What is Nikon's equivalent of Canon "L" lenses?
- Thread starter noobie
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, my mistake, too fast. You are replying other.
I delete my post.
Thank you.
Regards,
Arto.
The "trinity lenses" only refer to the 3 lenses mentioned because of their proven sharpness, color, built quality etc. However, it certainly does not mean that all other F2.8 Nikkor lenses which are not part of this trinity group are of inferior quality. As technology improved, one fine day perhaps Nikon may come out with other lenses that are better than the trinity lenses, or it may already happened .... I dun noe.
Thanks for the very prompt response skyes...now i know which lens to get (but must save first)just another question(s)...
Is 17-55 f2.8 consider a part of this? it also has a gold ring isn't? and most of this lenses can be used on a full-frame camera (including AFS70-200VR f/2.8G ED) without crop factor...am i right? thanks...the info you have shared is really useful to a newbie like me :thumbsup:
The 'trinity lenses' term came about during the time when film was still popular. These days, there are many discussions whether 17-55mm can replace both 17-35mm and 28-70mm. It all depends on the user.
So instead of having to change between 3 lenses, you only need to change 2 lenses to cover from 17-200mm. Losing the range from 55-70mm is not too much of a bother because can crop with today's high MP cameras.
To me, 17-55mm is definity my 'go-to' lense in the digital age. The zoom is just nice for wide to short tele range. So to me, my trinity lenses are 17-55mm, 70-200mm and 18-200mm.
P.S. 17-55mm can still be used on a FF camera. But the range is only from 28-55mm (if I remember correctly) due to vigetting (Hope my spelling is correct)...
So instead of having to change between 3 lenses, you only need to change 2 lenses to cover from 17-200mm. Losing the range from 55-70mm is not too much of a bother because can crop with today's high MP cameras.
To me, 17-55mm is definity my 'go-to' lense in the digital age. The zoom is just nice for wide to short tele range. So to me, my trinity lenses are 17-55mm, 70-200mm and 18-200mm.
P.S. 17-55mm can still be used on a FF camera. But the range is only from 28-55mm (if I remember correctly) due to vigetting (Hope my spelling is correct)...
C'mon... Nikon has its gold ring series... of which the Trinity lenses are a part.
There is a gold-coloured ring at the front of the lens.
Bank accounts have been known to take nose-dives following impulsive purchase of gold-ring lenses. They are generally zooms with high max aperture. Distortion, vignetting, CA are all kept very well under control.
There is a gold-coloured ring at the front of the lens.
Bank accounts have been known to take nose-dives following impulsive purchase of gold-ring lenses. They are generally zooms with high max aperture. Distortion, vignetting, CA are all kept very well under control.
:bsmilie: so very true.... :sweat:
how do you classify my sentence?
fv18m
Member
Just to share... From the stuffs Ive read somewhere', DX series of lenses are optimised for Nikon's APS-C sized sensors. Thus image circle for which these DX lenses cover will not cover the 35mm (FF) format entirely, resulting in vignetting/ loss of image at the edge. Bottomline is DX lenses will still work on FF DSLR (when Nikon introduces), just that image captured may not fill the whole sensor.
As for the Trinity lenses, they are useable by both film and digital SLRs.
As for the Trinity lenses, they are useable by both film and digital SLRs.
Yatlapball
Senior Member
Even if you have the best and most expensive lens... if you cannot shoot for ****, does it really make a difference? Ask yourself, do you do justice to the equipment? If no, but you have plenty of purchasing power, then by all means go ahead
Gold Ring. Red Ring. Silver Ring. White lens. Black lens. Does it really matter? They are all marketing gimmicks by companies.
There are "marked as professional grade" lenses that are flops. Just as are some "non-professional" lenses that deliver remarkedly excellent quality.
Gold Ring. Red Ring. Silver Ring. White lens. Black lens. Does it really matter? They are all marketing gimmicks by companies.
There are "marked as professional grade" lenses that are flops. Just as are some "non-professional" lenses that deliver remarkedly excellent quality.
NorthernLights
Senior Member
Most of Nikon's lenses are as good as Canon's. Wide zooms like 17-35 f2.8 AF-S are sharper and more consistent than Canon's.
The only problem I think is the lack of FF. I am sure 17-35 and 28-70 would be sharp from end to end of the frame. I consider them better than the 16-35 mk1 and 24-70.
Prime-wise, Canon's offerings of 24L and 35L both at f1.4, TS-E24, 45 and 90 are unchallenged from Nikon.
Nikon has the PC-Micro 85/2.8 to challenge the TS90. Nikon also had the PC35 and PC28. These lenses are MF anyway, so no difference. Plus for wide angle, you don't really need the tilt. You only need tilt for selective focusing which is not very likely to be used for perspective control. Moreover, in the digital age, perspective can be corrected in software.
Sadly speaking, Nikon's 35/1.4 is MF but can still be used. Nikon used to have the AF28/1.4 which is a very good lens but discontinued.
Just go straight to the point to answer my question if you want. I do not need you to give me a question as an answer. Afterall it is you would made a statement in the first place.
I will stop here and take that as a friendly verbal warning.
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
(Preamble: my first camera was a Canon AE-1, then I used Minolta X-700 extensively before settling on a Nikon FE-2. Had contemplated moving to a Canon T-90 at one point, recommended and purchased many EOS-630, EOS-650 etc, but stuck to my Nikon setup through F-801, F601QD, F70D, D70, S2Pro, and collected Nikon F Photomic FTn, Nikomat FT2, Nikon EL2, FG. Still have a Minolta X-700 and looking for a Canon AE-1)
There was a time...
when any lens with Nikon name on it spells superior quality. Especially those with gold letters or rings, namely ED.
Today, some Nikon lenses, even those with gold letters and rings, may be "quality exceeding the price point" but not truly excellent. Beware of current kit lenses, good enough but not the stuff dreams are made of. Some gold ring gold letter lenses are truly great stuff.
But there are a large number of non-gold ring Nikkors that are world beaters. I recall 15mm, 20mm, 24mm, 60mm, 105mm, etc. The 105mm is virtually unchanged from its earliest days when it came out with the Nikon F (1959). There was even a el-cheapo E lens that was a world beater, the Nikon lens series E 75-150, back in the 80s featured prominently during fashion shows (those were the days before white lenses dominated the scene).
No need for gold or other rings, L or other designations. You need to find general comments and reviews of these lenses. And Nikon does usually make good lenses that performance generally exceed the price point.
Canon lenses, on the other hand, IMHO, are great optics generally, though they are really greater mechanical devices (like the USM speed) but there are some that "quality that really match the price point". Some of the modern kit lenses are in this group, and may be better used as paper weight. Don't believe me, just search the net.
There are also, my opinion only and not a flame bait, L lenses that I won't touch with the end of a pole. These are generally the wide angle zooms, some shots are even show-case photos that are in Canon's publicity materials. The fatal flaw IMHO was in the light fall-off, very significant in WA shots. Check it out on the net, someone done a test on this and Nikon WA zoom lenses, IIRC, have less light fall-off (vignetting) than Canon lenses.
There was a time...
when any lens with Nikon name on it spells superior quality. Especially those with gold letters or rings, namely ED.
Today, some Nikon lenses, even those with gold letters and rings, may be "quality exceeding the price point" but not truly excellent. Beware of current kit lenses, good enough but not the stuff dreams are made of. Some gold ring gold letter lenses are truly great stuff.
But there are a large number of non-gold ring Nikkors that are world beaters. I recall 15mm, 20mm, 24mm, 60mm, 105mm, etc. The 105mm is virtually unchanged from its earliest days when it came out with the Nikon F (1959). There was even a el-cheapo E lens that was a world beater, the Nikon lens series E 75-150, back in the 80s featured prominently during fashion shows (those were the days before white lenses dominated the scene).
No need for gold or other rings, L or other designations. You need to find general comments and reviews of these lenses. And Nikon does usually make good lenses that performance generally exceed the price point.
Canon lenses, on the other hand, IMHO, are great optics generally, though they are really greater mechanical devices (like the USM speed) but there are some that "quality that really match the price point". Some of the modern kit lenses are in this group, and may be better used as paper weight. Don't believe me, just search the net.
There are also, my opinion only and not a flame bait, L lenses that I won't touch with the end of a pole. These are generally the wide angle zooms, some shots are even show-case photos that are in Canon's publicity materials. The fatal flaw IMHO was in the light fall-off, very significant in WA shots. Check it out on the net, someone done a test on this and Nikon WA zoom lenses, IIRC, have less light fall-off (vignetting) than Canon lenses.
to be frank - i wish that nikon did have a "L" or similar label to distinguish their pro lenses better. i am sure price is one way to tell but the previous ways- ED glass, IF, or even AF-S cannot be used anymore. one easy way to use that someone mentioned is f2.8 but that is not 100% the case - can the 12-24 f4 be classified as a pro lens? yes because many pros use it or no because it doesnt have the weather sealing and rock solid manufacturer that a AFS70-200 f2.8 has.
another confusing example is the af micro 70-180 f4.5-5.6D. canon's 24-105L f4 is also one example of f2.8 not being a perfect determinant of a pro lens. when you go into primes, it gets even more unclear - the nikon 85 f1.4 and clearly a pro lens but without afs, vr etc. in short, a pro designation for Nikon would definitely help... however hopefully with no jacking up of prices by marketing
another confusing example is the af micro 70-180 f4.5-5.6D. canon's 24-105L f4 is also one example of f2.8 not being a perfect determinant of a pro lens. when you go into primes, it gets even more unclear - the nikon 85 f1.4 and clearly a pro lens but without afs, vr etc. in short, a pro designation for Nikon would definitely help... however hopefully with no jacking up of prices by marketing
- Status
Similar threads
