Jump to content

Lenses for D700 equivalent to Canon


chinmaya

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>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>

<P>

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?

<P>

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...