the Lens that has a quality of
> acceptable
> sharpness in that particular camera body, or get the camera with better
> sensor capabilities?
>
> My strategy was to always go with investing in lenses first, before even
> having a looksee at what else is there to buy in a camera body.
>
> I use the Canon Rebel XS, so my range may be limited, but I still want
> to
> have upwards mobility for the lenses. IOW - is that sharpness the best
> I
> can expect from this camera body, or does it get ridiculously steeper in
> price as a better zoom lens is found?
>
>
>
> --
> SneakyP
> To email me, you know what to do.

Some people feel that Nikon offers better value in medium priced lenses
than Canon - Nikon don't have a two-tier quality system as Canon does with
its "L" lenses.

Having said that, I had thought that Canon's current "kit" lens was
supposed to be much improved on its earlier version.

David

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:05:49 +0100, "David J Taylor"
<david-> wrote:
>
>Some people feel that Nikon offers better value in medium priced lenses
>than Canon - Nikon don't have a two-tier quality system as Canon does with
>its "L" lenses.


Nothing could be further from the truth. Nikon has a range of
consumer-grade lenses and a range of professional lenses, just like
Canon.

The pro lenses are perhaps not as clearly designated as Canon's "L"
series. However, anyone who can afford to buy them knows *exactly*
which ones they are.

On 14/07/2010 11:05, David J Taylor wrote:
> "SneakyP" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns9DB51DD82567448umofa02sneakemailc@127.0.0. 1...
>> Looking for recomendations on stepping up from that horrid 18-55mm
>> zoom kit
>> lens in a Canon to a decent zoom lens for a sharper picture. Problem is,
>> what is the better option? Get the Lens that has a quality of acceptable
>> sharpness in that particular camera body, or get the camera with better
>> sensor capabilities?
>>
>> My strategy was to always go with investing in lenses first, before even
>> having a looksee at what else is there to buy in a camera body.
>>
>> I use the Canon Rebel XS, so my range may be limited, but I still want to
>> have upwards mobility for the lenses. IOW - is that sharpness the best I
>> can expect from this camera body, or does it get ridiculously steeper in
>> price as a better zoom lens is found?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> SneakyP
>> To email me, you know what to do.
>
> Some people feel that Nikon offers better value in medium priced lenses
> than Canon - Nikon don't have a two-tier quality system as Canon does
> with its "L" lenses.
>
> Having said that, I had thought that Canon's current "kit" lens was
> supposed to be much improved on its earlier version.

The XS (aka 1000D) comes with the previous generation kit lens, that has
no IS, and is optically not so good.

But even good kit lenses such as the 18-55 IS are kit lenses, and I've
added some decent lenses to my XSi (including the Canon 100mm macro)
that clearly improved the results.

--
Bertrand

In article <i1julf$m14$>,
"David J Taylor" <david-> wrote:

> "SneakyP" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns9DB51DD82567448umofa02sneakemailc@127.0.0. 1...
> > Looking for recomendations on stepping up from that horrid 18-55mm zoom
> > kit
> > lens in a Canon to a decent zoom lens for a sharper picture. Problem
> > is,
> > what is the better option? Get the Lens that has a quality of
> > acceptable
> > sharpness in that particular camera body, or get the camera with better
> > sensor capabilities?
> >
> > My strategy was to always go with investing in lenses first, before even
> > having a looksee at what else is there to buy in a camera body.
> >
> > I use the Canon Rebel XS, so my range may be limited, but I still want
> > to
> > have upwards mobility for the lenses. IOW - is that sharpness the best
> > I
> > can expect from this camera body, or does it get ridiculously steeper in
> > price as a better zoom lens is found?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > SneakyP
> > To email me, you know what to do.
>
> Some people feel that Nikon offers better value in medium priced lenses
> than Canon - Nikon don't have a two-tier quality system as Canon does with
> its "L" lenses.
>
> Having said that, I had thought that Canon's current "kit" lens was
> supposed to be much improved on its earlier version.
>
> David

A quick peek at Nikon's website shows they still differentiate between
lower-priced "G" lenses and higher-priced "D" lenses. I have no personal
experience with either so I don't know what the quality difference is.
The "D" zooms are mostly constant-aperture f/2.8 and the "G" zooms are
variable-aperture f/3.5-4.5 or f/3.5-5.6

As far as lens vs. body, as long as the flange-to-sensor distance is
correct the lens _should_ bear most of the sharpness burden. However
it's worth trying the same lens on your camera and on a different body
at the camera shop to be sure.

"krishnananda" <> wrote in message
news:krishna-...
> In article <i1julf$m14$>,
> "David J Taylor" <david-> wrote:
>
>> "SneakyP" <> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9DB51DD82567448umofa02sneakemailc@127.0.0. 1...
>> > Looking for recomendations on stepping up from that horrid 18-55mm zoom
>> > kit
>> > lens in a Canon to a decent zoom lens for a sharper picture. Problem
>> > is,
>> > what is the better option? Get the Lens that has a quality of
>> > acceptable
>> > sharpness in that particular camera body, or get the camera with better
>> > sensor capabilities?
>> >
>> > My strategy was to always go with investing in lenses first, before
>> > even
>> > having a looksee at what else is there to buy in a camera body.
>> >
>> > I use the Canon Rebel XS, so my range may be limited, but I still want
>> > to
>> > have upwards mobility for the lenses. IOW - is that sharpness the best
>> > I
>> > can expect from this camera body, or does it get ridiculously steeper
>> > in
>> > price as a better zoom lens is found?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > SneakyP
>> > To email me, you know what to do.
>>
>> Some people feel that Nikon offers better value in medium priced lenses
>> than Canon - Nikon don't have a two-tier quality system as Canon does
>> with
>> its "L" lenses.
>>
>> Having said that, I had thought that Canon's current "kit" lens was
>> supposed to be much improved on its earlier version.
>>
>> David
>
> A quick peek at Nikon's website shows they still differentiate between
> lower-priced "G" lenses and higher-priced "D" lenses. I have no personal
> experience with either so I don't know what the quality difference is.
> The "D" zooms are mostly constant-aperture f/2.8 and the "G" zooms are
> variable-aperture f/3.5-4.5 or f/3.5-5.6
>
> As far as lens vs. body, as long as the flange-to-sensor distance is
> correct the lens _should_ bear most of the sharpness burden. However
> it's worth trying the same lens on your camera and on a different body
> at the camera shop to be sure.



Almost, but not quite right.
Some of the G lenses, such as the 70-200 f2.8 and the 200-400 f4, are pro
quality with fixed aperture. For more complete information:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Ni...ses/index.page


G simply means there is no aperture control ring on the lens. I know it can
get confusing.

--
Peter

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:04:08 -0400, krishnananda
<> wrote:

>A quick peek at Nikon's website shows they still differentiate between
>lower-priced "G" lenses and higher-priced "D" lenses. I have no personal
>experience with either so I don't know what the quality difference is.
>The "D" zooms are mostly constant-aperture f/2.8 and the "G" zooms are
>variable-aperture f/3.5-4.5 or f/3.5-5.6


Nonsense! G and D designations have absolutely nothing to do with
pricing, nor do they give any indication of optical quality.

For example, the AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G is inexpensive junk zoom
lens costing a mere $120.00 and delivering mediocre results.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale, the AF-S VR Nikkor 600mm
f/4G is a $10,300.00 lens offering the very highest optical quality.

Both are G lenses.

All the G tells you is that the lens is one of the newer models
without an aperture ring. D lenses have aperture rings.

A G lens is also a D lens because it offers the lens-to-camera
communication of focusing distance that is used by Nikon's 3D Matrix
metering to compute exposures for ambient light and flash.

Nikon is gradually replacing its D lenses with G lenses, but some of
the remaining D lenses are still among Nikon's very best performers.

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:05:49 +0100, "David J Taylor"
> <david-> wrote:
>>
>>Some people feel that Nikon offers better value in medium priced lenses
>>than Canon - Nikon don't have a two-tier quality system as Canon does
>>with
>>its "L" lenses.
>
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth. Nikon has a range of
> consumer-grade lenses and a range of professional lenses, just like
> Canon.
>
> The pro lenses are perhaps not as clearly designated as Canon's "L"
> series. However, anyone who can afford to buy them knows *exactly*
> which ones they are.

I don't think that Nikon have a two-tier system, but obviously, some of
their lenses are better than others and I feel they offer a range of
quality, not simply "L" and "non-L". Do you feel that Nikon offers better
value than Canon in medium priced lenses?

David

"David J Taylor" <david-> wrote in message
news:i1kv18$uhh$...

>
> I don't think that Nikon have a two-tier system, but obviously, some of
> their lenses are better than others and I feel they offer a range of
> quality, not simply "L" and "non-L". Do you feel that Nikon offers better
> value than Canon in medium priced lenses?
>

The dollar value is about equal. If you are willing to give up VR you will
get even better value. Both make some very fine optics.

--
Peter

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:18:15 +0100, "David J Taylor"
<david-> wrote:
>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:05:49 +0100, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-> wrote:
>>>
>>>Some people feel that Nikon offers better value in medium priced lenses
>>>than Canon - Nikon don't have a two-tier quality system as Canon does
>>>with
>>>its "L" lenses.
>>
>>
>> Nothing could be further from the truth. Nikon has a range of
>> consumer-grade lenses and a range of professional lenses, just like
>> Canon.
>>
>> The pro lenses are perhaps not as clearly designated as Canon's "L"
>> series. However, anyone who can afford to buy them knows *exactly*
>> which ones they are.
>
>I don't think that Nikon have a two-tier system


Then we disagree. And L doesn't mean "professional". All it means
the lens has at least one exotic glass element. Almost all Canon
professional lenses are L lenses, but not all L lenses are
professional lenses. In exactly the same way, you will find the
letters "ED" on some very ordinary Nikkors.


>, but obviously, some of
>their lenses are better than others and I feel they offer a range of
>quality, not simply "L" and "non-L".


Neither Canon nor Nikon has a range of lenses that is polarised into
"good" and "bad". But they both have a consumer range and a
professional range. Obviously, there is something of a grey area in
the middle with some consumer-grade lenses producing better results
than their prices might suggest, but with both brands, the build
quality makes for a pretty clear divide between the two ranges.


>Do you feel that Nikon offers better
>value than Canon in medium priced lenses?


No, they are probably about the same. Nikon definitely has the edge
in wide angle zoom lenses, but in standard, medium telephoto and long
telephoto lenses (fixed focal length and zoom) there is not much to
choose between them, and I would suggest that Canon still has the edge
in some areas.

For example, the Canon EF 24-105mm L IS and 70-200mm f/4 L IS are
outstanding mid-priced lenses. Nikon has nothing to compete with
either of them; the AF-S VR Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IFED and AF
Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D are particularly weak performers, to the point
of being embarrassing because of high distortion and CA and poor edge
performance unless stopped way down. The comparatively inexpensive
Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 performs better than either of them!

So, to sum up, both companies have consumer and professional lens
ranges. If you think they overlap, look at the build quality. That
will tell you far more about which range they are in than "L" or "ED"
badges.

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news:...

> For example, the Canon EF 24-105mm L IS and 70-200mm f/4 L IS are
> outstanding mid-priced lenses. Nikon has nothing to compete with
> either of them; the AF-S VR Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IFED and AF
> Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D are particularly weak performers, to the point
> of being embarrassing because of high distortion and CA and poor edge
> performance unless stopped way down. The comparatively inexpensive
> Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 performs better than either of them!

If one is willing to "step back in time" a bit, the 24-120mm non-VR
was a decent performer from f5.6, and the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G was
very good to the corners even wide open (although linear distortion
was high), and it was reasonably compact and inexpensive. I think
Nikon should have kept that FF lens and dumped the other two...
'Course, as you noted, when it comes to the fast Nikkor wide and
super-wide zooms, Nikon pretty much stands alone in image quality
(but moderately-priced they aren't!). BTW, the 28mm-105mm
f3.5-4.5 was a very decent inexpensive Nikkor, with unusually low
linear distortion for a zoom...
--DR