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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 10 Oct 2008 (Friday) 22:11
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Nikon lenses anyone?

 
shooter ­ mcgavin
Senior Member
Avatar
526 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:11 |  #1

Skip to my question if you don't want to read my little rant...
Although I have enjoyed a healthy and happy relationship with my 20d and Canon lenses, I have been given a nice offer on a good Nikon body, which I was initially excited about...until I began to study their lens offerings. I guess I've just been spoiled by the overwhelming amount of options from Canon (most of which I've memorized front to back from WAY too much lens-studying/lusting), but with Nikon there seems to be a select few that pretty much everyone uses, and these are all more expensive than their Canon equivalents.
I have a relatively tight budget, being a college student, but I can still justify paying $500 or so for used pro glass (70-200 f/4 and 17-40 f/4 for example), but from what I can tell, Nikon doesn't offer anything of the sort. I guess I'm not expecting anyone here to try to sway me over to the "other side", but is Canon really as far ahead of the game (as far as lenses go) as I'm imagining? Maybe I'm just a Canon kinda guy.
I've had the impression that Canon and Nikon are both as good as the other, which I guess could be true with the select three or four high-end standard pro lenses, and not to mention their superior kit lenses, but it seems like they've left a gap between the two.

Finally my question: does anyone here have experience with any "more affordable" (being probably somewhere around $500ish) Nikon glass that they can compare to Canon's own (70-200 f/4, 17-40 f/4, 100 macro, etc...)?
Also, does the D200 really have anything on say the 30D, besides weather-sealing? I've read comparisons, but it seems like every one that I've read was written by someone who's having an affair with their D200 and won't give anything else a fighting chance. I suppose this says something for the D200, or is that simply because it was the only really good somewhat affordable Nikon body for so long? Canon users, on the other hand, have had a quality affordable alternative since the 20d, which in my opinion still stands up to most of what's out there today.

I do not want to start an argument, I am just trying to get a better understanding of the differences between the two systems. I know a lot of people will just tell me to google the subject, (which I have extensively), but I believe the best thing (besides testing everything myself, which isn't currently a realistic option for me) is to get a conversation going with people who have had experience with both systems. So if you're interested in this, I would love to hear what you have to say, and if you aren't, then I'm suprised that you've read this far in this horribly long post, which I apologize for by the way :o




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Jim ­ G
I feel thoroughly satisfied
Avatar
12,253 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Australia.
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:15 |  #2

Not really an answer to your questions but just some thoughts... I considered switching to Nikon when I was looking to buy my 1D III - had a good hard think about whether the D3 or the 1D III would benefit me more. I was a bit horrified at their lens collection and its price... if I swapped it'd cost me $4k and I'd lose a lens in the process. Was very much not worth it... a fair portion of the cost came from their lack of f/4 versions of lenses. I don't feel the need for a 16-35 all that much and am quite happy to spend half as much on a f/4 version when I use it at f/8-11 mostly for landscapes. That extra cash can go towards a prime to use for when it gets dark.

However, if I were a 14-24/24-70/70-200 VR zoom kind of shooter I think I'd be happy in Nikon's lineup as all of those lenses seem pretty good.... notably more expensive than Canon, mind.


Gear Listhttp://www.codastudios​.com.au (external link) Reviews & Hotlinks: Domke F-3x - Pelican 1510/1514 (external link) & 1610/1614 (external link) - DIY Variable Length OC-E3 - Crumpler 6 Million Dollar Home (external link) - FA-100 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shooter ­ mcgavin
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
526 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:22 |  #3

I think I'm in the same boat. If I need the larger aperture, I would prefer primes, so the f/4 versions are great for me. I agree that the 2.8 zooms look fantastic, but like I said, I can't afford them from either system, so I'm not really looking at those as part of the equation. Thanks for your reply.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:26 |  #4

It's pretty well known that Nikon doesn't have some of what Canon has. Third party offerings are the same though...ie if Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, et al make something for Canon, they make it for Nikon and usually Minolta & Pentax as well.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shooter ­ mcgavin
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
526 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:35 |  #5

Yea, I also considered that, but If I'm buying into a system, I would prefer to use their lenses. I suppose that many of the third-party lenses might be better options for me right now though, to sort of fill the gaps until I can afford the lenses I want. I've always been more into investing into a small number of good lenses that will last than just buying cheaper alternatives that I'm hesitant about.
I used a Sigma 24-60 for a while, which was by far my best experience with third-party glass. It was by far sharp enough, but there was still something about the images I produced with it that I never got used to. Probably because I was so used to the excellent 70-200f/4L and primes.
I don't know, I guess I don't have a big problem with third party lenses, but if I was going to change systems just to use third party lenses, the body would have to be pretty incredible (which leads into my D200 question...)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:36 |  #6

Sounds like you thought I said you should switch...

However, if you're just talking it out...I agree. Switching knowing you'd be "stuck" with third party glass doesn't make sense. There's really nothing fabulous about the D200 anyway, in my opinion. I think the fun didn't start until the D300 came along...but even so that's no real reason to swap out.

I think most people are better off getting as intimate as possible with the system they already have. They'd get a lot further with their images by doing that than they ever would switching systems constantly.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shooter ­ mcgavin
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
526 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:38 |  #7

:) yea I realize that, but I guess my whole objective was to feel out the waters to see if there was good enough reason to switch. I guess the fact that I'm content with what I have now should be good enough, but as I said I had a great offer for a Nikon body, which just got me thinking about it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bubble
Goldmember
Avatar
3,382 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Yorba Linda , CA
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:42 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

quality Nikon lens vs $500ish = NONE

If you look at Nikon lens line up, they tent to cost more compare to Canon. btw, i use both system. :)


Canon 5D II, 7D | 16-35L II | 24-70L | 24-105L | 50L | 85L II |  iMac 27 | Redrock Micro DSLR Cinema Bundle | Elinchrom Ranger RX-AS Kit| Elinchrom Digital Style 1200RX/600RX | Turbo SC |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shooter ­ mcgavin
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
526 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:44 |  #9

cdifoto wrote in post #6475242 (external link)
I think most people are better off getting as intimate as possible with the system they already have. They'd get a lot further with their images by doing that than they ever would switching systems constantly.

I'm really starting to agree with that




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shooter ­ mcgavin
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
526 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:46 |  #10

Bubble, you are just lucky :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bubble
Goldmember
Avatar
3,382 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Yorba Linda , CA
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:50 |  #11
bannedPermanent ban

shooter mcgavin wrote in post #6475299 (external link)
Bubble, you are just lucky :)

i start out as a Nikon guy, switch to Canon, switch back to Nikon and now i own both. That way, i will not have any itch. Problem solve. :)


Canon 5D II, 7D | 16-35L II | 24-70L | 24-105L | 50L | 85L II |  iMac 27 | Redrock Micro DSLR Cinema Bundle | Elinchrom Ranger RX-AS Kit| Elinchrom Digital Style 1200RX/600RX | Turbo SC |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shooter ­ mcgavin
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
526 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:53 |  #12

I could definitely see myself doing that. I guess I should try to force myself into thinking one of the systems is just rubbish now so that when I'm out of school and might actually have the money to go back and forth, I won't even think about it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bubble
Goldmember
Avatar
3,382 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Yorba Linda , CA
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:57 |  #13
bannedPermanent ban

seriously, if you don't use your gear to make money, don't look around too much. You will never happy. Just stick with one and practice your skill.


Canon 5D II, 7D | 16-35L II | 24-70L | 24-105L | 50L | 85L II |  iMac 27 | Redrock Micro DSLR Cinema Bundle | Elinchrom Ranger RX-AS Kit| Elinchrom Digital Style 1200RX/600RX | Turbo SC |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kobe629
Senior Member
Avatar
694 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:58 as a reply to  @ cdifoto's post |  #14

Well I did the switch and and as far as lenses goes canon has a better selection for fast primes where nikon lacks but nikon has nice zooms that canon doesn't have such as the 14-24,200-400 and IMHO nikon 24-70 is better then canon's..But canons holy trinity is better then nikons primes.

But going back to your question I don't think nikon has anything in that price range that matches the 17-40 and 70-200..Maybe the closest is nikons 70-300VR and nothing for the 17-40..If you have extra money you could get nikon 17-35 f/2.8 used which is a better lens but cost more..As for the 17-35 in the used market it goes for 800 to 1,000..I find nikon lenses cost more but you have a better selection if you go manual with old nikkor,Zeiss, voigtlander and the list goes on..

If you are in a budget I would just stick with canon and save money for more glass or lighting..But the one thing I like about nikon is there flash system so if that is your thing then maybe it's worth the switch. And just get a 70-300VR or nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for $700 used and a tokina 11-16 till you get more money for glass.


Nikon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
milorad
Senior Member
515 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Melbourne, AU
     
Oct 10, 2008 22:59 |  #15

bodies leapfrog each other on a regular basis.... nikon may have an inch on canon today, but give it a little time.

you don't choose your lenses by the body -- you choose your body by the lenses, so if you find canon's lineup more suitable, then stick with a canon body.


Gear List (external link) - Yeah baby.

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

1,573 views & 0 likes for this thread
Nikon lenses anyone?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
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 seanjquinn
2475 guests, 351 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.