Nikon equivalent of the Canon L 24-105?

[Syringer]

Friend is deciding between the 6d and d600, in terms of the body the D600 is slightly in the lead with its better focus system and it's a few hundred less..but the Canon L lenses (specifically the 24-105) doesn't seem to have an equivalent in Nikon. Or is there? Basically in terms of zoom range/price/quality does Nikon have something similar?

 

[iGas]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Nikon have the 24-120mm f/4 G ED AF-S VR but in term of optic quality it is behind the Canon 24-105L. It would be better to get the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 or 24-70mm f/2.8 if your friend decide to go with the Nikon body.

However, I believe it is more important for your friend to try and play around with the camera bodies before he make the final decision, because to me how the camera sit in your hand is much more important than the make and model.

 

[AkumaX]

the 24-105L ain't gonna make that spider look any better

 

[Indus]

I strongly disagree with iGas.

You will get used to the grip of the camera and how it feels in your hand eventually. You can't get used to sub par images. And it's lenses where you should spend the good money on rather than getting mediocre lenses which degrade quality.. why? Good lenses can last 30-50 years. Cameras will eventually become obsolete and be replaced but good lenses are forever.

I recommend trying the best lenses in store with an image card or 2 and going home and comparing the quality of whatever he's happier with.

f/2.8 lenses are better than f/4 lenses. A 24-70 f/2.8 is the best normal zoom money can buy but it tends to be a little too heavy for most pros. That's why we tend to break it down and get primes like 28mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.8G, 85mm f/1.8G. Just switch the lenses around when you need to change.

But if you have to compromise and want a f/4 zoom.. a Nikon 24-120 f/4 is awesome. Infact it's better from the 24-105L. I tried them both before I went Nikon and my findings were video canon is better but images Nikon is way way better.

 

[randomrogue]

The Canon 24-105 L is a F4 lens that's generally sold as a kit lens. Why would this be a sticking point?

Nikon's 24-120 F4 is what you'd want to look at. These are both walk around lenses. I'm not sure which one is better but a quick look at photozone would make me assume the Canon lens. Neither one of these is really what I'd want on a 6D or a D600. If your friend is looking for the best glass you'll probably want to look at the F2.8 zooms or look at primes.

 

[Syborg1211]

The Canon 24-105 L is a F4 lens that's generally sold as a kit lens. Why would this be a sticking point?

Nikon's 24-120 F4 is what you'd want to look at. These are both walk around lenses. I'm not sure which one is better but a quick look at photozone would make me assume the Canon lens. Neither one of these is really what I'd want on a 6D or a D600. If your friend is looking for the best glass you'll probably want to look at the F2.8 zooms or look at primes.

^Agree on every point.

Is this your friend's very first DSLR? If so, they're going to be learning some very expensive lessons on their own personal taste for focal lengths. Most of us learned these lessons on APS-C, and I'd bet most of us have one or two lens purchases we made early on that we wish we could take back. Those lessons hurt the wallet more on full frame.

 

[iGas]

I strongly disagree with iGas.

You will get used to the grip of the camera and how it feels in your hand eventually. You can't get used to sub par images. And it's lenses where you should spend the good money on rather than getting mediocre lenses which degrade quality.. why? Good lenses can last 30-50 years. Cameras will eventually become obsolete and be replaced but good lenses are forever.

I recommend trying the best lenses in store with an image card or 2 and going home and comparing the quality of whatever he's happier with.

f/2.8 lenses are better than f/4 lenses. A 24-70 f/2.8 is the best normal zoom money can buy but it tends to be a little too heavy for most pros. That's why we tend to break it down and get primes like 28mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.8G, 85mm f/1.8G. Just switch the lenses around when you need to change.

But if you have to compromise and want a f/4 zoom.. a Nikon 24-120 f/4 is awesome. Infact it's better from the 24-105L. I tried them both before I went Nikon and my findings were video canon is better but images Nikon is way way better.

I agree Nikon produce better still than Canon dollar for dollar at the moment, however I'm sorry to bust your self proclaim "pro" buble that the Nikon 24-120 is not better than Canon 24-105L (and please provide links to backup your claim). And, I still stand firm on my opinion as cameras bodies has to be comfortable in your hand to use.

I agree that many people tend to go with prime due to weight (pro and non pro), however people who go with primes also look for IQ and fast aperture, and they tend to have more than one bodies hence it is just as versatile as zoom. And, unless pros are little girly men...I do believe that many wedding photographers and perhaps fashion photographers loves the 70-200mm f2.8 zoom that is quite heavy to complement their prime lenses, and it tend to be use much more than the primes because it is versatile.

The 24-120 f4 suffers purple fringing, ghosting, and flares, and it is fare worst than the cheap Nikon AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5G VR in this category.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_24-120mm_f4G_ED_VR/

DxOMark review for the Nikon 24-120, the new constant f/4 aperture on DxOMark.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pu...rture-on-DxOMark/So-who-is-this-lens-good-for

Given its price and specs, this lens belongs to the high-end category. As such, one would expect better performance, especially when mounted on full-frame sensors. Indeed, it is a shame that one has to use this lens at 5.6 to keep chromatic aberrations and vignetting low.

PS. I do not own the Nikon 24-120, but I can speak for the 24-105L because I own it, and it is a damned good lens for a kit lens, and IMHO the 24-105L is just about as sharp as my 50mm prime in the center, but slightly softer than the prime at the edges.

<-- I have owned and use perhaps over 30 cameras in the last 25+ years, and it include Minox 1/2 frame, point-n-shoots, 35mms, medium formats, large formats, to 20"x24" Polaroid.

 

[randomrogue]

Arguing over which walk around kit lens is better with these cameras though is missing the big picture.

Lenses last longer. Your lens purchases are a big deal. Your soft at the corners, with high distortion, CA, and vignetting lens should not be the deal breaker.

If someone is dropping this kind of coin on a dslr they should be looking at different lenses.

An opinion of course but I don't understand why anyone would spend $2000 and make this their main lens. There are far better ways to spend $1200-$1300 than on either of these. If that's really the case though then the Canon wins.

 

[Indus]

I agree Nikon produce better still than Canon dollar for dollar at the moment, however I'm sorry to bust your self proclaim "pro" buble that the Nikon 24-120 is not better than Canon 24-105L (and please provide links to backup your claim).

Have a look: http://jonathanfleming.wordpress.com/tag/24-120/

And, I still stand firm on my opinion as cameras bodies has to be comfortable in your hand to use.

I dunno.. my gf was a Canon shooter as it felt right in her hand but she switched her over to Nikon after the AF constantly missing focus.

 

[randomrogue]

I originally bought into Canon and returned it 3 months later (costco) for Nikon. Ergonomics are a big deal. Canon just doesn't feel good in my hands. Sony and Nikon do. You're not going to use a camera that isn't comfortable to use.