Price vs Sharpness

Which company has the larger assortment of sharp lenses at more affordable prices?

I'm starting over (from olympus) and I'm researching which of the two champion companies to go with.

I'll be starting with either a canon t1i or a nikon d90 and building from there when i have the money.

Opinions/Options of which to invest in?

They both have sharp lenses. Go with the camera that suits your shooting style and feels best in your hand.


Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Once you decide, don't look back. The major difference between Nikon and Canon is opinion ... and everyone has an opinion.

I'd rather hold razor blades and bricks to get good images than ones I'm half hearted about. Nikon feels good..but that not the point.
I've looked close at availability and options  on canon -vs- nikkor lenses.... My choice is CANON hands down!

Go to www.photosig.com and look for images you like and see which camera they used.

best super fine detail on birds is Canon XTi to 1d w/ 100-400L IS USM
best landscapes.still lifes are Nikon.
Toss-up on sports
Heavy post images seem to come from Nikons
true to life images seem to come from Canon.

just my observation....

I haven't used any Nikon lenses so I can't really speak to them.  Most people I know that have used Nikon lenses curse anything else.  I'm a Canon guy though so... I have a few Canon lenses that are incredible.  My Canon 10-22mm (purchased new for $650) is the best thing in my camera bag.  The shots are remarkably crisp and good luck finding this quality glass on something this wide.  I also shoot with a fixed 50mm (purchased new for about $350-$400).  The aperature performance at the narrow end of the focal range is stunning.  Did you get the kit for your T1i?  I took some shots with the kit lense (18-55mm) and was surprised at how fast and sharp it was.  My everyday lense is a 28-135 IS that I bought for about $400.  It is very versatile and performs extremely well (fast and sharp).

if you have no preference then look which brand your friends shoot with and go with that..then you can borrow their lenses 

When it comes to the longer primes "exotics" it really isn't much of a difference, however Canon is a lot cheaper, sometimes by as much as several thousand dollars per lens.

Canon has more primes, that would strike your fancy if you're a die hard prime lens shooter.

If you want the three bread and butter zoom lenses, then I'd give Nikon the nod.
14-24, 24-70 and 70-200

Honestly though..  When talking about the premium lenses, generally speaking there isn't enough of a (significant) difference between the brands to even quibble over.

For me, If I shot wildlife or sports for a living, I'd choose Canon because of the thousands of dollars to be saved (lower cost telephoto primes); I know the IQ  difference between the two brands (lens and or camera) on the pro level (meaning premium lenses & or cameras) isn't an issue in the real-world.

Before anyone can make a recommendation to you-  you have to tell what focal length you typically shoot, and what you're using the camera for most.  That could make the difference.

My cousin-in-law shoots for Geo and National Geographic and others of that quality, and uses Canons.  I've used both Nikon and Canon and am happy with both (although am now all-Canon except see next sentence).  My all-time favorite lens for portraits, though, is a Minolta 55 mm prime!

So you'll probably be pleased whichever way you go, which then likely means that price might make the difference.

Ever since I made the move to DSLR, away from medium format, I've used Canon. I decided to go with them for two main reasons. They have faster, and more accurate auto focus, and the color is more true to nature. This doesn't really hit your exact question, but is the reason I choose Canon.

* The color opinion is shard by me, but originates with a blind study done by a photo lab organization whose name I wish I could remember right now in order to be more informative. When I remember it, I'll edit this. They took several different brand cameras, shot the same image, blah, blah, blah, and compared them in terms of color.

I am a die hard prime shooter but I went with Nikon because they have a more old school interface and they have aperture rings.  I never understood how to work canons even in my film days.  Both sides have some excellent glass but also look at what comes up on ebay.  Not sure about Canon, but on Nikon you can use any lens back to the 70s, I even recently converted a pre-Ai lens which took about an hour with a metal file.  I think the D90 is a bit more limited than the Dx and Dx00 series in terms of being able to handle manual focus lenses.

For me, it's Canon.

Canon's primes are to die for (50L, 85L, 135L).  My 85L lives on my camera... man, that thing is amazing.

About the only lenses I wish I had that are Nikon is the 14-24mm and their 24-70.  Great lenses... by far the best in class.  For everything else I prefer Canon.

A 24-70L from Canon will cost you $1299 from B&H right now.

The Nikon 24-70 will cost you $1799.  That $500 will go a long ways towards more glass.

___________________________________
New Canon Forums:  www.kwanonians.com

S.T.A..........