lens question

[nachi_abrams]

I am presently a Canon xt owner and will soon switch over to the Nikon D300. Canon has several lenses that are

known for their sharpness and overall image quality, such as the 135L, 24-70L, 70-200L. Are there any Nikon

lenses that would be comparable to these? Is there a website that provides sample images and rates the lenses?

Thank you.

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

I don't know where you are, but here's the link to Nikon's web site here in the US

 

http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/index.page

 

Nikon has a beautiful 24-70mm f/2.8 which is a pro lens. Cost approximately $ 1700.00

Nikon has an amazing 70-200mm VR f/2.8 which is also a pro lens. About $ 1600.00

There's also a 135mm f/2 - - don't know the price of that one.

 

I know of several ex-Canon shooters who've moved over to Nikon especially due to the 70-200VR f/2.8

 

IS in Canon is referred to as VR (Vibration Reduction) in Nikon.

 

B&H will have all the costs of these lenses.

 

Good luck

 

Lil :)

[hugh_look]

Try these:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

or

http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm

- not much in the

way of charts or

test images, but a

lot of comment on

real-world imaging.

 

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/6

- more "scientific"

reviews of their own

(look for "tested"),

& some general user

reviews too.

 

http://www.ephotozine.com/reviews/Interchangeable-Lenses-46

- not in depth, but

useful. Includes

test images

(especially exciting

if you live in

Hastings).

 

http://www.nikonians.org/

- they have a forum

dedicated to Nikkor

lenses with useful

comments.

 

http://home.zonnet.nl/famwakker/nikonlinkslensesreviewnikonlensessortedbylens01.htm

- list of reviews,

but a bit out of

date

 

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/

- not many reviews

yet, but plenty of

sample images for

those that they do

have

 

Lots of others, but

I find these quite

good

starting-points.

[dcraton]

The answer is simple. Yes.

 

However, if you want third party reviews, you might take a look at http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests or http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm or http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/. There are more as I am sure will be posted. Both the Canon lenses you mentioned and the Nikon counterparts are excellent choices. . .that being dependent upon your application with regards to the prime mentioned.

 

Good luck to you.

[hugh_look]

Forgot these:

 

http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_lenses_general.htm - gives links to lots of reviews, both by lens & reviewer.

[hugh_look]

Whoops. re:

 

http://www.ephotozine.com/reviews/Interchangeable-Lenses-46 - Ramsgate, not Hastings. Sorry to citizens of both.

[trunfio]

The rub is that roughly equivalent Nikon lenses are much more expensive than their Canon counterparts. The 24-70 has a

$500 difference. The 70-200 IS/VR lenses are the same price, but Canon makes a USM version without IS for $400 less.

True, Nikon has an AF-D 80-200 lens even cheaper, but for sports it's nicer to have the faster focusing of AF-S or USM and

you don't need IS/VR. The DX/EF-S 17-55 lenses have a $200 difference. The Nikon 135/2 is slightly more expensive

and doesn't even have an autofocus motor in the lens. I bought the Nikon line because I liked the feel of their cameras

better. Certainly not for better or lower cost lenses.

[dcraton]

The 80-200 AF-D works fine for sports if you understand the event you are shooting and timing. Rarely do we miss a shot. It's a tank and I don't mind getting in the mud, wind whipped sand, etc. For us, all major US sports up to and including the D1 level. And yes, we even shoot ballet with an 80-200mm. Again, timing. It's a workhorse of a lens and affordable as an option to the wonderful 70-200mm/2.8 per the OP's question.

 

True on the pricing. But, on the other hand, what do I have to shell out for a Canon body that is environmentally sealed and will function at 5+ fps? A must for me.

 

Both are great companies each with strengths and weakness.