What are the Nikon equivalents

Hi

1 - the 70-200 f/2.8 VR Nikon don't do a f/4 at this lenght

2 - either the 80-400 or the 200-400 f/4. The 80-400 is due an upgrade and the 200-400 is pricey

3- 300 f/4 or f/2.8

4. 24-120 f/4

Cheers

Hugh
 
For a 100-400 equivalent in nikon, I'd be looking at a sigma 50-500 OS instead of the 80-400vr, for HSM focussing (the 80-400 doesn't have a focus motor).

Good luck with the change over if you go through with it! :)
 
Does the D7000 have an in-body motor like the D90? If so, you gave the option of cheaper, older AF-D glass like the 80-200 f/2.8, which could be an option for a mid/long zoom.
 
Actually, might be worth waiting a few months before purchasing anything like a 50-500 for nikon.

Nikon have recently patented several new telezoom optical designs (an 80-400, 100-400 and 200-500), so a much much needed 80-400 replacement could be soon!
 
ukpbz said:
I have a lot of canon L glass and want to understand what I should be looking for in Nikon. What are the equivalents of the following

70-200 F4 IS
Click to expand...
There isn't one. Nikon don't make any f/4 zooms in this range like Canon do. The nearest equivalent would be the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR II but it's nearly twice the price (£1600 vs £900) and twice the weight (1540g vs 760g).
ukpbz said:
100-400 L IS
Click to expand...
There isn't one. Don't let anyone tell you the Nikon AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 D ED VR is comparable. It's not in the same class.
ukpbz said:
300 L F4
Click to expand...
That would have to be the Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4 D IF-ED. It's a very good lens, very comparable to the Canon in terms of size, weight and image quality. It doesn't have IS/VR but it is about £150 cheaper (£950-£1000 vs £1000-£1150).
ukpbz said:
24-105 L F4
Click to expand...
That would be the new Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/4 G ED VR. I think Nikon must have introduced this specifically because people complained they didn't make a range of professional f/4 zooms like Canon do. It's a little pricier (£850 vs £800) but the price may still come down further because it's still quite new. I don't have any experience of it yet but the reviews I've seen suggest it's pretty good.
 
squishy said:
Actually, might be worth waiting a few months before purchasing anything like a 50-500 for nikon.

Nikon have recently patented several new telezoom optical designs (an 80-400, 100-400 and 200-500), so a much much needed 80-400 replacement could be soon!
Click to expand...
Don't hold your breath. A replacement for the 80-400 has been rumoured for ages, but it hasn't happened. Don't ask me why. You'd think it would be obvious to Nikon that their range of ~£1000 telephotos trails Canon's by some margin, but apparently they have different priorities.
 
I would not bother with the 80-400 zoom, just get the 300 f4 AF-S and a 1.4 and 1.7TC, both work well with it and it is one sharp lens wide open.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
Playing devils advocate, why not buy a Canon 7D and keep all your current lenses?
Click to expand...

That or used 1D mk3 for very similar money. Both excellent cameras.

I guess it is poor AF that is killing the party with xx/xxxD.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
Playing devils advocate, why not buy a Canon 7D and keep all your current lenses?
Click to expand...

daugirdas said:
That or used 1D mk3 for very similar money. Both excellent cameras.

I guess it is poor AF that is killing the party with xx/xxxD.
Click to expand...

+1 to both of those comments, although it would depend on the subject matter as to which would suit best.

With circa £3.8k invested in lenses (as the OP has) I'd need a very very good reason to change system even taking into account offloading the current glass to recoup money, especially when you consider that the f/4 bracket isn't that well covered by Nikon as pointed out by Stewart.
 
DemiLion said:
+1 to both of those comments, although it would depend on the subject matter as to which would suit best.

With circa £3.8k invested in lenses (as the OP has) I'd need a very very good reason to change system even taking into account offloading the current glass to recoup money, especially when you consider that the f/4 bracket isn't that well covered by Nikon as pointed out by Stewart.
Click to expand...

All very good points. It's nothing more than I really like the feel of the d7000

I get good results with the 50D to be honest. I generally only do aviation photography
 
Last edited:
ukpbz said:
I generally only do aviation photography
Click to expand...
Then stick with Canon and get a 7D. End of.

This is the part of the lens range where Canon have the biggest advantage over Nikon. Canon have three excellent telephotos in the £1000 price range: 100-400mm L IS, 300mm f/4 L IS, 400mm f/5.6. Nikon just don't have anything that matches any of them.
 
StewartR said:
Then stick with Canon and get a 7D. End of.

This is the part of the lens range where Canon have the biggest advantage over Nikon. Canon have three excellent telephotos in the £1000 price range: 100-400mm L IS, 300mm f/4 L IS, 400mm f/5.6. Nikon just don't have anything that matches any of them.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with Stewart, but would just point out that while he's right he did say this in post 11

That would have to be the Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4 D IF-ED. It's a very good lens, very comparable to the Canon in terms of size, weight and image quality. It doesn't have IS/VR but it is about £150 cheaper (£950-£1000 vs £1000-£1150).
Click to expand...

Make your mind up man :D:D
 
And you can pick up a used 300mm f/4L non IS even cheaper than the nikkor used.
It's even slightly sharper than the f/4L IS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top