Canon still lens? vs Nikon Still lens?

[Minu Park]

As a newbie in red, I am considering getting new lenses between Canon L or Nikon G lenses from Nikon Nikkor-s lens(Old Prime set).

In terms of price range, I organize two options that I could face for poor man's lens options - Comparing CP.2 or other zoom lenses. Still lenses meets my demands, because its way cheaper.

I organized these lens set based on budget $9000

First Nikon lens (total price of $8980) (8 LENSES)

Zoom (G lens only)

24-70 2.8 G $1500
14-24 2.8 G $1500
70-200 2.8G $1500

Prime (G lens only)

24mm 1.4 $2133 (I wish there is 1.8 G version but…)
35mm 1.8 $599
50mm 1.4 $350
85mm 1.8 $500
105mm 2.8 $900

Canon Total prices of 8550

Zoom (L lens only)

16-35 4 USM $899
24-70 2.8L $1000 used
70-200 2.8L USM $1500

Prime lens

24mm 1.4 L $1100
35mm 1.4 L $1100
50mm 1.4 $ 350
85mm 1.2L $ 1600 (Used)
100mm 2.8 $1000

Pro and Cons of nikon.

Pro: Nikon zooms are known as the best still lenses in the market including 14-24mm in 35mm photography dslr world. G lenses are known as the sharpest and it could handle more than (D800E)36mpx printing environment, and its proven.

Con: Lenses are more expensive than its competitor, so I couldn't get the fastest lenses on the market. [Mostly 1.8 at the primes]

Pro and Cons of Canon.

Pro: Canon L lenses are good quality lenses and its sharp and reasonable prices that we could find its fastest lenses in the market.

Con: It's simple that some says Canon lenses aren't sharp as Nikon lenses, but in my opinion we can't see the differences that much.

Here is the questions that I would ask.

1. What do you prefer if you had only these two choices?

2. Do you consider using third party lenses such as Tamron or sigma?




Beyond this thread, I have one thing in my mind as a newbie.

I really hope there is a Cinemod company who could create cinemod lens based on these list and with it's reasonable prices.

For instance, these nikon lenses could be priced 8980 yet I wish there is a company that could sell cine moded lens set within $18000.

[There are some company charge unreasonably high prices with used lens. In my opinion, they are screwing the consumer. Sigma 18-35 lens cost $800 in retail, and cine moded one is cost $3500 without lens motor, autofocus?]

Look, Canon 85mm 1.2 lens costs $2000, but cinemoded adds $3000. It become $5000 for adding range of focus without lens motor? That sounds very unreasonable to me. I think, the way Rokinon sells the products is very reasonable, it's not because they are cheap, but they don't charge TRIPLE PRICES for adding a gear, declick aperture and its range.

A lot of people say "You get what you pay for", but in my opinion, that idea was created by its market, how come you are always satisfying these monopolized market?

P.S: I didn't critique about the market, on the other hand, it's my only curiosity that nobody answers nicely.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm just going to say that I've been a Nikon shooter for years and years and I prefer the Nikon lenses over Canons, old or new, I think they have the technical edge most of the time. Although their current offerings (from both companies) seem eerily similar and there is little in the way of technical advantages, or even differences, between the two.

Now when it comes to use on the RED DSMC system, I have to recommend the Canon lenses right now and they are also more friendly to cinematographers as the focus rotational direction is the same (most of the time) as cinema lenses. RED currently offers their Motion Mount as PL or Canon EF and that is a serious consideration right there.

For third-party or other lens offerings, there are some real gems out there. The Sigma ART series are wonderful, as are many other lenses from Sigma. The Tokina 11-16 wide zoom is a must-have, IMO. The Rokinon primes are an excellent value for the money. They're not technically superior to much of anything other than an old Coke bottle, but they have a character all their own and can be a useful tool. I've used them a few times and will probably pick up a set at some point.

Cinema-conversion of lenses is expensive. It takes a lot of work to tear down a lens and re-build it, sometimes it may take more than one production lens to create just one cinema version. There's just no way around the pricing of the tooling, labor, etc... You have to ask yourself if it's truly worth it and in many cases it's just not. Adding gear rings and de-clicking an aperture are simpler adjustments that can sometimes be useful, depends on how you want to build your camera rig and shoot with it. With electronic control of the Canon lenses on RED, or similar arrangements, some of these adjustments become a lot less interesting. Once again, it really comes down to shooters' preference.

With the huge boom in cinema camera and lens sales over the past few years and the increased numbers of lens offerings, I'm still surprised at the high prices of cinema-style lenses. Especially from the likes of Canon. From what I can tell, their CN-E primes are selling like hotcakes. Or maybe that is the problem, they're selling like crazy at the high prices, so why change that? Personally, I don't get the appeal… They're just the same L-series elements and lens innards with beefier mechanics and more robust cinema-style housing. I can understand a price premium, but not to the extreme they are priced at. On the other hand, they're still considered a "bargain" set of lenses within the cinema market. I have not found a way to get interested in the Canon cinema zooms either. Optics aside, the overall design and bulk of their zooms leaves a lot to be desired. I'd much rather go for the Angenieux or Fujinon zooms. The new Zeiss zooms are awesome too, with equally awesome price tags.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

For absolutely top performance I suggest Nikons.
I would not bother with 1.8 lenses. The 1.4s (35, 50, 85) are absolutely gorgeous- completely different animal ("premium" image lenses) The little money you save with the 1.8s is completely irrelevant in the long run. Very few cine lenses that cost multiple times what the Nikkors cost get remotely close to their overall image quality. Wide open included.
Not to mention the varying f-stop if you purchase the 1.8s It drives DPs nuts....

 

[Alan Peterson]

Like Jeff said, the Sigma Art lenses are definitely worth a look (as long as you're not in a hurry to have a complete set). The prices are very competitive and they perform better than Canon or Nikon's offerings by most technical metrics. The 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4 are available now, a 24mm f/1.4 is coming out later this year and Sigma's current 85mm f/1.4 is a very strong performer that should accompany the others nicely until an "Art" version is available. Their 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom is also fantastic (even with a teleconverter on).

The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC is great bang for the buck and might be a good thing to have on hand for general shooting while you try out other lenses. It performs very well wide open and you can find a gently used one for under $1000 now. There's some corner CA/softness at wider apertures on an FF35 sensor, but it won't be an issue on an Epic or Scarlet.

Of course, the overall look of a lens is just as (if not more) important than technical metrics. Compare footage and photos shot on the different lenses you're considering and rent before you buy to see if the lenses are doing what you want with your chosen subject matter.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

The Sigmas look very good value wise.
The only caution I would bring up is the electronics. The older Sigmas did not fare well with electronic follow focus. I have not tried the new ones but I suspect they improved.
So far we have only tried the brand lenses (Canon and Nikon) and they perform flawlessly on RED... Just thought I mention it as it is about to become a very important factor for "still optics for motion" users...

 

[Marcos Montenegro]

Get Nikon AIS glass. Better than G.

 

[Alan Peterson]

Get Nikon AIS glass. Better than G.

AIS glass has beautiful character and typically has decent sharpness stopped down to f/2 or slower, but it comes with some trade-offs. CA is considerably worse than on G lenses almost universally, many AIS lenses have irregular distortion, and color/contrast is going to be less consistent across the set than with G lenses. I love my set (except for the 24mm f/2.0) and I don't hesitate to bring them out when I want an organic look to my footage, but they're not for every job.

 

[Vance Colvig]

Nikon AI-s glass is mechanically quite sound unless it is just plain worn out, such as lenses used by news papers. It takes alot of use to wear out these lenses, however. Not all AI-s glass is stellar. Check out kenrockwell.com for this guy's opinion and review. He is a glass freak. Totally obcessed, and one might consider it one stop reviewing for Nikon glass. I think of Nikon glass in three catagories, with generation 3 having a subset between multi-coat and nano-coated glass.

Generation 1: Early glass (1959-1965 or so). These are F mount lenses, single coating, and have the widest range of focus throw in degrees (except long fast AI and AI-s tele's). They usually have "Kogaku" lettered on the front ring of the lens. Some of these lenses may not fit the Epic Nikon mount without a modification of the iris ring. Sharp with lower contrast and mostly 6 bladed irises.

Generation 2: Middle Glass (1965 or so to present). These are AI and AI-s lenses, and are multi-coated. Improvements were made along this line in the multi-coatings and optical design. They are all manual lenses. AI lenses usually have a longer focus throw than AI-s lenses.

Generation 3: Automatic lenses, both the "D" lenses using the manual and mechanical automatic focus and some of the AF-S, and the "G" lenses, which are all AF-S and have no iris ring. These lenses require electronic iris control and focus may be controlled either by either focus ring or electronically through the camera. The latest generation of the nikon glass in this catagory with nano-coating in my opinion rivals Leica R glass. They look very much alike to my eye.

Each of these generations have their own look. Nikon has made a few "dogs", but not very many. Even some of these clean up rather nicely when stopped down two stops. Some of their early zooms are just plain dogs.

Nikon prides themselves in making glass and not copiers or business machines. I am not fond of their customer service here in the USA, but I do like their cameras and love their glass for the money. My personal opinion.

 

[Maz Mawlawi]

The Sigmas look very good value wise.
The only caution I would bring up is the electronics. The older Sigmas did not fare well with electronic follow focus. I have not tried the new ones but I suspect they improved.
So far we have only tried the brand lenses (Canon and Nikon) and they perform flawlessly on RED... Just thought I mention it as it is about to become a very important factor for "still optics for motion" users...

I hope the new sigma Art series will work well with optitron 2.... That is all we have been using and they are beautiful lenses.

 

[PatrickFaith]

I switched from canon to nikon lenses for motion picture. I use the afs 1.4g series: 24mm,35mm,58mm,85mm . I just like how objects movement and depth of focus works with the nikon lenses. The second i need to rack focus though, i flip over to full cinema lenses (and the extra 6 pounds of weight). I also think nikons cut well with a lot of cinema lenses(i.e. when i cut between a 24mm nikon and a 50mm cinema lens on a scene ... i really don't "feel" a major difference, but when i cut between a wide canon to a 50mm cinema lens i "feel" the lens change - note i also feel a change between cutting between a compact prime and a cinema lens though i really like my cp2's for stills).

 

[Sergei Franklin]

The biggest issue with modern photo lenses Canon or Nikon AF-S is there are no end stops. So impossible to use with any remote focus.
That is why I prefer Nikon manual focus lenses. The early Nikon autofocus Af-D lenses also have end stops.
The only solution for new lenses is the system from Optitek.
With my remote focus I have used my Nikon lenses any many productions with a tight budget. I love the look but whenever the budget allows I will rent cine lenses.
If Nikon made a cinema version of their lenses like Zeiss did with the CP2 with interchangeable mount....
Sergei
www.sergeifranklin.com

 

[Mikael Lubtchansky]

The biggest issue with modern photo lenses Canon or Nikon AF-S is there are no end stops. So impossible to use with any remote focus.
That is why I prefer Nikon manual focus lenses. The early Nikon autofocus Af-D lenses also have end stops.
The only solution for new lenses is the system from Optitek.
With my remote focus I have used my Nikon lenses any many productions with a tight budget. I love the look but whenever the budget allows I will rent cine lenses.
If Nikon made a cinema version of their lenses like Zeiss did with the CP2 with interchangeable mount....
Sergei
www.sergeifranklin.com

FYI, besides the upcoming optitron 2 that looks like a good system for controlling lenses, the RED THC (tactical hand controller) can connect to the camera using a REDLink bridge and drive directly Focus and Iris on Canon/Nikon lenses with super smooth control, hard stops etc