frankchn wrote in post #17569483
If you have special needs on the wide end, there are some lenses that Nikon does not currently offer (11-24mm for the 11-13mm range and the TS-E 17 and 24mms for the wide-ness and the ability to adjust the TS axes without using a screw driver). The super-telephotos are also lighter than the Nikon counterparts, but Nikon is making their new generation of super telephotos lighter too (400/2.8E and 800/5.6E).
Otherwise the core line-up most people would use seems to be pretty similar across the board.
I am not certain but do Nikon have anything to (quality) match the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS, 24-70 F2.8 V2 and 70-200 F2.8 L IS Mk2? This is not "Troll" bait! I have simply never tried the Nikon equivalents so I do not know how they compare.
As to the "SuperTeles" I have tried a couple of the Nikon offerings and, sorry, I was not impressed. To be fair the results were very good but on the cameras I was using (D800 E and D4) things were a bit clunky (technical term) and slower than I am used to (1Dx or 1D4). The Nikon lenses that I have tried were the 300 F2.8 (on a D4) and 500 F4 (on D800E and D4) - both lenses are the current VR models. These were compared to the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS, Canon 600 F4 L IS (mk1) and Canon 300 F2.8 L IS (Mk1). To be fair only one was a direct comparison (300 F2.8) but also none of the Canon lenses were Mk2 versions.
My photography is hinged around long lenses with shorter lenses (16-35 F4 and 24-70 F2.8 V2) used less frequently so, for my uses, Canon is the better option. Were the situation reversed then things may well be different! Hence my question about the Nikon equivalents to the short Zooms.
Regardless of the above even a staunch Canon fan (like me) cannot deny that, in some respects, Nikon have an advantage in sensors, unfortunately the sensor is only one part of the equation, so all the other aspects must match up to one's personal requirements before deciding!
Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).