Canon V Nikon 300f4

[jascha777]

I`m thinking of buying one of these for use
with 1.4x converter,do you think that the
image stab of the Canon makes it a better
buy?

Many thanks in advance,

Mark

[Chrysophylax]

You might as well go for the Canon 400mm f/5.6. Never used a nikon lens so can't comment weather it's better or not. IS is very useful, but I never have any complaints with my 400mm f/5.6 which has no IS.

[postcardcv]

You might as well go for the Canon 400mm f/5.6.

why? sure the 400 f5.6 is a very good lens but there are shots that the 300 f4 will get that the 400 cannot.

As for Canon or Nikon, I've no idea, I have the Canon and it's very good but no doubt the Nikon is just as good.

[ikw101]

Both lenses are extremely closely matched. Any differences between them will be due to sample variation and more importantly the ability of the photographer to use them. More info available at photozone (http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylens.jsp)

[Jaff]

I'm a little confused here. Do you have both Nikon and Canon cameras then?

Anyway, I shall just say I made the switch from Nikon to Canon (quite some time ago now) mainly because at the time I couldn't decide whether or not to get the 80-400mm with the VR or the 300mm F4 with the AFS motor. In the end i decided that why should it have to be a choice when with the Canon counterparts you get all the tech at the same prices as the nikons. I started out with the Canon 300mm F4 and was generally very happy with it as a lens but my particular one seemed to have a dodgy IS so I got rid of it in favour of a 100-400mm which I'm equally delighted with, maybe more so.

Not to take anything away from the Nikon 300mm as it takes great shots in the right hands, as said above (that shot of the Godwits taken in Italy that won the IWP a few years back is testament to that), but the Canon 300mm with it's IS is a much nicer walkabout lens for hand-held shots, even with a 1.4x TC IMO.

[Gentoo]

I'm going to do the unpopular and actually take a stand. Camera bodies can be debated for ever. Nikon however is known as a great optical company and in general will have better optics.

awaiting criticism in 3...2...1

[pduxon]

I'm going to do the unpopular and actually take a stand. Camera bodies can be debated for ever. Nikon however is known as a great optical company and in general will have better optics.

awaiting criticism in 3...2...1

both make great bodies and great lenses you pays your money you makes your choices. I expect better of you gentoo!!

On the new generation Nikon bodies I'm not sure how important VR/IS is. It only works on shutter speeds below 1/500 doesn't it and given how clean iso 800 is on the d300/d90/d5000.....

[Duke Leto]

Friend of mine had a 50D and a 300/4 is, I have the D300 and the 300/4 AF-s, in normal situations both are equals but when the shutter speed drops and I reach for a monopod, the "is" does have an advantage, there's really no argument, so the only thing to do is stick on my 70-200vr and a 1.4TC then I get a 100-280/4vr which I can live with.

[ikw101]

Nice one Gentoo the Nikon thread has been far too quiet.

Personally since being the victim of Canon's poor quality control several years ago with a camcorder I've often thought Canon are becoming a jack of all trades type of company ....... perhaps an upmarket Samsung. Although historically they've produced many excellent lenses and bodies they've also produced a lot of poor photocopiers, printers, fax machines, camcorders etc.. If they put all their efforts into camera lenses and bodies I would be far happier.

Mark's original post is a bit confusing. Assuming he's buying into a system I think it would be fairer to look at the combinations available. Nikon's 300/4 plus Nikon 1.4TC and D300 body would be preferable to Canon's 300/4 plus Canon 1.4TC and 40D. However Canon's 400/5.6 and 40D may be a better combination in some situations.

Unfortunately the general consensus is that the recent released Canon 50D is a backward step in image quality. The overpacked sensor and high iso performance has left many Canon users wondering where Canon are going.

Personally I'd be more confident of buying into a system that has always put photographers first.

[Stephen Fletcher]

[QUOTE=ikw101;1507022]
Unfortunately the general consensus is that the recent released Canon 50D is a backward step in image quality. The overpacked sensor and high iso performance has left many Canon users wondering where Canon are going.
QUOTE]

I keep hearing nonsense like this, usually from someone who had never even seen one let alone used one. I'd love to see your evidence, myself and every pro i know who has one thinks it is far better than any other body they have used, 1DS series excepted of course.

[ikw101]

[QUOTE=ikw101;1507022]
Unfortunately the general consensus is that the recent released Canon 50D is a backward step in image quality. The overpacked sensor and high iso performance has left many Canon users wondering where Canon are going.
QUOTE]

I keep hearing nonsense like this, usually from someone who had never even seen one let alone used one. I'd love to see your evidence, myself and every pro i know who has one thinks it is far better than any other body they have used, 1DS series excepted of course.

Steven whilst my personal preference remains with Nikon over the years I've used many Canon bodies and lenses including their most recent offering. Whilst on the Nikon side their was a clear and significant improvement to image quality from the D200 to the D300 on the Canon side any improvement to image quality from the 40D to the 50D is marginal.

If you or any the pro's you know can prove that their is a more significant improvement I'd be happy to be proved wrong. If they can pull more detail out of the shadow area than on a similar image taken on a 40D I'd be astonished.

[andrew_s]

Personally I'd be more confident of buying into a system that has always put photographers first.

So what system's that then?

You look back on here 3 or 4 years, and you'll find a fair number of posts from Nikon users wondering when Nikon were going to get round to upgrading their long glass, and bemoaning the seeming emphasis on point & shoot cameras exhibited by Nikon at the trade shows.

[Gentoo]

Personally since being the victim of Canon's poor quality control several years ago with a camcorder I've often thought Canon are becoming a jack of all trades type of company ....... perhaps an upmarket Samsung. Although historically they've produced many excellent lenses and bodies they've also produced a lot of poor photocopiers, printers, fax machines, camcorders etc.. If they put all their efforts into camera lenses and bodies I would be far happier.Ha! At least one person got what I was eluding to.

[postcardcv]

Personally since being the victim of Canon's poor quality control several years ago with a camcorder I've often thought Canon are becoming a jack of all trades type of company ....... perhaps an upmarket Samsung. Although historically they've produced many excellent lenses and bodies they've also produced a lot of poor photocopiers, printers, fax machines, camcorders etc.. If they put all their efforts into camera lenses and bodies I would be far happier.

Of course Canon could ignore the other sides of the business and put all their efforts into cameras and lenses, but clearly the photographic side would suffer for it. Without the money that Canon makes in other sectors they would not be able to spend so much on camera and lens R&D. I would agree that the current Nikon cameras have the edge over Canon but no doubt that will continue to swing back and forth as it has done for years. As for lenses some are similar standards across the brands for some Nikon are better and with others Canon are superior. Anyone who reckons that one brand is better in all respects than the other is just kidding themselves.

[MarkEvan]

Of course Canon could ignore the other sides of the business and put all their efforts into cameras and lenses, but clearly the photographic side would suffer for it. Without the money that Canon makes in other sectors they would not be able to spend so much on camera and lens R&D. I would agree that the current Nikon cameras have the edge over Canon but no doubt that will continue to swing back and forth as it has done for years. As for lenses some are similar standards across the brands for some Nikon are better and with others Canon are superior. Anyone who reckons that one brand is better in all respects than the other is just kidding themselves.



I agree on all counts, Canon arn`t going to let go of a big money maker such as the photocopiers, printers, faxes, camcorders (which incidentally are very good in fact a hell of a lot of money comes from Canon`s broadcast lenses) and to be honest with you I don`t think it would matter if they did....the money is being pumped into research and they have chosen the line they are going down, that wouldn`t (in my mind) be different if they were solely a camera company.
As to Nikon lenses being in general better sorry but thats just not true...Nikon produce some truly outstanding lenses (the 14-24 2.8 comes to mind as does the 200-400 f4) but so too do Canon to say one company has the upper hand over all is just being a fanboy. Nikon have areas where they excell and Canon areas where they do, but both companys have the lenses and bodies that are adequate for you and I to get stunning images.

[Duke Leto]

Postcardcv a fanboy and a fanboy of Nikon, now that's a statement (ps I think that as reputations go the Nikon 70-200vr is reputedly the sharpest Nikon zoom on the market)

[MarkEvan]

Postcardcv a fanboy and a fanboy of Nikon, now that's a statement (ps I think that as reputations go the Nikon 70-200vr is reputedly the sharpest Nikon zoom on the market)




If you look again at my post you`ll see I agree with everything Postcardcv says. Its to Gentoo who made the original statement, i`m merely echoing what Postcardcv said.



Easy to mistake though I guess |:D|


P.S You`ve got a lovely website.

[Alannah]

I've only had my Canon equipment for a few days, so cannot say with any great authority, but it hunts much less than my Nikon camera and I've found getting shots of birds easier.

[Duke Leto]

Mark it was said with a big tongue in cheek smile.......(thanks for the +ve feedback)

Aileen, what are you comparing? which Nikon body / lens with which canon body / lens? that was a bit of a vague statement

[MarkEvan]

Mark it was said with a big tongue in cheek smile.......(thanks for the +ve feedback)


Ooops he he........it`ll take me a while to get used to you guys :-O

[Gentoo]

Its to Gentoo who made the original statement, i`m merely echoing what Postcardcv said.Which is ill informed because I have contemplated Canon gear several times as a "fanboy" of both I suppose lol

[MarkEvan]

To be honest I knew you weren`t a 'fanboy' form the shots you get, its just statements like

Nikon however is known as a great optical company and in general will have better optics


get to me because both companies make fantastic lenses with which we can get great images........if we were shown an image without knowing what gear was used theres no way you could be sure whether it was canon or nikon (or sony or pentax etc for that matter). Nikon are known for great optics.........so are canon, did you know that they make broadcast lenses for TV productions? They put an awful lot of money into researching and development of lenses.

[Duke Leto]

the answer to the original question is yes........in case anyone's forgotten the question