Sanity check on Nikon lens options for possible brand switch from Canon

Quick background: I shot Nikon in the days film (still own an F4) but switched to Canon when the first Rebel came out (because of lower cost). Been solidly Canon since then, but also always sort of wondering if I was missing anything on the Nikon side, especially in the past couple years. It just seems like on the camera side, Canon has been lagging Nikon by years in sensor technology.

I currently have a 6D with 24-105L, 28 f2/8 IS, 35 f/2 IS, Tamron 45 1.8, 70-200 f/4L IS. I think the 6D is a great camera overall, especially since I don't shoot anything that requires ninja-level AF. This set of lenses is also a great fit for what I shoot, although of course I want more/better glass (don't we all).

I saw an opportunity earlier this week for what *I* think is a good deal ($700) on Nikon D610 and snagged it. I also got a couple cheaper/older D-series lenses (50 1.8 and 35-105 3.5) which also will work on my F4 (just in case I lose my mind and want to shoot film again, haha).

So far, the D610 has really wowed me with the IQ (even with the older lenses)and overall feature set. It appears to be better at high ISO noise than the 6D, which is pretty damn impressive. I haven't really tested the limits of the dynamic range yet, but I have no reason to doubt the reviews and specs that say it will outperform the 6D in this regard.

But I'm noticing that it seems like there aren't as many modern lens options for Nikon mount. Or maybe it just feels like there aren't as many options. Seems like most of Nikon's zooms that aren't super-high-end suffer from exaggerated distortion, and that 3rd party lenses are better in that range.

So here's what I'm thinking as a lens compliment if I were to decide to flip over to Nikon:
• Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2 or maybe a cheaper option: Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS (I've been getting on fine with f/4 with the 6D)
• Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 G (FX)
• Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2
• Nikkor 85mm f1/8 G (optional for now)

Any input is appreciated. Also, am I crazy to give up lenses I like for a body I think is superior? I generally believe that glass is more important, but the Nikon features and IQ are very compelling. It's also possible I can keep my 6D and a lens or two (the 35 f/2 IS is an AMAZING lens) and still straddle the fence with Nikon gear.

What do you guys/gals think? I feel very conflicted right now, haha.

I shoot both Canon(Long time Canon shooter) and Nikon(D750&D5500) and Nikon has mostly what I use except for my LOVED Canon 135L.I do like Canon's colors,menus and build better than Nikon but I like Nikon's better dynamic range and overall better high ISO performance.Now that I own the sigma 135 f1.8 It looks like my Nikon lens needs are met.What's this mean,I don't know but if the 7dMKIII isn't what i think it should be then I'm going full Nikon.Hope this helps.

Define what you mean by "modern lens options" for Nikon. For nearly every Canon lens, there's an equivalent (or close enough to not matter) lens, to the best of my knowledge. They haven't rev'ed any number of their current lineup because they haven't needed to, I would hazard. Both systems have their tradeoffs, for sure; but end to end, they're pretty on par, I think.

That said; you're going to have your glass much, much longer than your body. Also, since you have both bodies, there's nothing that says you can't have the lens that works best for a given situation between the two systems. <shrug>.

Snydremark wrote in post #18646037
That said; you're going to have your glass much, much longer than your body. Also, since you have both bodies, there's nothing that says you can't have the lens that works best for a given situation between the two systems. <shrug>.

That's perhaps a great point to consider if you're not averse to using manually-operated lenses. While autofocus and image-stabilization are points to consider, if you shoot like I do, you'll love the experience of manipulating focus and aperture. An old-school focusing screen in a modern digital camera does wonders in this regard, and older manual lenses can be had on the cheap. It's surprising how many great lenses are still out there, decades after manufacture, which are still holding their own in the face of modern counterparts. Mount adapters are also incredibly inexpensive for adapting many mounts to modern systems.

Having said the above, it is only you who can decide for yourself.

Thanks for the input, everyone.

After thinking on it a bit, I think I have decided that I will simply keep most of my Canon gear and acquire lenses for the Nikon in parallel. I'm having fun learning the Nikon interface and controls and comparing the results to my 6D. No need to choose, I suppose. I'll just keep both!

I wonder what will happen when you try D810.

Mathmans wrote in post #18648271
I wonder what will happen when you try D810.

I'm already feeling the urges to sell the D610 and get a D750.

D750 is also on my list.
I'm waiting new models from Nikon and price drop of current bodies

Consider buying used....

It's hard changing systems. I lost lots of shots way back when I bought 2 F2's with motor drives for my business. Previous gear was Pentax. Yes, that was long ago.
It's hard using different systems.

I have a Nikon D300S with several lenses.
I bought a full Olympus OMD M5 system when it came out. It was beautiful. It captured my heart. Issues? Stuff fell off the Oly. knobs. viewfinder...more . And darned if I could use it with moving subjects and get an image in focus. My fault. Don't know...settings? When I finally sold it all, I lost my shirt.

Now I start to shake when I contemplate changing systems....

(Currently using Sony a6000 with Sony lenses, Sony RX100-2 for easy portability, and Nikon D300S)

There's plenty of options for Nikon that match up well with Canon. The only real notable lenses Canon has that Nikon either doesn't or simply can't compete with are: 135L, 40mm pancake, and affordable super-tele's. Technically the Nikon 105mm 1.4 is better, but it's also ~2.5x as expensive.

For you:

24-105L = Nikon 24-120mm (about as good optically, but I'm not a fan of either lens), or used 24-70mm 2.8G, or the Tamron 24-70mm
28mm f2.8 = Nikon 28mm 1.8, no IS but also 1.3 stops faster
35mm = Nikon 35mm 1.8, but I would strongly recommend the Tamron 35mm 1.8 VC which will be sharper in my experience and still have the IS
Tamron 45mm = Same, but the 50mm 1.8G is good for the price and cheaper
70-200mm f4 = Nikon also has one, but it's ~2x the cost. I'd opt for the Tamron 70-200 G2 instead

It's up to you, but to be honest I'd sell one and just go all in on the other. Mixing systems and having mid-level lenses for both isn't going to be as beneficial as just having one system and top tier glass for it.

The 750 is a beaut of a camera. Weight and size alone is worth the bump from 610

But what about superior Canon color science?
Is it worth to sacrifice it for better dynamic range and low light performance?
Seriously; how do you find the difference in colors between Canon and Nikon?

By the way; I have Nikkor 85 f1.8G lens and it's a killer lens. One of the sharpest in Nikon collection and for sure best bang for the buck.
If you're not one of those ''I must have f1.4 prime'' then I can highly recommend it.

I think the idea of superior color science is more of just a rehashed myth that people like to again and again tell people about even if they cant tell the difference themselves.

You want dynamic range?

Very cool chart! Thanks for sharing. So the takeaway is that the 6D gets in line (in terms of DR) with everybody else above about ISO 1600. I do shoot above 1600 some of the time, but most of my shots are < 1200 and a great many are < 800. The other pertinent bit of info is that the K-1 smokes 'em all from about 800 and up.