which is cheaper? Nikon or Canon?


Status
Not open for further replies.

rainman

Senior Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,314
0
36
40
In my own world
#1
Hi,
been wondering for lens which brand is cheaper?
Canon or Nikon...It seems to me that nikon is cheaper comparing spec to spec...

And have more long range lens available....And canon is onli good at its own L series lens...The rest are just average.

Also wondering if minolta is the most expensive and have the finest optics available out of the 3.

Heard Dynax 7 digitalcame out with IS built in in its body..how brilliant. Y are they so slow in the SLR/DSLR market? Any1?
 

Tetrode

New Member
Dec 29, 2002
1,374
0
0
Visit site
#3
rainman said:
Hi,
been wondering for lens which brand is cheaper?
Canon or Nikon...It seems to me that nikon is cheaper comparing spec to spec...

And have more long range lens available....And canon is onli good at its own L series lens...The rest are just average.

Also wondering if minolta is the most expensive and have the finest optics available out of the 3.

Heard Dynax 7 digitalcame out with IS built in in its body..how brilliant. Y are they so slow in the SLR/DSLR market? Any1?

:confused: :think: :dunno:
 

Stoned

Senior Member
May 7, 2004
4,378
0
0
31
Changi
www.photo.net
#4
Matter of opinion really. Personally I find Nikon lenses helluva lot cheaper than the canon L lens range. Bodies are roughly the same price. As for Minolta, I was told recently by my friend that the Dynax 7si's features are pretty impressive. Apparently, the specs of the Dynax7si would beat that of the f5 and 1v in every aspect except frame rates. However, i find that Minolta lenses need some fair amount of improvement.

:) Just some views.
 

Clown

Moderator
Staff member
Mar 24, 2003
3,780
1
38
Singapore
#5
Stoned said:
Matter of opinion really. Personally I find Nikon lenses helluva lot cheaper than the canon L lens range. Bodies are roughly the same price. As for Minolta, I was told recently by my friend that the Dynax 7si's features are pretty impressive. Apparently, the specs of the Dynax7si would beat that of the f5 and 1v in every aspect except frame rates. However, i find that Minolta lenses need some fair amount of improvement.

:) Just some views.
big words... heh..
 

ed9119

Moderator
Staff member
Mar 11, 2002
11,014
39
48
56
Singapore
www.walkeast.com
#8
care to back up these views? I might just migrate over to Nikon since their lenses are so much more affordable than their Canon counterparts and shun Minolta altogether
 

nickmak

Senior Member
Apr 16, 2004
2,358
0
0
31
London, UK
www.pbase.com
#9
ed9119 said:
care to back up these views? I might just migrate over to Nikon since their lenses are so much more affordable than their Canon counterparts and shun Minolta altogether
as wat they said above, some nikon's are cheaper than canon's and vice versa... Its really up to u to decide... go around to CP or something with a list of your most used focal lengths and find a similar camera from both nikon and canon and add all the prices up and that'll be some judgement for you.

Hope this helps..
 

Amfibius

Deregistered
Jan 26, 2004
509
0
0
46
Perth
#10
Why don't you just do some research? Go to an online shop like B&H and do your own comparing.

I cribbed these prices from B&H and did a spot of comparing myself. These are equivalent Canon and Nikons which most working pros would be carrying around.

Canon 50/1.4: USD$294.95
Nikon 50/1.4D AF: USD $264.95
(Note: have compared these two lens - Nikon has slightly better build quality but it is NOT an AF-S lens so focus is SLOW!)

Canon 28-135 F/3.5-5.6 IS: USD$394.95
Nikon 24-120 F/3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S VR: USD$509.95
(Note: the Nikon has ED glass which accounts for the disparity)

Canon 16-35 F/2.8L: USD$1319.95
Nikon 17-35 F/2.8 ED-IF: USD$1349.95

Canon 24-70 F/2.8L: USD$1149.95
Nikon 28-70 F/2.8 AF-S ED-IF: USD$1329.95
(Note: have compared these two lens. Nikon appears better built, but Canon focuses faster)

Canon 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L IS: USD$1339.95
Nikon 80-400 F/4.5-5.6 ED AFS VR: USD$1329.95

Canon 70-200 F/2.8L IS: USD$1599.95
Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 VR ED-IF AF-S: USD$1449.95
(Note: have compared these two lens. Canon appears better built)

Canon 300 F/2.8L IS: USD$3899.95
Nikon 300 F/2.8 ED-IF AF-S: USD$3599.95
(Note: the Nikon lens has no VR)

Cost for all the above Canon lenses: $9999.65
Cost for all the above Nikon lenses: $9834.65

So there you have it. Nikon slightly cheaper overall - works out to be 1.65% cheaper across this selection of lenses anyway. I may as well declare that I am a Canon shooter before anyone accuses me of bias.
 

LepPek

New Member
Apr 13, 2004
34
0
0
#11
Amfibius said:
Why don't you just do some research? Go to an online shop like B&H and do your own comparing.

I cribbed these prices from B&H and did a spot of comparing myself. These are equivalent Canon and Nikons which most working pros would be carrying around.

Canon 50/1.4: USD$294.95
Nikon 50/1.4D AF: USD $264.95
(Note: have compared these two lens - Nikon has slightly better build quality but performance appears to be the same)

Canon 28-135 F/3.5-5.6 IS: USD$394.95
Nikon 24-120 F/3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S VR: USD$509.95
(Note: the Nikon has ED glass which accounts for the disparity)

Canon 16-35 F/2.8L: USD$1319.95
Nikon 17-35 F/2.8 ED-IF: USD$1349.95

Canon 24-70 F/2.8L: USD$1149.95
Nikon 28-70 F/2.8 AF-S ED-IF: USD$1329.95
(Note: have compared these two lens. Nikon appears better built, but Canon focuses faster)

Canon 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L IS: USD$1339.95
Nikon 80-400 F/4.5-5.6 ED AFS VR: USD$1329.95

Canon 70-200 F/2.8L IS: USD$1599.95
Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 VR ED-IF AF-S: USD$1449.95
(Note: have compared these two lens. Canon appears better built)

Canon 300 F/2.8L IS: USD$3899.95
Nikon 300 F/2.8 ED-IF AF-S: USD$3599.95
(Note: the Nikon lens has no VR)

Cost for all the above Canon lenses: $9999.65
Cost for all the above Nikon lenses: $9834.65

So there you have it. Nikon slightly cheaper overall - works out to be 1.65% cheaper across this selection of lenses anyway. I may as well declare that I am a Canon shooter before anyone accuses me of bias.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
 

AReality

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
4,458
0
0
VisualJournalist.net
#12
rainman said:
Hi,
been wondering for lens which brand is cheaper?
Canon or Nikon...It seems to me that nikon is cheaper comparing spec to spec...
Really, does less than $200 mean that much to you when u decide to spend $10,000 ?
Nothing's cheap.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,905
0
0
Planet Nikon
#13
Amfibius said:
Canon 50/1.4: USD$294.95
Nikon 50/1.4D AF: USD $264.95
(Note: have compared these two lens - Nikon has slightly better build quality but performance appears to be the same)
Frankly, methinks pros won't carry a 1.4 around just because it's 1.4, and pros normally won't carry a 50mm, perhaps 85 1.4.

Amfibius said:
Canon 24-70 F/2.8L: USD$1149.95
Nikon 28-70 F/2.8 AF-S ED-IF: USD$1329.95
(Note: have compared these two lens. Nikon appears better built, but Canon focuses faster)
Not really, but let's not go into tech & specs.


Amfibius said:
Canon 70-200 F/2.8L IS: USD$1599.95
Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 VR ED-IF AF-S: USD$1449.95
(Note: have compared these two lens. Canon appears better built) ]/quote]Not really... once again, comparing between the two, which one is lighter? hehe...

amfibius said:
Canon 300 F/2.8L IS: USD$3899.95
Nikon 300 F/2.8 ED-IF AF-S: USD$3599.95
(Note: the Nikon lens has no VR)
Why'd u want a big mama with VR? I don't understand, why'd you want to handheld, hmmm 500 VR, 600 VR, 800 VR... useless IMHO.

amfibius said:
Cost for all the above Canon lenses: $9999.65
Cost for all the above Nikon lenses: $9834.65

So there you have it. Nikon slightly cheaper overall - works out to be 1.65% cheaper across this selection of lenses anyway. I may as well declare that I am a Canon shooter before anyone accuses me of bias.
Nah... it's not the cost of the items that makes one decide on a system, if the person selects based on costs, that person doesn't know what he/she wants and will just opt for any system that's cheap.
 

clive

Senior Member
Oct 9, 2002
2,537
0
0
Visit site
#15
yo dude..maybe it helps betetr if u nail down what u intend to buy then we give u suggestions and compare prices from there. rather than just ask a vague question like that =)
 

RossChang

New Member
May 2, 2004
1,549
0
0
rossblogspace.blogspot.com
#16
I think Amfibius guideline is pretty good there... I mean, how do you expect a newbies to know what he/she wants? prehaps just an idea 'I wanna learn D-SLR'... dadadadada... :bsmilie:

I've picked up Canon... cos the proximity is just there... price is right to begin with and there I am... ( wallet all flatted... :bsmilie: :bsmilie: )

Still having doubts rainman? flip a coin... wua hahaha... :devil: (kidding)

go here for list of SLR Lens guide...

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=38677

and prehaps you will spark with something?... or?... go

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses

for canon... as for Nikon... I have no idea, Nikonians wanna share a bit here?
 

Ah Pao

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2003
1,663
0
36
Singapore
www.facebook.com
#17
Quick answer: neither system is cheaper.

Cheeky answer: scrape N and C and go for pinhole photography.

Pragmatic answer: A particular system will be "cheaper" if all your other friends are using that system. Can share equipment mah... :bsmilie:
 

Amfibius

Deregistered
Jan 26, 2004
509
0
0
46
Perth
#18
espn, you miss the point. The original poster wanted to know which lens system is cheaper - Canon or Nikon. I made my point by comparing prices from a well-known online retailer. Where there is a price disparity, I tried to account for it. Some individual lenses on Nikon and Canon's lineup are superior to their "counterpart" - this is reflected in the price.

I am not here to argue whether or not long lenses need image stabilisation or not. The answer seems to be "yes" because you still get vibrations even when mounted on a tripod. And BTW, I have tried handholding a 300mm F/2.8 IS:



Taken at ISO 3200, F/2.8, 1/125 second (i.e 1.5 stops faster than what they say you can safely handhold). I was not leaning against anything - I was amazed at what IS on this lens can deliver!
 

UY79

New Member
Oct 22, 2003
994
0
0
38
Bedok
www.yuhwoeiphotography.net
#19
rainman said:
Also wondering if minolta is the most expensive and have the finest optics available out of the 3.
Least expensive of the 3 for most lens. Some Minolta lens have the best optics among the 3. Can check some sites up like www.photozone.de for lens ratings.

rainman said:
Heard Dynax 7 digitalcame out with IS built in in its body..how brilliant. Y are they so slow in the SLR/DSLR market? Any1?
Ya. Been waiting for it for years now. Hope they are just waiting and looking at market movement before making a DSLR that's going to be revolutionary. :sweatsm:

Cheers!
 

djork

New Member
Jul 14, 2002
1,157
0
0
Hong Kong, Pokfulam
Visit site
#20
espn said:
Why'd u want a big mama with VR? I don't understand, why'd you want to handheld, hmmm 500 VR, 600 VR, 800 VR... useless IMHO.

QUOTE]

some folks do shoot using those lenses on a monopod.. and having a monopod doesn't mean it's that steady, so i guess every bit of VR/IS counts..
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom