Canon vs Nikon (lenses)

**den_lim** · 12-31-2008, 12:44 PM

Let's not talk about whether this Nikon model is better/worse than this Canon model.
Let's not talk about the bodies since we're all going to upgrade the body anyways.
Let's talk about their lenses as a whole.
Which lenses are generally more affordable? Nikon or Canon?
Which system have a wider range of choices?

**Sponsor** · 12-31-2008 12:44 PM

**Demonoid** · 12-31-2008, 11:53 PM

i think nikkors are better. they have different brand name with their camera body (nikon= camera nikkor=lenses) . and they have separate comercials at nat geo. waaaaahahaha.

**bacchus_3** · 12-31-2008, 11:56 PM

it can be very difficult to compare lenses of different camera brands don't you think? image quality doesn't solely depend on the lens itself but with the camera body too in both technical and functional way. IMO, the only usable comparison for lenses of both systems is the price. Which system has better price for quality with lenses?

I bet this question can help newbies decide which systems to take if they want to consider price-for-quality for maintaining a system. Just as Treb22 suggests, I'd rather hear justifiable claims rather than posts that sounds like the usual canon-vs-nikon fanboyism.

**Treb22** · 12-31-2008, 11:57 PM

it would help if one would say why the nikkor is a better lens than canon's. Just saying one is better than the other is too vague.

For a newbie like me, comparisons would really help.

**bacchus_3** · 12-31-2008, 11:57 PM

it can be very difficult to compare lenses of different camera brands don't you think? image quality doesn't solely depend on the lens itself but with the camera body too in both technical and functional way. IMO, the only usable comparison for lenses of both systems is the price. Which system has better price for quality with lenses?

I bet this question can help newbies decide which systems to take if they want to consider price-for-quality for maintaining a system. Just as Treb22 suggests, I'd rather hear justifiable claims rather than posts that sounds like the usual canon-vs-nikon fanboyism.

**castoclown** · 01-01-2009, 12:08 AM

Im no genius but I think what your asking for is impossible.... compare these two brands as a whole? hmmm..... that's a hard feat. You would have a better chance of getting the answers you seek if you do a research study on the web. Good luck!

**yoh_hectic** · 01-01-2009, 12:08 AM

The Nikon F Mount is 50 years old and has spawned 400+ lenses
The Canon EF mount is under 20 years old and has spawned 60+ lenses

From my research on fast primes and zooms Canon comes out to be slightly more affordable based on Adorama.com prices.

Either way both companies make great camera systems. The others 35mm DSLRs... are just fringe players.

**jaijin** · 01-01-2009, 12:42 AM

Uhm..Sigma can be competitive too you know...

**Beowulf** · 01-01-2009, 07:56 AM

from what i was told, professional level canon lenses are glass while the cheaper ones are plastic; while nikon lenses are glass be it professional or the cheaper ones...

also, the lenses of nikon are indeed more expensive than the canon counterparts.

**natsgo** · 01-01-2009, 09:15 AM

Image quality-wise, if ever there are differences b/w Canon and Nikon lenses, it will be too minute to even matter.
Price-wise, Canon lenses are cheaper. For example, I saw the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM selling for less than 50k but the Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G DX IF-ED sells for about 60K.

At the end of the day, you can't go wrong with either brand.