Who's making the switch to Nikon / D800

Yes, that's an awesome shot, Julian. However, I think for night stuff, either of the new bodies will be awesome. They're all pushing ISO further and further allowing us to do stuff we couldn't do before. It's an exciting time for photography.

David, I am still out to lunch on the 24L for night stuff. I got it because of the ƒ1.4, but when that's wide open, the vignetting can get pretty bad, so you really need to stop down. I usually stop it down to ƒ2, so it's really only getting me an extra 1/2 stop over the 16-35 (or soon to be: 15 Zeiss). I do notice some funky shaping of stars on the outer edges of the 24L when wide open too, which I don't like.

Overall, it's a great lens, and just about the best option for night photography - as you can't really find a wider, faster lens. (I did hear something about a Sigma that was wide and fast but I have a stigma with sigma, so... )

jdizzle wrote in post #14214933
Todd, I'm wating for Steve Perry to get his hands on the D800. If he can create great images with the D3X, I can just imagine what he can do with the D800.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/11009​33

That is a fantastic shot. I love the creativity!

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #14214846
To be fair the 14-24mm is legendary. I don't think that's overstating it.
http://www.16-9.net …17mm/nikon1424_​17mm1.html

I think if the Tokina is in the ballpark of the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II at a significantly lower price it will be a success. I'd be surprised if it comes anywhere close to the Nikon 14-24mm though since the Nikon sets the bar so high. It really is an exceptionally good lens--the best UWA zoom ever, as far as I know. Not measuring up to it is nothing to be ashamed of.

Sorry, but to me a lens is really good, really bad, or something in between. No piece of gear is 'legendary' in my strict interpretation of the word.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #14214848
I already said that if the Tokina works for your needs, then that's great. The issue I brought up, was that it can't replace Canon or Nikon's offerings... and most assuredly, cannot replace a lens such as the 14-24.

I do a lot of wide angle work, and to me, the details are important enough to warrant spending the extra money on a Canon or Nikon lens.

The jury is still out until I get my hands on a FF body. If it sucks for IQ or flare I'll certainly say as much and get the Nikon 16-35.

Not everyone is a full time pro or has money to burn. Part of my strategy going back to Nikon was to reduce the number of lenses I own and get the total dollar value in the range of my homeowner's policy limit so I can drop the business insurance rider on it which is significant. The only work I do now for my business is on the copystand with macros and they are relatively cheap. Landscapes/wildlife/et​c. at this point is purely a hobby and a $2000 lens that won't be used every day is not an option.

K6AZ wrote in post #14216006
Not everyone is a full time pro or has money to burn. Part of my strategy going back to Nikon was to reduce the number of lenses I own and get the total dollar value in the range of my homeowner's policy limit so I can drop the business insurance rider on it which is significant. The only work I do now for my business is on the copystand with macros and they are relatively cheap. Landscapes/wildlife/et​c. at this point is purely a hobby and a $2000 lens that won't be used every day is not an option.

Nothing wrong with that, I can relate, believe me.

jdizzle wrote in post #14214823
I'm very picky about wide angle glass whether it be a zoom or prime. The Nikon 14-24 is impressive imho.

I agree, I used on (briefly) a few months on a D3s. It is impressive, very clean and exact - or it was on that body.
If I end up with a Nikon body, that's the first lens I'm buying.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #14214846
To be fair the 14-24mm is legendary. I don't think that's overstating it.

+1,000,000

I loved my Tokina 11-16 as long as I didn't expose it to any kind of direct sunlight.

It's a very sharp lens. But from what I can tell the 14-24 takes it to a completely new level, especially with flare resistance. No, it's not immune, but the IQ is remarkable for a zoom lens.

jdizzle wrote in post #14214818
The 16-35 f4 VR imo does better in the corners when compared to the 17-40 L and 16-35 L.

This is why I was planning to use a 16-35VR w/ adapter if I ever upgraded to a 5D. But I might as well just use it on a Nikon body

Somewhat off-topic, but I've been reading about using Canon speedlites on Nikons. Apparently you can mix the two systems but you're limited to manual flash, which is all I ever use anyway. Has anyone tried this? Here's a little tutorial I found: http://www.ehow.com …se-canon-flash-nikon.html

Already switching, but to the D7000 rather than the D800.

BoysClub wrote in post #14227330
Already switching, but to the D7000 rather than the D800.

The D7K is one hell of a camera. For the price of a new D800, you could get a gently used D7K and some VERY nice glass.

Already shooting Nikon. My wife and I are spies here! : D

rjx wrote in post #14227766
The D7K is one hell of a camera. For the price of a new D800, you could get a gently used D7K and some VERY nice glass.

If the D7000 is one hell of a camera, the D800 is 2.25 hells of a camera, with extra ISO, AF and weather sealing improvements to go with it!

Having never looked into them, what's a good price for a D7000?

rick_reno wrote in post #14230011
Having never looked into them, what's a good price for a D7000?

used? $1K, may be able to find it for $900. Most retail places will charge $1099 for a used one.

dgrPhotos wrote in post #14230212
used? $1K, may be able to find it for $900. Most retail places will charge $1099 for a used one.

There's a flood of them on FM for some reason, I've seen them as low as $900.

Whats a good price for a used D700?