Lenses for D700 equivalent to Canon

[petrana_batik]

"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.

[cabrabesol]

"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.

[ShunCheung]

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.

[cabrabesol]

no my "native language is not Englash". But "sounds" does not mean "it is" even in "Englash".

[keith reeder]

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.

[sheygetz]

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

[chinmaya]

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.

[ShunCheung]

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.

[chinmaya]

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.

[Landrum Kelly]

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

[ShunCheung]

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.