Canon misses the boat… again

Canon 11-24, lens, Canon, zoom, horrible lens, photography,

My first slr was a Canon back in the early 1970’s. That was my jump from an instamatic rangefinder to something that would enable me more control over my picture taking.

When I started shooting professionally I continued using Canon equipment. Why Canon and not Nikon? Where I worked Canon Canada would bend over backwards to give special pricing and camera service to professionals. The price was not a little lower. It was A LOT LOWER!

I had been using Canon equipment for over thirty years and saw no reason to switch even when digital arrived. When I started seriously shooting landscapes that changed. You see I love wide lenses for landscapes. I had at the time a state of the art Canon 16-35 f2.8 lens that cost a pretty penny. It was when I started submitting images for stock where they were very picky about image quality that I started seeing the shortcomings of the Canon lens.

Nikon had a lens a 14-24 f2.8 that absolutely blew my Canon lens away in terms of quality. It wasn’t only at 1:1 magnification that it was noticeable but at smaller sizes there was a visible difference.

Rather than switch systems I got an adapter that allowed me to use the Nikon lens on my Canon digital body. Autofocus was lost as was automatic aperture control but any inconvenience was overcome by the exceptional image quality.

Fast forward a few years and I have sold all my Canon equipment and now use Nikon lenses and bodies the exception being the Samyang/Bower/Rokinon lenses that I use for aurora or milky way pictures. Those cheap Korean lenses are a third the price of Nikon or Canon lenses and at wide open apertures equal or exceed image quality.

So now you might be asking yourself how did Canon miss the boat?

For half a dozen years at least Nikon has been head and shoulders better than Canon at least for the lenses that I use. They had been teasing for ages that they would offer a similar lens to the Nikon super wide angle and it has been finally announced.

Firstly the lens is way too expensive for what it is and I don’t care how good the quality of it is. It is suggested to be around $3000 US over a thousand dollars more than the Nikon. I think that I bought mine for $1500 Canadian.

Secondly and most importantly it is a F4 aperture. Huh? F4? Now you might ask what the big deal is. No biggy if you shoot in the studio or if you usually take your pictures in bright sunlight but at night time one stop makes a HUGE difference in exposure times. F2.8 to f4 is much greater than you think at night.

Thirdly I have an f4 medium zoom and at f4 before the sun rises the lens is a bugger to try and focus. Compare that to f2.8 and it is literally night and day.

So Canon you blew it again (no high megapixel body yet) with an overpriced, slow lens that I would never buy even if it cost the same as my Nikon.

Happy shooting,

Dan

Advertisements

~ by Dan Jurak on January 15, 2015.

6 Responses to “Canon misses the boat… again”

  1. I have a Canon because it was what I could afford at the time and am happy with it but I do not have the standards and expertise of a pro. Always good to hear reviews Dan and the reasons behind your opinion. Thanks for this post.

  2. Jane, I am not a fanboy of any manufacturer. I am only looking for the best value for the dollar and a certain standard of quality. Having said that, both Nikon and Canon need to get off of their butts with regards to lenses as the secondary lens manufacturers, Sigma, Tamron, Samyang/Bower/Rokinon are equaling and surpassing that of the major manufacturers at a greatly reduced price.

    When an art director looks at my images closely they never have asked is that a Nikon or Canon. They could care less. Their concern is image quality. My concern is image quality and reasonable value for that.

    Thank you as always for visiting and commenting,
    Dan

  3. I think Canon’s bread and butter is telephoto while Nikon’s is wide angle.

    All Canon wide angles are rather mediocre, while their long lenses are pretty spectacular as is their professional support for those who require long lenses (sports photographers)

  4. Dan you are probably right. Canon has been behind in the wide angle department for as long as I can remember. They (the longer lenses) used to be used by lots of photojournalists here in Canada but poor service, actually really horrible service is one of the reasons there has been a gradual switch away from them.

    Thank you for visiting and commenting,
    Dan

  5. I agree Dan, that there are many lenses that are very good from other companies for cheaper prices. It is good to hear various opinions but ultimately it is good to try it out for oneself before buying. I like what you said about image quality

  6. Jane, the long time major camera manufacturers are pricing themselves out of business. Information is accessible by anyone with internet access and it’s obvious to see that the “secondary” manufacturers of lenses are equaling and surpassing the big two.

    Thank you for visiting and commenting,
    Dan

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: