Joseph
Firstly I must say that I'm a little embarrassed by some of the responses you got from this list.
I am also a person who works extensively with Nikon and Canon. I have just bought the Nikon D2x and it?s a fine camera but it?s not in the league of the Canon 1DS MkII. I don?t have the 2 lenses you?re complaining about but I have Excellent Canon and excellent Nikon lenses. So far I have been ecstatic with the Canon lenses I have bought. The focus much quicker and far more accurately and the results have been really excellent
But there are a few Nikon lenses that are awesome too and I wouldn?t like to have to stop using them.
I think the problem may be digital
In simple terms, all digital cameras have a sort of "diffuser" right in front of the sensor. This is to "spread" the colors around and make each photo-site more aware of what is happening in the surrounding photo-sites.
In the process of turning photo-sites of a single color into pixels of RGB, ("Demosaicing") the fuzziness is theoretically removed... But you can observe that raw images on a monitor don't have quite the acutance that prints from negatives do, or for that matter high-res scans of film or prints.
The thing is that you HAVE to do a certain amount of USM to all digital raw images. They are inherently softer, with lower edge contrast, than you'd expect.
If you shoot JPG, the camera does it for you (Not a bad job usually) Of course you end up replacing REAL acutance with APARENT sharpness.
Also there?s the problem that you are probably viewing at 72DPI. You have not said whether you made prints or not.
Then, of course, there?s the possibility (Blasphemy in Canonland) that those particular Canon lenses are simply not as good as the Nikon equivalents. In which case, what?s there to say?
Head of the Department of Photography,
Muscat
Sultanate of Oman
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
