What is Nikon's equivalent of Canon "L" lenses?

[diediealsomustdive]

I rather have the current state of affairs, where Nikon clearly is putting the effort where it matters, in the optical department, and the AFS department, to make lenses as good as their design spec (including price point) will allow. The 85/1.8 for example, is a good lens for pro usage as well, but with a serious amateur price tag.

Put on a pro tag and be charged more is not what I like. Do more research and get more value for money is probably better!

 

[ihub88]

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.

you are very boring

 

[jasonchu]

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

Many technologies was very expensive when they were just introduced, such as ED, AF-S, VR, Aspheric, even IF. So, during that time, whichever lens built with these technologies are more costly. Other parts like optical lens, casing also use premium quality material to match the "high class" quality requirement. However, today, after many years of hard working of engineers, the cost of such technologies dropped significantly. The manufacturer can afford to use them in bargin lens. So, no surprise, these letters start to lose their golden value. Gold ring or gold letter (so many gold letter now) is just market strategy. Nikon has never delare anything on them. It can be changed anytime with a management decision.

So what is the easy judge to a premium quality lens? Answer is clear, F number!
The reason is because the optical tehnologies have not been improved significantly in about century of time. And there is no clue to show that this techologies will be improved much in near future also. There are no cheap way to make a lens having large aperture with little distortion and CA and viginett and etc.

With today's DSLR and Digital dark room techologies, many thing of the photo can be adjusted, including color tone, sharpnees, noise level, brightness, even distortion. However, we are still not able to do it in a very natural way to adjust the DOF, which could be a essential part of your photo. And the lovely shallow DOF can only be achieved by a fast lens.

So, always buy the lens with the lowest f number in your affordable range. If cannot afford "org" lens, look for 3rd party. Normally for those lens with f# <=2.8 are best quality lens in 3rd party line. Most of them are better than the bargain "org" lens with f# >2.8.

 

[billone]

Ah, just one parting comment... since a digital sensor receives light in a different manner from film, lenses that were excellent for film are not always optimal for digital. This needs to be taken into account when some older lenses (read: older design lenses), famous in their time, do not provide the same results on digital. This seems to appear more often for wideangle lenses. photozone.de does a good job of providing objective parameter testing

 

[SilverSurfer66]

Those with a golden ring near the front of the lens?

Absolutely correct. Nikon Lenses with a golden ring are designated pro -series lenses. Can always read Ken Rockwell for more info.

 

[Fire Kirin]

Nope... wrong!

Trinities namely:
- AFS17-35 f/2.8D ED (model since 1999)
- AFS28-70 f/2.8D ED (model since 1999)
- AFS80-200 f/2.8D ED (was replaced by the AFS70-200VR f/2.8G ED)

This term is given by most Nikonian professionals overseas. Originated from Nikonian.org abt 5-7yrs ago. Basically the Nikon Trinities means, if you ever own these 3 babies, you dun need another lens other than the 'big guns'. Cos this 3 lenses is known for its, built, performance, image quality, sharpness, colour reproduction, etc.

But this comes with a price. In order to own all the 3 lenses will set you back by ~$8K.

As a nikonian, I'm proud to announce that these 3 lenses does not have any 'patch' models only replacement model to totally replace it, unlike the canon which comes out Mk1, Mk2 etc. As you can see above the 17-35 and the 28-70 lens is a 1999 model, and till date there is not a need to replace it. Do note, this statement is not meant as a flame bait or war. So please dun tarnish this thread as it seems to have already started into flaming.

For nikon, the optics and lens design are often better then Canon, however I do not deny the fact that canon lenses do have an advantage over Nikon when it comes to technology. Focusing speed of a USM L lens is a good example. Not to mention CMOS also have a slight advantage over noise control etc.

Thus at the end of the day, to each his own. It is ultimately the photographer who is the one to produce a good picture. Equipment brand comes in secondary.

YMMV

How about the 85mm 1.4 D?

 

[mcn]

u can tell me about it

How about the 85mm 1.4 D?

 

[lsisaxon]

Absolutely correct. Nikon Lenses with a golden ring are designated pro -series lenses. Can always read Ken Rockwell for more info.

105/2DC, 135/2DC, PC-Micro 85/2.8, 85/1.4 are also pro lenses but they do not have a gold ring. The gold ring was traditionally used to designate ED lenses. Now most ED lenses just have a tag.

 

[calebk]

To all those who flamed L lenses, grow up. Do not write out of ignorance. I'd expect more maturity out of the people who claim to use 'professional Nikon gear'.

From the start, this thread was "destined" to be a flame bait in some way or another, just waiting for people to start, and true enough, from post #3, people had to say what was not necessary.

Anyway, for both makers, gold/red ring lenses do not necessarily mean that these are top-quality lenses and the rest are crap. There are plenty of what the manufacturers brand as "consumer" lenses that are actually

1) Great value-for-money
2) Sharp, fast, contrasty

Some quick examples are the 50mm f/1.8. No gold ring, no special elements, no SWM, but image quality is probably the best in its price range.

To cut a long story short, the man wielding the lens matters the most, whether it be a red ring/gold ring lens, whether it has ED elements in it, whether it uses conventional micro-motor/screw slot drive or USM/SWM, or whether it's a kit lens. Knowing your tools will give you great results, whereas having **** skills and good lenses doesn't really do anything for you, does it?

 

[Artosoft]

To all those who flamed L lenses, grow up. Do not write out of ignorance. I'd expect more maturity out of the people who claim to use 'professional Nikon gear'.

From the start, this thread was "destined" to be a flame bait in some way or another, just waiting for people to start, and true enough, from post #3, people had to say what was not necessary.

Anyway, for both makers, gold/red ring lenses do not necessarily mean that these are top-quality lenses and the rest are crap. There are plenty of what the manufacturers brand as "consumer" lenses that are actually

1) Great value-for-money
2) Sharp, fast, contrasty

Some quick examples are the 50mm f/1.8. No gold ring, no special elements, no SWM, but image quality is probably the best in its price range.

To cut a long story short, the man wielding the lens matters the most, whether it be a red ring/gold ring lens, whether it has ED elements in it, whether it uses conventional micro-motor/screw slot drive or USM/SWM, or whether it's a kit lens. Knowing your tools will give you great results, whereas having **** skills and good lenses doesn't really do anything for you, does it?

How about those who praise L lens in Nikon forum? No comment? Double standard :nono: ?

Regards,
Arto.

 

[calebk]

How about those who praise L lens in Nikon forum? No comment? Double standard :nono: ?

Regards,
Arto.

What would you want me to comment on them? I think it's respectful to write factually, instead of unconstructive, unobjective comments.

For instance, I am aware, and do not deny that apart from the 17-40L and 16-35 mkII, all previous WA lenses in the L series are rather soft, and so I do not deny this.

 

[alternatve]

I've seen pinhole cameras taking better shots then Leica glass. Stop talking about your precious what not and take pictures, which is the main point of getting your camera now eh?

 

[lsisaxon]

How about those who praise L lens in Nikon forum? No comment? Double standard :nono: ?

Regards,
Arto.

I think there is nothing wrong with that. There are a couple of great L lenses, just that there are more Nikon lenses (Nikon doesn't need to specially designate their lenses) worthy of praises and that's why I'm (and a lot of other Nikonians are) still with stuck with Nikon. ;p

 

[Fire Kirin]

u can tell me about it

I am quite impressed with the quality for the 85mm 1.4 D. Very sharp and contrasty lens. It suits my taste very well.

I fancy the 28mm 1.4 D. But too expensive! Currently it is selling at about US$3k at ebay. Out of reach.

 

[JLLJ]

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)...

As I only have digital cam (sold my firm) For the digital equivalent, I'll go for 12-24, 17-55, and 70-200 for the trinity covering the equivalent range of the original. I don't agree that 18-200 is good enough or else we should have ony one lens to talk about.

 

[augustai]

As I only have digital cam (sold my firm) For the digital equivalent, I'll go for 12-24, 17-55, and 70-200 for the trinity covering the equivalent range of the original. I don't agree that 18-200 is good enough or else we should have ony one lens to talk about.

True true... I am votting for the 18-200 bec it really the kind of lens when you feel kinda of lazy and only want to carry the lightest kit. I am sure no one will disagree when you put D40 and 18-200 together, you will get the lightest kit with the widest range. Then when I am in the mood, I definitly go for my 17-55 & 70-200 with D200, ready to shoot anything down and trying to balance everything when changing lenses... :bsmilie:

Well, at the end of the day, everyone has their trinity lenses in their hearts. It only depends on what kind of photographer are they.

 

[lsisaxon]

I am quite impressed with the quality for the 85mm 1.4 D. Very sharp and contrasty lens. It suits my taste very well.

I fancy the 28mm 1.4 D. But too expensive! Currently it is selling at about US$3k at ebay. Out of reach.

Something within reach would be the Sigma 24/1.8. Not too bad for the money. It's also aspherical and the coma is quite well corrected, just that it's half a stop down. The FOV is equivalent to that of a 36mm on 135, so it's useful for many situations.

 

[user111]

there is no equivalent

the closest is AFS ED IF (either with or without VR)

 

[lightning]

Is a company that is slow in technology progress be classified as a company that has already produced the "perfect" tool, and hence do not need to progress as fast anymore? Then the slow progress be classified as an "advantage", because user do not need to upgrade so often?:think: Would you rather invest in a company that is always developing and advancing or a company that has slowed down to "earn" what they deserved?

 

[chngpe01]

This was the TS question in post #1

I am sure Nikon will have upmarket series for their lenses right? How do I diffrentiate?

And this is how much it has gone off topic

Is a company that is slow in technology progress be classified as a company that has already produced the "perfect" tool, and hence do not need to progress as fast anymore? Then the slow progress be classified as an "advantage", because user do not need to upgrade so often?:think: Would you rather invest in a company that is always developing and advancing or a company that has slowed down to "earn" what they deserved?

Thread Closed