Canon EF vs Nikon F, another little thing

Everything is simple - macro rings for Canon EF / EFS are much cheaper than those for Nikon F. The reason is simple - the Canon EF does not need aperture control gear and focus gear for Nikon AF lenses. The macro rings for Canon EF are, to put it very roughly, just a piece of tube with tracks for the microprocessor.

I am convinced for the millionth time how bold and a great step the transition from Canon FD to Canon EF was. Until now, this bayonet makes life much easier for photographers.

Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. For the selection of a variety of photographic equipment, I recommend E-Catalog, Socket, M.videoand ebay и AliExpress.

Material prepared Arkady Shapoval... Look for me on Youtube | Facebook | VK | Instagram | Twitter | 500px.

Add a comment:



Comments: 55, on the topic: Canon EF vs Nikon F, one more trifle

  • Someone

    And also the flange allows the old optics of other systems to set

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Funny - others, but not your old FD

      • Dmitriy

        I think the fact is that the FD had a too short flange for a DSLR, even shortening the segment on the new system would have thrown too many unnecessary problems for camera designers, the mirror cannot be removed from the DSLR, so they decided to sacrifice the old optics. Well, plus it is necessary to sell new glasses with autofocus.

        • Novel

          Well, not that they donated - there were adapters, albeit with glass. But they were used somehow not very willingly, were not in great demand. Whoever wanted to stayed at the FD (I came across pictures from the Olympic Games in '88, in my opinion, the year), but the main part quickly jumped to the new autofocus technique, to which new glasses went one by one. The market has focused on the professional photographers segment to a much greater extent than it is now. And he returns to him after the boom of the 2000s.

      • Rodion

        Considering how quickly they rolled out a fleet of excellent optics for EF, the need for FD disappeared by itself.

        • Novel

          Moreover, in some cases, these were just old versions in a plastic case and with autofocus without any recalculation at all or slightly recalculated.

  • Michael

    Something in my (yes, not very extensive) circle of amateur photographers, I cannot remember at least one who would be greatly strained by the problems of macro photography ... And so - yeah, the problem of macro-rings is very painful and relevant, I can't sleep, I can't eat ...

    • Novel

      Exactly. Macro rings, a polarizer and even a tripod are sin and heresy, from which you should stay as far away as possible. The main thing is to find a wonderful camera with a COLOR and the best lens and then everything will go like clockwork. Because with a ludshego lens, SEE WHAT MACRO * shows a bumblebee on a flower in the center of the frame * and see what bokeh * shows a thistle bush blurred into trash with two flowers in sharpness *. Skinton * also shows a model with a green reflex on the leaves *. There is only one problem - filming against the background of foliage, but if you cover up to 4-8 - it is good to shoot the scene, and especially the connecting units of the trains!

      • Michael

        Yes Yes! With the expansion rings, train couplings will look particularly trainable! :)

      • in

        You can't calm down after the excellent macro from Arcadia at d40 and some rotten Tamron with rings? Arkady answered you well there about the loggias and shops. And then only you can not wave your hands, but show your macro to professional train equipment, preferably not older than 1-2 years :)

        • Arkady Shapoval

          Not everyone likes this, it's okay. Yes, and I have a specific style, This one.

        • Victor

          Nei, relax, no one here on d40 in general and Arkady in particular did not run into, Roman just jokes sarcastically on the topic of "collectors of moments, but not things" ©

          Your cap.

        • Michael

          I suspect that you are confusing me with someone.

          • Victor

            In general, this is not about you.

        • Novel

          You have a number of logical contradictions. If Tamron is rotten and some kind of there, then where does the prejudice against new technology come from? If with rings, why is there a prejudice against professional technique?

          I have consistently advocated the same position for many years. Most digital SLR cameras are at least 10 years old, and in some cases even more capable, if they are in good working order, to create good pictures. Most of the lenses are at least 15 years old, and in some cases even the middle of the last century, if they are in good working order with minimal post-processing, they are able to give good pictures. Skill comes first, then nature (subject or model) and light. With the skill, the technique fades into the background. But at the same time, any technical means that are not actually related to cameras and lenses, and allowing to solve certain problems are also important. Macro rings and macro attachments, polarizer, tripod, flash or studio light, reflectors, special filters - a complete set of all this can be obtained at a price not exceeding the price of the most inexpensive autofocus lens. Learn post-processing. And just shoot for your own pleasure, setting tasks and solving them.

          Arkady's photos are an experience and understanding of how light works. And patience. Well, the macro rings with a polaric. Not soaking and not D40. Unsharp brickwork in corners and pixels of chromatic aberration. But most will look at them, think that they should buy something else - first-class or medium format. Take off the sofa. Remove the rack. Will remove the adjacent high-rise building. Compare results with previous camera and lens. Intended for parrots. And that's all, tomorrow you can sell. Well, or share your work.

          • Trueash

            Where is the like button here?

          • Arkady Shapoval

            I will dream about that ottoman on 645z soon

            • Novel

              The ideal is unattainable in its brevity.

        • Pasheka

          Banned, did not write that way for 2 years, maybe more. But dear Arkady, suddenly, for no reason at all, he took off the ban and sends and sends me his links by mail. Why's that? It probably became boring without disputes and debates. So macro rings and other crap are all from the evil one as well as the macro itself in general. But the temptation is great and sometimes I really want to shoot this very macro, I really have no patience, but if you shoot it with a macro lens. In my experience, rings are complete crap, it is rightly said in the post “a piece of pipe” what effect can be from a piece of pipe. At one time, Arkady was shooting through the grill from the meat grinder, followed his example. Now I look at these photos and do not understand how someone can like such squalor, but the eye attracts, hence the conclusion is great temptation from the evil one.

          • Arkady Shapoval

            Can you clarify a little the situation, what I am sending to you and where?

            • Pasheka

              Every new post is sent to the mail. 😉 Previously, there was now.

              • Arkady Shapoval

                If you want - just unsubscribe, it's not forbidden. And I want to draw your attention to the fact that this is sent by the subscription service, but not by me personally. And it sends only for one reason - you subscribed and even confirmed your subscription. To unsubscribe, look for the link “unsubscribe now” in the letter (unsubscribe now)

          • Andrij

            Write in a strange dialect of the Russian language, nothing is clear.

            • Pasheka

              Do you understand dialects? Great, there is an incentive to learn new ones😉.

  • Peter

    10 dollars difference?

  • wj

    I don’t know how it was before, but now I looked at ebay - the prices for the simplest macro rings from Meike are 30-40 euros, regardless of whether they are for canon or for nikon.

    • Aleksey68

      I wang that there is neither a screwdriver nor a diaphragm lever.

      • TventinKarantino

        Don't wang. $ 30 on Ali meike rings with a screwdriver and a fully electronic canopy. I bought it personally, I have been using it for more than a year and a half.

    • Peter

      On Ali for $ 35 with autofocus, which is for Nikon, which is for Canon

      • Dim

        Yes, I just took these just for the change with Ali - for the sake of broadening my horizons, I carefully read the article and the dispute about segments, ottomans, light, filters and I don't understand why so many things have been written ... From the seller with Ali, where did I get it, in general, as I remember the price was one for any. Is it really worth arguing or wasting your nerves for yourself and others over 5-10 bucks?

        • Novel

          Meike has plastic and metal ones. For almost all cameras, autofocus and non-autofocus (no transit pads). Specifically for Nikon (and, in my opinion, for Sonya) with a screwdriver support and a diaphragm lever or not. In the case of using macro rings, they work only at short focal lengths, as the focal lengths grow (somewhere from 80 mm and higher), their effect becomes less and less noticeable. The opposite situation with macro lenses-macro attachments. It is highly advisable to know all this before buying, so as not to take it for change, torment yourself, put it in the closet and then say - nafig they need those macro rings.

          • Dim

            It is important to enjoy photographing, and not to die in advance with or without reason, along the way taking out the brain to others.

          • BB

            And what's wrong with a bunch of macro-rings, and let's say 135-ki?

  • Sergei

    I bought a KP-2N with a diaphragm drive for 2000 rubles. How do you like that, Canon?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Soviet "Adaptall"

      • Sergei

        No, KP-2N is a macro ring / teleconverter in one bottle and it is for Nikon F mount.

        Adaptal is a KP-A / N shank.

  • Hair dryer

    The optics issue is a major failure of Nikon. If you look at the cameras of this company, they were almost always better than Kenon, however, many flaws with the lenses, a huge number of people made them pay attention to the latter.

    1. The notorious screwdriver is not a very good solution in itself, but placing it only in expensive cameras is complete idiocy. I buy such an affordable camera, but if you please take lenses only from an expensive line, in order to use the maximum functionality.

    2. A line of optics for a crop model - absolutely all non-usable shit, except for dx 35mm, I also had 17-55, the same parasha as the rest of the crop zooms with unacceptable frame angles.

    3. No screwdriver in the Z adapter. Why is it needed there? If only because Sonya has it on a similar adapter.

    4. And, also the impossibility of using necroth normally on m42.

    As a result, if you can still choose a ruler and a park of optics for a full frame, then there is simply no crop for the crop, if you want a 24mm fix - buy it on your d3200 24 1.8G for 60k :) :)

    • Victor

      “If you look at the cameras of this company, they were almost always better than Kenon, but a lot of flaws with the lenses, a huge number of people made them pay attention to the latter”

      It seems to me that you have taken the wrong reason as a basis.

      "The proverbial screwdriver is not a very good solution in itself."

      Who said that? An excellent solution to make the lens cheaper and save on repairs. But the manufacturers do not need to do this, so the screwdriver died today.

      "But placing it only in expensive cameras is complete idiocy"

      This is not idiocy, but marketing.

      "I buy such an affordable camera, but if you please take lenses only from an expensive line, in order to use the maximum functionality."

      For an affordable camera, affordable lenses, right? D90, d80, d7000 and the like are also available cameras but with a screwdriver.

      "A line of optics for a crop model - absolutely all non-usable shit, except for dx 35mm, I also had 17-55, the same parasha as the rest of the crop zooms with unacceptable frame angles"

      What kind of game? Why is 17-55 bad? Why is 12-24 bad? What's wrong with the new af-p motorized crop zooms?

      “As a result, if you can still choose a ruler and a park of optics for a full frame, then there simply isn’t one for the crop, if you want a 24mm fix, buy it on your d3200 24 1.8G for 60k :) :)”

      For starters, the older crop models have a screwdriver. Second, what is Nikon's own cheap 24mm with a screwdriver? 24 / 2.8? Why do you need it for a crop, can you clearly explain? (there is no talk about the full frame, there it is clear why)

      Don't have a screwdriver? There is an excellent sigma 18-35 / 1.8. Wrong again?

      • Hair dryer

        -D7000 the same affordable cameras, marketing, and so on, all this talk in favor of the poor, which in the real market the consumer will only be motivated to consider cameras from other manufacturers.

        -What is bad 17-55 I already wrote, than bad 12-24 I don’t know, I didn’t have it.

        -Why is it needed on a 24 / 2.8 crop, it is better to ask the canonists, who have at their disposal such a pancake for 10 thousand, sharp throughout the entire area of ​​the frame

        -Sigma produces good optics, but this is the merit of Sigma, not Nikon

        I have been with Nikon for 15 years, I still have at my disposal 3 cameras from this manufacturer and to deny the objective problems of this manufacturer is only aggravating the problem. Especially the aforementioned marketing, thanks to its brilliant work, the same Z6 (a much more interesting camera than the Kenon R and A73) is now being sold on Avito for next to nothing.

        • Victor

          >> D7000 the same affordable cameras, marketing, and so on, all this talk in favor of the poor, who in the real market the consumer will only be motivated to consider cameras from other manufacturers

          Well, no one limits them in this, right? Why suffer, suffer from the absence of something and continue to sit on the nikon at the same time?

          >> What is bad 17-55 I already wrote.

          Well, the shoe 17-55 is even worse in this regard, for example. What does not prevent the canonists from continuing to love him))

          >> Why is it needed on a 24 / 2.8 crop, it is better to ask the canonists, who have at their disposal such a pancake for 10 thousand, sharp throughout the entire area of ​​the frame

          So I would ask them. I don't need such a pancake (besides, I don't like its constructive categorically, but these are personal phobias)
          And yet, at the canon, due to 1,6 crop ethers on a 24m pancake, it turns out not so much different from a 30mm sigma on a Nikon, which is not so expensive and as much as a couple of stops lighter when necessary.

          >> Sigma produces good optics, but this is the merit of Sigma, not Nikon

          Still, there are good optics IN THE SYSTEM? High-quality carcasses in your own words, high-quality optics from sigma?)))

          As for the new Z cameras, I can't say anything, they are not interesting to me as a class, I consider the nickname exclusively as convenient F-carcasses available on the secondary and good optics from there.

          • Novel

            Well, I like 17-55 on Canon, I take it for “responsible shooting” when it is supposed to transfer the result to other people. I can not compare with Nikon directly, except for the presence or absence of a stub, I do not see much difference. But again, unlike Nikon, they did not push it into the premium class (and for the crop, there are, in fact, only two glasses - 17-55 and 15-85).

            But I also like 24 / 2.8 in the pancake form factor, as well as 40 / 2.8 for a full frame. Full-frame 24 / 2.8, even though I do not want to stub. I use 35 / 2.0 on two cameras, and anything wider (except for a fish) is only used on a full frame, if it is not intended for cropping. I stare hard at the Voigtlander 20 / 3.5, which is the same size, full-frame ultra wide.

            The question is about positioning. Almost everything needs to look for its own niche and not take something that you don't know where to use it. On the other hand, Nikon is reaping the benefits of a number of his mistakes that were made decades ago, but for this he is difficult to blame.

            • Arkady Shapoval

              Canon's crop (Canon EFS lenses) do not have L lenses. For Nikon, it is believed that there are several: 10.5 / 2.8G, 17-55 / 2.8G, 12-24 / 4G and 16-80 / 2.8-4E (with gold rings, such as a professional solution, some were on the list of NPS professional service) ...
              I shot a lot with Canon 17-55 last year with the 7d mark II (this is a camera of one of my clients, when I work for them, I shoot as a second camera, 4 times 1-2 thousand frames a year), a very good combination, very nice color, tenacious af, 2.8 with a head is enough. Nikon 17-55, I think, focuses faster and feels better, but at 55 2.8 worse, but not critical.

              • Novel

                Canon decided not to compete with itself, segmenting the professional and amateur market, although it had to crawl into semi-pro with 7D and even more successful 7D2, and from the side of the full frame with 6D and budget lenses, but the L-series was left strictly for the full frame, yes ... But, let's just say, if outside the 15-85 and especially the 17-55 do not have the usual plastic and moisture protection elek, then optically they could be attributed to this segment. The 15-85 has 3 aspherical and 1 UD elements (like the 24-105 of the first version), the 17-55 has 3 aspherical and 2 UD elements. Well, the picture from them speaks for itself.

          • Hair dryer

            So I did not say that there are no lenses in the system, I said that Nikon's own crop production leaves much to be desired. 18-35 is a good lens, which is even unique, but it also costs good money, but some 17-50 tamron for a ducat would be quite appropriate for some 3100/3200/5100.

            • Dim

              I have a crop right now: micro 40 / 2.8, 35 / 1,8 DX, 55-300 DX, 70-300 DX. I also took Sigma 40-10 on the D20, but there is no autofocus on the new carcasses, so there is a problem. I am more annoyed by the limitations in working with flashes on the younger models, so they squeezed me here. But with cropped lenses you are clearly in the wrong place. They know how to fight for money, of course, but I can't believe that Canon is a charitable organization.

              • Hair dryer

                Not charitable, of course, but loyalty to the consumer ultimately determined Kenon as a leader, despite the fact that their cameras almost always gave out a picture worse than Nikon's.

              • Dim

                And how did you know who the leader is, I wonder? Marketing stuff? No one will ever reveal to you data on real sales, as well as on the company's position in the market. This can only be learned when a company goes bankrupt, when vultures start to tear it up. At the same time, it is not at all clear why the goblin is she to the end consumer who buys a camera here and now?

    • Michael

      It seems that I accidentally found myself on a forum (or a sabbath?) Of stoned gunners ... Or to the final of the competition "Who will beat Nikon the stronger" ...

      • Hair dryer

        I use Nikon and Fujifilm, the statement of objective problems of the company is not belonging to the owners of the Kenon cameras.

  • TventinKarantino

    Reading pseudoscientific theoretical disputes about the life and death of systems under the note about macro-rings, I decided to add practices in my post. I have autofocus rings for nikon from meike. When using the entire set of rings, the center of the image had a parasitic foggy illumination, a kind of “softening” vignetting occurred. He cured it very simply and cost-effectively. I had to make a kind of "diaphragm hole" from blackened cardboard and insert it in the middle of the tube made of rings.
    This is for people buying rings and taking pictures)

    • Novel

      Your rings have poor internal blackening, they sparkle. Smoke a candle from the inside or with paint from a can, so as not to reduce the already reduced aperture. This is for people who do not have the opportunity to buy original rings.

      • Dim

        In the article there is a cover photo of meike rings, if that. Apparently the person wanted to leave someone at least a little useful information. Although, of course, you can compare Nikon and Canon with each other, say on the Sony carcass, and find out that Canon is much better due to, say, the absence of a screwdriver and the ubiquitous presence of a stepper motor with an electronic diaphragm.

        • Novel

          “If you read the inscription“ buffalo ”on an elephant's cage, do not believe your eyes.” If something was bought on Ali, then it is far from the fact that it will be Meike, and not a fake Meike with bad blackening. And for Nikon, only the real Meike has two sets of autofocus rings - made of plastic and metal, not counting the very old, terrible, but very cheap models - and each of them will have their own advantages and disadvantages. And normal blackening, or even better - understanding what you take and what nuances may be when using it - this is useful enough information so as not to oppose pompously practitioners and theorists. If a commentator wants a normal magnification on his long-focus lens, then he will get it with a Raynox-type macro attachment or a simpler macro lens, instead of making a sandwich of three rings and losing wildly in aperture.

          But in general, the note is not so much about the macro-rings, but about some decisions of the architects of photo systems that are being asked years later. As well as a recent note on the electronic diaphragm. We put you a mechanical jump rope and contacts - we saved on the material of the rings themselves, so that there was no such spread in price between different models.

          • Dim

            That's it to His own eyes, and not to strangers. You never know what you write, you write based on what your eyes have conveyed to you, and even rather not your eyes, but a whole complex of different types of memory multiplied by the experience of your brain, which together allow you to separate the unnecessary from the necessary. It should be borne in mind that each individual has his own necessary. And this is the simplest case if you write from a "pure heart" and without "ulterior motives." I am afraid that even my little children will not believe in the latter.

Add a comment

christening photographer price Photography for lovers

Copyright © Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2021

English-version of this article