What are some differences between sony, canon and nikon lenses?

Ive tried studying up on the differences in the camera bodies and personally think that Nikon/Sony is the current leader but what about glass? I know one of the arguments in canons favor was that glass was cheaper but it doesnt seem to be much of a factor anymore. So price aside (and please no recommending zeiss or something that really doesnt fit this topic) who is producing the best glass? My main area of interest is the 24-70 range and then 70-200. Of course any insight is appreciated.

elitejp wrote in post #15891655
Ive tried studying up on the differences in the camera bodies and personally think that Nikon/Sony is the current leader

This is where I stopped reading.

I disagree with this statement, but to each their own.

ChrisTranter wrote in post #15891717
This is where I stopped reading.

I disagree with this statement, but to each their own.

Totally depends on the glass being talked about. If you want superzooms, Canon is the way to go. If you want awesome primes, believe it or not Pentax makes some of the sweetest prime lenses on there. Sony lenses aren't bad, but their sensors are way ahead of Canon right now in terms of things like DR and ISO. Even Pentax kicks Canon butt when it comes to that.

That being said I honestly don't know much about Nikon lenses in the range the OP is talking about. I know one of my friends is a University photographer and he likes Nikon bodies but absolutely hates his nikon 70-200. Don't think it gets much better than Canon's 70-200's

Look at my gear list and tell me that any one brand is the best. Gene

gasrocks wrote in post #15891778
Look at my gear list and tell me that any one brand is the best. Gene

Supertak!

Raylon wrote in post #15891760
Sony . . . sensors are way ahead of Canon right now in terms of things like DR and ISO. Even Pentax kicks Canon butt when it comes to that.

Pentax uses Sony sensors, so that's not surprising.

elitejp wrote in post #15891655
My main area of interest is the 24-70 range and then 70-200.

For those two particular ranges, Canon's 24-70 F/2.8L II and 70-200 F/2.8L IS II are considered by many reviewers to be the sharpest zooms in their respective ranges when stacked against their competition, and not by a little bit.

But since you can't mount that super sharp Canon L glass on your preferred Sony-sensored Nikon, Sony, or Pentax bodies, well, where does that leave you?

I don't know why you'd think the price differential (Canon vs. Nikon) "isn't much of a factor anymore." Without a doubt, Canon still provides more and cheaper options in most focal ranges. In fact, that's precisely the reason I'm still on Canon, despite Sony's superior performance at low ISO.

For the two ranges you listed, Canon seems at the very least on equal footing with the competition. Their selection of 70-200 L models is about as good as it gets, and you also have a choice between the 24-70 f/2.8L or f/4L IS, both of which seem plenty well-liked. If there's a real weak point for Canon on full-frame it's actually ultra-wide, which is unfortunate for me, since that's my most-used range. But if you're not a wide shooter, then it's safe to say that the Canon L zoom lineup is probably as good as it gets.

Also, it looks like you have a crop body right now; if you're staying on crop, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm is probably the best UWA crop zoom on the market, further cementing Canon's advantage.

brettjrob wrote in post #15891929
I don't know why you'd think the price differential (Canon vs. Nikon) "isn't much of a factor anymore." Without a doubt, Canon still provides more and cheaper options in most focal ranges. In fact, that's precisely the reason I'm still on Canon, despite Sony's superior performance at low ISO.

For the two ranges you listed, Canon seems at the very least on equal footing with the competition. Their selection of 70-200 L models is about as good as it gets, and you also have a choice between the 24-70 f/2.8L or f/4L IS, both of which seem plenty well-liked. If there's a real weak point for Canon on full-frame it's actually ultra-wide, which is unfortunate for me, since that's my most-used range. But if you're not a wide shooter, then it's safe to say that the Canon L zoom lineup is probably as good as it gets.

Also, it looks like you have a crop body right now; if you're staying on crop, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm is probably the best UWA crop zoom on the market, further cementing Canon's advantage.

See thats the thing, i could just as easy switch systems as i could stay with canon. With what i have everything needs to be upgraded except for my prime and that could be easily sold. So if i upgrade with canon or another brand it will cost me the same.

But if what manifesto said is true then I would pick glass over the better sensor tech. I would hope that to be the better decision.

i just find this a curious topic since I havent seen too many people talk about the differences in lenses between companies.

gasrocks wrote in post #15891778
Look at my gear list and tell me that any one brand is the best. Gene

I totally agree with you. Thats why we see some pretty heated discussions on this board

elitejp wrote in post #15891655
Ive tried studying up on the differences in the camera bodies and personally think that Nikon/Sony is the current leader but what about glass? I know one of the arguments in canons favor was that glass was cheaper but it doesnt seem to be much of a factor anymore. So price aside (and please no recommending zeiss or something that really doesnt fit this topic) who is producing the best glass? My main area of interest is the 24-70 range and then 70-200. Of course any insight is appreciated.

Canon’s lenses are what make them standout, IMO, and everyone knows that glass is more important than body…every time. You have the extremely highly regarded 24-70 and 70-200 zooms, f1.2 primes, tilt-shift lenses, some very nice superzooms, etc etc. You also have some extremely affordable, yet high quality offerings like the 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 15-85, etc etc.

Not at all saying that Canon’s lenses are the best across the board, but they offer an extremely comprehensive catalog of lenses that caters to just about any type of photography, or any level of photographer (skill and budget-wise) out there. If one were to fully invest into a single system, Canon is the way to go.

edit: Canon is the leader in terms of 24-70 and 70-200 zooms, IMO

elitejp wrote in post #15891655
Ive tried studying up on the differences in the camera bodies and personally think that Nikon/Sony is the current leader but what about glass?

Why? Because Canon's 1DX is much better than Nikon's D4? Because Canon has the worlds smallest DSLR? Because Canon's three year old 7D has still faster AF and as good image quality (but more noise) compared to Nikon's brand new D7100? Because Nikon's camera screens are always green?
Or do you just judge cameras by their megapixels (Nikon D800, D5100)?

Well, Nikon has some nice glass that Canon doesn't offer, like the 14-24mm f/2.8. But as already mentioned, Canon's 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses are better than Nikon's, Canon has f/1.2 and even older (but EF mount) f/1.0 primes. I think Canon always had better telephoto lenses and special lenses like the 1200/5.6 or 5200/14. Canon has a pancake lens, Nikon doesn't. Nikon seems to offer more DX lenses than Canon offers EF-S lenses. Canon has a great 17mm Tilt/Shift lens, Nikon doesn't.

As already said, Pentax has some great glass too. And I think Olympus lenses are very good too. And we don't have to talk about Leica or even medium format glass

Edit: Would be interesting if you ask the same question in a Nikon and a Sony forum.

lennartsw wrote in post #15893728
Because Canon has the worlds smallest DSLR?

Well Canon's SL1 is kind of a joke when it comes to that claim. The Pentax K-x came out nearly 3 years ago and is basically the same size as the SL1. Pentax makes awesome tiny cameras if only their camera tech could match Sony's sensor tech they would be the ones to beat.

SL1 size: 117x91x69 mm
K-X size: 123x92x68 mm

So its 5mm less wide, 1mm shorter, but 1 mm deeper. Okay sure whatever it's the "smallest" but Pentax has been doing it for way longer and at a much better pricepoint when it came out.

lennartsw wrote in post #15893728
Because Canon's three year old 7D has still faster AF and as good image quality (but more noise) compared to Nikon's brand new D7100?

Not sure where you are getting that the 7D would have the same IQ as the 7100, I'm pretty sure the 7100 sensor kills the 7D. It has better color range, better dynamic range, and kills it in ISO. How does that make the 7D any way comparable to the 7100? Canon is seriously lagging in sensor tech. They keep rolling out the same ****ty APS-C sensors since the 7D came out like 3 years ago. Sure they have upgraded body tech and other things, but the sensors are embarassing at this point just to see another Ti camera come out with the same silly sensor.

lennartsw wrote in post #15893728
Or do you just judge cameras by their megapixels (Nikon D800, D5100)?

Well the only argument people ever had about huge megapixels cameras was the one that more megapixels killed noise. Just look up pictures at of the D800 at very high ISO's. They are pretty damn good.

Ok before this thread gets derailed even further. I actually own a canon dslr, so im not hating on them. So lets take this fanboyism out of the topic

elitejp wrote in post #15891655
...who is producing the best glass?...

elitejp wrote in post #15893868
...So lets take this fanboyism out of the topic

Hahahaha... good luck with that!

Raylon wrote in post #15893817
Well the only argument people ever had about huge megapixels cameras was the one that more megapixels killed noise. Just look up pictures at of the D800 at very high ISO's. They are pretty damn good.

Of course they are. And some photographers need 36 Megapixel. But you also have to think of the slower continuous mode and the big datas and as you already said the higher noise (it's not so much difference, but it is noticeable).
7D compared to D7100 at ISO 6400: from dpreview.com
I'm no Canon fanboy at all, but Nikon is the only camera company I personally don't like. I don't like almost everything on a Nikon camera (handling, the menu systems, the display, the buttons and so on). (Sorry for Off-Topic) But that's only my personal point of view and sorry if my post looked like I am a close-minded Canon fanboy.