steve_phillipps

<p>"The whole "Nikon v. Canon" thing is a giant waste of time and bandwidth. "<br /> I agree with you G Dan Mitchell, and yet here we both are contributing to the conversation!<br /> That is what forums are all about after all, so why not.<br /> Steve<br /> <br /></p>

<p>I have done it, but by a very unorthodox route. I have several FD lenses converted for cine use (300 2.8, 500 4.5 and 800 5.6). These get converted into a Universl mount, by removing the entire back section and building a new one. In this way you can put serious screw on adapters to mount the lens on Arriflex, Panasvision, Sony B4 mount etc., as well as Nikon, Leica, EF and any other stills mount you want. In this way I've used these excellent old FD lenses on Canon 20D, Nikon F5, Nikon D3 and many others.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I tried the 50mm 1.4G and like most wide aperture lenses it's a bit disappointing wide open, only great from f2.8 onwards.<br>

Big vote for the SB900, not a big user of flash but this is the most amazing one I've used. Includes colour filters too for fill flash in different lighting.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Yes Matt, but if you're putting it like that you could say that all Nikon full frame AF lenses will work with all Nikon AF bodies. If you want to stick to just those lenses then it's as easy as the Canon situation. The Nikon situation is only more complicated because you have more options if you want them. Not great sticking an FD lens on a Canon AF body.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Not quite Matt, EF-S lenses won't cover the full frame bodies. Canon have full frame, 1.3x and 1.6x crop bodies - how is that less complex than Nikon? With Nikon you get the added bonus / complication that you can use manual focus lenses too, including some 50 years old!<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Agreed, that's nonsense, the systems and individual components are pretty comparable, they have to be they're serving the same customers.<br>

I must admit, Nikon did seem to lose the plot a bit a few years back, firstly as has been mentioned, taking an age to bring a full frame body out, and just as importantly falling MILES behind with image stabilisation. Off the top of my head I can't remember how long Canon had IS lenses in the big pro lenses (300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 f4 and 600 f4) but it was a LONG time! What was Nikon thinking?<br>

But with their superb VR long teles plus the sensational D3 series they've definitely got back into the game.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>The main problem with DSLRs for filming action is CMOS skew. Because CMOS chips need rolling shutters for video the image tends to bend and wobble as you pan with action - not nice! Also, as mentioned, focus is very tricky as you have to use the LCD screen rather than the viewfinder.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>5247 is 35mm film, the 16mm stuff is all prefixed with a 7 (ie 7245).<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I think this is the key statement here: "I think my Nikon takes awesome Pictures but I have seen some Photo's taken with Canon that are also awesome". Firstly, your Nikon does not taken any photos, you do! Secondly, there have been awesome photos taken with all sorts of cameras.<br>

This really is a non-question, and Shun sums it up perfectly - both Nikon and Canon make very similar ranges, with some cheap and nasty bits, some decent bits and some truly excellent bits - they are very comparable. The rest is down to you!</p>

<p>Steve<br>

<br /></p>

<p>Sorry, my mistake, I always thought it was 1:1, but I never used it for big macro use, more just general photography.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I've had both. Found the 50mm 1.4 to be OK but not stellar, but the 55 2.8 micro astonishingly good, I loved it. Plus of course 1:1 macro.<br>

So I'd say if you need f2 or wider very much then of course you need the 50 1.4 otherwise I'd highly recommend the micro.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Something like this might work http://portabrace.com/productA-TMB-38B Good thing is it has backpack straps.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Great shot - source of inspiration, thanks.<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>The processing actually costs more than the film! That's one of the big probs with film, you got to reckon on £200 or so for a roll of neg plus process and dump to tape, at least.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Always the 500mm option. 2x converters are never anywhere near as good as 1.4x. I've used lots of 1.4x and on good lenses there is generally virtually no loss in IQ at all, while 2x vary from so so to awful in my experience. And of course with the 500 you've then always got the option in future to put a 2x on it.<br>

Better yet a 600 of course. As you say, with wildlife you rarely find you've got too much magnification, esepcially with birds.<br>

Only reason to buy the 400 (which is also a lot heavier than the 500 I'd guess) is for low light, where the extra stop will be invaluable (I have the 400 myself).<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I agree that this upgrade is minor and therefore easy for Nikon, and therefore why not, it makes sense but will only give a small improvement.<br />What it does do though is affect the market - already I've seen quite a few version 1 200-400s come onto the secondhand market. The new one is massively more expensive than the old one here in the UK - £6300 vs £4600! So some of these secondhand ones could now be real bargains, as they'll basically give about 99% the same performance for most users. There are 2 on www.ffordes.com website alone.<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>Long, only you can answer that question. Do you need 24mm equivalent or is 35 OK for you? They are what they are, there is no testing or reviews needed to advise you - if 35mm is wide enough then it's wide enough, if not then this lens is not for you even if it was the greatest performer of all time.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>There's no doubt about it, it is big. It's amazing when you look at it on the camera and remind yourself that it's just a 24-70mm lens! Anyone who doesn't know would probably assume it's an 80-200 or something!<br>

Never really checked the AF speed, but it seems pretty slick to me and is dead silent and smooth. This is one difference I have found when looking at a few Sigma lenses - the motors don't seem to be as smooth. I bought the Sigma 50 1.4 as I tried it next to the Nikon 1.4G and the Sigma was optically better at wide apertures, but I did notice that the Nikon had a smooth quiet motor while the Sigma seemed a bit jerky - probably still as fast but not so nice feeling.<br>

<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>Surely that would be insane, it's only just come out!<br>

It really doesn't need VR, is a G lens, and has Nano coating - and fantastic performance on DX and FX - what more does anyone want?! Built in coffee maker maybe?<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Yes, obviously as they're designed for primarily autofocus the manual focus side of things tends to take a back seat. The focus rings tend to be small and fiddly, the action is very loose with little damping and the focus throw tends to be very short. Older MF lenses tend to be a lot better in most of these respects, and better still, obviously, are lenses designed for movie cameras (like Zeiss superspeeds, Cooke S4s, Optimo, RED lenses), and to a lesser extent video lenses (like Canon and Fujinon broadcast lenses).<br>

I have to admit that I'm not an expert with the 5D, I am a cameraman but tend to use broadcast cameras from Panasonic and Sony and film cameras from Arriflex and Aaton, but a lot of the principle are the same as with the 5D.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p> You can get around the focussing direction with some of the follow focus units from Chrosziel and the like as you flick a switch to reverse the direction - pricey though.<br>

http://www.chrosziel.com/news.asp?wdid=17&wpid=67&sid=0<br>

Steve</p>

<p>JDM, it's because you haven't used the video mode that you don't understand why he'd want to use Nikons on it - as I said above, there is reason to the seeming madness! There is a lot of interest in the Zeiss ZE lenses for the 5dmkii with video too - good optics, good MF operation and aperture rings on lenses.<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>A lot of people like non Canon lenses for the 5dmkii when shooting video for 2 reasons: firstly the manual focus action is often better on older MF lenses, and secondly with EOS lenses you can't adjust the aperture while recording unless you use lenses with aperture rings on the lens (I think this is right!)<br>

As for whether to use Canon of Nikon TCs, that's a very good question. Both makers have good quality TCs and as for back-focus etc., if the adapter sets the right distance for the lens to work properly without the TC then it must be OK with it so I don't think it'd be an issue. I have used a Nikon TC14b and TC14E on Canon FD 300 2.8 and 500 4.5 lenses and it worked excellently.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Yes Eloy, bit of a sweeping statement that one! The 85 1.4 is nothing short of legendary for bokeh, and the 200 f2 is not far behind.<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>I wonder just how the prices will compare. Interestingly the Sigma 50 1.4 is significantly MORE expensive than the Nikon 50 1.4, why would the 85 not be?<br />Steve</p>