Ah, the old argument strikes again!

[Mary Anne]

If you ever get interested in Macro there is only one.. Guess which one

[Kafter244]

Oh Mary Anne! I was just getting comfortable with the idea of Nikon and but for a road test I was really happy but I've ALWAYS loved Macro and would love to do some myself; why is Canon so much better or is it just that that's what you shoot?

[JM Tran]

Im just sitting here patiently waiting for the Olympus 4/3 crowd to come defend the sensor and their cameras

[Tricky]

Oh Mary Anne! I was just getting comfortable with the idea of Nikon and but for a road test I was really happy but I've ALWAYS loved Macro and would love to do some myself; why is Canon so much better or is it just that that's what you shoot?

I'm sure Mary Anne will post her own reply, but in my view.... only Canon make the MPE-65mm, a truly unique high magnification macro lens... and the 100mm L macro lens is a pretty awesome general macro lens and is image stabilised... and the best macro flash is the Canon MT-24 twin lite...

Lots of other excellent macro lenses out there (few macro lenses these days are less than 'good'), but IMHO Canon's macro stable is the best...

[Kafter244]

Lol@JM! They have been quiet haven't they? ;-)

Thanks for the Macro tips tricky, I hadn't thought if that...back to the drawing board!

[KeeFy]

Actually something to think quickly about.

Canon does better telezooms generally, Nikon does better UWAs.

This is not true all the time, but generally it is for the non crop bodies.

[JM Tran]

Actually something to think quickly about.

Canon does better telezooms generally, Nikon does better UWAs.

This is not true all the time, but generally it is for the non crop bodies.

and prime lenses too from Canon, just to add.

[Kafter244]

So...Canon have the best Macro lenses, telezooms and primes...and Nikon does the best wide angles, is that the go? Are we talking about the hi-end lenses here because I'm not sure I'll be able to afford the top of the range ones straight off anyway...or are Canon just better at glass in general?

[JM Tran]

or are Canon just better at glass in general?

uh oh......

you just opened the flood-gate

rabid Nikon users are pushing the Olympus crowd out of the way as they storm towards this thread!

[Tannin]

Krafter244, it is very, very dangerous to generalise too much, but I think most people would agree with the following statements:

• Both companies produce superb big iron. (E.g., 600/4.) No other company is even in the same time zone as Nikon and Canon when it comes to the very big, very expensive telephoto lenses.
• Canon big iron is much less expensive than Nikon big iron. The two 400/2.8s are, for example, about $10,000 and about $13,000.
• Canon still have the biggest range of lenses, but the gap is much smaller than it used to be.
• Both companies produce cheap plastic kit lenses which provide remarkably sharp images but are nevertheless very low rent. There isn't a lot in it, but the Nikon ones are not as flimsy, cheap, and plasticy as the Canon ones.
• Canon has a nasty habit of throwing in peculiar under-spec features in some mid-range lenses - examples include the clunkly non-ring USM focus motor in the 50/1.4; the huge barrel distortion in the (now discontinued) EF-S 17-85; and the very low-spec focus system in the Canon 18-200.
• Nikon has the nasty habit of pricing even quite ordinary middle-of-the-road lenses as if they were gold plated pro models. They also sometimes leave important stuff out of cameras rather than lenses, notably the ability to use many Nikkor lenses and still auto-focus.

[Mary Anne]

Oh Mary Anne! I was just getting comfortable with the idea of Nikon and but for a road test I was really happy but I've ALWAYS loved Macro and would love to do some myself; why is Canon so much better or is it just that that's what you shoot?

Hello again.. No Macro is not the only thing I shoot but it is something I enjoy as I am getting on in years and find I can sit down a lot when shooting insects..

Both Canon and Nikon make great Cameras and Lenses its just that as tricky/Richard wrote about Canon its makes the MPE-65mm lens.. I used the Tamron 90mm Macro for many years before I got the Canon L macro lens last Christmas, I have never heard of a bad Macro lens either.

Only you and you alone can work out which is the better camera for you, do read all the reviews, and if there is something you want to specialise in then you will soon work out which is the better camera/lens for you.. Best of luck there

[I @ M]

They also sometimes leave important stuff out of cameras rather than lenses, notably the ability to use many Nikkor lenses and still auto-focus. [/list]

Tony, Nikon currently offer in their current model range 3 FX bodies and 6 DX bodies. Of the DX bodies, 1 model, the D5000 must be nearly due to be no longer sold. That leaves the D5100 and the D3100 as the only bodies that don't allow auto focus with AF lenses and require AF-S lenses.
All FX bodies will autofocus AF lenses.

Of the DX lens series, 15 lenses in all, only one model, the 10.5 fish does not have AF-S so it is the only lens in that range that won't allow autofocus.
Of the FX lens series, 45 lenses in all, there are 19 lenses in total that are not AF-S models and won't work on 2 models of Nikon bodies. Of those 19 that are still current in the lens range, 6 models have been duplicated with AF-S models. The remainder are by and largely lenses that are not all that commonly found on entry level DX bodies or have an equivalent lens in DX fiormat.
The cry of Nikon don't have lenses and bodies with auto focus ability was true to a limited degree a few years ago but things are a little different now.

[Tannin]

They also sometimes leave important stuff out of cameras rather than lenses, notably the ability to use many Nikkor lenses and still auto-focus.

Tony, Nikon currently offer in their current model range 3 FX bodies and 6 DX bodies. Of the DX bodies, 1 model, the D5000 must be nearly due to be no longer sold. That leaves the D5100 and the D3100.

9 models divided by 2 that don't AF = 22%. OK, let's think this through:

* I say "sometimes they leave important stuff out"

* You say "only 22% of the time".

* I say "the prosecution rests its case, Your Worship, guilty as charged!"

[Tannin]

I should also add that, of my three Canon examples of similar dodgy product specs, one has been discontinued, and another will probably be discontinued soon. At least one would hope so!

[I @ M]

9 models divided by 2 that don't AF = 22%. OK, let's think this through:

"

Tony, you know I am hopeless at mathematics ( I had trouble just counting the actual number of bodies and lenses ) so with your reasoning of "thinking it through" and your desire to express things as percentages would you care to come up with a percentage figure of lenses that don't work on those two bodies.
From "kit" lenses to "pro" lenses there are focal lengths and configurations that work perfectly well on those two 22% of bodies. I really can't see any glaringly obvious omissions in the range.

[Tannin]

Let's be fair and ignore the six lenses that have exact AFS equivalents. That leaves 39 lenses and 13 that can't AF. 13 / 39 = 33%.

[KeeFy]

Each company has it's own quirks and flaws. But seriously, at the end of the day both companies are winners. Why? Cause they have their own fanbase and people are arguing about which company is better. I bet Canon-san and Nikon-san are having coffee (or green tea) this minute and enjoying every single one of the useless fanboy arguments around the world with people buying up lenses and not taking photos.

:P

[I @ M]

I really think that you should add the DX to FX lenses together which gives 60 and then do the maths.

None the less, look at the lenses that don't have AF-S and see where they have been replaced with either a superior ( read probably more expensive ) or overlapping range example.

DX, the 10.5 fish -- probably better manually focussed anyway.

FX
24-85 probably won't be missed by many and the range is well covered in either DX or FX zooms.
18-35 same as above
80-400 we all know the lack of AF-S hinders that one all round
80-200 range covered by other lenses
35 F/2 well and truly covered
20 F/2.8 covered by zooms
24 F/2.8 as above
85 F/1.8 missing but expected as an AF-S version soon
DC 105 and 135 probably will be phased out and not very popular with entry level DX users.
180 F/2.8 nice lens but once again covered by other zooms.

Of course these are simply the current line and don't include superceded DX and FX lenses that offer AF-S as well.

[Kafter244]

Thanks everyone for making it so clear! lol.

Seriously though, thanks for all your input; I think it's going to come down to trying them out, my budget and the quality of the lenses within my range. I hear the Tamron 50-500 is a worthy beast although very big...I'm hoping to keep my gear down to a 105mm macro, UWA and a decent telephoto to start. I know that's a fair bit but I have specific uses for all and I'm the kind of person who reads and consults to excess in the hope that I'll only have to outlay a large chunk of money once (for a few years anyway) and not buy a bunch of lenses I'm trying to hock next month because I bought the wrong type.

I hope if I spend enough time getting the right gear in the first place then when I'm out and about I can focus more on taking pictures and not trying to work within the confines of poor equipment or a plethora of lenses.

That's the dream anyway! Lol will see how I go hey?!

[Chris Michel]

My wifes best friend works as a journo for the gold coast bulletin ( news ltd ) and she told us that they have a new batch if the d1 mk 4 canon cameras for both the Bulletin and courier mail ( which i think is the brisbane paper ) and that seems to be across the news ltd board. I did see 2 nikon guys at the AFl at both the gabba and new metricon stadium for opening night when we ventured up the to the GC but the majority of pro togs there all had the white lens cameras on a scale of 6 to 1
ps. do i buy the wife a mazda over the usual Holden / ford ??