Affinity Photo - professional photo editing with 50% off!

Canon User... INCOMING!


robs 16 685 2 United Kingdom
29 Mar 2012 1:36PM
After spending years using Canon gear (EOS 3 film camera, 5D and 5D II) I am coming back to the fold from which I started. Utter dissapointment in the 5D III spec, and a long held hankering to move over to the full frame Nikons has finally taken it's toll.

Just ordered a D800E

Now... what lenses? I need to sell all the Canon gear to fund these which limits me somewhat (and holds me back from doing anything until I take delivery), but I am currently thinking:

Either 14-24 OR 16-40 (depending on budget really, though the cheaper 16-40 does have some appeal as it is smaller and lighter. Just not sure on image quality). Part of me is also whispering about the wide angle Zeiss lenses though... or a Nikon prime....
24-120 f4 VR - I use the 24-105 on the Canon a lot at the moment, so this is pretty much a no brainer as a solid main lens choice.
70-200 f2.8 - the choice here is whether to go Nikon or Sigma. Although I am wondering if I should go for the Sigma 100-300 instead. Either way I would probably wind up with a 2x tele to give me the occasional long tele that I may need.

Also - wondering what I should be looking at for flashguns. I could use one decentish one, but not convinced I really need to go top end. But I am also wanting one or two additional that can be fired remotely. Am I right in thinking that wireless control is built in on Nikons... if so that makes life a bit easier. I don't use flash much so don't really want to spend an absolute fortune!

Going to be fun changing over I think. Really looking forward to getting to grips with the Nikon system again (I still have my Nikkormat FT-3 and 50mm f1.2 but that is all that remains of my Nikon system these days!)

Rob

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Overread 11 4.1k 19 England
29 Mar 2012 1:42PM
Deserter!!!
Tongue


Quote:
70-200 f2.8 - the choice here is whether to go Nikon or Sigma. Although I am wondering if I should go for the Sigma 100-300 instead. Either way I would probably wind up with a 2x tele to give me the occasional long tele that I may need.



If you're going for a 2*TC on a 70-200mm don't skimp and go for the best there is - the Nikon 70-200mm VRII. Sigma make a good 70-200mm, but when you push a zoom to twice its native focal length you really want to have the top rate optics to get decent results. The current top Nikon and Canon 70-200mm f2.8 lenses can take a 2*TC which is a big step over their original versions which, whilst capable, gave a substandard quality with the 2*TC.


Quote:
Also - wondering what I should be looking at for flashguns. I could use one decentish one, but not convinced I really need to go top end. But I am also wanting one or two additional that can be fired remotely. Am I right in thinking that wireless control is built in on Nikons... if so that makes life a bit easier. I don't use flash much so don't really want to spend an absolute fortune!



Far as I know the wireless in Nikon is direct line of sight based (its either infra red or light pulses from the control flash). Personally I find this rather limiting as there will be cases where you're outside or working in conditions where there might not be a clear line of sight to the flash units. A cheap set of radio remotes shouldn't set you too far back in cost and should be fine for casual use (Pocket Wizards are the best, but come with a high price tag).
robs 16 685 2 United Kingdom
29 Mar 2012 1:48PM
I was going to say - if I went the 100-300 Sigma route I would probably stick to a 1.4x TC Wink

The worry with the Nikon 70-200 is that I read it isn't really a 200... quite a bit short infact. A lot is going to depend on what I get for the Canon set up though as that gives me a budget to work towards!

I think my Canon wireless set up was line of sight, so take your point! Will look into the alternatives!
JackAllTog Plus
10 5.7k 58 United Kingdom
29 Mar 2012 1:53PM
With so many landscapes in your portfolio - was it the pixels for larger prints that won you over to Nikon?

For Flash look at Nissin as well as Nikon - neither have radio wireless, they do have optical wireless - but limited range/use outside. Consider a radio trigger PiXel is popular now.

Now i'm off the classifieds here....
Overread 11 4.1k 19 England
29 Mar 2012 1:56PM
Many lenses are not "true" focal lengths as stated if their focal length is measured at close focusing distances. Focal length is always measured at infinity rather than at close up distances. As a result there can be some variation in the focal lengths one gets with different lenses; its also something many many people have no idea of or who only test on 3rd party gear (because own brand would never have anything wrong with it Wink) so info can be somewhat patchy.



On the sigma front which lens are you looking at specifically - I don't recall a 100-300mm from sigma; though they do have two 120-300mm lenses ( the older which is out of production and the newer with OS)
robs 16 685 2 United Kingdom
29 Mar 2012 1:58PM
Big landscape prints - absolutely! Just done a pair of MAHOOSIVE canvasses for a Hollywood film Wink Or at least supplied the files for them to produce themselves as shipping to LA would be a horribly expensive game.

Throw in the ergonomics and general better build (IMO) - and dust/moisture sealing... and I was pretty much sold on it. Oh - and the lack of AA filter too, that is a plus. IT basically offered everything I needed, and the 5D III didn't offer a great deal more than the 5D II. There is cash in the company account at the moment too so I figured I may as well use and abuse it on making the change.
robs 16 685 2 United Kingdom
29 Mar 2012 1:59PM
Sorry it was the 120-300 OS I was toying with. Depends if I can stretch to the asking price though as it is quite expensive.

Suppose a cheaper alternative would be the Nikon 80-400....
StuartAt 14 1.1k 8 United Kingdom
29 Mar 2012 2:02PM
If I had the money and was in the same boat, I'd be heading for the 'trinity'; Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G, Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

I've just used the Nikon 70-200 for a wedding (on a D300) and it is a wonderful piece of kit. I guess a lot comes down to the type of shots you will be taking; plenty of landscapes in your p/f - do you really need the reach of a 300 (or even a 200)?
Overread 11 4.1k 19 England
29 Mar 2012 2:04PM
View of the two lenses

The 120-300mm OS is a very different lens to the 70-200mm f2.8. In the link above you can see the sigma next to a canon f2.8 (the nikon I would expect to be of similar size and weight). The 120-300mm is a much heavier and more bulky lens, certainly one where a good monopod would be advisable for shooting with; whereas the 70-200mm can be shot all day without support if needed (it might feel heavy at first but its within most peoples capabilities to handhold shoot once you get used to it).

Having got both I consider them very different lenses even though (Esp with TCs) they cover very similar ranges - though the sigma can be pushed all the way to 600mm if needed
robs 16 685 2 United Kingdom
29 Mar 2012 2:06PM
I haven't updated my portfolio in a couple of years Wink

I think a 200 would be as long as I need 99% of the time, but I do occasionally break out the Canon EF400 f5.6 L and may miss it a bit. I was chasing a red squirrel with it last week (and failing to get a shot!).

I kind of agree with your trinity - but just think that the versatility of the 24-120 wins out over the 24-70 for me as I would get away with carrying one lens more often than not when just out and about. I think 70 may just be a little short for this (but could be wrong)
robs 16 685 2 United Kingdom
29 Mar 2012 2:08PM
Hmmmm - shame you don't have that 120-300 next to a Canon 400 5.6 prime... wondering if it would even fit in my bag (the big Canon does... just!)

This may decide it for me!
RavenTepes 10 226 United States
29 Mar 2012 8:15PM

Quote:If I had the money and was in the same boat, I'd be heading for the 'trinity'; Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G, Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II


I have to agree with this, though its important to know that the 14-24 doesn't support use of filters and the 24-70 doesn't have VR. Those in themselves could be potential deal breakers to some...to others, its no problem. Another useful addition or atleast worth mentioning, is the 70-300 f/4.5. Its a consumer lens, yes, but has very "professional" results. Truely a remarkable lens for its price.
Overread 11 4.1k 19 England
29 Mar 2012 8:24PM
Actually the 12-24mm can take filters; you just need a Lee 150 filter holder system and suitably large enough filters to fit Lee 150 filter holder
RavenTepes 10 226 United States
29 Mar 2012 8:46PM
Ah. I stand corrected! Smile

I should look into that....
robs 16 685 2 United Kingdom
29 Mar 2012 9:20PM
It is the filters thing that makes me think the 16-40 could be a better choice simply for grads (yes, I know about the Lee filter, but man that is expensive... and that is before I buy the filters to fit!)

Probably will go for the 14-24 though Wink


Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.