I don't think anyone says Canon has better glass...the difference is the options that are available for certain types of shooter.
- Canon has a 35/1.4, 50/1.2, and 85/1.2 with no Nikon counterparts except the Nikkor 85/1.4, if that counts. Until a few months ago, Nikon did not have a 24/1.4, either.
- Nikon does not have anything like the 17 TS-E, and (from what I've heard) their existing tilt-shifts are not as well designed as the Canons.
- Nikon has no equivalent to the 60 MP-E.
- Nikon has no f/4 zooms, professional or otherwise, except the 200-400. The closest thing is midrange f/3.5-4.5 zooms.
- As a side effect of the above, there is a huge price gap between the midrange and professional lenses. For example, a 24-85/3.5-4.5 is $700, but a 24-70/2.8 is more than $1700. That's probably one reason why Nikon users tend to have more 3rd-party glass.
- Nikon SWM lenses aren't as common as Canon USM lenses.
And I guess for the sake of fairness, here are some problems with Canon...
- For a long time, Nikon had a much wider selection of DX lenses to choose from, especially standard zooms. Canon didn't fix some of that until recently, with the 15-85 and 18-135.
- Nikon had a 100 Macro (micro) VR for a long time before the 100L came out.
- Nikon has a cheap, fast, standard DX prime (35/1.8 ). The closest Canon lens is the 35/2, but it's not as cheap (at least not anymore) and is a rather long standard lens on Canon cameras.
- Nikon has a 135/2 DC (defocus control). I've no idea what it does, but Canon obviously doesn't have it.
elitejp wrote in post #10685815
My confusion: maybe it is cheaper but from what i understand the shorter focal lengths from Nikon also are overall better IQ wise than the Canon counter-product. For example Ive heard that the Nikon version of the 24-70mm is better than the Canons.
The 14-24 is a lot better than the 16-35 but costs $300 more and doesn't take front filters.
The Nikon 24-70 is better than the Canon, but also costs $400 more.
The Nikon 17-55 is built better than the Canon but costs $300 more and doesn't have stabilization.
On the flip side, the 100-400L is better than the Nikon 80-400, and costs less.
The 70-200 2.8 vr mkII version of the Nikon was also better until the Canon made their Mark II. However the prices seem to be neck and neck with these two models along with the quality of pictures. So at least in this case it is not cheaper.
The 70-200 VR was worse than the 70-200 IS. The VR II was only out a few months before the IS II came out, and now the performance is more or less even...but only if you're willing to spend $2000+ on a 70-200, which most people aren't.
So Nikon lenses are fine, the problem is the professional lenses are pricey, they don't have equivalents to some of the shorter L primes, high-quality f/4 zooms, and some specialty lenses, and there are far fewer SWM lenses than USM ones. The advantage is a much better selection for DX users, and better optical performance in several lenses.
They do have longer warranties, though, which explains at least part of the extra cost.
