papo
Established
Can this even be compared in a constructive manner? I want to get me a manual focus camera so i wanted to determine this by optics. I think i will be shooting a fl of 50mm and while sharpness is important for me, a decent image look is also something to consider. I have a few AF Nikon G lenses which create an amazing look on my F100 but unfortunately they arent compatible.
presspass
filmshooter
Color or black and white? Canons, the FD series, are known for lenses that are not as contrasty as Nikkors. That said, either system has excellent lenses. There are more used Nikon lenses available, but the Canons cost less.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Both the Canon FD and Nikon AI prime lenses are excellent, I've had great luck with both.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
shimokita
白黒
It also comes down to specific lenses... I really like my old Nikon 50 f/1.2 & 85 f/1.4 but IMHO the results from the Nikkor-H 2.8cm f/3.5 & Nikkor-P 10.5cm f/2.5 tend to be more interesting with Neopan 100 (excluding FL considerations).
Think about brand, but also specific lenses...
Think about brand, but also specific lenses...
peterm1
Veteran
It depends. In terms of build design and quality I think Nikkors are better in a number of ways (I have used both marques) though both a good. I have in mind that the older FD lenses (and all FL lenses) have that breech lock arrangement which can cause problems sometimes for users - jamming of lenses for example and require care in mounting which slows the process down. I have had jamming happen twice and its relatively common based on internet searches of what to do when it happens. Also the newer FD lenses are distinctly plasticy - though at a time when Nikkors were still all metal and glass. This made them lighter of course but many thought it made them feel a bit cheaper, though I am sure they were and are still solid capable lenses in reality.
In terms of imaging I would suggest checking groups on Flickr and see which look you prefer for specific lenses. There are some stand out optics for both marques.
Having said this both lens marques are perfectly acceptable - though there is another consideration - the bodies available. In my view Nikon also offered a better and more diverse range of camera bodies over the years if you wish to go down the film camera route. With a Canon on the other hand my view is that you are more or less limited to the F1 (old or new) because I am not too enamoured with their non pro bodies. If you wish to use the lenses on a mirrorless camera though using adapters, then its your call.
In terms of imaging I would suggest checking groups on Flickr and see which look you prefer for specific lenses. There are some stand out optics for both marques.
Having said this both lens marques are perfectly acceptable - though there is another consideration - the bodies available. In my view Nikon also offered a better and more diverse range of camera bodies over the years if you wish to go down the film camera route. With a Canon on the other hand my view is that you are more or less limited to the F1 (old or new) because I am not too enamoured with their non pro bodies. If you wish to use the lenses on a mirrorless camera though using adapters, then its your call.
Archlich
Well-known
If one is noticeably "better" than the other then they wouldn't be having this war going on for decades.
Just pick your body and shop then lenses accordingly. None will disappoint.
Just pick your body and shop then lenses accordingly. None will disappoint.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
As others have said, it depends on the lens.
And on which system you find easier to use.
Unless you're better than 99,9% of photographers, more will depend in you than on which system you use. For a development of this argument see "The Quality Plateau" on my .eu site.
Cheers,
R.
And on which system you find easier to use.
Unless you're better than 99,9% of photographers, more will depend in you than on which system you use. For a development of this argument see "The Quality Plateau" on my .eu site.
Cheers,
R.
Larry H-L
Well-known
Also consider your preference for focus / zoom rotation direction.
Contarama
Well-known
It would probably be easier and cheaper to build a FD system than a F mount system. A lot of the really good Nikkors are getting pricier everyday and when the F mount no mirror blocks arrive I think the Nikkors will go up even more. Then again this could also happen with the FD glass.
aizan
Veteran
my recommendation is to get a nikon just so you can use the 58mm f/1.4 voigtlander nokton. the 50/1.4 nikkor’s bokeh is bright ring, if that’s what you’re looking for, but the 50/2 is smooth. the canon 50/1.4 is pretty good, the 1.2L so-so.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Nikkor lenses don't fall off your Nikon camera body when you inadvertently rotate the FD breech-lock ring instead of the aperture ring... 
Chris
Chris
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
First, if you are used to the way Nikons focus, get a Nikon.
That's not that big of a deal in the long run.
Some Canon lenses are way better than some Nikon lenses.
Some Nikon lenses are way better than some Canon lenses.
For example, if I could find then afford a Canon 24mm f/1.4 L lens in FD mount, I would sell a bunch of my Nikon gear (but not all) in order to buy that lens and a Canon F1.
Then again, I would love to find a 28mm f/1.4 Nikkor.
These days I really don't have any more GAS. Even though I just sold an entire medium format system, I don't really want more gear. I want more film. I own a bunch of Nikkors from a pedestrian Series E 50mm to a fantastic 50mm f/1.2. Both have their strengths. The series E was given to me in a bag of moldy gear and is a great shooter. The f/1.2 cost a good amount of money.
I'm a Nikon apologist but I won't denigrate Canon. I've owned some amazing Canon lenses and bodies also.
Everything has its strengths and its weaknesses.
You may want to look outside Nikon and Canon as well. All of the big manufacturers made extraordinary gear (and all of them made some stinkers too) and these days one can get a lot of it for pretty damned cheap. Working Konica Autoreflex bodies are almost (and often) free, usually with a good lens hanging off the front. Same goes for Minolta and Pentax. Olympus are a little more as far as I've seen but my small sample space may not be representative of what is really out there. No reason to limit yourself to a Nikon or Canon unless the pro bodies offer some functionality which you need: interchangeable finders, 250 exposure backs, advanced motor drives, ability to do rough carpentry with the camera, ability to use it in combat and never have a hiccup. (In the case of the latter, I might recommend a Nikon F2 or a Canon F1.)
Find a body, find a lens, shoot and enjoy. Or find a particular lens that does something you want done then match it to a body, shoot and enjoy.
Phil Forrest
That's not that big of a deal in the long run.
Some Canon lenses are way better than some Nikon lenses.
Some Nikon lenses are way better than some Canon lenses.
For example, if I could find then afford a Canon 24mm f/1.4 L lens in FD mount, I would sell a bunch of my Nikon gear (but not all) in order to buy that lens and a Canon F1.
Then again, I would love to find a 28mm f/1.4 Nikkor.
These days I really don't have any more GAS. Even though I just sold an entire medium format system, I don't really want more gear. I want more film. I own a bunch of Nikkors from a pedestrian Series E 50mm to a fantastic 50mm f/1.2. Both have their strengths. The series E was given to me in a bag of moldy gear and is a great shooter. The f/1.2 cost a good amount of money.
I'm a Nikon apologist but I won't denigrate Canon. I've owned some amazing Canon lenses and bodies also.
Everything has its strengths and its weaknesses.
You may want to look outside Nikon and Canon as well. All of the big manufacturers made extraordinary gear (and all of them made some stinkers too) and these days one can get a lot of it for pretty damned cheap. Working Konica Autoreflex bodies are almost (and often) free, usually with a good lens hanging off the front. Same goes for Minolta and Pentax. Olympus are a little more as far as I've seen but my small sample space may not be representative of what is really out there. No reason to limit yourself to a Nikon or Canon unless the pro bodies offer some functionality which you need: interchangeable finders, 250 exposure backs, advanced motor drives, ability to do rough carpentry with the camera, ability to use it in combat and never have a hiccup. (In the case of the latter, I might recommend a Nikon F2 or a Canon F1.)
Find a body, find a lens, shoot and enjoy. Or find a particular lens that does something you want done then match it to a body, shoot and enjoy.
Phil Forrest
bluesun267
Well-known
I feel there was a fairly consistent lens design philosophy among the major manufacturers of the film era (I'm talking SLR lenses of the 60s-80s).
In general I'd echo other comments here, from my experiences dating back to the film era...Canon lenses seem to render a 'flatter' looking image to my eye...most noticeable on color negative film, but I can see it as well in B/W and slides. It may partly be lower contrast, but I think it's also other design parameters--that certain 'je ne sais quoi' we love to debate on these forums. Nikon glass seems to pack more of a punch (in contrast and/or dimensionality, but not always color saturation, strangely enough). A further complication is that there's probably at least one or two lenses from each manufacturer that goes against the predominate grain of their lineup.
If I could design my own ideal SLR body, to be honest, I'd choose 70s era Minolta lenses, as they seem to have the most 'balanced' combination of characteristics. Unfortunately I don't really gel (ergonomically) with any of the Minolta (or Canon) film bodies, so I content myself with Nikon and Nikon glass.
Of course it goes without saying, if you are shooting film, I'd go with the body that feels the best to you and not worry about the glass, at least in the sense of which brand is "better". There's also Pentax, Olympus and Leica (and Yashica/Contax, Konica and others) to consider in film SLRs, all of which bring something interesting into the mix, glass-wise at least.
Also, I really REALLY love Rollei 35mm SLR lenses, probably better than any of the others, but I can't seem to find a body that works!
In general I'd echo other comments here, from my experiences dating back to the film era...Canon lenses seem to render a 'flatter' looking image to my eye...most noticeable on color negative film, but I can see it as well in B/W and slides. It may partly be lower contrast, but I think it's also other design parameters--that certain 'je ne sais quoi' we love to debate on these forums. Nikon glass seems to pack more of a punch (in contrast and/or dimensionality, but not always color saturation, strangely enough). A further complication is that there's probably at least one or two lenses from each manufacturer that goes against the predominate grain of their lineup.
If I could design my own ideal SLR body, to be honest, I'd choose 70s era Minolta lenses, as they seem to have the most 'balanced' combination of characteristics. Unfortunately I don't really gel (ergonomically) with any of the Minolta (or Canon) film bodies, so I content myself with Nikon and Nikon glass.
Of course it goes without saying, if you are shooting film, I'd go with the body that feels the best to you and not worry about the glass, at least in the sense of which brand is "better". There's also Pentax, Olympus and Leica (and Yashica/Contax, Konica and others) to consider in film SLRs, all of which bring something interesting into the mix, glass-wise at least.
Also, I really REALLY love Rollei 35mm SLR lenses, probably better than any of the others, but I can't seem to find a body that works!
farlymac
PF McFarland
They both have good lenses. It's the differences in the cameras that sent me back to Nikon after a short time with the Canons. I originally thought I'd be happy using both systems, but after a while it became apparent the way the Nikons operate was more suitable to me.
PF
PF
Steve M.
Veteran
As others have correctly stated, it really depends on which lens. There are some excellent FD and F lenses, and there are some that are not. In general, Canons have better bokeh. You can pick up some great FD lenses for peanuts too. I and a lot of other people love the Nikon cameras a little more than the Canons (OK, a lot more), but lenses are all about which lens.
Of course you have to put up with the Canons and all other lenses (other than Nikon) focusing and mounting backwards :]
And while we're at it, Fords are better than Chevys.
Of course you have to put up with the Canons and all other lenses (other than Nikon) focusing and mounting backwards :]
And while we're at it, Fords are better than Chevys.
Robert Lai
Well-known
I have both systems. The early FL lenses had problems. They only had one guide pin for the focusing helical, so they sometimes tended to bind. Worse, the helical lube commonly migrates into the diaphragm blades to lock them wide open. I had a 58mm f/1.2 FL lens that did this.
Incidentally, some of the Canon lenses have thorium in them, so they are radioactive. They will yellow with time. The 58 f/1.2 FL is one of them, as well as certain 35mm lenses. There is a list of radioactive camera lenses here:
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses
Note that the early Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 lens is also radioactive.
The Nikkors seem to be more solidly built, and don't seem to have any appreciable weaknesses in construction. The Canon breech lock system theoretically is self compensating for mount wear, and the actual contact faces that determine the lens to film distance never wears. So, that is a plus. However, Nikon mounts are stainless steel, and I've just never worn out any Nikkor or Nikon camera lens mount, in over 35 years of ownership. The other user problem with the Canon breech lock is that you start to turn the breech lock ring thinking that you are focusing, when all you really are doing is slowly unmounting the lens. Then all of a sudden the lens can fall off your camera.
You can get some very superb Canon FD lenses for relative peanuts. I bought some very fine lenses from our own Timmyjoe - including his Canon FD 50 1.2L, and FD 85 1.2 L lenses. The prices are quite reasonable for such high quality lenses.
I never found the Nikkor 50 or 35mm lenses much to write home about. Even the greatly lauded 50 1.8 or 50 f/2 lenses have some distortion when not at infinity.
As someone mentioned above, the Voigtlander 58 1.4 is the lens I use on my Nikon cameras. That lens is "just right" in its rendering.
The Voigtlander 40 f/2 Ultron has replaced all of the 35mm Nikkors for me. The Nikkor 28 f/2.8 AIS (and only the AIS) is an especially good lens, and still available new. One of my favorites is the often ignored 45mm f/2.8 guide number lens. This is a Tessar, but it's QUITE a TESSAR!. Rendering is first class, and the guide number feature is super useful for a flash bulb user, such as myself.
The Nikkor 85 f/1.4 is a fine lens, and it would require a lot of pixel peeing to tell you if the Canon 1.2L is better or not. I like them both, so I won't say which is better.
The Nikkor 105 2.5 has always been lauded as a great portrait lens. It's nice, but I find that 105 is usually too long for the space that I have in a room.
The Nikkor 180 and 300mm lenses are also really fine in quality, especially the ones incorporating ED glass.
I doubt that you could go wrong with either choice.
Incidentally, some of the Canon lenses have thorium in them, so they are radioactive. They will yellow with time. The 58 f/1.2 FL is one of them, as well as certain 35mm lenses. There is a list of radioactive camera lenses here:
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses
Note that the early Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 lens is also radioactive.
The Nikkors seem to be more solidly built, and don't seem to have any appreciable weaknesses in construction. The Canon breech lock system theoretically is self compensating for mount wear, and the actual contact faces that determine the lens to film distance never wears. So, that is a plus. However, Nikon mounts are stainless steel, and I've just never worn out any Nikkor or Nikon camera lens mount, in over 35 years of ownership. The other user problem with the Canon breech lock is that you start to turn the breech lock ring thinking that you are focusing, when all you really are doing is slowly unmounting the lens. Then all of a sudden the lens can fall off your camera.
You can get some very superb Canon FD lenses for relative peanuts. I bought some very fine lenses from our own Timmyjoe - including his Canon FD 50 1.2L, and FD 85 1.2 L lenses. The prices are quite reasonable for such high quality lenses.
I never found the Nikkor 50 or 35mm lenses much to write home about. Even the greatly lauded 50 1.8 or 50 f/2 lenses have some distortion when not at infinity.
As someone mentioned above, the Voigtlander 58 1.4 is the lens I use on my Nikon cameras. That lens is "just right" in its rendering.
The Voigtlander 40 f/2 Ultron has replaced all of the 35mm Nikkors for me. The Nikkor 28 f/2.8 AIS (and only the AIS) is an especially good lens, and still available new. One of my favorites is the often ignored 45mm f/2.8 guide number lens. This is a Tessar, but it's QUITE a TESSAR!. Rendering is first class, and the guide number feature is super useful for a flash bulb user, such as myself.
The Nikkor 85 f/1.4 is a fine lens, and it would require a lot of pixel peeing to tell you if the Canon 1.2L is better or not. I like them both, so I won't say which is better.
The Nikkor 105 2.5 has always been lauded as a great portrait lens. It's nice, but I find that 105 is usually too long for the space that I have in a room.
The Nikkor 180 and 300mm lenses are also really fine in quality, especially the ones incorporating ED glass.
I doubt that you could go wrong with either choice.
raid
Dad Photographer
Both brands have some excellent lenses and some average lenses. I had both, but then I saw Canon FD lenses dropping in price due to Canon switching away from FD to EOS mount. I started then to get some really nice FD glass at affordable cost.
Robert Lai
Well-known
Oh yes, focusing directions!
The early Canon FL lenses copied Leica slavishly, with the aperture rings up front, and the focusing towards infinity in the same direction as Leica. When they switched to the FD mount, the aperture ring got pushed to the back, behind the focusing ring.
Nikon copied the Contax rangefinder, so focusing and aperture directions are completely opposite to Leica / Canon. Sometimes, if I move from my Leica to a Nikon SLR, there is a moment of confusion.
When Canon moved to the EOS mount, a lot of us couldn't forgive them. I didn't consider Canon for 20 years because of this.
The early Canon FL lenses copied Leica slavishly, with the aperture rings up front, and the focusing towards infinity in the same direction as Leica. When they switched to the FD mount, the aperture ring got pushed to the back, behind the focusing ring.
Nikon copied the Contax rangefinder, so focusing and aperture directions are completely opposite to Leica / Canon. Sometimes, if I move from my Leica to a Nikon SLR, there is a moment of confusion.
When Canon moved to the EOS mount, a lot of us couldn't forgive them. I didn't consider Canon for 20 years because of this.
raid
Dad Photographer
I also felt bad about Canon, but then logic took over and I bought plenty of FD lenses. It made sense.
Contarama
Well-known
I have a hybrid F/D Nikon system...Df and F2...with a set of factory Ai kitted K primes. Because of the F mount glass kit I built first is why. I bought it cheaper than I could today for sure and it took me awhile to get everything I wanted.
Pentax K-1 and some old mechanical Pentax I think of in a very similar way as my Nikon stuff. Pentax is a very good option. K mount and m42 or whatever. Tons of glass options. Affordable as well.
Leica is the high rent district for such hybrid systems. I wouldn't mind living there either.
I have owned a F1 and a black Canonet QL17 before. Awesome cameras. Had more Nikkors though.
Hybrid F/D systems are the way to go
Pentax K-1 and some old mechanical Pentax I think of in a very similar way as my Nikon stuff. Pentax is a very good option. K mount and m42 or whatever. Tons of glass options. Affordable as well.
Leica is the high rent district for such hybrid systems. I wouldn't mind living there either.
I have owned a F1 and a black Canonet QL17 before. Awesome cameras. Had more Nikkors though.
Hybrid F/D systems are the way to go