# If Nikon made Canon mount lenses



## CanineCandidsByL (Apr 2, 2012)

I'd rather ask Nikon people what Canon lenses they would want, but since I'm here, if Canon made Nikon mount lenses what Nikon lenses would you buy? (if any) Assume that everything else would be the same (price, weight, optical performance, autofocus performance, etc.

I'll start...the only lens that I want from Nikon is the 200-400mm f4, since their's doesn't contain the built in extender and the extra price. I wouldn't mind the extender, but at $11k, I couldn't even consider it.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 2, 2012)

Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED. It's the missing quality gap in Canon's product line.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 2, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED. It's the missing quality gap in Canon's product line.



This. It's the only Nikon lens I'm jealous of.


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 2, 2012)

CanineCandidsByL said:


> I'd rather ask Nikon people what Canon lenses they would want, but since I'm here, if Canon made Nikon mount lenses what Nikon lenses would you buy? (if any) Assume that everything else would be the same (price, weight, optical performance, autofocus performance, etc.
> 
> I'll start...the only lens that I want from Nikon is the 200-400mm f4, since their's doesn't contain the built in extender and the extra price. I wouldn't mind the extender, but at $11k, I couldn't even consider it.



None really. The main reason I stayed with Canon when I went digital was the Canon lens line up. Neither are "ideal" and there is always something that people wish was different. I still like my Canon FD lenses better than my EF lenses, but in my estimation I get better bang for the buck in the Canon lineup. The cameras are really secondary to that. The 135L alone makes it a right decision in my book.


----------



## bvukich (Apr 2, 2012)

The first two I think of have already been mentioned (12-24 & 200-400).

The only other one I can think of is the 24-120/4. But the thing is, I don't want theirs; it's mediocre (at best) in every regard. I just wish our 24-105/4L was updated with a bit more range (preferably on the wide end, but I doubt that would happen).


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 2, 2012)

The 16-35 IS lens looks interesting. And the 85 f/1.4, which costs less than the Canon 85 f/1.2, is smaller, weighs less and has faster AF. Digital sensors are blind to f/1.2 apertures anyway. 

But that's it. Canon's other lenses are as good as or better than the equivalent Nikkors.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 2, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Digital sensors are blind to f/1.2 apertures anyway.



 What?


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Apr 2, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> But that's it. Canon's other lenses are as good as or better than the equivalent Nikkors.



I'd agree. But I'd love for them to dabble in each others market places as it might drives prices down. That, or one of the 3rd party lens manufactures needs to be on par with their stuff for fewer dollars. Anything to shake it up.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 2, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Digital sensors are blind to f/1.2 apertures anyway.





EYEONE said:


> What?



The microlenses in front of the photosites have angular sensitivity. If you have an f/1.2 lens, try this test:
1. Take a picture at f/1.2 as you normally do.
2. Turn the lens just a little bit, as if you're removing it from the camera. This disconnects the contacts, so the camera doesn't know the aperture of the lens.
3. Take another picture, with the same shutter speed.

Notice that the picture is much darker? Canon "boosts" the ISO of the sensor when large aperture lenses are attached and shot wide open. The boosting starts at anything wider than f/2.0. The reason they do this is because the bundles of rays outside the f/2.0 aperture aren't seen as well by the sensor.


----------



## JerryKnight (Apr 2, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Stephen Melvin said:
> 
> 
> > Digital sensors are blind to f/1.2 apertures anyway.
> ...



Could you please link to a source that verifies this? I have a hard time believing it, both from a marketing and a physical standpoint. 

Take a look at this page. I know it's not a completely accurate representation of Canon sensors, but I don't see where there could be any wide angle light field obstruction.







Of course, I'm not a physicist. I have written a few ray tracers, though, and my intuition tells me that the light coming from a wide angle still makes it to the photodiode.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 2, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Stephen Melvin said:
> 
> 
> > Digital sensors are blind to f/1.2 apertures anyway.
> ...





JerryKnight said:


> Could you please link to a source that verifies this? I have a hard time believing it, both from a marketing and a physical standpoint.
> 
> Take a look at this page. I know it's not a completely accurate representation of Canon sensors, but I don't see where there could be any wide angle light field obstruction.
> 
> Of course, I'm not a physicist. I have written a few ray tracers, though, and my intuition tells me that the light coming from a wide angle still makes it to the photodiode.



http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Apr 2, 2012)

Well, I guess I can believe the argument that modern sensors aren't picking up strongly angled light, but I'd like to see additional sources backing up the assertion. 

I'm not buying the sensor contact test as you can't be sure the aperture didn't change unless you setup something to compare depth of field. I think this might be a great test for a manual lens.

However none of this changes the two best reasons for buying faster glass...
1. Bigger glass tends to produce higher quality images; Maybe manufactures are just more careful or maybe the larger opening reduces the effects of problems in the glass.
2. Shallow depth of field


----------



## dr croubie (Apr 3, 2012)

CanineCandidsByL said:


> I'm not buying the sensor contact test as you can't be sure the aperture didn't change unless you setup something to compare depth of field. I think this might be a great test for a manual lens.



Other tests to do:
- 2 versions of the same lens, like a Sigma or something (i'm presuming that the sensor invisibly boosts iso for 3rd-party lenses too). 1: a native Canon EF mount, 2 the same lens in Nikon mount via adapter, so the camera doesn't know what aperture really is.
- A manual lens, like a zeiss, samyang, m42-via-adapter, so the camera doesn't know what the aperture is. Take a shot on a 5Dx /1Dsx, and take the same shot on a film-body (if you can develop the film to exact-enough standards),the film should vignette less because film doesn't have the 'wells' like digital sensors have.
- Or same test as before, without the slight-disconnecting of the lens, take one shot normally, then just tape the pins so the camera can't see the aperture for the second shot (if you're using an EF85/1.2L, focus first because you can't with taped pins).

Also, Leica's M-mount digital lenses a) are faster (like 50mm f/0.95), b) have a shorter flange-mount distance, so c) the angle of incidence of photons hitting the sensor is a lot worse than that of your typical dslr. They've got a patent along the lines of micro-mirrors around the edges of the sensor to redirect the light properly, that cuts down wide-aperture digital-sensor vignetting just like invisible-iso-boosting (but without the increased noise).


Back to OP, same here, 14-24 and 200-400mm. That Repro-Nikkor 80mm f/1.0 1:1 macro lens would be nice if it weren't a few grand (and it can fit on Canon anyway via adapter.
The opposite is more fun to speculate, like if I could mount a TS-E 24L on a D800 (if i could afford both, of course).


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 3, 2012)

CanineCandidsByL said:


> Well, I guess I can believe the argument that modern sensors aren't picking up strongly angled light, but I'd like to see additional sources backing up the assertion.



It's pretty well-known amongst the nerdier types. The issue, as I stated earlier, is the microlenses in front of of the photodiodes. Their sensitivity is angular. Recent generations of sensors have "offset microlenses" closer to the corners to reduce vignetting due to this angular sensitivity. Some lens/sensor combinations can have as much as two stops of vignetting introduced by the microlenses. 



CanineCandidsByL said:


> I'm not buying the sensor contact test as you can't be sure the aperture didn't change unless you setup something to compare depth of field. I think this might be a great test for a manual lens.



If you're shooting a Canon lens wide open, how could the aperture have changed? Have you ever seen a Canon lens stop down when you take it off?



CanineCandidsByL said:


> However none of this changes the two best reasons for buying faster glass...
> 1. Bigger glass tends to produce higher quality images; Maybe manufactures are just more careful or maybe the larger opening reduces the effects of problems in the glass.
> 2. Shallow depth of field



Actually, it does change reason number 2. The DOF changes.


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Apr 3, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> It's pretty well-known amongst the nerdier types.F changes.


Well, optic nerds....we come in different flavors.



Stephen Melvin said:


> If you're shooting a Canon lens wide open, how could the aperture have changed? Have you ever seen a Canon lens stop down when you take it off?


Absolutely....but it was an FD lens set by mechanical action. ;D



Stephen Melvin said:


> CanineCandidsByL said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Shallow depth of field
> ...


I can visualize how that might be true, but I'd want proof before I'd accept it. And if any light makes it from the sharpest angles, then there would still be an effect.


----------



## ejenner (Apr 3, 2012)

LOL. I bet this is a misconception because the lens is actually at f2.8 before the shot is taken, not wide open at 1.2. Thus when you disconnect it in the above example, the 85 1.2 is actually at f2.8 not 1.2.

This confused me with my sig 85 1.4 initially, especially when using LV and DOF preview - I'd set the aperture at 1.4, press DOF prevew and the image would change. Then I looked at the diaphragm before taking the shot and realized that it was set at f2.8, not wide open at f1.4. Of course lenses with max apertures of 2.8 or greater will be at their maximum aperture before the shot is taken.


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 3, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> - A manual lens, like a zeiss, samyang, m42-via-adapter, so the camera doesn't know what the aperture is. Take a shot on a 5Dx /1Dsx, and take the same shot on a film-body (if you can develop the film to exact-enough standards),the film should vignette less because film doesn't have the 'wells' like digital sensors have.



Damn, now I am curious to try this out. I have an f0.9 lens with Canon mount at home, all manual, which would work well for this test ^_^

Though this again makes me really want one of those Maxmax conversions where they remove the CFA and microlenses....


----------



## dr croubie (Apr 3, 2012)

ejenner said:


> This confused me with my sig 85 1.4 initially, especially when using LV and DOF preview - I'd set the aperture at 1.4, press DOF prevew and the image would change. Then I looked at the diaphragm before taking the shot and realized that it was set at f2.8, not wide open at f1.4. Of course lenses with max apertures of 2.8 or greater will be at their maximum aperture before the shot is taken.



Were you using live-view in bright sun?
I've noticed that a while ago, i had my 100 f/2.0 on a tripod, on liveview, testing out different CPLs. When I changed a filter, i heard the aperture clicking. After a bit of investigation, I realised that it was stopping down the lens to f/4 or so when it was pointing at the bright sky, when I put my hand or my face or a CPL in front of it (ie, the scene was darker) the lens would go back wide-open.
I presume it's some sort of protection-mechanism for the sensor, too bright sunlight would obviously cook it.


----------

