One of our readers, Simon Speich sent me an interesting article that compares Canon and Nikon Telephoto lenses. He created a couple of fun charts that take into account lens weight, maximum aperture and focal length and he came up with a graph that shows which manufacturer offers the best focal length to weight ratio. Give it a read, I thought this was great to share with our readers!
When transporting your photo equipment, the weight of your lenses can play an important role, especially when traveling on foot or by airplane. To find out which telephoto lens gives you the best compromise between weight and reach, I created a few charts to compare all professional lenses of Nikon and Canon with focal lengths equal to or greater than 300mm (see the table further below). The following comparison should not be taken too seriously, but nonetheless might give you some valuable insight when deciding on a lens.
1) Lens Weight
The first three charts show lens weight, diameter and length against focal length. The first thing you will notice is that both lines of lenses have more or less the same dimensions, but the Canon• lenses are between 0.5 and 1 kg lighter than the Nikon■ counterparts, except for the new Nikon 800mm (see below).
The biggest discrepancy in weight is between the two 600mm lenses. This is unfortunate, because unless you are a bodybuilder, you can’t handhold the Nikon■, whereas it is still possible with the Canon• 600mm.
Why is that? My first idea was that it might be the number of glass elements, so I looked at the specifications of both 600mm lenses, but it’s even the opposite. The Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM has 16 elements, while the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR is made up of 15 elements. Then after I read the description of the Canon lens, I realized that its parts are made of lighter magnesium and titanium material, which is probably why it is lighter.
2) Maximum Aperture
The 300mm and 400mm lenses are f/2.8, whereas the 500mm and 600mm are f/4.0. If you look at the gradient in the graphs for weight and diameter, twice there is an increase followed by a decrease. This is a consequence of increasing the lens diameter in order to keep the minimum aperture the same, when increasing the focal length. A larger diameter means more glass, and more glass means of course more weight.
3) Best Super-Telephoto Lens
So which is the best lens in terms of weight? In order to have a better measure than just weight itself, I decided to divide the focal length by weight for each lens. This ratio gives you a measure for how much reach you get per kilogram for the lens you want to carry. If you look at the last graph, the 400mm lenses are obviously the worst to carry around. In the case of the Canons, the Canon 500mm, 600mm and 800mm are more or less the same. In the case of the Nikons, the Nikon 800mm is by far the best and in par with the Canon. The second in place would be the Nikon 500mm with a slight edge over the 600mm.
Of course there are also other factors than weight to consider such as image quality, low-light capabilities and price. But image quality is superb for all of these premium lenses. Also low-light is not such a big issue anymore with modern camera sensors and post processing. So in the end, it comes all down to budget and weight in my opinion.
Simon Speich is a web programmer and amateur photographer from Switzerland. He maintains a photo database and a blog on his website www.speich.net.
I own the Canon 400mm F4 DO ii and the weight (4.6 pound) is heavenly compared to other super telephotos. IQ is as good as other 400mm F4 since they improved the Diffractive Optics technology from the V1. Weight is everything, if you don’t have the camera with you, you don’t get the pictures. The advantage staying with Canon is they have a bigger market and can amotized their R&D easier hence you get this DO technology, with Nikon you get the better IQ sensor camera, I will be happy with either.
Cease the moment always have your camera ready,
Painter of Stories
The previous generation Nikon 500mm (the one before the VR version – AF-S II) is slightly lighter (3.43 kg vs 3.88 kg of the current VR version) – this is not much heavier than Canon’s current 500mm lens which is 3.19 kg – and not much heavier than the 300mm f/2.8 VR II. You give up VR/IS – but that’s a great reasonably light option to use on a D800E/Nikon cameras. I can handhold it with no problem (usually easier to shoot birds handheld) – usually with a 1.4x TC.
Hi,Nasim
Interesting slant on the eternal “who does it best” argument. I’ve always felt that these exotic primes are so good that it’s an almost irrelevant argument. I love my Nikon 500 f4. The 600 and the “old” Canon are monsters: two shots hand held and lay down in a dark room for a couple of hours. I did get to handle one of the new 600s and it felt on a par with my 500 BUT, the cost! Any new nikon exotics will doubtless follow suit putting them out of range of more of us than ever.
I agree with Simon: weight and budget will swing the deal. Look out for good deals on the “old” 600s and have money left for a good tripod set up with some to spare. Whilst hand held is an option I take up a lot on my 500, i have found the tripod gets more an more use. Generally speaking, the big lenses are for wildlife and, I have found birds in particular take less notice of you standing behind a tripod simply because you are not moving as much.
That said, if I had the money, would I pay the extra for the lighter lens just to gain 100mm? O yes!
D7100+300 f4?
I use that combination but the super small buffer on the D7100 makes it difficult to do action wildlife (birds) and I miss the image size of the D800.
I use the D800 F4 300 plus the TC1.4e often with a Gitzo monopod. I wait patiently for a VR 300 F4, nothing else is at all tempting. I can crop to 1.2 if i need to. I can’t see any reason to go back to a crop sensor unless it is on a fully featured body (D400?).
Chris,
My Nikon 500 mm F4 AF-I weighs 11 lbs. Its a 1994 model , so, the later AF-S models have become lighter. I could hand hold that for a MotoGP race without any problems.
I am a Nikon shooter and this issue with the weight is the single biggest problem I have with the Nikon system. Look at the Nikon 300 vs the Canon 500, they are within .2 kg of each other. That is a HUGE deal for Wildlife shooter. I recognize one is a 2.8 and the other is f/4. I want the 500, but simply won’t buy it until Nikon comes out with a lighter version. The Nikon version of the 500 is 8.5 lbs vs 7 lbs for the Canon.
I own the Nikon 400 2.8. It’s a beast. When I see the Canon guys on the sidelines of the night football games I shoot, I’m thinking about how much lighter their 400 is than mine.
Further, Canon makes a 400 f/4 which is 2 kg! I would buy this lens in 3 seconds if Nikon made one.
I love my Nikon gear, but if they don’t come out with some new lighter stuff in the next year. I may just buy some Canon gear as well. Maybe a Canon 400 f/4 with a 1.4 converter and a 7D Mark II (when it comes out). This would be a killer, totally hand holdable wildlife set-up. Pro quality everything with 900 MM effective <7 lbs. Nikon has nothing that even comes close to that configuration.
One other thing that some see as an advantage in Las Vegas, where I live, is the white barrel actually stays much cooler than the black. I cover my lens with Lens coat, but there are still some exposed black areas. Not that big of a deal, but still a minor detraction.
Having said all of this, I strongly prefer the ergonomics of the Nikon system. Canon gear is every bit as good, but I just don't like the way it feels. Personal preference. I just hope Nikon lightens the load of these monsters soon. I'm actually thinking about selling my 400 2.8. When I put the D4 on the end the whole rig with monopod is about 15 lbs. It's just too much even for a full football game of shooting. Even saving 2-3 lbs would make a difference over 3 hours of lugging the rig around.
Nikon, please come out with a lighter 500 F/4 and a DO 400- f/4 and a D400. I'll buy it all and I think there is a serious pent-up demand in the Nikon ranks for this gear. A new lighter 200-400 f/4 with a built in 1.4 converter wouldn't hurt the cause either. I think Nikon could pick-up some market share if they do. If not, I fear, when the 7D mark II comes out they will loose some.
Of course I think they should both make some serious crop frame telephoto's. Maybe Canon will be smart enough to do it when they introduce the 7D. I don't know, maybe they think no one would buy because it can't be used on Full frame camera's as well. Personally, I would prefer them and I would stick with crop frame for wildlife. It would make the lenses even lighter and smaller. I think most birder prefer crop and the majority of all wildlife photog's use crop. The technology now is on par with what FX was just a few years ago. You can't make up for that free reach and pixel density. Wishful thinking……
Great article, keep it up…
Since the Canon 600mm. f/4 is $3000 USD higher priced than its Nikon counterpart, I’m not about to switch systems and pay the “Canon tax” for lighter lenses.
Thanks for the comparison graphs. I would like to see the ratio of price to MM or even price to weight for each focal length class. I suspect Canon will be way more in price in terms of price per focal length but how more are we paying for the weight savings assuming that IQ is comparable between Canon and Nikon. I have both bodies from each camera maker.
Hello Nasim, I believe the difference in wieght is really quite simple, flourite elements have much less wieght than ED or regular glass elements. As proof of my guess, look how both of the canon and nikon 800mm lenses wiegh about the same, why? Because the 800mm nikon is the FIRST and only nikon lens with flourite elements…shazam!