I suspect the thread starter's deciding which camp to join based on who has the best price to performance ratio lenses.
Honestly they're both about the same.
Both have cheapo 18-55 kit lenses which are comparable. (~ $100 odd)
Go one step up, Nikon has the 18-70 which is good for the price. Canon has no direct competitor - have to go 3rd party. Some will probably name the 28-135 but I feel it doesn't go wide enough to be used as a comparison. The 17-85 is too ex. to be listed along side the 18-70. (~ $300-$700)
Go another step up, Canon has the 17-40. Nikon doesn't have a clear direct competitor. (~$1000)
Go one more rung up Nikon and Canon both have 17-55 2.8. Canon ups the ante with a 16-35 2.8. (~$2000)
Bottom line: they're about the same... but for my requirements, I find Canon slightly cheaper price wise... I'll probably have to pay more if I want a similiar Nikon offering.
Anyway below $300 will get u a 50mm prime and little else.
*Disclaimer* Comparisions are based on my opinions/views. You don't have to agree with me if you feel otherswise, and I don't feel like debating my points, so state your own views if you must but don't do a
solarii said:
and rebut point for point. My views are not open to debate, so don't make reference to this post.