Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Nikon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Nikon Cameras 
Thread started 02 Dec 2014 (Tuesday) 10:47
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Switching to Nikon, need a third eye about my plan...

 
eth3rton
Goldmember
Avatar
1,245 posts
Gallery: 27 photos
Likes: 119
Joined Oct 2008
Location: KY, USA
     
Dec 05, 2014 17:31 |  #31

Made the jump from Canon this past October. Picked up the gear in my signature and for the most part I am not regretting anything. Still getting used to Nikon's system.


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Kyles
Senior Member
377 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2010
Location: USA
     
Dec 05, 2014 20:56 |  #32

I'm adding nikon to my kit also,,,,,,,,, I'm going hybrid, canon/nikon,


Cameras - 1DMKIV - 1DMKII - 7D W/Grip
Primes - 100 F2.8 macro L - 135 F2 L - 300 F4 L
Zooms - 24-70 F2.8 L - 70-200 F2.8 L - 70-200 F4 L
Tripod - RRS TVC 33 - RRS BH55

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
baj2k
Senior Member
Avatar
724 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 22
Joined Dec 2011
Location: SF Bay Area, NorCal
Post edited over 4 years ago by baj2k. (11 edits in all)
     
Dec 05, 2014 21:04 |  #33

TMaG82 wrote in post #17310893 (external link)
In good light the D810 will AF as good or better than the 5DMIII. It has fewer cross type AF points and they're located in the center, whereas on the 5D they have cross point AF points on the outer sides. I found that in lower light the D810 will focus a tad slower away from the center and AF accuracy drops a little. But it's still pretty good.

It's strength is low ISO. Having a ISO64 is really nice to have and I would say up to about ISO800 or so the advantage is noticeable. At mid to high ISO I would say it's about even, quite possibly give the advantage to the 5D. The D750 is better than the 2 I would say at high ISO, but between the D810 and the 5DMIII, I would have to give a slight edge to the 5D.

My personal preference is to stick to first party glass. Yes there are some great 3rd party glass, such as the Sigma Art line. There are instances where if a new camera is released a 3rd party lens is not compatible right out of the box and would require a firmware update. That 3rd party glass you buy today, who's to say that in 3-5 years with a D900 or something else that it'll still work effectively and they won't be pushing you to upgrade to their latest model?

If you search for used glass, you can get the 24-70 on the used market in teh $1,200-1400 range.

^^^ What he said. A few other items about the 5DmkIII: I like it ergonomically (better "in hand" feel - a nit, but worth mentioning) and the user interface of the Canon is easier to navigate. The main reason I left Canon is I shoot Landscapes almost exclusively and the extra 14mp + ISO64 is really significantly better. Another major reason is there isn't any really, really, good Canon glass that competes with Nikon in the sub-24mm range. The Nikon 14-24mm is so much better than any of the three 16-35mm version lenses or the 17-40mm lens Canon makes. The Wonderpana at first was a bit of a pain but using it with the Nikon 14-24mm is soooooo worth the hassle.

I also agree on the Nikon glass being better generally. The Tamron 24-70mm may have image stabilization but it's noticeably softer than the Nikon 24-70mm so that choice was easy. Zeiss makes some awesome sub-24mm lenses that are fantastic like the 15mm f/2,8 but ouch the price it crazy high for a limited use lens, and Dx0 has the Rokinon 14mm rated as having better IQ at 1/10 the price.

These are the lenses I'm after... eventually that is...

Nikon 14-24mm f.2.8 (have it now)
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 (have it now)
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II (have it now)
Nikon 20mm f/1.8
Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 (have it now)
Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 (I'll be renting it from borrowlenses.com from Dec. 15 - Jan 5th to try it out over my Holiday break)
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART (I have the Canon version with Sigma USB lens calibration "puck" I'd like to trade for the Nikon version if anyone's interested :) )
Sigma 12mm f/2.8 Fisheye (if they release it for Nikon during my lifetime... ;) )
~100mm Macro lens (still undecided on which one - probably Zeiss)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jon_Doh
Senior Member
Avatar
869 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 64
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Pyongyang, North Korea
     
Dec 07, 2014 09:36 |  #34

I don't use live view, but I do use linked spot focus. And the 5D Mark III doesn't have that feature while the D810, D750 and D7100 all do.


I use a Kodak Brownie

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Robinson ­ Crusoe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,227 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 186
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Turkey
Post edited over 4 years ago by Robinson Crusoe.
     
Dec 08, 2014 00:34 |  #35

I guess i'll stick with the first setup I thought of as i know I'll get the most from them.

Thanks to this thread I also consider the 24-120 as I may prefer it over the 24-70 as my walk around lens. 70 is too short, especially on the full frame.

Thanks for the reminder from rick_reno as well for the 1.4 teleconverter, I won't have the crop factor from now on :)

I always long for a good macro lens and would get the canon mp-e 65 mm. No 1/5 magnification on Nikon?


Gear List | Deviantart (external link) | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,641 posts
Likes: 131
Joined Dec 2010
     
Dec 08, 2014 00:46 as a reply to  @ Robinson Crusoe's post |  #36

Nothing like the MPe-65 for Nikon, or if there is I haven't found it. My favorite macro lens for Nikon is the 200 f/4. I also have the 105 and like it too.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Robinson ­ Crusoe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,227 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 186
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Turkey
Post edited over 4 years ago by Robinson Crusoe.
     
Dec 08, 2014 01:02 as a reply to  @ rick_reno's post |  #37

Ok, keep,the t2i, get the mp-e 65 and buy the rest of nikon gear, bill goes up to 10K, everyone happy :)


Gear List | Deviantart (external link) | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
trg42
Junior Member
23 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jul 2011
     
Dec 08, 2014 10:16 |  #38

My question would be if you are doing any travel photography of architecture , such as the old churches of Europe etc

My father has the 14-24 which is great for landscapes ( which I don't shoot ) but the bulbous front element is a deal breaker for me

When I am travelling these cities I have my 16-35 and it lives lens down in a side bag with no lens cap . If I did that to a 14-24 it would get scratched to hell

I also find that for these old dark churches , the VRII is more useful than the F2.8 . The 16-35 is the perfect lens for this application ( not uncommon for me to be rocking 1/10 SS or slower . Most of these places don't allow tripods BTW

My most used lens when not travelling is the 24-70 . When travelling I use to use a 28-300 but after one trip end up with a 24-120 F4 . I am actually surprised how it holds its own to the 24-70 !

For travel the 16-35 and 24-120 is a perfect pair for me

As far as tele zoom goes, I only have experience with the 80-200 , 70-200 VR1 and VRII version. The VRII is outstanding for FF body ( vs the VR1 on FF )

Not sure if you do portraits, but one of my favorite is the 70-200 and the 105 DC . The 105 DC is an outstanding lense with the defocus control. It does take a bit of playing round to get use to what it can do though




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Robinson ­ Crusoe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,227 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 186
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Turkey
     
Dec 08, 2014 12:03 as a reply to  @ trg42's post |  #39

Thanks for the very useful inputs. I do and enjoy every kind of photography :)

16-35 would be my choice if I was buying the Canon full frame bodies. I'm always amazed by the the IS or VR feature. I may also choose it over 2.8.

24-120 also sounds nice as it has VR and I love the flexibility on the long end. So my preferences may change to that config. Idk if IQ on 24-70 is much better than 24-120, I'll check it out.

80-400 is a lens I won't give up on. I have the canon 55-250 on my crop and 250 is barely enough in most cases.

I rarely do portraits but I'm already satisfied with 50 mm 1.8 on that so I can't say that my expectations is so much on that area :)

I'm using the 55-250 with 50 mm 1.8 reverse mounted on it and it has 1:5 magnification which is good, sad to learn that there's no Nikon equivalent to MP-65.


Gear List | Deviantart (external link) | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JGI
Member
184 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Los Angeles CA
     
Dec 08, 2014 18:28 |  #40

Here's my 2 cents..

If you want custom user settings, you'd want the D750. It has u1/u2 settings on the dial that you can program for specific use. I have "normal mode" on u1 and "landscape mode" on u2 (mirror lockup, exposure delay, manual mode, ISO 100, etc)

Having actually owned a 14-24, my opinion is that it's somewhat overrated. very sharp? yes..but what you never hear from people is the fact that it flares very easily. 9 out of 10 images I shoot with this under the sun has flare. The bulbous front element is just asking to get smashed, and the Wonderpana for it is pretty darn expensive. IMO, a more sensible choice is the 16-35 f/4 or the new 18-35G AF-S. These two have 77mm filters and IMO, just as sharp as the 14-24.

Nikon 24-70 2.8 is a great lens. I've owned 2 copies and each have been great. I only keep selling to go back to primes. The *only* thing that concerned me with this glass is that for a supposedly "pro build", it seems to get hurt very easily. People stare at it and it breaks. If you've hung around Nikon forums for a while, you'll hear people complain about stiff 24-70 zoom rings. Google it and see. Other than having a super sensitive helicoid, I think this is a great lens. Focusing is super fast.

80-400G AF-S... you know, when I first tried this out, I really didn't like it. I thought it was a glorified, overgrown 70-300VR. it has that plasticky "plop-plop" sound to it when zooming, which is quite frankly, disappointing for a nearly $3K lens.

I then visited a friend and had a chance to compare it side by side with MY definition of an ultrasharp Nikkor: the 300 f/4 AF-S.

I was SHOCKED. The 80-400 AFS matched the prime's sharpness at 300mm. I couldn't believe it. All the while being a ZOOM lens! I became a believer that day.

The 80-400 AFS however, being a 5.6 lens, produces a darker VF than the 300/4.

I've owned a Nikon 24-120 f/4. hated it... I thought it had some kind of a haze over the images. It's just not crisp enough. I think you should look into Sigma 24-105 Art. From the samples I've seen, I think it's vastly better than the 24-120 f/4. In fact, I just ordered one today :D


Skill is very important but a fully charged battery is very very important :lol:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bob_A
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,438 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 46
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Post edited over 4 years ago by Bob_A.
     
Dec 08, 2014 20:58 |  #41

Robinson Crusoe wrote in post #17320596 (external link)
Thanks for the very useful inputs. I do and enjoy every kind of photography :)

16-35 would be my choice if I was buying the Canon full frame bodies. I'm always amazed by the the IS or VR feature. I may also choose it over 2.8.

24-120 also sounds nice as it has VR and I love the flexibility on the long end. So my preferences may change to that config. Idk if IQ on 24-70 is much better than 24-120, I'll check it out.

80-400 is a lens I won't give up on. I have the canon 55-250 on my crop and 250 is barely enough in most cases.

I rarely do portraits but I'm already satisfied with 50 mm 1.8 on that so I can't say that my expectations is so much on that area :)

I'm using the 55-250 with 50 mm 1.8 reverse mounted on it and it has 1:5 magnification which is good, sad to learn that there's no Nikon equivalent to MP-65.


I have the 16-35 f/4 VR and it's a very good lens. Photozone.de has a good review of it that pretty much matches my experience using it (a bit more distortion wide open then some UWA zooms which is easily fixed in post, and corner sharpness could be better when wide open, however center sharpness is excellent). It's small enough that I really enjoy taking it on vacation.

Another lens you should check out is the 70-300VR. It's really sharp from 70-200 and decent from 200 to 300. Build and AF are not pro lens quality but very decent for a consumer lens. The only issue is that it's variable aperture (just like your 55-250). I have this one plus the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, but use the 70-300VR when I want a bit of reach for a walk-around lens or for vacation.

The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is an exceptional lens. The new Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II does have higher resolution, however the Nikon 24-70 paired with the D810 out resolves the Canon 24-70 on a 5D MKII.


Bob
SmugMug (external link) | My Gear Ratings | My POTN Gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Robinson ­ Crusoe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,227 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 186
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Turkey
Post edited over 4 years ago by Robinson Crusoe.
     
Dec 09, 2014 09:09 |  #42

JGI wrote in post #17321361 (external link)
If you want custom user settings, you'd want the D750. It has u1/u2 settings on the dial that you can program for specific use. I have "normal mode" on u1 and "landscape mode" on u2 (mirror lockup, exposure delay, manual mode, ISO 100, etc)

I've decided on D810, no confusion on that part.

JGI wrote in post #17321361 (external link)
Having actually owned a 14-24, my opinion is that it's somewhat overrated. very sharp? yes..but what you never hear from people is the fact that it flares very easily. 9 out of 10 images I shoot with this under the sun has flare. The bulbous front element is just asking to get smashed, and the Wonderpana for it is pretty darn expensive. IMO, a more sensible choice is the 16-35 f/4 or the new 18-35G AF-S. These two have 77mm filters and IMO, just as sharp as the 14-24.

Bob_A wrote in post #17321627 (external link)
I have the 16-35 f/4 VR and it's a very good lens. Photozone.de has a good review of it that pretty much matches my experience using it (a bit more distortion wide open then some UWA zooms which is easily fixed in post, and corner sharpness could be better when wide open, however center sharpness is excellent). It's small enough that I really enjoy taking it on vacation.

I've got the Canon 10-22. If it was suitable for a full frame i might just stick with it because i'm already satisfied with the results i get. Can it be the best UWA when it comes to flare handling? I wouldn't consider the 18 mm as using an UWA even 1 mm makes a huge difference. I'll also check the 14 mm vs 16 mm.

JGI wrote in post #17321361 (external link)
Nikon 24-70 2.8 is a great lens. I've owned 2 copies and each have been great. I only keep selling to go back to primes. The *only* thing that concerned me with this glass is that for a supposedly "pro build", it seems to get hurt very easily. People stare at it and it breaks. If you've hung around Nikon forums for a while, you'll hear people complain about stiff 24-70 zoom rings. Google it and see. Other than having a super sensitive helicoid, I think this is a great lens. Focusing is super fast.

Bob_A wrote in post #17321627 (external link)
The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is an exceptional lens. The new Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II does have higher resolution, however the Nikon 24-70 paired with the D810 out resolves the Canon 24-70 on a 5D MKII.

JGI wrote in post #17321361 (external link)
I've owned a Nikon 24-120 f/4. hated it... I thought it had some kind of a haze over the images. It's just not crisp enough. I think you should look into Sigma 24-105 Art. From the samples I've seen, I think it's vastly better than the 24-120 f/4. In fact, I just ordered one today :D

Now i'm all confused, i choosed my 15-85 over 17-55 f2.8 and very happy with that choice. Again i would prefer to continue with that if it was suitable with my new full frame :) Hmm...
I need to think on the Sigma as where i live i don't have the chance to replace a lemon and i trust Canon and Nikon more on that.

JGI wrote in post #17321361 (external link)
80-400G AF-S... you know, when I first tried this out, I really didn't like it. I thought it was a glorified, overgrown 70-300VR. it has that plasticky "plop-plop" sound to it when zooming, which is quite frankly, disappointing for a nearly $3K lens.

I then visited a friend and had a chance to compare it side by side with MY definition of an ultrasharp Nikkor: the 300 f/4 AF-S.

I was SHOCKED. The 80-400 AFS matched the prime's sharpness at 300mm. I couldn't believe it. All the while being a ZOOM lens! I became a believer that day.

The 80-400 AFS however, being a 5.6 lens, produces a darker VF than the 300/4.

Bob_A wrote in post #17321627 (external link)
Another lens you should check out is the 70-300VR. It's really sharp from 70-200 and decent from 200 to 300. Build and AF are not pro lens quality but very decent for a consumer lens. The only issue is that it's variable aperture (just like your 55-250). I have this one plus the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, but use the 70-300VR when I want a bit of reach for a walk-around lens or for vacation.

If i give up on the move to Nikon i'll consider the Canon 70-300L or 100-400 II. 70-200 won't be enough without a teleconverter, i'm sure about that. I need to check the 70-300 of Nikon, how is the autofocus comparing to my 15-85? I've already suffered enough from my 55-250's slow autofocus and low light performance. The next telephoto i get has to impress me on that part.


Gear List | Deviantart (external link) | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,641 posts
Likes: 131
Joined Dec 2010
     
Dec 09, 2014 10:26 |  #43

Robinson Crusoe wrote in post #17322432 (external link)
I've decided on D810, no confusion on that part.

I've got the Canon 10-22. If it was suitable for a full frame i might just stick with it because i'm already satisfied with the results i get. Can it be the best UWA when it comes to flare handling? I wouldn't consider the 18 mm as using an UWA even 1 mm makes a huge difference. I'll also check the 14 mm vs 16 mm.

Now i'm all confused, i choosed my 15-85 over 17-55 f2.8 and very happy with that choice. Again i would prefer to continue with that if it was suitable with my new full frame :) Hmm...
I need to think on the Sigma as where i live i don't have the chance to replace a lemon and i trust Canon and Nikon more on that.

If i give up on the move to Nikon i'll consider the Canon 70-300L or 100-400 II. 70-200 won't be enough without a teleconverter, i'm sure about that. I need to check the 70-300 of Nikon, how is the autofocus comparing to my 15-85? I've already suffered enough from my 55-250's slow autofocus and low light performance. The next telephoto i get has to impress me on that part.

The 10-22 can be used on a FF body, just pull that rubber/plastic piece out of the portion that mounts to the camera. I used mine on a 5D and 5D2, very nice WA lens. I had the 15-85 too, really liked that one but never tried it on my FF bodies.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ptcanon3ti
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,206 posts
Gallery: 408 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 5582
Joined Sep 2012
Location: NJ
Post edited over 4 years ago by ptcanon3ti.
     
Dec 09, 2014 10:42 |  #44

It's OFFICIAL...I'm transitioning over the Nikon! :D

First up: D750 with a 16-35 f4 I'll be landscaping as soon as I get it and figure out how to turn it on. :)


Paul
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/petshots/ (external link)
Body - Nikon D750
Lenses - Nikon 20 f1.8 / Nikon 16-35 f4 / Sigma 105 OS Macro / Sigma 24-105 f4 Art / Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di VC / Sigma 150-600 "S"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mariosworld343
Goldmember
Avatar
1,204 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 65
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Illinois
     
Dec 09, 2014 10:56 |  #45

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17322609 (external link)
It's OFFICIAL...I'm transitioning over the Nikon! :D

First up: D750 with a 16-35 f4 I'll be landscaping as soon as I get it and figure out how to turn it on. :)

Turning it on is the easy part lol...its letting the battery charge so you can use it is the struggle  :p


Nikon D850
14-24mm, 50mm Opera, 60g macro, 105g, 200mm f/2 vr2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,342 views & 3 likes for this thread
Switching to Nikon, need a third eye about my plan...
FORUMS Nikon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Nikon Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is astrobalcony
919 guests, 310 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.