Hi, Please compare the optical performance of the following two zooms! Nikon AF 28-105/3.5-4.5D Canon EF 28-105/3.5-4.5

Thanks!

John

-- John (John_net99@hotmail.com), March 03, 1999

Answers

Truly, I don't understand the relevance of the question. If you're a Canon or Nikon user, what's the point of knowing which one is better - because either of this lenses only fit their designated bajonet ?

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), March 03, 1999.

Hi, Ivan,

In fact, I will buy a Nikon or Canon body with 28-105 lens. The optical performance of the two lenses will help me make choice.

Thanks!

John

-- John (John_net99@hotmail.com), March 03, 1999.

For what it's worth, there are MTF figures for these two lenses at www.photodo.com. The lenses are both good, and have a similar overall rating. What has to be kept in mind is that lens tests are done at infinity focus setting and performance can change at closer focusing distances. There are other factors such as distortion, flare and mechanical construction that should be taken into account. If you're really interested in the sharpest pictures, with zooms in this range and you hand hold, you'll probably get better results with the Canon IS 28-135 and 100 speed film. Without IS, for varying lighting conditions these lenses really need 400 speed film (I'm assuming that you're shooting print film.) The difference between pictures shot on 100 and 400 speed film is going to be greater than the difference between the two lenses you mention.

-- Bruce Rubenstein (brubenstein@lucent.com), March 03, 1999.

Go to photo.net/photo and find the Canon page, which will give you a thorough amateur review of the Canon 28-105. From what many people have said there, and from the sample landscape photos in last July's Pop, it is clear that the 28-105 USM is unusually good for an extremely cheap piece of glass. Remember, this is a lens that costs LESS than all but the 50 and 28 lenses. There is no doubt that it is a terrific value. (There are no such raves that I have seen about the Nikon equivalent -- and I'm a Nikon user.) With the Yen still weak, B&H sells the grey-market version of this lens for $235 plus $20 for the necessary lens hood. Snap one up at this price while you can.

-- Mark Hubbard (hubbard@humboldt1.com), March 03, 1999.

It's not really my business what criteria you use to select a camera system, but since you asked the question, I must say that deciding between Canon and Nikon on the basis of two very similar lenses does not make a much sense. There are many important distinctions between the two systems, and knowledgeable photographers choose their camera systems by selecting the one that is most compatible with their needs and their way of working.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), March 03, 1999.

I own both of these lenses. The following is based on if you enlarged to 11X14 prints. Optically they are too close to call especially in the 28-70 range stopped down F8. From 70 to 105 I would give a slight edge to the Nikon. This is based on 20 feet to infinity focusing. At 10 to 20 feet they are too close to call. At maximum aperture through out the zoom range I would have to go with the Nikon. The Nikon can macro focus to 1:2 at 105. The Canon focuses quieter. Both are constructed well. The Canon is slightly warmer then the Nikon. The Nikon has the 9 bladed rounder aperture for a better bokeh then the Canon. Though the Nikon appears sharper at 105 my Canon's slightly softer look can be more flattering when taking close portraits.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), March 03, 1999.

"Though the Nikon appears sharper at 105 my Canon's slightly softer look can be more flattering when taking close portraits." Just want to qualify this statement. I don't know too many women that like to see their fine facial hair show up in the picture.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), March 03, 1999.

So, we have not seen such rave reviews about the Nikkor 28-105 as we have with the Canon. This is practically criminal! The Nikon lens has been available for only a month or two. One would think that everybody and his brother would have thoroughly tested this lens by now. May I suggest that the lack of any kind of review of this lens is due to the fact that it is so new. Just a thought.

-- Stanley McManus (stanshooter@yahoo.com), March 03, 1999.

Mea maxima culpa! We are talking about the new Nikon lens that no one even lists yet??? I must have been sound asleep when I responded this morning. Thanks, Stanley, for the wake-up call!!

-- Mark Hubbard (hubbard@humboldt1.com), March 04, 1999.

Quite all right Mark. I think I even made a mistake sometime in the last year or two myself. The Photo Police have torn up the warrant. :)

For what it is worth, the few reviews and opinions I have read indicate that this lens is better than the 35-105. I certianly like the extended wide angle range and the better speed compared to the 24-120. However, the macro capabilities, while nice to have in a pinch, were not good enough to make a serious macro photographer give up her macro lens.

-- Stan McManus (stanshooter@yahoo.com), March 04, 1999.

Are you planning never ever to buy another lens for your camera? Other accessories for that matter? If you based your decision solely on the optical quality of it's mid-range zoom, you will certainly ignore other important things that make up a system. I suggest you re-evaluate your decision criteria.

I think the quality is "about the same", the reason I say this is because it is impossible to compare these two lenses while keeping everything else constant. You can't compare the Nikon lens on Canon body and vice versa. Even if you can there's the standard deviation issue of the lens and the tester. The "biasness" of the tester, etc.

-- Arie (arief.novisto@vanderbilt.edu), March 05, 1999.

I wrote the review of the Canon 28-105 on photo.net. As is apparent if you've read the review, I think it's a truly great value in a general- purpose zoom. I even commented in the review about how I was surprised that Nikon didn't offer a similar lens (at the time).

That said, I agree with what some of the others have said: it doesn't make much sense to decide which camera brand to go with based on the performance of a mid-range general purpose zoom. It's entirely likely that the Canon will outperform the Nikon in some limited instances, the Nikon will outperform the Canon in other instances, and you probably won't be able to tell the difference in the majority of your shooting situations.

You should probably pick which brand to go with based on which feels better in your hands, or which brand offers the unique lenses you feel you'll want to use later. i.e. if you want a full frame fisheye, go Nikon. If you want a T/S lens, go Canon. etc...

-- Russ Arcuri (arcuri@borg.com), March 05, 1999.

Sorry -- I should have said, "...if you want a 360 degree fisheye, go Nikon..."

-- Russ Arcuri (arcuri@borg.com), March 05, 1999.

Aaarrgghhh! I don't know what's wrong with me today. That should read, "...if you want a 180 degree fisheye..." That's it, I'm done posting for today. This cold I'm suffering through must be affecting my brain.

-- Russ Arcuri (arcuri@borg.com), March 05, 1999.