Why don't Canon and Nikon make lenses for Nikons and Canons?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Ray, Sep 26, 2006.

  1. Ray

    Ray Guest

    Since both Canon and Nikon know how to make lenses, why don't they make
    lenses for each other's cameras? If Sigma and Tamron can make lenses
    for Canons, surely Nikon can too. Is there some kind of licensing
    issue?
     
    Ray, Sep 26, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Because you never, ever do anything to support your competition.
     
    Charles Schuler, Sep 26, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Actually, they do have an adapter that allows Canon users to use Nikon
    lenses on their bodies. Granted, you don't get AF, but the images are
    beyond spectacular. It seems this practice is more popular than I ever
    dreamed.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 26, 2006
    #3
  4. Beyond spectacular? That's just silly!
     
    Charles Schuler, Sep 26, 2006
    #4
  5. Ray

    Rudy Benner Guest

    Rudy Benner, Sep 26, 2006
    #5
  6. Ray

    RichA Guest

    Likewise Olympus to Canon. And Leica to Canon. Nikon to Canon. You
    don't see the other way round very often, if ever.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/Olympus-OM-Lens...1QQihZ020QQcategoryZ30059QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

    http://cgi.ebay.com/Leica-R-Lens-to...9QQihZ011QQcategoryZ30059QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

    http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Lens-to-C...9QQihZ008QQcategoryZ30059QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
     
    RichA, Sep 26, 2006
    #6
  7. I got all excited (8^]) until I realized that one must trade
    ease of switching lenses and the the auto-diaphragm for
    the metering ability when using Nikkors (including MF)
    on Canon bodies. The need to remove the lens from the
    body, then the adapter from the lens (instead of just
    removing the lens from the adapter while it is still attached
    to the body) seems too awkward - but the system may
    work if you have an all-Canon system but have the "hots"
    for one Nikkor in particular (or can pay the high price for
    rings for several Nikkors). Not perfect (!), but interesting...
     
    David Ruether, Sep 27, 2006
    #7
  8. Ray

    Bill Guest

    If you're only going to do it for one lense, I don't think it's a big
    deal to use the adaptor. If you intend to use a bunch of Nikon lenses,
    you might as well have a Nikon body.

    :)
     
    Bill, Sep 28, 2006
    #8
  9. Yes, I thought I had said essentially that...;-)
    It occured to me that a good use for these adapters is for using
    Nikkors without auto-diaphragms (the older 500mm f8 mirror is
    excellent, even with the TC14B, and the 28mm f4 and latest
    35mm f2.8 PC lenses are also excellent - and the tilt/shift
    PB-4 bellows may then also fit).
     
    David Ruether, Sep 28, 2006
    #9
  10. Ray

    Tony Polson Guest


    Surely the major advantage is being able to use Nikon glass on a full
    frame (Canon) body? If I still had a stack of Nikon lenses I would
    welcome this as a route to a full frame body, even if it didn't have
    the Nikon logo on it.
     
    Tony Polson, Sep 28, 2006
    #10
  11. Ray

    Bill Guest

    Who cares about logos...this is about practicality.

    So you would give up all the features that the Canon FF has with Canon
    glass in order to use Nikon glass that doesn't function? Remember that
    the camera can't autofocus, no distance info to help meter, you must
    manually adjust aperture, and no aperture ring on G lenses means you
    can't stop down at all with them. That means lenses like the sweet
    70-200 VR become nearly useless and really limits the usefulness of a
    bunch of other lenses.

    I understand the FF interest, but if that's what you want, then buy
    the right tools for the job. In most of these scenarios, the problem
    is simply the need for a wider lense. So for the Nikon it would be
    cheaper to get a wider lense that does what you want than getting the
    FF Canon body and adaptor along with all the headaches listed above.

    Beyond the wide angle loss, cropped FOV sensors don't really give up
    anything else to FF bodies. A 1.6x camera does just about everything
    the FF does, with the right lenses.

    For something like using a tilt-shift lense from Canon on a Nikon
    body, I can see it because there is little or no option for the Nikon.
    That's a specialized lense and the need could arise. But for the full
    frame aspect, it doesn't make much practical sense.
     
    Bill, Sep 28, 2006
    #11
  12. Ray

    Tony Polson Guest


    You obviously didn't read my posting, where I began the key sentence
    with the words:

    "If I still had a stack of Nikon lenses ..."

    Based on that premise, if the choice is between using a Nikon APS-C
    body that changes the angles of view of all the lenses, or a Canon
    full frame body that preserves the angles of view but needs the lenses
    to be used stopped down, then there is a choice to be made.

    I already use Contax and Leica lenses stopped down on my Canon EOS 5D,
    so I suppose that indicates that I have already chosen ... ;-)

    One Nikkor I would very much like to use on the 5D would be the
    20-35mm f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor. This was one of my all time favourite
    lenses, but it becomes a pretty useless 30-53mm zoom on a Nikon
    digital and an even more useless 32-56mm on a Canon EOS 30D.
     
    Tony Polson, Sep 28, 2006
    #12
  13. The hell with that. Put the 28mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.4 on there for
    primes. Of course, you would have to use the 17-35mm f/2.8 to fully
    appreciate the 5D.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 28, 2006
    #13
  14. Ray

    Bill Guest

    I saw that...and the question still stands.

    If you had them, would you be willing to give up all that convenience,
    go out and blow $$$ on a 5D and the adaptor, rather than simply buying
    one wider lense and still have all the features work?
    One can argue that a FF changes the FOV also, from the cropped FOV.
    It's less about FL multipliers and more about the usable viewing
    angle - if a wider lense does what you need, why use a kludge?
    Yes, and you have Canon lenses now. That's not an answer to the
    question.
    Why is a 30-53 useless? It may not be wide enough, but it's certainly
    not useless unless all you do is shoot very wide.

    Canon makes a very nice 16-35 f/2.8 L you should look at, if that is
    what you really need.
     
    Bill, Sep 28, 2006
    #14
  15. Unfortunately, the problem as it stands right now Canon does not make a
    decent wide-angle lens for FF.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 28, 2006
    #15
  16. Ray

    Bill Guest

    Hahaha...LOL!

    You're really rolling out the jokes today...
     
    Bill, Sep 29, 2006
    #16
  17. Name one WA Canon lens that can optically outperform the Nikon 17-35 on a
    5D? Ask any Canon user if you don't believe me, they are the ones bitching
    about Canon's WA poor performance.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 29, 2006
    #17
  18. Ray

    Paul J Gans Guest

    But it doesn't violate Shuler's rule. Nikon does not make
    that adapter.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Sep 29, 2006
    #18
  19. Ray

    Bill Guest

    Like I said...you're on a roll...
     
    Bill, Sep 29, 2006
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.