On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:42:16 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:37:11 GMT, measekite
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:42:25 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:42:01 -0800, SMS
wrote:

measekite wrote:

And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually claims that
Canon lenses are superior to Nikon.

Hold on there, I never really said that (or I didn't mean to say it that
way). What I meant to say that in each price class for lenses, Canon
_usually_ delivers equal or better results at equal or lower cost. If
cost were not a consideration, you could probably match up Nikon and
Canon lenses pretty closely until you moved up to the professional "big
white lenses" where Nikon doesn't compete.

Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't
paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to choose
from, particularly at the very long end.


If a D-SLR buyer is starting from scratch, with no existing lenses, then
it's certainly worth considering the cost differential for lenses of
similar quality when choosing which system to buy into. But it's only
one of many considerations. As David pointed out, Canon was very late to
the game with their 18-200 IS lens, and if someone wanted that type of
lens, up until recently that would have been a reason to not even
consider Canon.


As in all things in life, you usually get what you pay for. Pro
level Nikon glass is amazingly good, it just doesn't call attention to
itself with the embellishment of a "luxury" label and a different
color. Nikkors also have a three year warranty vs. one year for
the Canons.

Just had a discussion with a friend of mine who is a pro photographer. He
shoots with a Nikon F5, a Canon 5Dmlii, and an RB67.

We had a discussion over lenses.

Part of the discussion was over the Nikkor 24x120 that he has used for 8
years. I told him that is made the Terrible List of Ken Rockwells worst
of the worst of Nikkor lenses and that Ken owns and tested this lens
saying it is soft etc etc and the image quality is not good when compared
against other Nikon Alternatives.

My friend claimed that Ken was wrong. That the lens is "razor sharp". He
further stated you can put this lens up against a $5,000 Nikkor lens and
print 16x20 and not see any difference in image quality.

I think you'll find that Ken Rockwell is wrong on a lot of things.


So what is your opinion of the 24-120Vr








Now I find this hard to believe since other reviews while not as harsh
against the 25x120 as Ken did note that it is not one of Nikons best.

Also I questioned my friend on why would so many pro photographers buy
$5,000 Nikkor lenses if the $1,000 ones produced just as good a quality.
His reply was they just wanted it and then saw stuff that really was not
there to jusify what they did like the audiophile who pays $20,000 for a
speaker system that does sound great but are the only ones who can here
the difference between that and a system for $10,000.


It is true that under ideal conditions, a less expensive lens can
perform as well as a more expensive one. By ideal conditions, I mean
good lighting and stopped down to the "sweet spot" aperture for that
lens. What the more expensive glass buys you is usually a larger
maximum aperture and better image quality at all apertures. That can
be important for professionals who don't want to limit themselves to
those "ideal" conditions to get the best possible images.

The better lenses are also built better, which becomes more important
over time as the lens gets heavy use.




I am not a pro. I do not want to make a mistake. I do want to print up
to 16x25. I do not want to push myself for a full frame camera unless
that is what i need to do what I just described.

I own a Nikon F2A but the lenses are not autofocus so I may sell the
system. I no longer want anything that is not autofocus and autometering.
So you can say I am starting from scratch. I bought the Nikon over Canon
at the time because I liked the look and feel better and I thought at
that time Nikon was better but that appears to be debatable.

That said I narrowed my search down to the Nikon D90 (unless I absolutely
need full frame to get top image quality 16x25 in which case the Canon 5d2
is the only ball game at the under $3,000 price that I am not happy about
spending) and the Canon 50D that is known to be built better but the D90
build appears to be good enough for my use. The D90 feels somewhat better
and there are non modal buttons for all of the every day commands.


If the D90 feels better to you, then you'll be happier and more likely
to use it. IMO the D300 is better, but you really can't go wrong
with any of the Nikons. It all depends on what set of features is
most important to you.



Here are the lenses I am considering with the camera. If any of you would
like to recommend a different lens in one of the places please state which
one and the reason.

* AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED $800

Highly recommended. It is probably the best DX format wide zoom
available. I love mine.

* AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED $620

I don't have this one, but everyone I know who does loves it. Its
drawback is the relatively slow speed, but then again it is very
compact and good to use for a general-use lens in good lighting. It
seems to be pretty good in terms of image quality, but it apparently
lacks the "super" quality of Nikon's more expensive professional
zooms.


* AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED $730


I would love to have this one. I have the 60mm 2.8 Micro-Nikkor
(without VR) and it is one of the the sharpest lenses I've seen.



Optional
* AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED $470

I've also got this one. It is very nice for a lightweight tele that
can be hand held. However, I would like to replace mine with the
70-200 VR f/2.8 for reasons I stated a few parapraphs above. I would
consider the Nikon 1.4x teleconverter to regain the 300mm reach.

Good luck. Buying a new system is always exciting!