Defecting from Canon to Nikon. Need advice on glass.

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Defecting from Canon to Nikon. Need advice on glass.

(41 posts) (16 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

V8Beast

member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 12
offline

Hello all. I've been shooting Canon for nearly 10 years now, but am seriously considering switching to Nikon. I currently have a 17-40 f/4L, a 24-105 f/4L, and a 70-300 f/4-5.6L. The 24-105 is my primary workhorse lens, followed by the 70-300, and then the 17-40. I rarely need the reach in the 200-300mm range, so a Nikon equivalent of the Canon 70-200 f/4L is another possibility. What professional grade Nikon lenses would you recommend to cover this focal length range? I don't really need fast f/2.8 glass, but I very much need image stabilization/vibration reduction in everything but a wide angle lens.

I won't make any final decisions until Canon and Nikon have both shown their cards, but honestly, I've been envious of the D3 and D700 for quite some time. I'm not too impressed with the 1Dx, and the rumored specs of the 5DIII seem quite underwhelming to me as well. I currently shoot with a 5DI, and the rumored specs of the D800 would be a nice jump.

Posted 1 year ago #
jerl

preferred member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 425
offline

Well, without knowing more specifics (what cameras you current use and what kind of camera you would think of switching too, what kind of shooting you do, what your budget is, why you are switching, etc...) I can only give direct counterparts for each lens. The 17-40 and 24-105 are fairly easy- this would be the 16-35VR and the 24-120VR. Both are recent additions to Nikon's lens lineups and the overall impressions of the optical and build quality of both lenses seem quite good (I haven't used either one personally).

The 70-300L and 70-200/4 don't have direct counterparts really. The 70-300 VR seems the most likely choice- it's not really as good as the 70-300L (as you would expect for something that is 60% cheaper), but the optical quality from 70 to 200mm is pretty decent. It's lightweight, has good autofocus and has good VR as well. The other option is the 70-200/2.8 VR2 which will get you an extra stop or two, tougher build quality, all with excellent optical quality. Of course, it's bigger and heavier too.

The other options are some of the discontinued used lenses, or primes, but I don't think you will be too interested to hear about those options.

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

One thing about Nikon vs Canon is that Nikon doesn't make nearly as many F4 lenses as Canon. I think that seems to make Canon lenses have more of a step in price and grade compared to Nikon. Most Nikon lenses are variable aperture or F2.8 or faster.

What Jerl said though...the 16-35 F4, 24-120 F4 are great and very comparable lenses to the Canon. The 70-300 VR is a good lens, but it probably isn't as comparable to the 70-300L. The only other option really is the 70-200 F2.8 which is one of Nikon's best lenses. There is no F4 Nikon lens in this range, but the F2.8 is from what I know the best lens from any brand in this range, even the comparable Canon lenses.

Lastly Nikon also doesn't make the clear distinction like Canon does as what is a pro lens and not. Price is a pretty good indication in the lenses. There aren't different colors or anything though that really make them stand out.

Posted 1 year ago #
V8Beast

member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 12
offline

jerl said:
Well, without knowing more specifics (what cameras you current use and what kind of camera you would think of switching too, what kind of shooting you do, what your budget is, why you are switching, etc...)

What I shoot: http://www.stephenkimphoto.com

What I shoot with: 5D

Budget: Not really an issue.

Reason for switching: I love the overall image quality of the 5D, but it's AF system is atrocious. The AF is slow, inaccurate, and can't track a moving object if its life depended on it. Plus, its AF points are arranged in a diamond pattern concentrated near the center of the frame, so if the subject isn't composed near the center of the frame, the AF is useless.

Target body: D800. The D700 already crushed the 5D and 5DII in terms of AF and FPS, and I'd be stunned if Canon came up with an AF system that can hang once the 5DIII is released. I never bothered upgrading to the 5DII because while the high-ISO performance was slightly improved, Canon didn't address the biggest weakness of the camera, the AF and FPS. If the rumors pan out, the D800 should destroy the 5DIII in resolution, and I expect the dynamic range and high ISO performance to be similar between the two bodies as well. The rumored 6 FPS of the D800 in crop mode would be a nice perk as well.

Thanks for the recommendations. Should I carry through with the defect, I'll grab the 16-35 and 24-120. It would be tough to do without VR, but what are your thoughts on the 70-200 F/2.8 VRII vs. the 80-200 f/2.8 in terms of optics and build quality? Me no likey cheap, plasticy lenses.

Posted 1 year ago #
SkintBrit

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 1,149
offline

V8Beast said:
What are your thoughts on the 70-200 F/2.8 VRII vs. the 80-200 f/2.8 in terms of optics and build quality? Me no likey cheap, plasticy lenses.

I have never heard a bad word being spoken about the 70-200, and it certainly is not a plastic lens! To be fair, the Canon version is equally as good, and any photographer I know has, or would like to have one in their collection.

Posted 1 year ago #
V8Beast

member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 12
offline

SkintBrit said:
I have never heard a bad word being spoken about the 70-200, and it certainly is not a plastic lens! To be fair, the Canon version is equally as good, and any photographer I know has, or would like to have one in their collection.

I must clarify that I wasn't in any way implying that the Nikon 70-200 is a plasticky lens. It's just that I've ready many complaints about the build quality of lower-priced long-lenses, for both Canon and Nikon.

Posted 1 year ago #
satellites

member
Joined: Oct '11
Posts: 30
offline

V8Beast said:
I must clarify that I wasn't in any way implying that the Nikon 70-200 is a plasticky lens. It's just that I've ready many complaints about the build quality of lower-priced long-lenses, for both Canon and Nikon.

the 80-200 is much more rugged and durable than the 70-200 vrii, perhaps because of its simpler design. the only drawback is lack of vr and lack of 10mm at the wider end.

Posted 1 year ago #
satellites

member
Joined: Oct '11
Posts: 30
offline

i just looked at your work and it is really impressive. looks like, as you said, you will definitely be needing vr, so i would probably rule out the 80-200.

Posted 1 year ago #
golf007sd

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 585
offline

Welcome to NR V8Beast.

You will find your transition to Nikon fruitful. Given the information you have shared with us, Nikon has many options for you to consider in its line of equipment. The up and coming D800 and D4, both look very promising and we are all looking forward in seeing their debut in early 2012. Your timing in making the transition is perfect.

Looking at your site and the pictures you have posted, here are the lenses that I think would suit your needs: Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II (if you need more than 200mm get the 1.7x Teleconverter), Niko Macro 105 2.8 VR. For your wide angle shots, consider the 14-24 2.8 (Canon has nothing that can touch this bad boy) or what other have recommended: 16-35 f4 VR. My reasons for these recommendations are as follows: 1) All, exempt the 14-24, have Nikons latest vibration reduction technology; 2) they are all very fast, amazing sharp and built like a tank (I own all except the 16-35, so I know what they can do); 3) they meet your style of photography...fast moving subject (subject in motion); portrait and close-up photography shot (stationary subjects).

Hope this information helps you out a bit. Cheers....

tcole1983 said:
Lastly Nikon also doesn't make the clear distinction like Canon does as what is a pro lens and not. Price is a pretty good indication in the lenses. There aren't different colors or anything though that really make them stand out.

Incorrect. Nikon does identify its pro line of gear by having "Gold Ring" on the front portion of its lenses.

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

golf007sd said:
Incorrect. Nikon does identify its pro line of gear by having "Gold Ring" on the front portion of its lenses.

Ha you are right. I never even noticed (me = noob). I was going to say but my 105 F2.8 seems pro quality and doesn't have it then I went and looked :)
It isn't as pronounced as the different color lens like Canon.

If money isn't an option I don't think there is any contest between the 70-200 VRII and the 80-200. The 70-200 is the better lens...even the VRI version.

Posted 1 year ago #
ericbowles

senior member
Joined: Jun '09
Posts: 56
offline

The classic set of Nikon pro lenses would be the 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. These are all top quality lenses known for great optical quality and fast AF. All of these are full frame lenses - FX. That means they work well on the D700/D3 and future full frame cameras.

To save a little money and pick up VR at the wide end, you could consider the 16-35 f/4 VR. It's a nice lens with VR. In contrast to the ultrawide 14-24, the 16-35 has threads for filters. I find thread are useful for photographing moving water with my Vari-N-Duo. VR helps for situations where a tripod won't work.

The 24-70 f/2.8 does not have VR, but is a super lens. Image quality is excellent and it is quite fast. It's the lens I use most often. The only drawback is that it may not work for IR.

The 70-200 f/2.8 is my favorite lens. While a large lens, image quality is superb. The lens is fast and works great for events and tight portraits. It is a little heavy but balances very well. It was recently updated with some modest improvements to an already excellent lens.

The two other lenses you might consider are the 85 f/1.4 and the 105 f/2.8 VR. The 85 f/1.4 is a fantastic portrait lens. Image quality is excellent with a nice bokeh. It was recently upgraded. The 105 f/2.8 VR is a dual purpose lens. It is a very good macro lens with 1:1 at a minimum distance of 11 inches. The 105 is also a good portrait lens because of the VR. AF is a little slow, but image quality is very good.

You might want to add a teleconverter or two. My preference is the TC14E II teleconverter as a first choice. It works well with both the 70-200 and the 105. You could also consider the TC 17E II or the recently updated TC 20E III. They are also pretty good but come with an expected drop in quality and speed.

There are other options to consider - 70-300 VR, 28-300 VR, and a host of primes. But the pro kit would be the lenses described above.

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

V8Beast said:
The 24-105 is my primary workhorse lens, followed by the 70-300, and then the 17-40. I rarely need the reach in the 200-300mm range, so a Nikon equivalent of the Canon 70-200 f/4L is another possibility.

Welcome to World of Nikon

The 24 -120 f 4 is a fine VR professional lens and will work wide open
I use the 16 -35 f4VR This does need stopping down to get the corners sharp
The problem with 70-300 is it is only f5.3 @200mm
A 70-200 f4 may be on its way
until then the only option is the fabulous 70 -200 f 2.8

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

Welcome to V8Beast! Great photos by the way!

Seeing those the 14-24mm is what you want for sure. Almost zero distortion throughout the whole range. There is no better than that lens for Wide angeles. Sharper than all the primes as well. The 16-35 has quite a bit - restate that; a lot of distortion from 16-18 that may bug you but the rest of the lens is great.

The mid range, you have seed the options - 24-70 or the 24-120vr both are top notch. Add a 70-200 VR (version I is cheaper and really only lacks the Nano coating) and you are good. I would add the 1.7x for the reach.

The only thing you will really have to learn or unlearn is Canon's idea of how big and what Pro glass must be is not how NIkon works. If the lens is over $800 is has been built to pro standards. Nikon really does not have any "Dogs" and all the lenses perform way beyond what their price points are.

Posted 1 year ago #
SkintBrit

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 1,149
offline

ericbowles said:
The classic set of Nikon pro lenses would be the 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. These are all top quality lenses known for great optical quality and fast AF. All of these are full frame lenses - FX. That means they work well on the D700/D3 and future full frame cameras.....................But the pro kit would be the lenses described above.

Very well said, and a nice review of the basics for a pro kit.

Posted 1 year ago #
V8Beast

member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 12
offline

Thank you to everyone for your kind words and insightful advice. Interestingly, while my editorial clients love wide-angle shots, I despise them, but this is primarily due to my disdain for distortion. I plan on renting both the 14-24 and 16-35 before making a purchasing decision for the wide end of my shooting needs. The lack of distortion on the 14-24 in the tests I've seen look very impressive to say the least!

For the mid-range, the 24-120 seems like the hot ticket, as VR is critical for my needs in this zoom range. With my 24-105, it's primarily used hand-held in low light, or for action shots that require holding the shutter open as long as possible (again hand-held) to maximize motion blur. The Canon 24-70 is in every way a superior lens optically to the 24-105, but doesn't suit my need as well. It seems like the situation is similar between the Nikon 24-70 and 24-120.

On the long-end, I'll go with the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, and add an extender if I need more reach. I loved my Canon 70-200, and from what I've read, the Nikon's 70-200 is even better.

Overall, I'm looking forward to making the switch. I've been waiting for the last 3-4 years for Canon to get its head out of its ass, but I'm growing more skeptical by the day. I've been tempted by the D700 for several years, but with the impressive D800 on the horizon, and a 5D3 nowhere in sight, the timing is perfect to finally make a move.

Posted 1 year ago #
mirtos

preferred member
Joined: Sep '11
Posts: 159
offline

If you dont mind me asking, whatis it about the specs of the d800 that makes you more impressed/interested than the d700? I dont mean this as a troll post, i mean this honestly.

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

V8Beast said:

... Interestingly, while my editorial clients love wide-angle shots, I despise them, but this is primarily due to my disdain for distortion. I plan on renting both the 14-24 and 16-35 before making a purchasing decision for the wide end of my shooting needs. The lack of distortion on the 14-24 in the tests I've seen look very impressive to say the least!

The 16 -35 does distort but it easily corrected in Lightroom 3, using the lens profile correction, you can set LR to do it automatically on import
if the subject is not moving, the VR allows ridiculously low shutter speeds

Posted 1 year ago #
golf007sd

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 585
offline

ericbowles said:
The classic set of Nikon pro lenses would be the 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 VRII.

Hence, why they call them "The Holy Trinity Set." :)

Posted 1 year ago #
V8Beast

member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 12
offline

mirtos said:
If you dont mind me asking, whatis it about the specs of the d800 that makes you more impressed/interested than the d700? I dont mean this as a troll post, i mean this honestly.

It's not so much a D800 vs. D700 issue, but rather a Canon vs. Nikon issue. Compared to the 5D and 5DII, the D700 offers a far superior AF and frame rate, comparable dynamic range, and better high ISO performance. Hopeful that the 5DIII would address some of the shortcomings of the 5DII as compared to the D700, I held off switching systems. Un

I already liked the D700, and the D800 seems like it will retain all of the positive attributes of the D700 and improve upon them in other areas. So not only will I get a far superior AF system and FPS compared to the 5DII by switching to Nikon and the D800, I'll also get a nice bump in resolution. These factors are enough to push me over the edge and make the plunge to switch systems. Of course, a lot of this remains to be seen until real bodies are in the field, but I'd be stunned if the D800's noise suppression and DR didn't at least match that of the D700.

As of now, no one has any idea when the 5DIII will be released, while a D800 announcement seems imminent. I know rumors are just rumors, but the latest in the rumor mill is that the 5DIII will get some variant of the 1Dx's 18 mp sensor, a 50-25,600 ISO range, 3-4 FPS, and at best a 19-point AF system. There is some speculation that the AF system will be an even lesser version of the 7D's 19-point system. Considering that AF and FPS are my biggest gripes with the 5D and 5DII, this is very bad news. I'm not a gambling man, but even if the 5DIII gets a sensor that closes the resolution gap between it and the D800, I doubt it will come anywhere close in terms of AF and FPS.

So my choices are switch systems and start shooting with a camera that better suits my needs within the next few months, or wait indefinitely and hope that Canon can counter with something that can truly compete with Nikon in this segment. If I stick with Canon, the only option for a full-frame body with a professional-grade AF system is the $7,000 1Dx. No thanks.

Posted 1 year ago #
SkintBrit

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 1,149
offline

You haven't mentioned Nikons menu system or ergonomics, some of major reasons us Nikon users use what we do? Have fun opening all those Gold boxes! Merry Christmas :-)

P.S. No, I knew you weren't saying the 70-200 was a plasticy lens, I was just pointing out that it fitted your criteria nicely. By all means rent a 14-24 if you'd like, but seriously just buy it, you'll never regret it, it's one lens Canon can't shake a stick at!

Posted 1 year ago #
JY

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 102
offline

@V8Beast, just so you know if the rumored spec of d800 is correct it only does 4fps in FF and 6fps in DX mode.

Posted 1 year ago #
V8Beast

member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 12
offline

SkintBrit said:
You haven't mentioned Nikons menu system or ergonomics, some of major reasons us Nikon users use what we do?

I also neglected to mention that the Nikon bodies offer built-in flash control. I have to use a separate flash as a master to trigger my off-camera strobes, which can get quite clunky in certain situations.

Posted 1 year ago #
SkintBrit

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 1,149
offline

Good point, as someone who has never shot with a Canon DSLR, I often forget that it's a perk of using Nikon.

Posted 1 year ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Welcome to the forum, V8B. I hope it's a smooth transition for you.

Posted 1 year ago #
V8Beast

member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 12
offline

JY said:
@V8Beast, just so you know if the rumored spec of d800 is correct it only does 4fps in FF and 6fps in DX mode.

That will actually work out quite well. Instances where I'll need the full 6 FPS are for pan blurs or grabbing shots of race cars on the track, in which case I won't need all the megapixels anyway. The extra reach of DX mode will be a plus in those situations as well. I'm liking the intention to switch even more by the day!

Thanks again to all for the help and happy holidays!

Posted 1 year ago #