DSLR Lens €€€

Blue Duck

Just wondering if there is a significant price difference between canon and Nikon lens?

Are the generic lens as good? i.e. sigma etc

I am looking at purchasing a body from one of these (D40X or EOS 400), should the lens prices influence my decision?
And if so, which are better value for money.

Thanks

Eirebear

I cant say i know the difference between Nikon and canon tbh, but i wouldnt say it would be all that much.

As for Sigma etc Vs Canon, i think its a matter of reading reviews and deciding what you need.

Some of the Sigma lenses are fantastic value for money.
In general there is a slight drop in quality vs the canon EF/EFS lenses BUT its not always enough to warrant the extra cost involved in buying the canon lens.

As said, and im sure most people on here will say the same thing, if you are gonna buy any piece of equipment make sure you read reviews and do your research on it first, then decide whats best for you.

Thirdfox

I shoot Nikon and have found that Nikkor lenses do tend to be a bit more expensive than Canon. Take the nifty fifty f1.8 - I hear it's around 100 euro in Ireland for Canon and it is 130 euro for Nikon... but there are some lenses that Nikon have that Canon do not and vice versa - one good budget lens being the 18-200mm VRII lens for Nikon

Hugh_C

Thirdfox wrote: »

one good budget lens being the 18-200mm VRII lens for Nikon

I'm lusting after this lens at present but I wouldn't exactly call it budget at US$700 - and yes I know, it's cheaper via Hong Kong. Still, not budget though.

Thirdfox

lol - way out of my budget too but I would say that in terms of aperture and lens cost it's still a consumer lens.

pete4130

I shoot Nikon and have done the last 5 years. I don't get into the whole Nikon/Canon arguement but if I were to start out again and had a choice between the Nikon D40x and the Canon 400D I think I'd go with the Canon 400D.
Megapixels aside (I'm guessing they are both near enough the same?) the one thing that lets the nikon D40 and D40x down for me is the fact it DOESN'T have a built in motor for autofocus. This means its instantly restricting you on the choice of lenses that will work 100% with the body (you have to buy more expensive lenses that have built in motors for autofocus...like Sigma's HSM lenses etc... which makes thelens choice more expensive). Otherwise you'll have to use manual focus on any regular lens.

magicbastarder

the D40x does have a focus motor, i thought; i thought it was the D40 which lacked one?

magicbastarder

just looked it up; i was mistaken.

pete4130

Yeah, I thought the D40x had a motor too. With the extra cost of the D40x you'd expect it to have the motor!

Thirdfox

None of the Canon cameras have a motor... it's all built into the lens. They switched in 1987 if I remember correctly. AND their older lenses will not work at all (whereas non-AFS f mount lenses all work on the D40 series)

I think it's good that Nikon are finally moving with the times and incorporating AFS into the lens range. However I think they should have had a few cheap AFS primes before switching between the two systems.

But the motor issue has been debated to death on the forums - bottom line is - as a D40 owner I'm happy with the direction Nikon is going in, I would like to see an AFS f1.8 soon though

edit: I wouldn't get the D40x either - get the D40 and spend the cost difference on a lens or flash...