My "Dark Side" Experience

First, I shot Canon for many, many years. When I was a teen, when I was in my 20's in the military and then again in my 40's when I got into digital. I loved my XT, 30D and 40D. I started becoming disenchanted when the 50D came out and just seemed to add what Nikon already had - plus some extra MPs. After lots of research into the bodies, I sold my Canon gear and went to Nikon.

I love my D300. Period. Incredible piece of hardware.

I hate Nikon lenses. Period. Why? Two reasons: selection and price.

With Nikon, you basically have two choices (three if you count manual focus models), pro level and consumer grade. The 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 grouping is much the holy grail of the dark side. As well it should be as it will set you back nearly $6000! For three lenses, only one of which has Nikon's answer to IS - VR. That lens, the 70-200 is also criticized often for it's faults on full-frame.

Your other choice is plastic, variable aperture consumer-grade lenses. These are 3.5 - 5.6 zooms with decent IQ, but cheap build.

Canon offers consumer grade, f4 pro and f2.8 pro series lenses. Nikon doesn't seem to grasp that strategy. In fact, most of their new releases are consumer-grade crop-format offerings! Several of the new offerings (the 50/1.4 springs to mind) offer, for the first time, internal AF motors - but have been poorly received. Pro series lenses have just not been forthcoming.

I will say that, lens for lens, it seems Nikon's consumer-grade offerings are superior to Canon's. That is matched by the price you'll pay for them, as well.

The 16-35/17-40L from Canon might be matched against the 14-24 from Nikon. The Nikon is the clear winner here, but it's nearing $2000 with the recent price increases.

The 24-70 of Canon is matched by the same range zoom from Nikon - at nearly twice the cost.

The four 70-200 offerings from Canon are matched by the single 70-200/2.8 from the Dark Side. It's shortcomings are well documented - yet it sells for nearly $2000 new. All four Canon lenses whoop this thing in terms of IQ.

The 100-400? Well, sure, Nikon has the 200-400/4! Fixed aperture, VR and 8 pounds of glass. Very highly regarded. And should be for $5000.

No 300/4IS is offered, tho an older 300/4 with AF is available. At nearly the same price as the much more modern Canon lens.

No fixed aperture f4 glass (with the exception of the 300/4) is even offered. No pro-level f4 offerings at all.

As a plus, most Nikon lenses do have a five year warranty, however.

The last thing is the used Nikon market - terrible. I'm not sure if there are fewer shooters or fewer traders, but there are certainly fewer lenses on the used circuit. And they are more expensive!

I'm just rambling on here. Am I going to sell my D300? No. My 70-300VR? No. Or the 17-55/2.8 (which is FAR superior to the like-named Canon lens) or my 105VR Macro. But man, I wish so much that Nikon would take a page from Canon and produce some real pro level lenses for less than $2k! Or maybe Canon can do the same for prosumer bodies and make a D300 of their own.

I guess I'm done here. Just pointing out the grass, while appearing greener, may prove the saying that appearances can be deceptive.

That's why I'll become a millionaire when I invent an adapter to use Canon glass in Nikon bodies with AF and IS

Put me on the list for one!!!

Alex_Venom wrote in post #7819225
That's why I'll become a millionaire when I invent an adapter to use Canon glass in Nikon bodies with AF and IS

You would be quite rich since you'll need to make the mount larger on the Nikon, as well as intrude into the mirror box while not hitting the Nikon's mirror.

Interesting non-bias look at the darkside, thanks for the info

Jman13 wrote in post #7819508
You would be quite rich since you'll need to make the mount larger on the Nikon, as well as intrude into the mirror box while not hitting the Nikon's mirror.

I'd pay to see that

That is pretty much what I noticed when I decided to leave Sony. In some ways I wanted to go Nikon. But what convinced me was that good quality f/4 glass. I can get the 17-40, 24-105, 70-200IS in f/4, plus the 100-400. For not a heck of a lot of money (maybe $4000ish) have a complete range from 17-400 with great image quality. None of it is super fast, but additionally, none of it is super heavy. With Nikon you are either spending several times that money, or going with consumer grade glass.

How is that 17-55? I hear it is a great lens, how does it compare in build quality? I know it costs more and doesn't have IS.

I'd agree with your analysis ...

I have D300, 16-85 VR and 70-300mm VR which is a superb combination and build is excellent throughout. Better than anything that Canon offers at similar prices. My D700 and Zeiss primes combo is better than anything I had in my Canon days, but I now have to hire my long lenses when needed as Nikon has nothing to touch the 400mm 5.6 L at anything approaching the same price. So, anyone considering switching needs to be very careful about what they switch to lens wise - could be very pricey!

There is definately less around on the SH market and prices seem to hold well. After several months with Nikon and noticing forum views I can only conclude Nikon users don't get into the upgrade frenzy thing so much. They are also much more open about use of older lenses.

The one thing I've not figured out is the 'why' of why Nikon shooters. Why do they seem to think the consumer grade glass is acceptable? Why do they continue to use manual focus and body-driven focus lenses? I mean, I understand they have little choice (unless they jump ship). There's also the fact that Nikon shooters use and accept far more readily the third party solutions.

Do they use them because there are no other choices? Or because they are more 'purist' (at least concerning the MF lenses)? I've just not figured it out.

I've noticed, however, that the newer shooters and people like me, the converts, are less open to using those same lenses.

One of the reasons I held off so long on writing a post like this is that I can't figure out the motivation and I really didn't want to offend anyone on either side. Sometimes, tho, I get very frustrated that certain lenses aren't available or don't even exist.

NorCalAl wrote in post #7819766
The one thing I've not figured out is the 'why' of why Nikon shooters. Why do they seem to think the consumer grade glass is acceptable? Why do they continue to use manual focus and body-driven focus lenses? I mean, I understand they have little choice (unless they jump ship). There's also the fact that Nikon shooters use and accept far more readily the third party solutions.

Do they use them because there are no other choices? Or because they are more 'purist' (at least concerning the MF lenses)? I've just not figured it out.

I've noticed, however, that the newer shooters and people like me, the converts, are less open to using those same lenses.

One of the reasons I held off so long on writing a post like this is that I can't figure out the motivation and I really didn't want to offend anyone on either side. Sometimes, tho, I get very frustrated that certain lenses aren't available or don't even exist.

Al -- when you come back get the mark III with all the money you save on lenses .

ed rader

Yep, lenses are what's keeping me on this side.

condyk wrote in post #7819717
There is definately less around on the SH market and prices seem to hold well. After several months with Nikon and noticing forum views I can only conclude Nikon users don't get into the upgrade frenzy thing so much. They are also much more open about use of older lenses.

Older Sony shooters are the same way about the old "G" lenses. Granted there wasn't much out there for a transition period when Sony first took over Konica-Minolta. It wasn't unusual to see a desirable "G" lens with rubs and knicks sell for more than its original retail price.

After waiting for ages to see Sony release new bodies I decided it was a good time for me to switch to another system. Looked for awhile at Nikon and Canon. Wasn't a hard decision to choose Canon for the glass.

I never had a chance to use Nikon gear so its interesting to read posts like this.

In terms of alternative/MF lenses, more lenses can be adapted to the EOS mount than the Nikon mount due to the differences in the size of the mount. I have several for my 5D, and the IQ is amazing.

I also recently picked up a Nikon D3, and while I agree about the lens lineup, the thing nails focus. For example, using a 50 1.8 screw-drive lens, I was consistently hitting focus on the eyes of my moving subjects wide open. Not bad for a plastic piece which cost me $50.

From my oncepronowprosumer perspective Canon has Nikon beat in terms of options...Nikon users will say their prosumer bodies are superior, but as you say they have fewer lenses to use...
Canon users who want to go 'big-time' spend more on Canon pro bods (more $ than Nikon's prosumer line) to get some of Nikon bods better output (perhaps?!?!) but save on the Canon lenses which give the user more photo options, and isn't that where the rubber meets the road?
As for me...I'm one of those olfart Nikon users who just like MF lenses...not that I'm (any longer) against zooms at all...the Canon 18-55 IS kit is better than my now gone 24 and 35 nikkor primes (as is the Canon 35/2) so I use it for general use, as I will my other zooms...for convenience and more importantly, their more than decent IQ, (unlike the badoldays)...
I'm happy, ecstatic actually, to be able to still use the MF Nikkors...just because I passed on the 24 and 35, it didn't stop me from getting (since "going Canon") the 180/2.8, the 300/4.5 and reacquiring the 105/2.5 from my early days...AND the 50/1.4 for shooting in low light situations where MF beats AF...

drhee39 wrote in post #7820528
In terms of alternative/MF lenses, more lenses can be adapted to the EOS mount than the Nikon mount due to the differences in the size of the mount. I have several for my 5D, and the IQ is amazing.

I also recently picked up a Nikon D3, and while I agree about the lens lineup, the thing nails focus. For example, using a 50 1.8 screw-drive lens, I was consistently hitting focus on the eyes of my moving subjects wide open. Not bad for a plastic piece which cost me $50.

which canon cameras have you used for comparison, and did they miss focus?

ed rader