• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Photography Life

PL provides various digital photography news, reviews, articles, tips, tutorials and guides to photographers of all levels

  • Reviews
  • News
  • Lenses
    • Lens Index
  • Forum
  • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Workshops
    • Support Us
    • Submit Content
  • My Account
    • Log In
    • Sign Up
  • Search
Home → Cameras and Lenses

Nikon F vs Canon EF – What’s the Difference?

By Nasim Mansurov 96 Comments
Last Updated On February 20, 2019

Although discussing the topic of Nikon vs Canon can lead to unnecessarily long and emotional debates between photographers and I personally find such discussions silly, there are some distinct differences between the two systems that might be worth pointing out for those who consider investing into either system. Some of the differences are related to current technology and it might be a matter of time before either company catches up. For example, Nikon and Sony shooters often brag about the amazing dynamic range their cameras are capable of capturing, pointing out how bad Canon DSLRs look in comparison. And it is currently holds true – Canon has not done well in direct comparisons with other brands on the market, scoring consistently lower in dynamic range performance on each new iteration of its modern DSLRs. However, this is something that Canon could potentially address in the future with newer sensor technologies that provide greater dynamic range performance. On the other hand, other differences might not be possible to address. One such difference is the lens mount – both companies use mounts of different sizes. Which one is better and why? Let’s talk about the differences between the Nikon F and Canon EF mounts in detail.

I have personally been a Nikon shooter for a number of years now and I have never looked back, or regretted my decision to stick with Nikon. Despite some of the recent issues with Nikon’s quality control, I love my Nikon DSLRs and Nikkor lenses for their superb performance and I have been continuously upgrading my gear when significant updates are released. At the same time, there have been times when I was not sure about Nikon as my system of choice, particularly early on when I discovered some of the weaknesses of the Nikon F mount. So what’s the deal? There are several advantages and disadvantages of the Nikon F mount when compared to the Canon EF, so I want to explain these in detail for our readers.

Table of Contents

  • Nikon F – Mechanical Diaphragm Lever
  • Nikon F and Canon EF Mount Size Differences
  • Nikon F vs Canon EF Mounting Options
  • Nikon F vs Canon EF Lens Mounting
  • Nikon F – Older and Backwards-Compatible
  • Canon EF and EF-S Lens Compatibility
  • Summary

Nikon F – Mechanical Diaphragm Lever

One of the biggest disadvantages of the Nikon F mount is the mechanical diaphragm / aperture lever that is present on most Nikon lenses. Whether you are looking at a classic manual focus Nikkor, an older “D” or the newer “G” type lenses, all of them require Nikon camera bodies to physically change aperture on every shot if it is set to anything other than maximum aperture. That’s because all such Nikon lenses contain a mechanical lever on the rear side of the lens, which must be engaged to adjust the aperture. When a lens is dismounted, the spring-loaded lever on the lens is pushed back to its standard position, which basically stops the lens down to its minimum aperture. Once you start attaching the lens to a camera body, the corresponding lever inside the camera chamber forces the lens to open up the diaphragm, as illustrated below:

Nikon G Lens Aperture Open

Lenses typically stay wide open at maximum aperture when mounted to cameras, for maximum amount of light to reach the viewfinder and the phase detection autofocus system. Hence, aperture on DSLRs only changes right before the exposure. Once a picture is taken, the lever goes back and the diaphragm mechanism returns to its wide open state to continue providing maximum amount of light to the camera. This means that when shooting with lenses that feature such mechanical levers, the lens must physically stop down and open up every time the camera fires. Since the mechanical lever is physically triggered by the camera, this mechanism must be extremely precise and accurate in order to yield consistently accurate brightness and desired depth of field. However, when shooting continuously in high speed, it is often impossible to yield consistent results, since the mechanical lever might not have enough time to go back and forth quick enough. And if the lever is not precisely calibrated, or potentially wears off / malfunctions overtime, each shot might yield incorrect aperture and brightness.

In addition to the above, lenses with mechanical levers are hard to adapt with other systems via third party adapters. If you have been wondering why adapters for Nikon lenses are hard to use and do not give complete and precise aperture control, now you know why – other manufacturers simply would not have the same lever control mechanism in their camera bodies. An adapter capable of mechanically moving a lever would require a motor with an electronic chip, which would make the solution quite cost-prohibitive.

In contrast, lenses that feature electromagnetic diaphragms do not have any mechanical levers – changes in aperture are communicated electronically by the camera through lens contacts. Such method of aperture control is much more preferred, because lenses can set their apertures consistently and accurately, with no shot-to-shot variation.

Because of the above, using a mechanical lever to change aperture is prone to inconsistency in exposure and potential mechanical issues both in camera and in lenses. Canon realized this and fully moved to electronic aperture control on both EF and EF-S mounts a while ago, and Nikon has only recently started updating its lenses to “E” type lenses with electromagnetic diaphragm mechanism. Unfortunately, such lenses have been limited to mostly super telephoto and higher-end zoom lenses, so despite the obvious disadvantages, Nikon has still been releasing many modern “G” type lenses with mechanical levers.

Nikon F and Canon EF Mount Size Differences

Another key difference is the physical mount size – Nikon F mount’s “throat” diameter is 44mm, whereas the Canon EF mount is larger at 54mm. That 10mm difference might seem small, but it is actually quite important when it comes to lens design. If you have been wondering why Nikon does not release fast f/1.2 primes with autofocus, while Canon has the excellent 50mm f/1.2L and 85mm f/1.2L II lenses in its stable, the answer is primarily in the limitation of the physical diameter of the Nikon F mount. It would be very cost prohibitive for Nikon to try to design f/1.2 lenses with autofocus capabilities, because of space limitations on the rear side of lenses. Such designs would have to be limited to under 60mm focal length range and even then, the CPU contacts would probably have to be put right on the rear element. Anyone who has tried to make the classic Noct-NIKKOR 58mm f/1.2 CPU-capable knows that it requires grinding the rear element to fit the contacts – there is no other way to do it. And forget about longer focal lengths, because it would never fit. In fact, if you look at the rear of the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II, which appears significantly larger than the rear element of any Nikkor, that lens required Canon engineers to put the CPU contacts right on top of the rear glass surface. Take a look at the below image comparing the the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II with the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G:

Canon 85mm f/1.2L II vs Nikon 85mm f/1.4G

The size differences are obvious. Hence, Nikon would not be able to make such a lens due to the smaller diameter of the Nikon F mount. Shorter focal length f/1.2 lenses would be possible to engineer, but they might require cutting into the glass as described above, which would complicate both the design and the manufacturing process of such a lens, making it very expensive and potentially impractical to sell. Nikon would have to charge thousands of dollars for a 50mm f/1.2 AF-S lens, which would be extremely tough to market. Such a lens would have to be made to order in limited quantities, similar to some of the exotic super telephoto lenses.

In contrast, Canon has an advantage here – shorter focal length f/1.2 lenses in the 50mm+ range can be designed easier, since the mount diameter is large enough to accommodate such optical designs. In fact, the Canon EF mount allows for a 50mm f/1.0 and 200mm f/1.8 lens designs (and we have seen such lenses in the past), which would be close to impossible to achieve on the Nikon F. Having a large diameter lens mount is not just needed for super fast primes though – it can potentially simplify the overall lens design too.

Another advantage that some people point out is durability – since the Canon EF mount is physically larger, some people argue that it is also more durable. I personally dismiss this claim, because the Nikon F mount is big enough to be quite durable and I doubt the Canon EF mount would have a noticeable advantage here…

Nikon F vs Canon EF Mounting Options

Due to the above-mentioned physical differences in lens mounts, along with differences in flange distance, Canon EF lenses cannot be used with adapters on Nikon DSLRs (since the rear element is too large and the flange distance is shorter at 44mm vs 46.5mm on Nikon F), while Nikon lenses can be used with adapters on Canon DSLRs. This is another disadvantage of the Nikon F mount, because it limits Nikon shooters from being able to use Canon glass, while Canon shooters can enjoy Nikon glass on their cameras. In fact, until Canon released its excellent but pricey EF 11-24mm f/4L USM, many Canon shooters loved the results they were getting with the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G coupled with an adapter.

Nikon F vs Canon EF Lens Mounting

When mounting Nikon lenses, you move lenses clockwise when looking from the back of the camera. Canon lenses are always mounted in the opposite, counter-clockwise direction. Not a big deal, but it certainly does take time to get used to this change when changing brands.

Nikon F – Older and Backwards-Compatible

So far I have pointed out the disadvantages of the Nikon F mount, but it does not mean that it does not have its advantages. One of the biggest advantages of Nikon F, is backwards compatibility due to its age – Nikon first designed its F mount back in 1957 and since then, pretty much every F mount lens has been compatible with newly released Nikon cameras. This means that you can grab some really old manual focus classics and still use them natively on modern DSLRs – something you cannot do with pre-EF Canon lenses. Canon basically ditched its previous mounts in 1987 when the EF mount was launched, without caring for backwards-compatibility. This made many Canon shooters unhappy, because they found themselves having to get rid of their old lenses and start from scratch with new lenses, whereas Nikon shooters did not go through the same pains. Therefore, while Canon provides more lens options for photographers today than Nikon, the total number of lenses one could mount natively on Nikon cameras exceeds that of Canon’s.

Some of the really old Nikon lens designs had to go through conversion to allow proper mounting and for metering to work on some modern cameras, but Nikon offered conversion services for a long time during the transition period. And autofocus compatibility issues with lower-end DSLRs that do not have built-in focus motors have also been addressed for the most part by Nikon, since all modern AF-S lenses will autofocus on any modern Nikon DSLR. Nikon has essentially moved away from screw-type lenses to lenses with built-in focus motors. But these issues do not have much to do with the actual F mount, which has been Nikon’s standard for many years now.

Canon EF and EF-S Lens Compatibility

Although both EF and EF-S lenses have the same rear diameter to fit all Canon DSLR cameras, Canon limited EF-S lenses from working on full-frame cameras. This means that if one were to move up from a lower-end APS-C camera to a full-frame camera, they would have to upgrade all EF-S lenses to EF versions first. Nikon does not have such limitation – DX lenses will work on all full-frame cameras, but if the image circle is not big enough, it will simply have very dark corners in images. One can enable an option in full-frame cameras to automatically reduce image size to 1.5x crop when DX cameras are mounted to avoid darkening of the corners. In some cases, DX lenses at different focal lengths or focusing distances can actually cover the whole image circle of full-frame cameras and those could be used in full-frame mode without issues, as detailed in Francois Malan’s article. This might be of a great advantage to those who want to move up to full-frame cameras in the Nikon world, since they can first start shooting in crop mode, then upgrade lenses at a later point of time.

Summary

At the end of the day, both Nikon and Canon systems offer very strong lens choices for practically any need. While some Nikon shooters would love to see super fast f/1.2 lenses with AF capabilities, one could argue that such lenses would be hard to use in terms of autofocus accuracy (ask any Canon 50mm f/1.2L shooter) and designing a lens with solid performance at maximum aperture would be extremely difficult and very cost prohibitive. And speaking of cost, I don’t think there would be much demand for a $2K+ 50mm f/1.2 prime when one could get a superb Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art at a fraction of the cost…

The purpose of this article was not to start another Nikon vs Canon debate, but rather point out the differences between the two mounts. I know that one could argue about each of the pros and cons I pointed out above and I am sure more points could be added by experienced photographers that have used both systems. If you have something to add, please let me know in the comments section below.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

If you liked this article, please subscribe below to our weekly email to get more great content like this!

Related Articles

  • Nikon D5300 Image Samples
    Nikon D5300 Image Samples
  • Nikon 50mm f/1.4 with Novoflex Canon Adapter
    Use Nikon Lenses on Canon DSLRs
  • Nikon D90 SDXC Compatibility
    Nikon D90 SDXC Compatibility
  • Nikon D5 Sample Images
    Nikon D5 Sample Images
  • D600 vs 6D
    Nikon D600 vs Canon 6D
  • Nikon Z7 vs Nikon D850
    Nikon Z vs Nikon F - What's the Difference?
Disclosures, Terms and Conditions and Support Options
Filed Under: Cameras and Lenses Tagged With: Canon, Nikon

About Nasim Mansurov

Nasim Mansurov is the author and founder of Photography Life, based out of Denver, Colorado. He is recognized as one of the leading educators in the photography industry, conducting workshops, producing educational videos and frequently writing content for Photography Life. You can follow him on Instagram and Facebook. Read more about Nasim here.

guest
guest
96 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Luc
Luc
October 6, 2018 7:10 am

Maybe its the time for you to move to Sony…. Personally I never r use the video on all my 5 nikon cameras, for me its a no issue, but I can understand that it is for you.
Hope you make the right decision

0
Reply
Spacerobot
Spacerobot
October 5, 2018 8:34 pm

My issue is that NIkon’s period of ‘quality control issues’ was actually several years, and they continue to drag behind Sony and others in terms of video quality, which has, good or bad, become the mainstay of needed features in modern camera gear. It seems like Nikon is always a year behind in terms of what their cameras will do, like it’s almost too ahrd for them, instead of getting it together and leading the pack again, as in, EVER.

I have many nikon lenses I like, but they don’t work on anyone else’s gear, without difficult adapters that may or not may not render all the camera is capable of.

Nikon has become a rut one gets stuck in.

0
Reply
sandisxxx
sandisxxx
March 2, 2016 4:30 am

A very very very nice comparison of the mounts, thanks for that.

0
Reply
Laz Harris
Laz Harris
September 11, 2015 8:46 pm

THANK YOU! -You Just (indirectly) answered a question that has been on a lot of people’s minds as to why Nikon cameras can’t adjust aperture in realtime when shooting video. -The mechanical aperture of F-mount lenses! It’s nice to see Nikon coming out with new “E” designation lenses, like the new 24-70mm 2.8 VR which use an electromagnetic diaphragm mechanism. -Thus joining the ranks of Canon EF, Fuji, MFT, etc. My guess/hope is that Nikon will come out with a new range of E series prime lenses to compliment a new series of cameras that can adjust aperture in real-time.

0
Reply
Pete A
Pete A
Reply to  Laz Harris
September 19, 2015 3:55 pm

Many of Nikon’s cameras allow the aperture to be changed while shooting video. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the mechanical aperture lever; it has all to do with the purchaser not asking the right questions before making their purchases.

How do you think cinematographers managed to change the aperture while shooting, using equipment that was designed long before the invention of electronic cameras and electronically-controlled lenses?

The lower-end Nikon DSLRs combined with G lenses have limited functionality (hence costing a small fraction of the high-end equipment), which is properly explained in Nikon’s sales literature and downloadable user manuals.

Laz, despite what I’ve just written above, I really do understand why anyone who’s considering the purchase of a modern DSLR that records video would more than reasonably expect it to be able to change aperture while recording — irrespective of its price. I have always refused to recommend a make/model of camera on each of the many occasions I’ve been asked for advice because manufacturers do some really stupid things that seriously annoy (at least some of) their buyers.

0
Reply
KL
KL
August 14, 2015 9:56 am

You mentioned the smaller diameter of the Nikon F mount as a reason for certain lenses, particularly f/1.2 telephotos, not being feasible on Nikon.
Since DX lenses are smaller, that same F mount would appear relatively larger on DX lenses. Why don’t we see more f/1.2 DX telephoto lenses for Nikon?

0
Reply
Edward
Edward
Reply to  KL
August 14, 2015 10:45 am

Nikon did design the Nikon 1 Nikkor 32mm f1.2 lens for the image circle needed for the one inch sensors in the Nikon 1 family.

So a larger aperture lens for a dx sensor should be possible if Nikon wanted to design it.

The f-stop value is a unitless number relating the focal length to the image size produced. The mount that the light must pass through is a constraint limiting the maximum possible aperture.

The 1 Nikkor 32mm lens has a list price of $900. Nikon seems to see dx as consumer level so what price point could they hit?

The 58mm f1.4 fx lens list price is $1700. On dx this is 87mm field of view equivalent. What would Nikon price this at if they had designed it to support a dx image circle? $1200?

How many D3x00 or D5x00 buyers would spring for that?

Neither Nikon or Canon have created a full set of lenses for crop sensor cameras. Both expect users to step up to full-frame lenses if needed.

0
Reply
Dennis L
Dennis L
August 11, 2015 9:22 am

Hello Nasim,

Great article.

From the metabone speed booster case, people realized that you can sacrifice the image circle size and then increase the lens speed by One stop. Is there any possibility to design a condenser type of lens near the mount and then increase the speed of the lens. For example, a medium format 80mm f/2.8 can be converted to 35mm full frame format of f/2.0.

Just some of my wild thoughts. Thank you always for your article!

Dennis

0
Reply
Daniel R
Daniel R
August 10, 2015 7:50 pm

Hi Nasim,

I might be wrong, but isn’t the Leica M Mount similar in size to Nikon’s F-Mount?

Leica still has lenses up to f/0.95. If the size is the same, and AF is not important, is it still possible to make a real fast lens?

I believe Nikon has created f/0.95 lenses in the past for their Range finder series.

Thanks,

Daniel

0
Reply
Pete A
Pete A
Reply to  Daniel R
August 11, 2015 2:18 am

The lens on a rangefinder camera doesn’t have to clear a reflex mirror, which allows it to be closer to the film/sensor hence allowing a wider f-stop for the same throat diameter.

0
Reply
Panos L.
Panos L.
August 10, 2015 2:55 am

Nice article,
I have a question. Is the m4/3 mount physically larger than the Nikon F mount? I mean how can they produce lenses at f/0.95 for the m4/3 and they can’t produce an f1.2 for the Nikon F?
Thanks
Keep up the good work

0
Reply
Pete A
Pete A
Reply to  Panos L.
August 10, 2015 1:56 pm

The original Four Thirds System specification was for a mount flange diameter of 44 mm (Nikon F is 44.6 mm) — twice the size of the 4/3 sensor diagonal — to cater for apertures wider than f/1, which are required in order for the system to attempt to compete with the light gathering and shallow DoF capabilities of larger sensors and their corresponding lenses.

The Micro Four Thirds System specification has a reduced flange diameter of 38 mm to shed some weight from the system, which for this camera format has been demonstrated to be more important than the original attempt to compete optically with FF cameras.

Note: The Four Thirds System is optimised for image-space telecentric lenses, which greatly eases the design requirements of its digital sensors and it maximizes their potential photon efficiency. However, this increases the cost of producing fully compatible lenses. Horses for courses!

0
Reply
Nasim Mansurov
Nasim Mansurov
Author
Reply to  Pete A
August 11, 2015 1:10 pm

Pete, I have been incredibly busy during the past few weeks. After I logged in today and saw this article again, I realized that you have been answering all the questions. Thank you so much, I really appreciate it. Great to hear from someone who is very knowledgeable about camera systems. Hope to host you one day for a guest post at Photography Life!

0
Reply
Pete A
Pete A
Reply to  Nasim Mansurov
August 11, 2015 6:08 pm

Thank you very much indeed for your kind words, Nasim. I try my very best to support all evidence- and science-based endeavours; and to thoroughly debunk both the pseudoscience and anti-science that invariably dominates the top results provided by Web search engines, which all rank by popularity of opinion [thereby appealing to the genetic fallacy: argumentum ad populum] rather than ranking by factual accuracy.

I am deeply humbled by your invitation to write a guest post at Photography Life. Having read (nearly) all of your wonderfully educational articles on Photography Life (and on your previous website), plus the articles of the other excellent contributors to PL, I currently think it might be best for me to carry on with what I’m doing, rather than to write a guest post. Although I’m a vehement advocate of science and critical thinking skills, I’m a total recluse when it comes to the subject of my personal photography and art.

My very sincerest best wishes to you and your family,
Pete

0
Reply
Dibo
Dibo
August 8, 2015 6:20 am

I find it personally a shame that third party manufacturers can deliver a lot better glass than any of the current Nikkors in the catalogue. There has been a Nikon era in which that was completely different. Most full frame Nikkors are excessively overpriced and the fastest ones are only very mediocre performers when it comes to CA wide open. The funny thing is that older Nikkors AIS lenses don’t even suffer from that same disease – Nikon just doesn’t live to the standard anymore they do everything in R&D to own the best optical formulas and be the best camera-manufacturer in the market. And I’m not only speaking about Nikon, one can make about the same comment for Canon, which is bottom up a ‘mass production’ player missing any visionary, mind changing plan. There’s only one thing that counts in 2015 – not deliver the best product, but the best numbers in sales and on the stock-market – that’s what makes this part of the economy weak and sick – it’s just a commercial rat-race with no proudness about the product itself.

0
Reply
Pete A
Pete A
Reply to  Dibo
August 8, 2015 8:32 am

“Most full frame Nikkors are excessively overpriced and the fastest ones are only very mediocre performers when it comes to CA wide open.”

Would I be correct in concluding that by “CA” you are specifically referring to axial chromatic aberration (often called LoCA)?

You also stated “The funny thing is that older Nikkors AIS lenses don’t even suffer from that same disease…”.

If you name a variety of the Nikkors to which you are referring, I’d be more than happy to offer a technical reply to the assertions made in your comment.

0
Reply
Dibo
Dibo
Reply to  Pete A
August 9, 2015 2:02 am

When I work my old F2’s with lenses from the same era, there’s a lot less chromatic abberation in the pictures than when I use the modern wave of fast AF-S F1.8/F1.4 G glass on the D800. This is often extremely disappointing towards the wide open apertures, green, purple edges everywhere. I’m not saying you’ll see the same when you attach these old lenses to modern digital cameras. It just proofs that digital isn’t the same as film. But on the other hand, Nikon knew very well how to design lenses now you’ll need Zeiss, Sigma,… to produce CA-free pictures in wide open apertures. Take f.i. the Sigma Art 35mm F1.4 image and compare it to the Nikkor equal – you must be a very hardheaded fanboy to still go for the Nikkor.

0
Reply
Pete A
Pete A
Reply to  Dibo
August 9, 2015 10:07 am

Thanks for your reply, Dibo. Many of the old fast Nikkors had a considerable amount of spherical aberration therefore, when used wide open, the veiling effect of this aberration reduces contrast and sharpness. Spherical aberration varies with wavelength, resulting in the typical green/magenta fringes on out-of-focus elements in the scene — this is colloquially known as “bokeh fringing” or LoCA; its technical name is spherochromatism.

The Nikkor 35 mm f/1.4 AI-s (and the f/2.8), for example, is too soft wide open for its spherochromatism to be particularly noticeable — it will be masked by the low contrast. The AF-S version has much lower spherical aberration (and much better performance) therefore any spherochromatism will be more noticeable; and it will be obvious when pixel peeping a 36 megapixel image.

One method of reducing spherical aberration is to incorporate one or more aspherical lens elements into the lens. These are expensive to manufacture and the turning process that produces the moulds results in “onion-ring bokeh” (Nasim has written about this effect).

It is often claimed that the Sigma 50 mm f/1.4 Art is probably the best 50 mm f/1.4 lens that has ever been produced by any manufacturer. Its performance is astonishing! But, what do we really mean by “best”? For those who require sharpness and very low levels of chromatic aberration then the Sigma Art is either the “best” or one of the “best”. For people such as myself, this Sigma is the “worst” lens: it is far too heavy; and its bokeh is often busy and distracting rather than gentle and beautiful. This is not Sigma’s fault, it’s due to the laws of optical physics. An optically perfect lens produces busy/harsh bokeh; a lens that has under-corrected spherical aberration produces more pleasing background bokeh (and worse foreground bokeh) and it will also suffer from spherochromatism; a lens that has *over*-corrected spherical aberration produces more pleasing foreground bokeh (and worse background bokeh) [it will also suffer from spherochromatism]. The only lenses that allow the photographer to select the amount of under/over-correction are the two DC-Nikkors.

Although I’ve been using Nikon photographic equipment for decades, I have never been, and will never become, a “fanboy”. For my various styles of photography, I use a [painstakingly selected] set of Nikkors simply because they are the “best” for my type of work. Furthermore, I’ve always refused to take on work that would require the purchase of a new lens [or other equipment] and having to use it before I’m fully familiar with its strengths and weaknesses.

Some image editors include an option to remove/reduce spherochromatism. On the rare occasions I’ve needed to use this option I’ve found it to be reasonably effective. Caveat: Nobody cares about small amounts of chromatic aberration in my images because I never print, or otherwise display them, in a form that enables my intended audience to pixel peep.

I think that both Nikon’s and Canon’s current range of lenses is a fairly reasonable compromise between cost, performance, and artistic rendering [which is always a trade-off between sharpness and spherical aberration]. The most wonderful thing about owning either a Nikon F or a Canon EF mount camera is that we have an overwhelming choice of lenses, not just from the OEM, but also from Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, and others.

I hope that something I’ve written is useful to you, and perhaps to some other readers. Thanks again for your reply and for sharing your experiences. Best wishes,
Pete

0
Reply
Brian
Brian
Reply to  Pete A
August 9, 2015 11:23 am

Thanks for the optics explanation. I’ve been wondering about the “onion rings” effect. If aspheric surfaces could be made by a different method, would that eliminate them?

0
Reply
Pete A
Pete A
Reply to  Brian
August 9, 2015 12:44 pm

Brian, if the aspherical surfaces of the lens moulds could be produced using a much higher precision process then it would indeed reduce the effect. Panasonic has been trying very hard to address this problem. I don’t like posting links so I’ll just describe an article that I found to be highly informative:

“The end of onion-ring bokeh? Panasonic beats the curse of aspheric lenses”, which is hosted on imaging-resource dot com, and it includes example images and other useful information from Paul van Walree’s excellent website.

0
Reply
vitalishe
vitalishe
Reply to  Dibo
August 9, 2015 2:51 pm

It seams that you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
Are the old lenses as fast ass the new ones (are they 1.8 or faster)? Do you magnify film to the same level you magnify images from D800?

0
Reply
Edward
Edward
August 6, 2015 5:37 pm

Very nice article, thank you.

Now for my two cents of comment.

With AF-S and E-type lens, Nikon has gotten to the point where they have created a fully electronic mount system.

They built up a base of cameras that can fully use the features in the E lenses. Then started introducing more of these models.

Next, more E type lenses in less expensive versions.

Then start making cameras without the legacy compatibility once there is a base volume of usable lenses.

This doesn’t alienate the customer base.

0
Reply

Primary Sidebar

Learn

  • Beginner Photography
  • Landscape Photography
  • Wildlife Photography
  • Portraiture
  • Post-Processing
  • Advanced Tutorials
  • Best Cameras and Lenses

Reviews

  • Camera Reviews
  • Lens Reviews
  • Other Gear Reviews

Photography Tutorials

Photography Basics
Landscape Photography
Wildlife Photography
Macro Photography
Composition & Creativity
Black & White Photography
Night Sky Photography
Portrait Photography
Street Photography
Photography Videos

Support Us

B&H Photo Video Banner

Recent Topics

  • Nikon Z5 recommended Nikon Z5 Settings
  • A7R IV and the gel stick
  • Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G vs Nikon 20 f/1.8G
  • sizing for digital print downloads
  • Tips for Photographing the Great Conjunction
  • Best Lens for Slide Digitisation
  • Z6ii vs. Z7ii which has better tonal gradation?
  • D850 lens mount is tight
  • Z6 II vs Z7 II – which one is better for enthusiast
  • VR Problem on AF-P 70-300 FX lens

Footer

Site Menu

  • Beginner Photography
  • Lens Database
  • Photo Spots
  • Search
  • Submit Content
  • Subscribe

Reviews

  • Camera Reviews
  • Lens Reviews
  • Other Gear Reviews

Copyright © 2021 · Photography Life

You are going to send email to

Move Comment