Migrating Canon -> Nikon

DigitalRelish

DigitalRelish

Messages
2,225
Name
Will
Edit My Images
Yes
I think I'm going to be taking the plunge fairly soon and selling up my Canon gear for a Nikon system, but I know very little about Nikon lenses. I do know that I'll be heading towards a D700 and 14-24mm f/2.8 something something lens, but what's good in the standard and short tele range?

I know Nikon have a 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 VR. These would probably match my EF 24-70L and 70-200L f/2.8 IS well, but I probably won't be able to get these for a while. So, what's decent for a full frame Nikon in the 24-200 range?

Also, is there a Nikon equivalent of the-digital-picture.com?

Thanks
 
I'm in the exact same position. Almost...i'm almost done selling all my Canon kit, hoping to get a D3. Work gives me full kit including a D3, but I need 2.

The trouble with Nikon is there arn't really any lenses to rival the Canon 16-35 and 17-40. Or anything good that's cheaper than £1,000.

There is a Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 but it's discontinued (replaced by the 14-24) so are hard to come by. It's also very old...over 10 years but is regarded as one of, if not the best zoom lens ever made. I'm gonna get a 17-35, but have to import it from HK.

Nikon currently have for FX sensors:

14-24 --> 24-70 --> 70-200

They have a ton of others, but a lot of their lens range are DX cropped.

Oh and http://www.photozone.de/reviews
 
8utters said:
I'm in the exact same position. Almost...i'm almost done selling all my Canon kit, hoping to get a D3. Work gives me full kit including a D3, but I need 2.

The trouble with Nikon is there arn't really any lenses to rival the Canon 16-35 and 17-40. Or anything good that's cheaper than £1,000.

There is a Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 but it's discontinued (replaced by the 14-24) so are hard to come by. It's also very old...over 10 years but is regarded as one of, if not the best zoom lens ever made. I'm gonna get a 17-35, but have to import it from HK.

Nikon currently have for FX sensors:

14-24 --> 24-70 --> 70-200

They have a ton of others, but a lot of their lens range are DX cropped.

Oh and http://www.photozone.de/reviews
Click to expand...

amazed you moaning that you getting 2 bodies worth £3k and a decent lens costs over £1k.
 
Who said I was miffed about spending over £1k on a lens?

I was simply comparing the lens ranges of Canon / Nikon...
 
Just for my two pence worth, I have a D700 and sold my 14-24 as it was too wide. The 24-70 is a much better landscape lens for my needs (it also lets me use my lee filters which the 14-24 didn't).

It's a cracking camera and deserves good glass so if you are having to cut corners then maybe save a bit longer and keep using your canon as otherwise you might be disappointed with the results.
 
If you do need a wide lens for the FX why not try the 17-35 Sigma which is ƒ2.8 -ƒ4 its not a bad lens and you can fit filters on it...

I am using the Sigma 17-35 and the 28-70 ƒ2.8 along with the Sigma 70-200 ƒ2.8 only had the body 5 days so someone who has been using one longer might give you a bit better review but they seem fine to me..

Nigel
 
DigitalRelish said:
So, what's decent for a full frame Nikon in the 24-200 range?
Click to expand...
You already have the answer. There's the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.

The 24-70 is comparable to Canon's. It even has the same counter-intuitive design (longer at 24mm than at 70mm) which makes me suspect one of them probably copied the other somewhere along the line. The 70-200 is allegedly a bit sharper than Canon's in the centre of the frame (no mean feat) but definitely not as sharp toward the edges; it appears to be an FX lens that was actually designed for DX rather than FX.

But Nikon don't really make any lower-priced but high quality alternatives such as Canon's 24-105mm f/4 L IS or 70-200mm f/4 L. There is an enormous jump in Nikon's range from sub-£400 consumer lenses to £1000+ pro lenses, with very little indeed in between.
DigitalRelish said:
Also, is there a Nikon equivalent of the-digital-picture.com?
Click to expand...
Not really. The closest I'm aware of are Thom Hogan and Bjorn Rorslett, but they're nowhere near as comprehensive.
 
8utters said:
The trouble with Nikon is there arn't really any lenses to rival the Canon 16-35 and 17-40. Or anything good that's cheaper than £1,000.

There is a Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 but it's discontinued (replaced by the 14-24) so are hard to come by. It's also very old...over 10 years but is regarded as one of, if not the best zoom lens ever made. I'm gonna get a 17-35, but have to import it from HK.
Click to expand...

The 17-35 is a superb lens - much more useful that the 14-24 I find.

Don't worry about "age", its completely the wrong criteria to make a purchase decision on.

BTW the 17-35 isn't discontinued. Still being made, you can tell as new ones are using Nikon latest box designs, and come with a serial number starting 4xxxxxx.
 
Where can you get one in the UK?

Only place i've seen them is HK import. There's only 1 on eBay, used. Only international listings for brand new ones.
 
8utters said:
Where can you get one in the UK?

Only place i've seen them is HK import. There's only 1 on eBay, used. Only international listings for brand new ones.
Click to expand...

If you ever want anything to do with Nikon but are struggling to find a UK retailer, call Grays of Westminster.
 
Chaz Photos said:
I would like to know why you wish to change over if you have good kit now?
Click to expand...


I'm surprised that it took to post no. 11 before the OP was challenged for his reasons for wanting to change!

Why can't people just answer a simple question rather than question the reasons behind somebody wanting to switch systems?
 
NorthernNikon - They have a few 2nd hand 17-35's, but are so overpriced. The cheapest is £1,200 and most expensive is almost £1,700.

I can just import one brand new from HK for £970.
 
8utters said:
NorthernNikon - They have a few 2nd hand 17-35's, but are so overpriced. The cheapest is £1,200 and most expensive is almost £1,700.

I can just import one brand new from HK for £970.
Click to expand...

Ah okay, I thought you were struggling to find any in the UK.
 
8utters said:
NorthernNikon - They have a few 2nd hand 17-35's, but are so overpriced. The cheapest is £1,200 and most expensive is almost £1,700.

I can just import one brand new from HK for £970.
Click to expand...

Grey's are for people with more money than sense, insane pricing, must be high rents in Westminster :)

If you want a new one you'll need to buy one from Nikon HK or Nikon USA, Nikon BV no longer carry these.

But the lens is still in production in small numbers (well it was up until last year)
 
Chaz Photos said:
I would like to know why you wish to change over if you have good kit now?
Click to expand...

I don't mind answering this question since it's one I've asked myself over and over again!

I do really enjoy my Canon kit and the range of lenses I own now more or less allow me to take photos of what I want. Also, the 5D is a fine camera which I've enjoyed immensely and I know put into the right hands can produce astounding results.

For me, I want a body with more features. I miss auto-ISO. I want more than 3-exposure bracketing. Why can't I have an electronic spirit level instead of having to mount a spirit bubble onto my hotshoe. Better high ISO performance is another big draw. Bigger, higher resolution LCD screen with live view would be nice too. Weather-proofing? Yes, please. Active D-Lighting? Cool.

Then there's the 14-24... My 17-40L is a fine lens, but sharper, faster glass is going to open up more opportunities for me and I probably shoot more wide than anything else.

There's more still. You only have to read a review to see what I see. Am I saying that everyone should ditch Canon for Nikon? No, but I think it's a good option for me at this time.

If Canon had produced their own version of the D700 then I would probably stay with them. Sadly, I don't think the 5D Mark II is it.

Now, anyone wanna know why I switched over to Mac from Windows? ;)
 
I waited for the 5D Mk II and as soon as I saw the spec I knew it was time to shift. The D700 is a great all rounder. Combines the best of my ex 5D's and 1D mk II N in a better package than either. As we see in this thread though, there are lens gap issues. Personally, I would say the 24-70mm is wide enough on FF for most usage. My standard widey is a 25mm and very rare I need more. Maybe it's personal taste. I would go that route first. Then you can hold on untill they replace the 70-200mm. The 70-300mm VR is a great lens. Good IQ and decent build. FF compatible.
 
Then you can hold on untill they replace the 70-200mm.

Bear in mind folks have been saying the 70-200 VR is due for replacement since 2007 and there is no sign of it.

I find suggestions of the 70-300 VR baffling. There is just no comparision between the two.

Its a good lens (and wide open it has better extreme corner sharpness) but IMHO going for a 70-300 VR over a 70-200 VR is not seeing the wood for the trees...
 
StewartR said:
You already have the answer. There's the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.

The 24-70 is comparable to Canon's. It even has the same counter-intuitive design (longer at 24mm than at 70mm) which makes me suspect one of them probably copied the other somewhere along the line. The 70-200 is allegedly a bit sharper than Canon's in the centre of the frame (no mean feat) but definitely not as sharp toward the edges; it appears to be an FX lens that was actually designed for DX rather than FX.

But Nikon don't really make any lower-priced but high quality alternatives such as Canon's 24-105mm f/4 L IS or 70-200mm f/4 L. There is an enormous jump in Nikon's range from sub-£400 consumer lenses to £1000+ pro lenses, with very little indeed in between.
Not really. The closest I'm aware of are Thom Hogan and Bjorn Rorslett, but they're nowhere near as comprehensive.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply, Stewart.

One thing I notice about Nikon right away is the seemingly vast number of lenses and variations of. I can't help thinking that surely somewhere amongst that lot is some middle ground.

Perhaps, I am better off trying to find a used 24-70 f/2.8 and then waiting a while longer for a used 70-200 f/2.8 or vice versa.
 
Shutterman said:
If you do need a wide lens for the FX why not try the 17-35 Sigma which is ƒ2.8 -ƒ4 its not a bad lens and you can fit filters on it...

I am using the Sigma 17-35 and the 28-70 ƒ2.8 along with the Sigma 70-200 ƒ2.8 only had the body 5 days so someone who has been using one longer might give you a bit better review but they seem fine to me..
Click to expand...

From what I've seen of the 14-24, it's in a class of its own and I'm a big fan of ultra-wide.

I have considered the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, but I'd be coming from a 70-200 f/2.8 with IS and I love it as a feature.
 
ricky1981 said:
It's a cracking camera and deserves good glass so if you are having to cut corners then maybe save a bit longer and keep using your canon as otherwise you might be disappointed with the results.
Click to expand...

Now, that would probably be sensible option :)
 
DigitalRelish said:
From what I've seen of the 14-24, it's in a class of its own and I'm a big fan of ultra-wide.
Click to expand...

It is - stupidly good wide open (better than the 17-35 f/2.8 AF-S) right into the corners. Also is still very good on the D3X apparently (the 24-70 isn't)
 
how about the older lens the nikon 28-70 f2.8 and the 80-200 afs or the af-d? both lenses keep their values well and they are considerably cheaper than the current variants...so might worth your while if you are cash strapped.
 
8utters said:
I'm in the exact same position. Almost...i'm almost done selling all my Canon kit, hoping to get a D3. Work gives me full kit including a D3, but I need 2.

The trouble with Nikon is there arn't really any lenses to rival the Canon 16-35 and 17-40. Or anything good that's cheaper than £1,000.

There is a Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 but it's discontinued (replaced by the 14-24) so are hard to come by. It's also very old...over 10 years but is regarded as one of, if not the best zoom lens ever made. I'm gonna get a 17-35, but have to import it from HK.

Nikon currently have for FX sensors:

14-24 --> 24-70 --> 70-200

They have a ton of others, but a lot of their lens range are DX cropped.

Oh and http://www.photozone.de/reviews
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. That site is really useful!
 
8utters said:
Where can you get one in the UK?

Only place i've seen them is HK import. There's only 1 on eBay, used. Only international listings for brand new ones.
Click to expand...

That's not normally the case, it must just be a slow week :shrug:.

I bought mine last month (for 850GBP) on eBay. It was immacualte, with case, documents etc. and before that, I watched several other auctions for the 17-35mm go through at prices between 670GBP (for a doggy one) and 950GBP for another minty one.

If you can get one new from HK, without gettting stung too badly on the taxes, then so much the better (y). If not, check eBay again in a week and your sure to see at least a couple.
 
puddleduck said:
I find suggestions of the 70-300 VR baffling. There is just no comparision between the two.

Its a good lens (and wide open it has better extreme corner sharpness) but IMHO going for a 70-300 VR over a 70-200 VR is not seeing the wood for the trees...
Click to expand...

If you need 2.8 and hefty weight I agree ... if you don't then ... I don't. The besis of comparison needs to start with individual need and consideration of personal priorities.

For example, I was originally in the market for the faster lens but after tests I took the 70-300 VR because extra range and weight were more important than any small IQ gains or speed. IQ wise, for many people the difference isn't going to be worth the extra, i.e. standard prints or web images. I can afford the 2.8 but just didn't need it.

Besides the suggestion was in context of helping the guy have a larger range because he said he can't afford two top lenses at this stage. He can enjoy the 70-300 VR while saving for the bigger lens ... and if it gets replaced meantime then he's been sensible to wait. Not so daft at all.

There is no wood and trees. But you could be in a dark forest and can't see beyond your own nose :D
 
I read this thread with interest a Friend of mine over the years has changed between canon to nikon back to canon and is now considering changing to nikon again. The question i ask is what do you do in 3 months when Canon again over takes Nikon do you swap back to have the same thing Happen again when 6 months later Nikons get back on top or i dread to say it Sony leap frogs everyone. There is constant flux in the market place but the question to ask is does my old camera not do the job anymore does it not do what it use to we all get seduced by the newest product as you said there are things on the nikon you want so go for it. Im still selling images i took on film and with the first digital slr i bought so are we lusting after things we don't really need ? {now back to that brochure on the new thingy with 100 million pixels 50 frames a second and foolproof metering not to mention iso to 80,000 fited with 10 - 800mm lens F 2.8 only weighing 2 kilos all in price £2,000 } if only, now i would jump ship for that i hope no one takes this to seriously as it just an observation on how we all think the Grass is Greener on the other side of the fence Regards Lost
 
lost said:
I read this thread with interest a Friend of mine over the years has changed between canon to nikon back to canon and is now considering changing to nikon again. The question i ask is what do you do in 3 months when Canon again over takes Nikon do you swap back to have the same thing Happen again when 6 months later Nikons get back on top or i dread to say it Sony leap frogs everyone. There is constant flux in the market place but the question to ask is does my old camera not do the job anymore does it not do what it use to we all get seduced by the newest product as you said there are things on the nikon you want so go for it. Im still selling images i took on film and with the first digital slr i bought so are we lusting after things we don't really need ? {now back to that brochure on the new thingy with 100 million pixels 50 frames a second and foolproof metering not to mention iso to 80,000 fited with 10 - 800mm lens F 2.8 only weighing 2 kilos all in price £2,000 } if only, now i would jump ship for that i hope no one takes this to seriously as it just an observation on how we all think the Grass is Greener on the other side of the fence Regards Lost
Click to expand...

thts a really good point, i think over time you have to upgrade at some point , or at least you should as better cameras do allow you to take higher quality photos, or wed all be running around with camera phones. But judging when is a bit like how things go in all other industries.
How many need the latest ipod vs the old one that was perfectly fine before but is now unwanted.

I think upgrades should be a step up in class to start with, im not going to upgrade my 40d to 50d, that would just be daft, id go for a 5dmk2 or even mk1 next.

My problem right now is that i have a 40d and the next logical step up is to go to a nikon d700 as it is king right now.
so im going to wait till canon do something better than the d700 in that price range.
Until then my 40d is more than enough really. I have considered never upgrading unless something huge changes in technology.
 
mart77 said:
a nikon d700 as it is king right now.
Click to expand...

From what I've read the Canon 5D MkII can hold its own against the D700. The quality of both camera's is outstanding, and you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between the images that they can produce.

Surely, it's all about using what you have to the best of your ability.
 
mart77 said:
My problem right now is that i have a 40d and the next logical step up is to go to a nikon d700 as it is king right now.
Click to expand...

I'm always really confused by this being described as the logical step - to me its more about the glass then the bodies. It'd cost me lots to change systems and this for me rules it out on the lens basis alone.

I always get confused by people planning to upgrade without understanding the lens option fully - I would n't make the decision to spend that amount of cash without fully understanding the range

Hugh
 
Organic said:
From what I've read the Canon 5D MkII can hold its own against the D700. The quality of both camera's is outstanding, and you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between the images that they can produce.

Surely, it's all about using what you have to the best of your ability.
Click to expand...

The 5DII, just like the 5D before it, is all about the sensor over and above the rest of the camera. The D700 is more about being a complete package. If I were shooting solely landsacpes, or studio portraits, I'd lean towards the 5DII. If I were shooting in less restrained conditions then I'd be leaning towards the D700.
 
So whats the difference between the 5D mk2 and the D700?

5D Mk2 has higher Mp, lighter in weight, more exposure modes

D700 has significantly more AF points, 1/250th flash sync over the 5D's 1/200, 1 frame per sec faster shutter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top