John Crowe

<p>I have had all three. The image quality of the 200/2.8 IF is identical to the non-IF. I used the non-IF for over ten years and did not notice the focus throw until I got the IF which is of course a pleasure to use.</p> <p>The 80-200/4 L is vastly superior the 200/2.8 lenses. The only reason I kept the 200/2.8 longer was because I could use it with the FD-EOS 1.26x converter. I agree totally with simply changing to one stop higher ISO when absolutely necessary.</p> <p>All the years I used the 200/2.8 I thought it was the cats meow because it totally out performed the third party zoom that I had. It wasn't until I used the 80-200/4 L and 400/4.5 that I realized just how poor it was.</p>

<p>I really like the RAW converter in CS4. A possible work around is to use lightroom or Canon software just to convert the RAW to tiff, then open the tiff with ACR in CS4. You have to set CS4 ACR to open tiff files, and you are good to go. </p>

<p>"Open the pod bay doors, HAL." </p> <p>I read some time ago that the Nikon 6/2.8 was the lens used to play HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey.</p> <p>I'll have to make due with my 8/2.8 for now.</p>

<p>$800 is not absurd, but look around a bit more and you should be able to get a very good one for $550-650. Sometimes you can find an AF-D for about $750.</p> <p>I currently have the 105/1.8 (keh ugly for $235) and I do like it but have not compared it to others that I have had yet. Just bought it recently because I could not find an 85/1.4 in my price range. If the Nikon 85/1.4 is anything close to the Contax Zeiss 85/1.4 that I used to have, and I believe that it is, then it is worth the $600 range. </p> <p>Yes, the legenday Nikon AI/AIS lenses, a few of them mentioned above, have maintained their higher values, for a reason.</p>

<p>If you do have Nikon lenses I'd be considering the D5200 or D7100. I currently use a 5D II and the crop body that I am considering adding is the D5200, not a Canon!</p>

<p>Do you still have the Canon bodies and excellent lenses? At the time I chose a used D2X over a used 1DII, since then had a 1Ds for a bit, and for the past three years have had a 5D II. </p> <p>My optimum situation has been to have an FX body and a DX body. I would never bother having two DX bodies. Funny part is I seem to choose Canon for FX and Nikon for DX. I use several Nikon lenses on my Canon. It is a shame Nikon never upgraded the D300 or the D2X, and that Canon refuses to match Nikon for pure resolution, but we have to accept it and deal with it.</p> <p>I understand your love of the pro bodies, their build, and their ergonomics but current bodies have far superior resolution to the older pros, which tips the balance for me.</p> <p>Everyone is gung ho over what current cameras can do with high ISO but when you actually compare your own pictures at ISO 100 to ISO 800 their is still a very significant difference in image quality. So I am with you on maintaining the lowest ISO possible.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I have been adapting my Nikon lenses to Canon EOS for about 10 years now because it is so cheap and easy. The FD-EOS adapters will only get you infinity focus with the crap glass element which degrades the IQ to the point of being useless.</p> <p>You can google ed mika and find out which FD lenses he has EOS conversions for but they are about $100 each. I hope someday to convert a 55/1.2 Aspherical or 85/1.2 L.</p> <p>The other option that I take more seriously now are mirrorless cameras like the Sony ones. I am thinking particularly of the 36 MP A7R, but it is not a cheap camera. Adapters for many lenses including FD and EF are readily available. </p>

<p>12 MP to 16 MP is worthwhile but since you are a Nikon user I'd consider a 24 MP DX or FX body. I find your question a bit confusing since you mix FX and DX and cropping. Simpler to say that a 24 MP DX has far superior IQ to a 12 MP DX and a 24 MP FX has far superior IQ to a 12 MP FX.</p> <p>In the past Nikon accepted lower res and only DX bodies (when compared to Canon) because they had nothing else. I have used 6, 11, 12, 14 and 21 MP bodies (Nikon, Kodak, Canon mix) with some of the best available Nikon and Canon glass and I can tell you that 6 to 12 MP does not get any where close to what the best lenses can resolve.</p> <p>The next bodies I am considering (if Canon does not get off their....) are a 24 MP Nikon DX and Sony 36 MP FX body.</p>

<p>I only visualize the stitched image in my mind. After what must be several hundred if not a thousand of them I know what I am looking for. I do horizontal panoramics as well as vertical ones and I also stitch in either direction to provide 4x5 framing as well. Depending on the subject I will often shoot images to create all four types of stitches and select the best.</p> <p>P.S. Already looking forward to a used A7R in a year or two, as long as Canon continues to "sit on the pot" as they say!</p><div></div>

<p>The D400 should have been an upgrade to the D300 with the an 18 MP DX sensor and now a 24 MP DX sensor, with a larger and more robust body than the D7100 etc. It would also have had an autofocus motor and able to mount and input the focal length and aperture of AI and AIS lenses.</p> <p>Very silly of Nikon not to have done it. They seem to think that FX and small DX is the only way to go.</p>

<p>I simply worked my way up from 200/2.8 to 300/2.8 to 400/2.8 in search of my preferred focal length and image quality. Have considered moving on up to 600/4 but I have had so much success with 1.4x and even 2x converters on the 400/2.8 that I remain satisfied...for now. It is heavy, especially my old manual focus Nikon, but I use it on tripods and monopods at all times. </p> <p>I've gone through 200/2 and 80-200/2.8 lenses and have settled on the Canon EF 70-200/4 L and Canon EF 300/4 L for my lightweight, handholdable, autofocus requirements. Image quality is not in the same class but shooting with them is very easy and makes up for the loss. </p> <p>Currently using them all on a 5D II, primarily for motor racing, but have used them for soccer, swimming, whitewater slalom, and landscapes. </p> <p>I have not done wildlife, but the lens of choice, especially for birds seems to be the 500/4. I used to hike with the 300/2.8 but the 500/4 would certainly provide more bang for not too much more weight. I only "hike" with the 400/2.8 from the parking lot to the sporting event which is never more than five minutes! I can walk around all day with the 70-200/4 and the 300/4.</p> <p>For your purposes I'd be comparing the 300/2.8 and 500/4.</p>

<p>I'd be considering a used 600/4. I know importing into the UK from the US can be expensive but it still may save you a lot of money when buying used equipment. keh.com is a good place to start, as well as adorama.com and bhphotovideo.com</p>

<p>To see a significant improvement you need both upgrades. I would start with the lens. The D90 has a focus motor, and any Nikon body upgrade I would consider would also have a focus motor. Therefore you have the option of buying a used non-AF-S lens. The next best affordable lens would be the Nikon 300mm f4 ED AF. keh.com has one for $465. The AF-S versions are 2 to 3 times more. The AF-S are faster to focus in in-flight situations but until you can make that upgrade good technique can go a long way. </p> <p>With the 300/4 you can consider adding a TC-14e giving you a 400/5.6 lens (again used is great and the first version is still excellent.) </p> <p>I have bought mainy used lenses over the past 20 years with great success. I have bought at least three lenses from keh.com that I have been very happy with. </p>