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 General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
Thread started 19 May 2015 (Tuesday) 19:08
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Moving from Canon to Nikon

 
ChrisMc73
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,212 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Edmond, OK
     
May 26, 2015 21:05 |  #46

tim wrote in post #17572496 (external link)
You should check that all your current and probably future lens requirements can be met on the Nikon mount. Canon has a bigger range.

I'm pretty simple, I just want the basic primes, 24, 35, 50, 85 etc...I know Nikon has some of those and a few choices in each.
One day I might want a zoom or two, but thats too far down the road for me to worry now.

Again, I'm still in the unsure phase, I need to get my hands on a Nikon and play, so thats my goal right now. I might hate the ergonomics of it completely.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
May 26, 2015 22:02 as a reply to  @ post 17572490 |  #47

Unfortunately, IMO, I think Canon has the better primes.


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
raptor3x
Senior Member
Avatar
728 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 78
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Rutland, VT
     
May 26, 2015 23:11 |  #48

Bob_A wrote in post #17571723 (external link)
Other lenses I have that are IMO significantly better than the Canon equivalent are my 16-35 f/4 and 70-300VR (although doing it again I'd get the Tamron 70-300 equivalent which is a bit sharper).

The 70-300 VR is definitely better than the Canon 70-300 non-L, but pretty far behind the Canon L version (and pretty far behind in price as well, ;-)a) The 16-35 F/4 VR though is definitely not up to the standard of the new 16-35 F/4L.


Bodies: X-T1, E-M1ii, G9 Lenses: µ.Z 7-14 2.8, µ.Z 12-40 2.8, µ.Z 25 1.2, X 18-55 2.8-4, µ.Z 40-150 2.8, µ.Z 45 1.2, µ.Z 60 2.8, µ.Z 75 1.8, PL 200 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
raptor3x
Senior Member
Avatar
728 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 78
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Rutland, VT
Post edited over 4 years ago by raptor3x.
     
May 26, 2015 23:13 |  #49

elrey2375 wrote in post #17572641 (external link)
Unfortunately, IMO, I think Canon has the better primes.

I don't really think you can say that categorically. The Nikkor primes, especially the 1.8G versions and the new 300 f/4, are pretty fantastic.


Bodies: X-T1, E-M1ii, G9 Lenses: µ.Z 7-14 2.8, µ.Z 12-40 2.8, µ.Z 25 1.2, X 18-55 2.8-4, µ.Z 40-150 2.8, µ.Z 45 1.2, µ.Z 60 2.8, µ.Z 75 1.8, PL 200 2.8

  
  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
     
May 27, 2015 00:08 |  #50

raptor3x wrote in post #17572711 (external link)
The 70-300 VR is definitely better than the Canon 70-300 non-L, but pretty far behind the Canon L version (and pretty far behind in price as well, ;-)a) The 16-35 F/4 VR though is definitely not up to the standard of the new 16-35 F/4L.

Yes, their $590 consumer lens isn't as good as the $1350 L. :) However it was interesting to see that at 200mm it is pretty much as sharp as my old Canon 70-200 f/4L at 200mm, which is pretty impressive IMO. It's a tiny bit soft at 300mm, where the Tammy is better.

I disagree with you about the 16-35 though as I'd take it over the Canon. About the same distortion and CA (which can be corrected in post anyway), but the Nikon is a bit sharper across the range.


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

  
  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
     
May 27, 2015 00:34 |  #51

raptor3x wrote in post #17572712 (external link)
I don't really think you can say that categorically. The Nikkor primes, especially the 1.8G versions and the new 300 f/4, are pretty fantastic.

Correct. Nikon has some excellent primes, and if what you need is in that list you're set. They also have some really old designs that don't AF fast enough which I'm not interested in. Canon has a few that I'd certainly prefer over the current Nikon offering such as tilt-shift (perspective control) and macro lenses like the the MP-E 65.

The biggest problem with Nikon is choice. For instance with Canon you can get one of four different 400mm "L"s ranging in price from $1250 to $10,000 where with Nikon they only offer an (excellent) f/2.8 at $12,000. So, the only way to get a reasonable-ish priced modern design 400mm prime with Nikon is to buy a $2000 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Lens and use a teleconverter. So it's not that a great long lens isn't available in the Nikon line-up, it's just that their choices are unaffordable for most people.

For shooting ultra-wide to 300mm I can find all the lenses I need to be happy. If I was shooting small birds I'd either move back to Canon or buy Sigma lenses.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
May 27, 2015 02:06 as a reply to  @ raptor3x's post |  #52

I've yet to shoot anything from Nikon that equals the 35 1.4, 85 1.2 and 135 f2 from Canon. I realize at the end of the day it's personal preference, but if you look at each individually up against its Nikon counterpart, the Canon 35 is cheaper than the Nikon version and is a great lens. Nikon doesn't have an 85 1.2 and the 135 is just a special lens.

As others have noted, the telephoto offerings from Nikon are priced prohibitively. Canon just has a better selection in that area.


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Van ­ Gogh
Goldmember
Avatar
1,317 posts
Gallery: 118 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 381
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
May 27, 2015 06:40 |  #53

D810 seems to be amazing but 2 things will hold me back from going Nikon for a very long time.

1) All in all, Canon lenses are ranked better.
2) They don't have radio controlled flash similar to 600EX-RT and I am a very big fan of them. (This alone will make me to never go Nikon unless they introduce them).


Camera - 2x5Dmk3, C100 mkii, 70D, 60D
Lenses - 24-70mm f2.8L II, 70-200mm f2.8L IS ii, 85mm f1.2L II, 35mm f1.4 ART, 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS
Lighting - 3 x 600EX RT's, Printer - Epson 3880

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
raptor3x
Senior Member
Avatar
728 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 78
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Rutland, VT
     
May 27, 2015 09:11 |  #54

Bob_A wrote in post #17572748 (external link)
I disagree with you about the 16-35 though as I'd take it over the Canon. About the same distortion and CA (which can be corrected in post anyway), but the Nikon is a bit sharper across the range.

Are you thinking of the the old Canon 16-35 2.8 II or the 17-40? The new 16-35 f/4 is every bit as sharp as the 14-24 2.8 and has really excellent CA control. There's really little comparison between the Nikkor and the new Canon now. (external link)


Bodies: X-T1, E-M1ii, G9 Lenses: µ.Z 7-14 2.8, µ.Z 12-40 2.8, µ.Z 25 1.2, X 18-55 2.8-4, µ.Z 40-150 2.8, µ.Z 45 1.2, µ.Z 60 2.8, µ.Z 75 1.8, PL 200 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,977 posts
Likes: 357
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
May 27, 2015 14:35 |  #55

Van Gogh wrote in post #17572949 (external link)
D810 seems to be amazing but 2 things will hold me back from going Nikon for a very long time.

1) All in all, Canon lenses are ranked better.
2) They don't have radio controlled flash similar to 600EX-RT and I am a very big fan of them. (This alone will make me to never go Nikon unless they introduce them).

That would be nice to have. I personally use manual flash as its consistency makes processing faster.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,977 posts
Likes: 357
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
May 27, 2015 14:36 |  #56

raptor3x wrote in post #17573086 (external link)
Are you thinking of the the old Canon 16-35 2.8 II or the 17-40? The new 16-35 f/4 is every bit as sharp as the 14-24 2.8 and has really excellent CA control. There's really little comparison between the Nikkor and the new Canon now. (external link)

You know, I bet if you took a photo with each and printed them 8x12" you couldn't tell the difference, and I suspect that applies to most Canon/Nikon lens comparisons. The difference that matters to me is how good the AF mechanism is, and how robust the lens is.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
charlie ­ z
Senior Member
865 posts
Likes: 34
Joined Jun 2010
     
May 27, 2015 15:18 |  #57

I have used nikon for a number of years but no where near as long as canon I personally prefer the L series lenses there just super super sharp :) but nikon have some great camera bodies and fab lenses to be working with good luck on your choice and I hope it reignites your creative juices again :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
raptor3x
Senior Member
Avatar
728 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 78
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Rutland, VT
     
May 27, 2015 18:37 |  #58

tim wrote in post #17573524 (external link)
You know, I bet if you took a photo with each and printed them 8x12" you couldn't tell the difference, and I suspect that applies to most Canon/Nikon lens comparisons. The difference that matters to me is how good the AF mechanism is, and how robust the lens is.

Possibly, especially if you can crop out the extremes of the frame a bit, but your previous claim was that the Nikkor 16-35 F/4 VR was sharper across the frame than the Canon version which is just blatantly untrue.


Bodies: X-T1, E-M1ii, G9 Lenses: µ.Z 7-14 2.8, µ.Z 12-40 2.8, µ.Z 25 1.2, X 18-55 2.8-4, µ.Z 40-150 2.8, µ.Z 45 1.2, µ.Z 60 2.8, µ.Z 75 1.8, PL 200 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,977 posts
Likes: 357
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
May 27, 2015 22:26 |  #59

raptor3x wrote in post #17573790 (external link)
Possibly, especially if you can crop out the extremes of the frame a bit, but your previous claim was that the Nikkor 16-35 F/4 VR was sharper across the frame than the Canon version which is just blatantly untrue.

I don't believe I ever compared it with the Canon, I've never used the Canon. From memory I said the Nikon is more than good enough for me.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  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
     
May 28, 2015 00:45 |  #60

raptor3x wrote in post #17573790 (external link)
Possibly, especially if you can crop out the extremes of the frame a bit, but your previous claim was that the Nikkor 16-35 F/4 VR was sharper across the frame than the Canon version which is just blatantly untrue.

Sorry, but I stand by what I said. The Nikon is the sharper lens ... in the center, extreme corners and across the zoom range. I do agree with Tim though that they are both good enough lenses that in an actual print it would be almost impossible to tell them apart. Barrel distortion at 16mm is worse on the Nikon, which for what I do is pretty easy to fix in post.


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

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

9,232 views & 3 likes for this thread
Moving from Canon to Nikon
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
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 Kishmj
935 guests, 228 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.