Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Canon Lenses


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1
Johnb

Johnb

    Active Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNear Aylesbury. Bucks

Site Supporter

I have been going through lens specs recently and it appears to me that Canon lenses are so much more expensive than Nikon equivalent lenses.

Am I reading this right. More often than not the Nikon lens seems to have the better write-up too.

 

Yea I am looking at Pro lenses.



#2
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

I just checked the backbone lenses for a working pro, For Canon, the 16-35, 24-70 and the 70-200 III f/2.8 zooms and for Nikon, the 17-35, 24-70E and 70-200E f/2.8.

Skärmavbild 2020-03-01 kl. 07.35.31.png

 

Skärmavbild 2020-03-01 kl. 07.33.55.png

 

The difference is quite small and reflects the time in production for all lenses. The Nikons are a bit more expensive.

 

The Nikon 17-35 in its current form is from 2006 and is basically unchanged since 1999. The Canon is a 2016 lens.

 

The Canon 24-70 is from 2012, the Nikon from 2015.

 

The Canon 70-200 III is a II version with better lens coatings. It is a new lens, but the tooling is from 2010. The Nikon is from 2016.

 

This comparison is from one of Sweden's largest mail order retailers and does not include any grey market lenses. Prices in Swedish Krona.

 

One needs a couple of bodies to use these lenses... Let's compare a normal set for a working pro.

Skärmavbild 2020-03-01 kl. 08.13.45.png

 

Skärmavbild 2020-03-01 kl. 08.12.38.png

 

One flagship body, optimized for fast-paced action and one high-res body for everything else.

 

The Canon setup is much cheaper and does the job well enough. However, the Nikons have advantages in UI, DR and ISO invariance. They might even have the edge when it comes to S/N ratio, but I am not sure about that.



#3
Johnb

Johnb

    Active Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNear Aylesbury. Bucks

Site Supporter

Hi, I should have said that I was looking at used telephoto lens prices here in the UK, and yea, used could mean a big price difference I suppose but no photographic supplier is going to sell any used lens that is in any less than very good condition, or that they would have not fitted it to a camera and checked the functions and photo quality etc.

Bearing this in mind the suppliers selling these used lenses were Clifton, Park, and in the main,

MPB Europe.

The price differences were as follows :-

 

                      Nikon  AF-S Lenses                                                   Canon EF Lenses

 

                         300mm = £2829                                                        300mm = £3079

                         400mm = £1599                                                        400mm = £5219

                         500mm = £3699                                                        500mm = £5799

                         600mm = £3129                                                        600mm = £6259

 

This I assumed to be the normal price difference across all lenses, either new or used, but after your reply and looking at the prices of general zoom and prime lenses you are quite correct. What is it then that makes telephoto lens prices so unequal ???? especially the 600mm.   

 

If I am missing something please put me straight.

 

With thanks.

 

Thank you for replying to my confusion.



#4
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

Not sure why it matters unless you are trying to decide which system to go with, but...

 

I know every online seller of used gear that I have looked at (US) has ratings for their lenses and they explain their rating systems fairly well.  They also don't always have the same lens in multiple different ratings, so be sure you are comparing similar ratings. It may be a difference in ratings but it may also be the used market where there are more Nikon lenses available, thus driving down the price.  Lastly, I can't speak for the Canon line, but I know Nikon has had several revisions of those lenses so the lower price may be an older version.



#5
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

White tele primes with a red stripe are so easily recognized as pro lenses. That is a big part of why Canon L primes hold their value so well.

 

Are the lenses you look at comparable? Are they in similar condition and age? Do they have stabilization? Are they the same speed?

 

When looking at the Nikon 600/4 lenses, remember that the AF-I and first AF-S are close to impossible to repair if something happens to them as there are no new spare parts available anymore.



#6
Johnb

Johnb

    Active Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNear Aylesbury. Bucks

Site Supporter

Obviously this subject is a lot more complicated than I first thought. No lens supplier is going to sell a lens that is anything less than VG condition but as pointed out, the age of the lens and its ability to be repaired must come into it. It just seemed to me that the prices of these used lenses was just so far apart to be put down to age and repairability etc..  

 

Thanks for your comments Guys