1
\$\begingroup\$

I'm thinking of going full frame and I can't decide between nikon and canon. The Nikon d610 would be my preferred choice because of lower price compared to canon 5d III, however the latter has that great 24-105 lens which I'm not sure has a match on the nikon side. What would be its equivalent?

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS is built like a tank! Mine has stood up to all kinds of abuse in the field and just keeps on performing. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Apr 23, 2014 at 1:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ The Canon 6D is also available with the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS as a kit lens. It is far more comparable in features, performance, and price to the Nikon D610 than the Canon 5DIII is. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Apr 24, 2014 at 0:13

2 Answers 2

2
\$\begingroup\$

There are close lenses but part of choosing between brands is selecting the lens lineup. Nikon has a top quality 24-70mm F/2.8, similar to Canon's 24-70mm F/2.8 but for something longer, they offer the 24-120mm F/4G VR. It gives you the benefit of image-stabilization and a slightly longer reach while it does compromise on image-quality.

Another great alternative is the Sigma A 24-105mm F/4 DG OS HSM which is reputed to be excellent. It also offers stabilization but not weather-proofing as with Canon and Nikon's offerings.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

Nikon's equivalent to the Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM is kinda/sorta the AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR. It's newer, though, and costs quite a bit more, as well as having more reach. The kit lens on the D610, though, is the AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR, which is lower end than the 24-105, but not as high end as the 24-120.

AF-S = USM
VR = IS

I've owned the 24-105 for a while and it's a great lens, but it's a compromise in many ways, and possibly one of the weakest of the Ls. It's f/4 to make it smaller, and higher quality over a larger-than-optimal zoom range. The wide end displays C/A, distortion, vignetting, and a little bit of softness. It's a terrific versatile walkaround zoom, but it's not great for available light with moving subjects. No lens is perfect. It's still just glass that has to obey the laws of optics.

You can find equivalent (if not identical) glass on the Nikon side; especially when it comes to walkarounds and ultrawides. In fact, Nikon's ultrawide selections might be better. But make sure you're willing to give up Canon's supertelephoto selection...the prices for 400mm+ glass on the Nikon side are a tad different...

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ yes, Nikon's wide angle lenses are simply the best out there. 400mm+, hmm. Great lenses, but if you're going to spend $10k+ on a lens, you're unlikely to be thinking of a consumer body :) \$\endgroup\$
    – jwenting
    Apr 23, 2014 at 6:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ @jwenting That's what I meant. Canon offers f/5.6, f/4, and f/2.8 400mm prime lenses, while Nikon decides you just want f/2.8 in a prime. There's a little more selection on the Canon side of the fence is all, just as there's a crop fisheye on the Nikon side, not the Canon. And you might prefer having $1100 and $6500 choices alongside the $10k+ ones. I'm a birder. I live and die by my 400/5.6L :) \$\endgroup\$
    – inkista
    Apr 23, 2014 at 17:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ same with my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with 2x TC. I went with Nikon bodies for the ergonomics and control placement, Sigma lenses for the quality and value (though I do have some Nikkors as well). \$\endgroup\$
    – jwenting
    Apr 24, 2014 at 6:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.