I’ve updated Canon vs Nikon lens on Fall 2009. I recommend to check it out first because it is updated with current price and new lenses.
There are many debates about who has the better lens collection, Canon EOS or Nikon? I did full research on lenses available in the market Spring 2009, and find out that overall, Canon EOS lenses are cheaper toe to toe compare to Nikon.
Before buying a camera, Lens collection is one of the important consideration and for that, I try to answer that nagging question. Before I get started, keep in mind that I am not owning or testing all the lenses by myself, I gathered this info from many review sites on the web.
Legend: IQ = Image Quality, BC = Built Construction, DIF = difference in price (Canon minus Nikon). $ is USD 5 is Excellent, 4 is Very Good, 3 is Average, 2 is bad, 1 is crap, 0 is junk.
wide and standard prime lens
For wide to standard prime categories, Canon has more professional grade lenses than Nikon such as Canon 35mm f/1.4, Canon 24mm f/1.4 and Canon 50mm f/1.2 USM. In this category, Nikon recently updated its standard prime, such as 50mm AF-S f/1.4G and 35mm AF-S f/1.8 DX.
But both Nikkor lenses still fall behind Canon lenses in maximum aperture and build quality. Furthermore, Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 is a DX lens, only compatible with crop sensor cameras, while Canon 35mm f/1.4 USM is compatible both for full frame and crop sensor cameras.
Telephoto Prime lenses
In telephoto prime category, Canon has extensive collection of lenses which produce great image quality such as Canon 85mm f/1.2 and 135mm f/2. In super-telephoto range, Canon has 800mm lens and even built-to-order 1200mm lens for $75000.
Wide and General Purpose Zoom lenses
Now we enter a very interesting category and also most important especially for new photographers: standard zoom lens category.
In this category, Nikon has some good quality general purpose lenses for beginners especially 18-105mm VR and 18-200mm VR. Canon has 28-135mm IS and 17-85mm IS. Canon general purpose lenses are not as good as Nikon’s lens in image quality.
Nikon’s also has 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 VR, is a lens with amazing built and image quality and also versatility at its price. This amazing lens is priced around $600 which is a great deal
In contrast, Canon strength is in its “L” or professional grade lenses, especially medium zoom, EF 24-70mm L USM is $600 cheaper than Nikon’s counterpart. Canon L 17-40mm is whopping $825 cheaper than Nikon 17-35mm, although Nikon 17-35mm has advantage of one stop.
Nikon 24-120mm, which is designed for full frame camera, is not as good as Canon general purpose EF 24-105mm IS L USM.
New! Canon launches two new EF-S lenses and 1 macro lens
Telephoto Zoom and macro lenses
Now, we have telephoto zooms lenses category
In this category, Canon has formidable 70-200mm quartets that are so powerful, beside that, Canon has a huge choices from EF-S lenses to DO lenses, and variety of lenses and price according your budget and needs.
The last one is Macro Lenses.
Canon has new EF-S 60mm lens, this macro lens is amazing, but unfortunately, this lens is EF-S means full frame camera can’t use it.
Nikon also has new 105mm with VR. Probably it is the only macro lens with VR. It will be helpful for people that lazy to put tripod on, or setting tripod is impossible. But the VR increase the lens price to a whooping $800.
In Conclusion
Overall Canon has better lens collection than Nikon’s in many aspects: built quality, maximum aperture, USM (fast and silent auto focus). Many Nikon lenses do not have AF-S (USM equivalent) yet. That is the reason why professionals might like Canon lenses collection more than Nikon’s.
It is a shame because Nikon does manufacture excellent top of the line DSLR cameras such as Nikon D3X, D3, D700, D300 and Nikon D90. In my opinion, Nikon cameras are better than Canon dslr cameras except D40 and D60.
Canon lenses are also generally cheaper than Nikon when compared toe to toe. Budget minded enthusiasts who is interested to build a collection of lenses should consider this.
In consumer grade lenses category, especially general purpose lens, Nikon’s lenses image quality surpass Canon lenses’ image quality.
Nikon lenses:
Great general purpose lenses, great value in consumer grade lenses.
Canon lenses:
Great for professionals, generally cheaper than Nikon lenses.
I also recommend you to look for third party pro grade lenses such as Sigma, Tokina and Tamron.
Become our Facebook Fans
Follow me @ Twitter
{ 1 trackback }
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
wow this review is good!
A very interesting and appropriate feature written above. I would like to add that for sports and wildlife photography, there’s no choice but to use Canon DSLRs. Nothing on earth can match the ID Mk III firing 10 fps or the 1Ds Mk III for its resolution and sturdiness or the 5D Mk II for all round quality. On the other hand, Nikon consumer level bodies and lenses deliver better service than Canon’s.
the Nikon 24-70 2.8 may be $600 dollars more than the Canon equivalent but then again it’s a better lens better built & better optically.
You fail to mention the Nikon 14-24 2.8 wide zoom from reports i have read it’s more than a match for the Canon primes in it’s zoom range.
And how about the Nikon 200-400 F4 VR i don’t think Canon has one ?.
As for Nikon costing more than Canon here in the UK Canon is more expensive.
@Quazi Nikons better AF performance & have you forgotten about the
Nikon D3x’s 24 MP resolution & as to build quality are you serious Canon better than Nikon rotfl
Nice try at a comparison, but you seem to have confused quantity with quality. More professional lenses doesn’t mean better professional lenses – nor do the specifications tell the whole story.
Canon has a good selection of f/4 zooms, f/4 & f/5.6 telephoto primes and fast wide angle primes, but that’s about all the advantage as Canon has. You made a point of mentioning particular Canon lenses without regard to the Nikon equivalents (like 135mm f/2 L vs. 135mm f/2 DC), nor did you pick out any of the Nikon lenses that Canon has no answer to – the 14-24mm and 200-400mm in particular, as Steve mentioned. Again, as Steve said the Nikon lenses are more expensive because in general they are better in both image quality and (yes) build quality too. Oh, one more thing – Nikon cameras are compatible with nearly every Nikon lens made since the 1960s, and as far back as 1959 with slight modifications.
I’m chuckling a little at Quazi’s comment, too. He seems to have forgotten the D3’s performance versus the AF-problem ridden 1D Mk III, and the superior D3X versus the 1Ds Mk III. Even now the merely updated D3s competes well with the brand new (and still 1.3x crop) 1D Mk IV. Let’s take a look at the so-called “all-around” 5D Mk II – where’s the autofocus performance or frame rate? It looks like a pretty specific body designed for high resolution and video and not much else. The D700 is a very different, true all-around camera. Now, they both have their place targeting different users, and both companies make excellent cameras. In most cases (everything except the pro bodies), the N and C offerings are offset in target market so an even comparison isn’t even possible. I don’t mean to sound like a Nikon fanboy but your comparison doesn’t do Nikon justice.
This review is laughable at best. Ben has a great point to make that the author failed to discuss. Must be a Canon fanboy.
Please check out the 2009 version
http://www.radiantlite.com/2009/09/canon-lenses-vs-nikon-lenses-2009.html
Frankly, I find all these comparisons rather wanting. It is a well known fact that both brands produce some of the best equipment on the market, with their respective strengths and weaknesses. It is really dependent on preferences, and as such, general comparisons cannot be made without bias. I’m sure both Nikon and Canon realize this fact, and are unwilling to point this out too strongly to the public, as such competitive comparisons between fans of either brands only help in the sales figures of both companies.
Canon Nikon debates are never ending processes. If one is happy with an Olympus; does anybody have any objections?
So, let users be happy with whatever he/she prefers. I’m not gonna promote any gear as the maker doesn’t pay me for that.
I’m a hobbyist and wanna remain so. When I decided to use DSLRs for my missions, it was Nikon all the way in my mind. Subsequently, as I examined/studied bodies and lens to suit my type of photography that is nature including wildlife and birds; it became clear that I should go Canon. Complied with the desire about a year ago. Encounter some problems with my gears from time to time as I go about my missions. Nevertheless, have not yet discovered enough reasons for a switch. Also read some great professional nature/sports photographers’ articles re their switch to Canon mainly due to lenses.
Certainly many great action pros are turning out excellent products with Nikon gears as well.
Canon and Nikon dominate the market and that’s a reality. I had been to 2 local stadiums last Saturday (06Feb10) to watch the 11th South Asian Games. As I watched from high up in the stands, majority of the photo journalists’ (local and foreign) lenses were white. Needless to mention, I also shot quite a bit from my seat with my own white gear EF 400mm f/5.6L USM mounted on my EOS 450D. Nikon probably (I didn’t use them) makes great bodies and general purpose lenses however; when it comes to professional action photography – the observations should not go wrong.
If common viewers are happy with images, it never matters what gears were used.
Duh! Excuse me… Nikon’s are generally easier to use and more reliable than Canon’s entry level camera.
And if you think the D40 is inferior, or cannot compete otherwise with any Canon camera. That’s a shame because you don’t even see what its got.
I love my Nikon, and I wouldn’t trade the reliability I have in my system. Canon users claim that it boils down to handling and taking care of it. And I am not. It has never been in the service center since.