Got a Nikon? Share your thoughts and photos here or ask a question! (III)

Roshan wrote in post #16370013
I think we've all gotten past the "Canon is better than Nikon, and vice versa" mentality. Sony, Olympus, also have some cool gear. It would be nice to allow others to share their inputs without feeling ostracized.

Most have, there are a few folks here don"t appear to be capable of maing that transition.

What is the best something to 300mm lens for a nikon, i have been visiting different sites compairing different 55/70-300mm lenses suitable for a nikon body, including - nikon 55-300VR, 70-300VR, Sigma 70-300 OS DC and Tamron 70-300, does anyone have any opinions on what is the best over all lens in this range.

P.

Just been reading through the past 200 posts or more, and some great info and pic by some truly lovely hardware but, does anyone shoot with entry level nikons here like d5100/d5200's?


P.

Roshan wrote in post #16370013
I think we've all gotten past the "Canon is better than Nikon, and vice versa" mentality. Sony, Olympus, also have some cool gear. It would be nice to allow others to share their inputs without feeling ostracized.

I don't shoot Canon any longer, and this is still the best photography forum on the Internet...

mguffin wrote in post #16374128
I don't shoot Canon any longer, and this is still the best photography forum on the Internet...

I second that, this is why i said what i said because it would be nice to see even more posts and comments/questions from different users, esp as i havn't seen any posts from d5100/d5200 type owners, yet there are loads and loads of canon types, it would be great to also see best of - with eg - nikon d5200, nikon d90 etc.

P.

This forum could be -The most diverse, interesting, helpfull camera forum of All camera make owners, of any forum anywhere, as there is no other forum that can beat this one for logical layout, and easy plesent viewing.


P.

The name of this website doesn't indicate anything specific. Just photography.

I've been thinking for a while about switching from Canon to Nikon, but the thing that holds me back is how much it would cost me to get the long lenses on the Nikon side.

Choice 1: Keep my 7D and add a 5D3 through CLP. Sell my 10-22 and 17-55 and replace with FF equivalents, perhaps 17-40 and 24-70? Keep my 70-200 F4 and 100-400. Pretty straightforward, except that as an amateur, I really don't fancy lugging around 2 bodies.

Choice 2 (which is what I would love to explore): Sell my 7D and get a D800 for about the same price as a 5D3 through CLP. Advantage is that with the DX mode, this is a one camera solution for me, as I like to go wide as well as long with birds. I would sell my 10-22 and 17-55 and replace with the Nikon FF equivalents to the Canon choice above. Cost-wise it is about the same as the Canon roughly. The problem comes when I sell my 70-200 F4 and 100-400 and try to replace with the Nikon equivalents. The 70-200 F4 VR is considerably more expensive used than the 70-200F4 IS - I picked up my Canon lens for $900 and I can't find any of the Nikon lenses for less than about $1200-1250. Probably because it is new? Also, the 80-400G is well over 2 grand used, while I picked up my mint used 100-400 for $1250. I'm looking at well over 1 grand extra to be equivalently equipped on the Nikon side.

Is the 70-200 F4 VR worth the $1200+ asking price used? Is it likely to go down, given that the 70-200 F4 IS which is probably just as good optically is a good $300 cheaper? Also, is the 80-400G that much better than the 100-400L to command a thousand dollar premium?

You're not the only one highly annoyed at the inexplicable price premium on the 70-200 f/4 VR. I'm probably just going to suck it up if I can find a used one for closer to $1100, but it's just another example of how Nikon lenses aren't as good a value as Canon, on the whole.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #16374680
I've been thinking for a while about switching from Canon to Nikon, but the thing that holds me back is how much it would cost me to get the long lenses on the Nikon side.

Choice 1: Keep my 7D and add a 5D3 through CLP. Sell my 10-22 and 17-55 and replace with FF equivalents, perhaps 17-40 and 24-70? Keep my 70-200 F4 and 100-400. Pretty straightforward, except that as an amateur, I really don't fancy lugging around 2 bodies.

Choice 2 (which is what I would love to explore): Sell my 7D and get a D800 for about the same price as a 5D3 through CLP. Advantage is that with the DX mode, this is a one camera solution for me, as I like to go wide as well as long with birds. I would sell my 10-22 and 17-55 and replace with the Nikon FF equivalents to the Canon choice above. Cost-wise it is about the same as the Canon roughly. The problem comes when I sell my 70-200 F4 and 100-400 and try to replace with the Nikon equivalents. The 70-200 F4 VR is considerably more expensive used than the 70-200F4 IS - I picked up my Canon lens for $900 and I can't find any of the Nikon lenses for less than about $1200-1250. Probably because it is new? Also, the 80-400G is well over 2 grand used, while I picked up my mint used 100-400 for $1250. I'm looking at well over 1 grand extra to be equivalently equipped on the Nikon side.

Is the 70-200 F4 VR worth the $1200+ asking price used? Is it likely to go down, given that the 70-200 F4 IS which is probably just as good optically is a good $300 cheaper? Also, is the 80-400G that much better than the 100-400L to command a thousand dollar premium?

Nikon has rebates but, you have to look out for it when it's announced. Buying used would be one of your options.

Pagman wrote in post #16373894
What is the best something to 300mm lens for a nikon, i have been visiting different sites compairing different 55/70-300mm lenses suitable for a nikon body, including - nikon 55-300VR, 70-300VR, Sigma 70-300 OS DC and Tamron 70-300, does anyone have any opinions on what is the best over all lens in this range.

P.

I've used the Tamron 70-300 in the past. I was very happy with it even though it had a variable aperture. Not surprisingly you do have to get it down to f8 for optimal sharpness.

Pagman wrote in post #16374121
Just been reading through the past 200 posts or more, and some great info and pic by some truly lovely hardware but, does anyone shoot with entry level nikons here like d5100/d5200's?


P.

I had a d5100 and currently have a D70s. My most used body is my D7100 which is the best value IMO.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #16374680
Is the 70-200 F4 VR worth the $1200+ asking price used?

Value can be subjective. While it's a nice lens I personally think it would have better value under $1K.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #16374680
Is it likely to go down, given that the 70-200 F4 IS which is probably just as good optically is a good $300 cheaper?

No, the second hand market would be your best bet.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #16374680
Also, is the 80-400G that much better than the 100-400L to command a thousand dollar premium?

Again that is subjective. Is it better? Yes. $1K better, not in my opinion. I had a lot of luck with the 100-400L and I believe it is a much better value. In most situations you won't notice a difference even when pixel peeping.

Pagman wrote in post #16374121
Just been reading through the past 200 posts or more, and some great info and pic by some truly lovely hardware but, does anyone shoot with entry level nikons here like d5100/d5200's?


P.

i have a d5100 and i love it,its light and small and takes great shots,i bought it used and i was very happy with my purchase,i travel with it,i have it with me now,i upgraded the 18-55 to a 18-105vr and i luv the lens,does everything i want it to,most of the shots on my flikr were with the d5100 take a look,its a great camera for the price,

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/100085318@N08/

jdizzle wrote in post #16375029
Nikon has rebates but, you have to look out for it when it's announced. Buying used would be one of your options.

dgrPhotos wrote in post #16375046
No, the second hand market would be your best bet.

The discrepancy between the 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200 f/4 VR is larger on the used market than new, though. We're talking, from what I've seen, about $900 vs. $1200 on average. And if anything, tests seem to favor the Canon as being slightly superior optically.

Incredibly annoying for those of us wanting to jump to Nikon but on a fairly limited budget.

Of course, I suppose part of the explanation is how new the Nikon is (how did they go this long without *any* 70-200 f/4 options?!?!). From a long-term investment perspective, that's just even more discouraging for someone looking to switch/buy now, because its value is liable to drop significantly once the novelty wears off.

Any one know much about the D90 - strengths weaknesses etc, and how they compare IQ noise to more moden equipment?


P.