Nikon equivalent of Canon lenses

mike_6480

mike_6480

Messages
2,358
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm thinking of swapping from a Canon 6d to a Nikon d800, mainly because of price of 2nd hand d800 vs Canon 5d mark III (which would be my other upgrade option).
I can get a 2nd hand d800 for approx £800 (e.g. mpb), so should be able to swap bodies for approx £150 cost, which I'd be happy with.
The issue however is lenses, and I'm not really that clued up on Nikon lenses.

I currently have:
Canon 24-105mm f4L
Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6L
Canon 17-40mm f4L
Canon 85mm f1.8
Sigma 50mm f1.4 art
Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro

The sigma I could obviously just get the Nikon mount versions (and the art lens you can get the mount amended).

Therefore its the canon branded lenses I more interested in the Nikon equivalents.


My most used lenses are:
Canon 24-105mm f4L - for general walkabout
Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6L - for zoo photography

I think I'd be able to get the following approx for my lenses
Canon 24-105mm f4L £325
Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6L £500
Canon 17-40mm f4L £320
Canon 85mm f1.8 £160


I wondered what the Nikon equivalents would be for similar price range (based on 2nd hand prices)?
 
minnnt said:
Nikon 24-120 F4 - £375 ish
Nikon 70-300mm VR - £200 (won't be in the same league as the Canon 'L' version though)
Nikon 16-35 F4 - £550
Nikon 85mm F1.8 - £260
Click to expand...

Is there anything similar for Nikon to the Canon 70-300L? What is the Nikon 80-400 like - I understand there is an older version and a new version? (obviously its not a direct replacement, and more along the line of the 100-400) I think the newer version will be out of my price range though
 
mike_6480 said:
Is there anything similar for Nikon to the Canon 70-300L? What is the Nikon 80-400 like - I understand there is an older version and a new version? (obviously its not a direct replacement, and more along the line of the 100-400) I think the newer version will be out of my price range though
Click to expand...

Older version isn't all that. It's okay but a bit slow. The 70/300 vr is a nice lens but not quite up there with canon L. It's the closest you'll get though. There is the tamron 70-300 vc as well.

Some slightly off piste alternatives would be the 70-200 f4 or older 2.8. Or the older 300mm f/4. All super lenses.
 
gad-westy said:
Older version isn't all that. It's okay but a bit slow. The 70/300 vr is a nice lens but not quite up there with canon L. It's the closest you'll get though. There is the tamron 70-300 vc as well.

Some slightly off piste alternatives would be the 70-200 f4 or older 2.8. Or the older 300mm f/4. All super lenses.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I think I'd miss the reach too much if I went down to a 200mm lens though.

I had the tamron 70-300 vc in canon mount previously. It was good for the money but no where near as good as the canon L.

Would the nikon 70-300 vr be somewhere in between? I'm less bothered about build quality more about image quality
 
I think whilst the body might be a saving, you'll lose more with the lens swaps.
 
mike_6480 said:
Thanks. I think I'd miss the reach too much if I went down to a 200mm lens though.

I had the tamron 70-300 vc in canon mount previously. It was good for the money but no where near as good as the canon L.

Would the nikon 70-300 vr be somewhere in between? I'm less bothered about build quality more about image quality
Click to expand...

I think IQ wise the Nikon is nearer the Tamron than Canon. 300 f/4 would be superb though if you could forego the zoom
 
The Nikon and Tamron are pretty much the same with regards to IQ and performance. The newer 80-400 VR2 is a much better lens than the older model but the price is high.

70-200mm F2.8 VR and a 1.4x TC would get you 280mm at F4 and also with 36mp the cropability you would gain would be a big gain.
 
The cropability with a d800 is insane!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top