Lenses for D700 equivalent to Canon

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by chinmaya, Nov 4, 2008.

  1. I currently own XTi, I was waiting for 5D Mii, after comparing it with D700, it sounds a much better FF camera
    than 5D m2. So I am on a thought of switching entirely to Nikon.

    So I would want your suggestion of Nikon equivalent FX, for the following focal-length range lenses of Canon

    1. Canon 17-40mm L

    2. Canon 24-105mm IS

    3. Canon 28-135mm IS

    4. Canon 100-400mm L IS

    5. Canon 70-200 f2.8 (IS and NON-IS)

    6. Canon 70-200 f4 IS
     
  2. How much Canon equipment do you have now? If you already own some good Canon lenses it doesn't make sense to switch systems.
     
  3. Look at what B+H has to offer with the equivalent lens figures for Nikon. But you will/might have to be happy with equivalencing a 17 - 40 mm Canon lens with one by Nikon with 15mm - 35mm etc. Your own homework on this will tell you what it will cost to switch. Good luck in breaking your bank with this ... And strict equivalence you will never find between the big C and the big N, sorry.
     
  4. That is a lot of lenses. And a big change.
    <br>
    1. 17-35mm f/2.8 ...... $1500
    <br>
    5. and 6. either the older 80-200mm f/2.8 (no IS/VR) or 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (IS)........ $1600
    <br><br>
    Before switching, if I were you, I would rent a D700 + lens of very practical range (to you), to see if it will do what you are expecting of it. Canon super-telephotos like 500mm f/4 have a far more expensive equivalents in Nikon, and that made me think about switching to Canon, but that is not my usual type of photos, and i am quite happy with my D300 + 105mm f/2.8 VR macro + 50mm f/1.8 + 17-35mm f2/.8.
    <br><br>
    There are always surprises with a new camera (manufacturer especially) so make sure you are buying what you think you are buying....... so rent a D700, take some pictures, carry them through the Photoshop stage and see if you can get out of it what you want.
     
  5. All of these suggestions are premium (and costly) Nikon lenses all designed for FX format like the D700


    1. Canon 17-40mm L try a Nikkor AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8

    2. Canon 24-105mm IS Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8

    3. Canon 28-135mm IS possible overlap in focal range?

    4. Canon 100-400mm L IS Nikkor AF-S 200-400mm f/2.8 VR

    5. Canon 70-200 f2.8 (IS and NON-IS) Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR

    6. Canon 70-200 f4 IS duplication?
     
  6. Chinmaya -

    You're not going to even break even on the sale of these lenses .... plus as pointed out above - All of these are considered primes in the Nikon world (Except #2 and #6) - Nikon has equivalent to them all...or at least lenses that cover the same or better focal range.

    I'd seriously ask why make the switch? Is it because the D700 is available now? Or because you don't like the video mode on the 5D2? Or Higher ISO ability on D700?

    If you decide to switch - know the reason why and be sure the D700 can do what you believe you're missing.

    Dave
     
  7. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I have no idea why Chinmaya wants to switch brands, but the D700 gives you Nikon's best AF system while the 5D Mark II still uses an old AF module. That alone is a sufficient reason to prefer the D700.
    The 5D II has 21MP. Some people prefer more pixels; whether that is really an advantage is debateable. But more pixels on the same area leads to smaller photosites, which typically means inferior quality and high ISO results. However, all of that have to be verified via A/B comparisons.

    Canon does have the advantage of having two 70-200mm/f4 AF lenses, IS and non-IS. The 24-105mm constant f4 is also convenient. Nikon has no direct equivalent to those lenses. Nikon has a 24-120mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR; it is the closest to the 24-105 but is generally not considered to be that good and it is not constant f4.
     
  8. Consider also the Nikon 18-35 lens as a replacement for the 17-40. Thom and others give it an excellent review.
     
  9. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Nikon's 18-35mm should indeed be a close equivalent to Canon's 17-40, but the 18-35 is not a constant f4 and is also discontinued. You should be able to find it used.

    Nikon's closest equivalent to the 100-400 is the 80-400mm/f4.5-5.6 VR, but its slow AF is well known and it is not an AF-S lenses.
     
  10. You pretty much listed the lenses that are not matched at all by Canon, drawing the attention to the weak points
    of Nikon land.

    1. Canon 17-40mm L - No match from Nikon, just the 17-35/2.8 comes close at twice the price

    2. Canon 24-105mm IS - No such thing from Nikon (for FX), either the old but not bad at all 28-105/ 3.5 - 4.5 or
    the large and expensive 24-70/2.8, without VR that is

    3. Canon 28-135mm IS - forget it in Nikon Land

    4. Canon 100-400mm L IS - Here whe have the Nikon AF-S VR 80-400 5.6, should match the Canon

    5. Canon 70-200 f2.8 (IS and NON-IS) - both available from Nikon

    6. Canon 70-200 f4 IS - not in Nikon land!

    So, if any of these lenses is crucial for you, you actually might want to reconsider your decision, this time
    evaluating not only the camera but the comlete set-up. And I say that as Nikon user, thinking the other direction
    to decide between then D700 and the 5D MkII...
     
  11. no one has even questions the comment of the d700 seems a better camera...
    having sold my 1D2 to grab a D700 while i waited for the new 5D I can say this - it's a nice camera but nothing I've seen would lead me to believe it's any better than the new 5 will be...
    On top of the fact that the only lenses on the list that are better than canon are the 24-70 2.8 (at 5oo more than canons) and the 200-400 which is 3500 dollars more I just can't see why this makes any kind of sense...
     
  12. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    no one has even questions the comment of the d700 seems a better camera... having sold my 1D2 to grab a D700 while i waited for the new 5D I can say this - it's a nice camera but nothing I've seen would lead me to believe it's any better than the new 5 will be...
    I did, Joseph. Do you see the big difference between 51 AF points with 15 cross type ones among them on the D700 vs. 9 AF points with only 1 cross type on the 5D II as well as 8 frames/sec vs. 4?
    The D700 and 5D/5D II are very different cameras. The D700 can work as a professional sports camera very much like the D3 and Canon's 1D Mark III. Whether you individually need that capability is another issue.
     
  13. "the 5D Mark II still uses an old AF module"

    That 'old' AF module happens to work extremely well. I do agree that 9 AF points can be somewhat limiting under some shooting situations but the extremely high focus accuracy of the system more than makes up for this deficiency. Even with access to 51 points on my current main camera, I tend to use the center focus point/points much of the time. I guess a lot depends on what you are shooting.

    Chinmaya, I would wait until the MK II is out before you make your decision. You may find it meets all your photography needs. Or not. But at least you will have a chance to compare the two cameras.
     
  14. shun - many of us don't ever shoot with more than the central portion of the af. I know i consistently turned off the 51 due to it tracking around to the wrong subject. The 8 fps is only if you spend an extra 600 dollars to get the grip, the d3 battery and the d3 battery charger and the new door for the grip (if you can find it) . On top of that if you shoot 14 bit raw it slows down...alot.
    I also think that for most folks that choose to use a "smaller" camera for sports they would choose a d300 over the d700 - the extra 50 percent will save many backs...
    like i said - i like the d700 but it's sold the day the new 5 comes out - mostly because I like my canon primes far better than anything nikon offers as well as the fact that i'm just more comfortable with Canon. I've sold plenty of images out of the nikon in just a few short months and there are things like cls that i will miss but in the end if you read the original post the guy is going to spend 20 grand to switch lenses if he follows many of those suggestionss and not come out significantly ahead in any way - plus he never mentioned sports or anyting else...
     
  15. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    You can get 8 frames/sec on the D700 with the $240 MB-D10 and AA batteries. There is absolutely no need to
    spend another $300 or more on EN-EL4a batteries and charger. However, if you choose to go that route, the BL3
    battery chamber cover is current in stock at B&H:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/352129-REG/Nikon_4782_BL_3_Battery_Chamber_Cover.html

    And unlike the D300, neither the D3 nor the D700 slows down at all with 14-bit capture. (However, the D300 drops to
    2.5 frames/sec.)

    If you recall that during the Olympics 3 months ago, roughly half of the pros shot Canon (mostly 1D Mark III
    or II) and half Nikon D3. For night sports, the D3 and D700 have clearly superior high ISO results than the D300. That
    is why the D300 is ok for days sports, most professional sports photographers use the D3 (and optionally D700) for
    better night and indoor results.

    I don't mean to sound offensive, but Joseph doesn't seem to be all that familiar with the D700.

    And I think it is important to take full advantage of the "outside" AF points. If you only use the center AF point/points,
    you'll either end up with poor compositions (with the subject dead center) or have to constantly AF and recompose,
    which is a pain when your subjects moves, especially moves constantly. That is why the 5D's AF has long been a
    problem and it is quite disappointing that there is no improvement in the 5D II. Even the 40D and 50D have 9 cross-
    type AF points now. Of course, if Canon puts a better AF system in the 5D II, it would have totally killed the very
    expensive 1Ds III. That is the dilima they have.

    If you prefer Canon lenses, you are certainly entitled to your preference, but the OP definitely doesn't need to spend
    $20K on lenses. For example, Nikon's 80-400 is a close enough equivalent to Canon's 100-400 and price similarly.
    Except for the fact that Nikon has no 70-200mm/f4 AF-S right now, there are close equivalents in every other lens
    mentioned. Canon has a few lenses that Nikon doesn't have and vice versa, so there are definitely some trade offs.
    Given that Nikon is aggressively introducing a lot of new lenses in the last couple of years, some of the gaps may
    close soon.
     
  16. I think you also need to compare prices. I believe Canon generally have lower priced lenses and still a larger range of
    AF lenses. Nikon has the advantage of more MF lenses being able to work well on the camera.

    Also as to the better noise at higher ISOs, this is THE current obsession and you have to think about how important
    it really is to you (quite apart from the fact that the 5DII's noise is not known yet) and then you have to compare it
    with the objective higher resolution of the 5DII.

    It seems to me the only reason to change for most people is that you simply prefer the ergonomics of the Nikon
    system (quite possible), and/or if you have no significant investment in Canon lenses.
     
  17. I don't have too much of an investment in Canon may be max of 1500$ ...

    The reason I am trying to switch is D700 has better frames per second. 5d and 5d m2 both are about 3 fps., which makes it not suitable for bird/wild-life action and sports photography. Investing big $$$ on 5D sounds not worth it. I have seen D700 high ISO performance reviews, they satisfy me.
     
  18. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The 5D is 3 fps but the 5D Mark II is actually 4 fps. If you shoot a lot of birds and wildlife, I would favor the D300 over the D700 for its better reach; both can reach 8 fps with the MB-D10 grip with 8 AA batteries, but the D700 has the advantage for night and indoor sports as I mentioned earlier.

    Another issue to keep in mind is that if you need super teles such as the 400mm/f2.8 or 500mm/f4 for sports and wildlife, the Canon versions are considerably cheaper than equivalent Nikkors.
     
  19. If I have to go with a crop-body, then probably I would stick with Canon. I am pretty impressed by 40D.
    I like 50D but, I do hear some negative comments about its ISO performance, I am waiting for some reviews to come.

    Thanks all for the feedback
     
  20. For those of you who are willing let go of Canon marketing hyperbole, here're the NIkon counterparts:

    1. Canon 17-40mm L = Nikon 18-35; optically they are the same. The Canon focuses faster and is better built. An alternative would be the Tamron 17-50 XR, which is flimsy but very sharp.

    2. Canon 24-105mm IS = no IS equivalent, 24-70 AFS covers some of it.

    3. Canon 28-135mm IS = no IS equivalent, 28-105 is optically the same.

    4. Canon 100-400mm L IS = 80-400 VR, 200-400 is an overkill.

    5. Canon 70-200 f2.8 (IS and NON-IS) = Nikon 80-200/2,8 AFD/AFS and the 70-200/2.8 G

    6. Canon 70-200 f4 IS = people fail to realize that the 70-300 VR lens matches the Canon in optical quality from 70-200 and provides extra reach at some sharpness degradation.
     
  21. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    At least according to DPReview's official review, high-ISO performance on the 50D is worse than that on the 40D, which is what you would expect since they are cramping more pixels into the same area.
    It is a matter of physics. See the "Cons" in their review:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page31.asp

    That is why I have doubts about the 5D Mark II's high ISO performance, but that has to be verified by actual comparisons.

    Thinks about which lenses you'll actually need. For example, Nikon has the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR that is a great sports and wildlife lens on DX (and perhaps FX) DSLRs and there is simply no Canon equivalent, but when there are equivalents, Nikon's super teles are more expensive. Most Canon and Nikon DSLR bodies are not quite the same. E.g. the 50D is somewhere between the D300 and D90, and they are priced accordingly.
     
  22. with all due respect - have you ever actually tried any of the lenses that you've mentioned???
    "Canon 17-40mm L = Nikon 18-35; optically they are the same..." - i would never say that - it's actually quite funny to
    read that...

    "Canon 70-200 f4 IS = people fail to realize that the 70-300 VR lens matches the Canon in optical quality from 70-200
    and provides extra reach at some sharpness degradation." - this canon 70-200mm f4 IS L is being considered one
    of the sharpest lenses in canon lineup... i compared it directly to canon's 135mm f2 L, well only at 135mm (that was @
    f4, so 135 was closed 2 f stops) and somehow i couldn't tell the difference, maybe richer color on 135... some test
    compare that lens favorably to 70-200mm f2.8 IS L, and you just degraded it to 70-300 level... i don't think so...
    i don't own any other of the lenses that have been mentioned nor i had any experience with them...

    back to the OP question, if you don't have big money invested in nikon, then i'd say go with it... but if you shooting birds,
    sports and action consider the prices of the lenses.... a few years ago i changed but from nikon to canon (i had bit more
    money invested than you: D100, D70, 18-70mm, 50mm, 70-300mm, and 2 SB600)... that was because of canon's
    superiority with high iso... i didn't think much about lenses that time, but by jumping a ship i got a nicer lenses lineup -
    kind of extra... so if you serious about birding and sports think about that - 1 stop better high iso performance is not
    everything...

    regards, greg
     
  23. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I would say none of the 6 lenses listed in the OP has much to do with shooting wildlife and sports, perhaps except for the 70-200mm/f2.8.

    I wonder whether Chinmaya really needs to get Nikon equivalents of those exact lenses or long teles that are typical for sports and wildlife photography are the more important factor here.

    If it is the latter case, I would say just ignore those 6 lenses.
     
  24. Shun exactly, but by what op wrote in one of the posts above -

    "The reason I am trying to switch is D700 has better frames per second. 5d and 5d m2 both are about 3 fps., which
    makes it not suitable for bird/wild-life action and sports photography. Investing big $$$ on 5D sounds not worth it. I have
    seen D700 high ISO performance reviews, they satisfy me."

    i would assume that wildlife and etc. is what his doing...

    in this case even 70-200 is a bit short (unless you going to the zoo)... if he's really into wildlife and birding and wants to
    go nikon then i would say: 24-70mm for everyday use, 70-200mm when he can get close to whatever the animal is, 200-
    400mm for something further and on top of that 600mm... all of that + D300 should give him great results... but it's gonna
    cost around €£$ 20 000...

    regards. greg
     
  25. ups i found little mistake in my 1st post...

    "back to the OP question, if you don't have big money invested in nikon..."

    instead of nikon it should be canon... :)

    regards. greg
     
  26. "with all due respect - have you ever actually tried any of the lenses that you've mentioned??? "Canon 17-40mm L = Nikon 18-35; optically they are the same..." - i would never say that - it's actually quite funny to read that...

    "Canon 70-200 f4 IS = people fail to realize that the 70-300 VR lens matches the Canon in optical quality from 70-200 and provides extra reach at some sharpness degradation." - this canon 70-200mm f4 IS L is being considered one of the sharpest lenses in canon lineup... i compared it directly to canon's 135mm f2 L, well only at 135mm (that was @ f4, so 135 was closed 2 f stops) and somehow i couldn't tell the difference, maybe richer color on 135... some test compare that lens favorably to 70-200mm f2.8 IS L, and you just degraded it to 70-300 level... i don't think so... i don't own any other of the lenses that have been mentioned nor i had any experience with them... "

    I know what I use, Greg. And yes, I have used all of these, on film and fullsized Canon's and Nikons: the emphasize is on FULLSIZE = FULLFRAME.

    The 17-40L is a nice lens, nothing spectacular. The 18-35 matches it in optical quality, and I'd be happy to supply samples if you wish. Both lenses fail in the corners, the 18-35 is a variable aperture design, yet both lenses are only ok wide open. On APS sensors balance shifts toward the Canon. On full frame, the 18-35 is actually contrastier, with better color rendition. They both distort heavily, and lose to their respective pro-glass counterparts.

    The 70-200/4L is a fine lens. With or without IS. Surprisingly, the 70-300VR is JUST AS GOOD when stopped down to f/5,6, and when used on FULLFRAME. On cropped sensor, balance AGAIN, shifts towards the canon. The 70-300VR can actually give the much more expensive 70-200VR a run for its money; IF you are willing to sacrifice at least 1 1/3 fstops to begin with. This is of course, true at FULL FRAME. The 70-300VR is a good lens for APS sized sensors. I've delivered professional prints on both D200 and D3 with it, just as I had done with my 70-200/4L on my Canon 40D and 1DsMk2. The Canon however, is better built, faster focusing, and much faster (1 fstop faster at 200mm). It should be, considering it costs 2x as much.

    This ofcourse matters naught to most, given the fact that most "tests" online are done on mediocre APS sized cameras, and mostly close to infinity-- i use my tele's closely (say 50ft or closer) for portrait/environmental shots.
     
  27. "I currently own XTi, I was waiting for 5D Mii, after comparing it with D700, it sounds a much better FF camera than 5D m2"

    you have a funny idea of what is to be considered a comparison. If you did a comparison how could it "sound" ? Is or it is not better ? And on which basis ?

    Come on lately it seems that this forum is full of nikon sales persons instead of knowledgeable users.
     
  28. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Mauro, I assume your native language is not Englash. When we say "it sounds like," we mean "it seems like." I don't think we are literally talking about the sound coming from the camera.

    Don't worry about it.
     
  29. no my "native language is not Englash". But "sounds" does not mean "it is" even in "Englash".
     
  30. Just for absolute clarity, the Nikon 80-400mm VR *is not in the same league* as the Canon 100-400mm - not even close (I've owned the Nikon - and the Sigma equivalent in Nikon mount - and own the Canon).

    And suggesting the Nikon 200-400mm f.4 is as "apples to oranges" a comparison as I can imagine.

    As to noise performance - I can't comment on the 50D, but I can say that a properly exposed ISO 3200 shot from the 40D, converted in Capture One 4 or Raw Therapee, is is clean as you could ever realistically need. Indeed, I managed to upset the D3 forum crowd on DPR by posting images up to "6400" ISO from the 40D that looked as good as some D3 images.

    Chinmaya, when you talk about the D700 for wildlife you forget that it has a very small (in terms of MP) sensor compared with 5D II - so the advantage you *might* get from a higher FPS might well be negated by the loss of resolution (pixels on the bird) you'll suffer from the D700 once you've cropped in, compared to the 5D II.

    Honestly: stick to the 40D, expose and process your images properly, and spend your cash on Canon lenses.
     
  31. While I think this latest exchange is totally uncalled for, Mauro has a point when he points out there is a lot of "I hear" and "it sounds" in the OPs statements. He can hardly have compared the 5D II unless he enjoys special relations with Canon and they got him a pre-production sample. So, on the specs of the 5D II and first reviews of the D700 alone the OP has changed his upgrade ideas and drops a list of most of Canon's zooms in our collective lap - he only owns 1500 worth, including the XTI I assume. It is perfectly ok for him to go about his decision like that, but hardly warrants the flood of comments, quickly broadening into life/ death questions of how many AF-points one may need. I'd say start out by comparing the sheer specs of Canon and Nikon glass, compare their performance at slrgear.com or Photozone and once you're down to a handful of lenses it may make sense to come back with more specific questions. By then maybe one or two 5D II reviews will be out, too.

    Hendrik
     
  32. please think ... since 5d m2 is not in market yet and I don't own D700, I am speaking by comparing the feature list and posts/reviews I have read in forums.

    In the original post I was __very__ clear that 'I am on a thought of switching entirely to Nikon', so I am only consider a possibility of switching .. that's about it. And was hoping to get some pointers to what lenses should I consider.

    Hopefully this will clear any confusion, and I get to hear more about lenses than why I liked D700 over 5D m2.
     
  33. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Chinmaya, I am afraid that you are mixing up two different subjects in this thread: (1) the 5D Mark II vs. the D700 or more generally Canon vs. Nikon bodies and (2) the list of 6 Canon lenses that you want equivalents.

    The problem is that if your stated objective about shooting sports and wildlife is correct, I would say you can pretty much rule out the 5D II immediately. You already know that it'll never give you more than 4 frames/sec and its AF system is even worse than those on the 40D and 50D. The 5D II is clearly not going to be your sports/wildlife camera, and few people need 21MP for sports/wildlife anyway.

    For sports and wildlife, if you would like to stay with Canon, either consider the 1D Mark III (or a used 1D Mark II/IIn) or for less money, the 40D or 50D, or consider the Nikon D700 or D300.

    Once you have an idea bout the body you want, than consider which lenses you might need. Your list of those 6 Canon lenses don't seem to have anything to do with sports and wildlife photography. Any further discussion and debate on those short lenses (200mm or shorter) seems to be a complete waste of time to me for the stated sports and wildlife objective. Additonally, do you really need a 70-200mm/f2.8 AND also a 70-200mm/f4?

    I suggest you think it through and perhaps start a new thread with a clear objective.
     
  34. I think I did not mixup different subjects ...
    I was always been clear on one subject 'lenses for d700 equivalent to Canon'

    The 6 lenses I posted were(a thought consideration for my entire SLR system ...
    Anyways, aren't the following lenses usable for Wildlife and Sports?

    4. Canon 100-400mm L IS
    5. Canon 70-200 f2.8 (IS and NON-IS)

    I think to a large extent this post is going off-track.
     
  35. I was shooting a play this past weekend--completely without a flash. I have to say that there were moments when I wished that I were shooting the D700 or D3 and not the 5D which I actually was shooting. I really could have used the high quality, low light capabilities of the Nikons.

    Will I switch? Probably not. I gave up my Kodak 14n and some Nikon lenses in 2006, and I have at times regretted it, but not enough to switch back.

    It is hard to advise anyone to switch, but, if you do, you won't be the first, and you sure won't be the last. I have to say, however, that, if I were buying today for the first time, I would buy the Nikon. Canon has some great cameras and lenses, and I am sure that they will catch up in the ISO race soon enough, but right now Nikon sure looks good to me. I just never have quite "bonded" with my Canon stuff. I know that that sounds silly, but it is true.

    --Lannie
     
  36. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Chinmaya, I am going to lock this thread. Please think it through whether you want an FX body, 1.3 crop body (Canon 1D series) or a DX/1.6x body first.

    Once you decide that, think about whether you want Canon or Nikon. Consider the big lenses for sports and wildlife. Again, Nikon's big glass tends to be more expensive. That is your primary objective and those lenses will cost you far more than the short zooms you may also need for other stuffs.

    Once you figure that all out, I understand you'll also need some short lenses. Both Canon and Nikon have sufficient lenses for that purpose. The offerings are a bit different but both will get the job done. But that is not your primary objective so that it should be the last thing you consider, not the first.
     

Share This Page