Nikon Lenses- switching from Canon

C

cherokee1111

Messages
822
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys, switching from Canon to Nikon but I havent a scooby whats a good lens ie I knew about Canon L lenses plus the 17-55IS being sharp and the 18-55 soft etc etc so can you enlighten me as to the sharpy sharp sharp Nikon lenses in the 17-105 range please.
Thanks
 
14-24mm f/2.8
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
35mm f/2
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.4
105mm f/2.8
 
What Arkady says, although I use different:

60mm AF-D f/2.8 macro
80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D
85mm AF f/1.8 (non-D version)
10.5mm f/2.8 is sharp but it's easy to mess up the focussing when shooting things just inches away
 
Arkady said:
14-24mm f/2.8
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
35mm f/2
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.4
105mm f/2.8
Click to expand...

What no Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 :shrug:

As you recommended that to me Rob - & which I purchased (althou it wasn't your one that you was selling :naughty:)
 
18-70 AFS
85 1.8 non d
70-300 VR


I use these and am well please with them :)
 
Thanks guys and especially for the speedy responses- must be a Nikon user trait:thumbs:-
I will mostly take Landscapes and family so it looks like the 14-24 and 24-70 or the 18-70 (useful range) in the Nikon lenses. I assume the 17-55 in Nikon fit has the same dust issues that the Canon fit had? What about the Tamron 17-50 which is sharp-ish on Canon but on Nikon?
whats the AF-S, non D, AF-D and AF mean?
Whats the Nikon equivalent L lens?

Can I ask anymore questions?:lol: Apologies for so many basic ones but I spent the last year learning everything about Canon but cant find a decent range of sharp lenses at my focal lenghts plus the entry level cameras seem to lag behind Nikon.
I'm looking to get the Nikon D90 if that helps (after cancelling my Jessops order for the Canon 550D)
 
cherokee1111 said:
Thanks guys and especially for the speedy responses- must be a Nikon user trait:thumbs:-
I will mostly take Landscapes and family so it looks like the 14-24 and 24-70 or the 18-70 (useful range) in the Nikon lenses. I assume the 17-55 in Nikon fit has the same dust issues that the Canon fit had? What about the Tamron 17-50 which is sharp-ish on Canon but on Nikon?
whats the AF-S, non D, AF-D and AF mean?
Whats the Nikon equivalent L lens?

Can I ask anymore questions?:lol: Apologies for so many basic ones but I spent the last year learning everything about Canon but cant find a decent range of sharp lenses at my focal lenghts plus the entry level cameras seem to lag behind Nikon.
I'm looking to get the Nikon D90 if that helps (after cancelling my Jessops order for the Canon 550D)
Click to expand...

With the greatest respect bud, this is a bit confusing. You ask about super dooper sharpest sharp lenses, can't find a good one from Canon, then ask about Tamron, don't know what DX is, and mix up a selection of FX and DX lenses :thinking:
 
Depends on your budget. Nikon 17-55 is a superb DX lens. DX is anything other than D3,D700 or the versions there of.

Nikon equivalant of Canon L glass is easy to spot, look at the ****ing price tag........:lol:
 
Trig's said:
What no Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 :shrug:

As you recommended that to me Rob - & which I purchased (althou it wasn't your one that you was selling :naughty:)
Click to expand...

lol - I was assuming the OP meant 'within the current line-up' - if you're talking 2nd-hand, the list is endless...
 
Arkady said:
lol - I was assuming the OP meant 'within the current line-up' - if you're talking 2nd-hand, the list is endless...
Click to expand...


Thought that might make you larf .....:D
 
HoppyUK said:
With the greatest respect bud, this is a bit confusing. You ask about super dooper sharpest sharp lenses, can't find a good one from Canon, then ask about Tamron, don't know what DX is, and mix up a selection of FX and DX lenses :thinking:
Click to expand...

....and your point is?
 
I have to admit what I don't know about Canon's line-up would fill volumes...so perhaps it's no surprise a Canon-user has no inkling of Nikon nomenclature?
 
Arkady said:
I have to admit what I don't know about Canon's line-up would fill volumes...so perhaps it's no surprise a Canon-user has no inkling of Nikon nomenclature?
Click to expand...

Exactly, thank you:thumbs:

thought I'd be Canon for life so ignored everything Nikon, now I'm learning again and hopefully fast with your help fellas, thank you for your patience.
 
I can't get my head around all the Canon bodies & lenses neither - I couldn't tell you which is the "top notch" from the low end, esp with all this 40d, 400d, 1D mk111 etc

Spose it what you get used too really..... So in a way I'm in agreement with Rob..
 
cherokee1111 said:
....and your point is?
Click to expand...

The point is, I'm not sure what your point is.

If you can't find what you want with Canon, it doesn't exist. Nothing wrong with Nikon, but certainly nothing wrong with Canon either, but Tamron should not be on any 'ultimate quality' list, excellent value lenses though they are.

If you want ultimate sharpness, then you should be looking at full frame and top grade lenses. At the moment you are not being clear about that fundamental choice, but are mixing up full frame and some consumer grade crop format lenses in your choices. And in terms of image quality, pound for pound there is nothing to choose between Nikon and Canon.

Trying to be more helpful, probably the first thing to do is decide on a budget. That might well rule out full frame from the start, but if IQ is the priority then maybe a used Canon 5D might be an option. On crop format, two lenses stand out in the range you outlined - 17-55 2.8 from both Canon and Nikon. Canon has the edge, if only because of the IS.
 
I`m intrigued as to why anybody would need IS on a 17-55 lens?
 
fracster said:
I`m intrigued as to why anybody would need IS on a 17-55 lens?
Click to expand...

Why would you not? You just get the benefit at even longer speeds :D

And, camera shake is never eliminately, it's only the effect that is reduced to acceptable levels with higher shutter speeds. If you want maximum sharpness, then IS helps even at speeds when you think you don't need it ;)
 
Sorry Richard, but if i`m doing landscape type crap, I shove it on a tripod.

If i`m using it at a wedding I use fill flash.

If i`m using it for habitat stuff, it is on a tripod.

VR or IS or the latest marketing gimmick doesn`t cut it with me i`m afraid. Maybe on long lenses, yes,wide angle.......................:shrug:
 
HoppyUK said:
If you want maximum sharpness, then IS helps even at speeds when you think you don't need it ;)
Click to expand...

I would love to see practical examples of this 'improvement' that IS brings at silly high shutter speeds, as I for one don't believe it - sorry.
 
Stop, all bail out of this thread now, the famous Trencheel has announced judgement, us mere mortals are wrong, he is right, he is the Messiah..................:)
 
fracster said:
Stop, all bail out of this thread now, the famous Trencheel has announced judgement, us mere mortals are wrong, he is right, he is the Messiah..................:)
Click to expand...


You mean sod...:lol:

...harsh...but ultimately quite funny...
 
I definitely notice the VR on my 70-300 VR. Especially during video shooting, and very low shutter speeds. :)
 
can we not make fun of other members please, we are all entitled to have opinions, right or wrong..
 
If you mean 'Trench' - we wouldn't do it if we didn't like him...
 
I know...im just responding to RTM...

...as for IS or VR, some people take picture of stuff with shorter lenses without tripods or fillinflash...
 
matty said:
I know...im just responding to RTM...

...as for IS or VR, some people take picture of stuff with shorter lenses without tripods or fillinflash...
Click to expand...

...those mad, impulsive fools...
 
fracster said:
Sorry Richard, but if i`m doing landscape type crap, I shove it on a tripod.

If i`m using it at a wedding I use fill flash.

If i`m using it for habitat stuff, it is on a tripod.

VR or IS or the latest marketing gimmick doesn`t cut it with me i`m afraid. Maybe on long lenses, yes,wide angle.......................:shrug:
Click to expand...

So you always use a tripod, or flash :thinking: Maybe IS is not for you then :D I would hate you to get sucked in by those wicked marketing boyz Frac ;)

Is 55mm a wide angle? It's 88mm equivalent on a cropper.

trencheel303 said:
I would love to see practical examples of this 'improvement' that IS brings at silly high shutter speeds, as I for one don't believe it - sorry.
Click to expand...

I didn't say silly high shutter speeds. Just give the hand-holding 1/mm focal length 'rule' a try, and shoot half a dozen pics at the shake-free limit when most folks think they're safe. Do it with IS, and then without. Same subject, same framing exactly, just single shots fired off as you would normally. Pixel peep them. Just zoom them up on the LCD and scroll through.

Not many people will score 100% with the IS off. I can't, not 100% six out of six, and I'm pretty steady, thanks.
 
Basically Richard ,Yes.

I must be the luckiest guy out here who does weddings, never been told I can`t use flash. I have been told no photography whatsoever in the church once, but hey, the couple knew that................:thumbs:

This is an honest question. Do you not think that with the massive improvement on high ISO noise on say,for example, the D700 and D3, that VR is nearly obsolete and the companies are panning it out to generate sales?

:shrug:

Edit.17mm on a cropper is....?.........:thinking:..........................:cuckoo:.....not much, its late,good night and take care............:thumbs:
 
I think every little helps - why not accept it as another tool to be used or not - there may be a time when all lenses have VR as a matter of course.
So what, will they be less sharp?
If you don't need it, do as I do and leave it off...

I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it...
 
I switched from Canon (70-200mm IS 2.8, 50 1.4, MPE-65, Macro 100mm f2.8 and a few more cant remeber). And went to D300S/D3 (pls see camera bag)- one thing I did notice is that the ISO results are better on the Canon range unless you go for a D700/D3 - at that point its unbeatable.
 
fracster said:
Basically Richard ,Yes.

I must be the luckiest guy out here who does weddings, never been told I can`t use flash. I have been told no photography whatsoever in the church once, but hey, the couple knew that................:thumbs:

This is an honest question. Do you not think that with the massive improvement on high ISO noise on say,for example, the D700 and D3, that VR is nearly obsolete and the companies are panning it out to generate sales?

:shrug:

Edit.17mm on a cropper is....?.........:thinking:..........................:cuckoo:.....not much, its late,good night and take care............:thumbs:
Click to expand...

No. Absolutely not. I bought the IS version 70-200; I bought the 24-105L over the 24-70 partly because it has IS. I think that IS is, unreservedly, brilliant.

Apart from the extra cost of IS (sometimes) I don't know why anybody would ever want the non-IS version, though some ludites seem to have some objection on principle ;)

I think we all agree that IS works, and that it works better in some situations/techniques than others. Therefore the question must be, if you find yourself in those situations where IS works best, and as I've pointed out those situations are maybe more extensive than they seem, then you'd be a mug not to use it. On the other hand, if you don't, then don't. It's an individual thing.

But as Rob says...

Arkady said:
I think every little helps - why not accept it as another tool to be used or not - there may be a time when all lenses have VR as a matter of course.
So what, will they be less sharp?
If you don't need it, do as I do and leave it off...

I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it...
Click to expand...

^^^ :thumbs:
 
fracster said:
Stop, all bail out of this thread now, the famous Trencheel has announced judgement, us mere mortals are wrong, he is right, he is the Messiah..................:)
Click to expand...

and your problem is what exactly? I was AGREEING with you, in case that wasn't clear. And don't put words in my mouth, 'fracster', particularly regarding the bold statement.

Perhaps you should PM me and tell me exactly what is the problem, or are my beliefs too much for you to handle as well?



Rovers_Andy said:
Ahhh time for tripe for the 2nd night running :naughty: :D
Click to expand...

'tripe' or not, I am entitled to an opinion as are you, which is exactly what my post was. I didn't believe the argument as I have only ever found IS to be of use at shutter speeds substantially slower than 1/focal length. So tell me how my findings are 'tripe', or get lost, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top