gurbally_seth

<p>Thanks for suggestion, John. I am not interested in 50mm as I will use 35/1.4 on 40D for this purpose. Yes, adding 135/2 L later won't be a bad idea. </p>

<p>Philip, 85 mark II has defnitley better AF than mark I. And you are right the super shallow DOF is a factor here. I think I will also have a close look at 135mm f2.<br>

JDM, thanks for suggestion. I definitely intend to add D40 to take advantage of the crop factor. That's why I am more inclined towards 35mm (which becomes normal lens on it) and 85mm, not 50mm.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Bob, I will shoot with 5d MarkII. I guess you are the best person to advise as I do mostly low-light, indoor shootings like sports, concerts, and sometimes weddings. I have been trying to get Nikon 28mm f1.4, but I had some bad experience on ebay. Thought why not buy a full-frame Canon body and these two prime lenses.</p>

<p>Since I miss 28mm f1.4 prime for Nikon 700, I have decided to add Canon 5D MarkII with 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.2. Do you guys think it is the right choice to go with 85mm rather than 50mm f1.2?</p>

<p>Your best option is D300 with 50mm f1.8 and 70-200mm f2.8.</p>

<p>As Chris Whitcomb rightly says, Canon offers better choice of fast prime lenses, and this is pushing many Nikonians to Canon. I am also on the verge of moving to Canon.</p>

<p>As Michael very rightly said, it is about controlling DOF, it is not about availability of light.<br>

As for higher usable ISOs, as Luis predicts, I think it is stretching the ISO thing too far. You can never - and never will - get the same quality at 6400 what you get at 400-800 ISO.<br>

To Walt, I say that 50mm f1.2 manual is not a great lens when wide open...so you better use the old war horse 50mm f1.4. And 28mm f1.4 will cost you 4G today. 35mm f1.4 manual is also not great either.<br>

On the other hand, look at Canon - 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2, and 85mm f1.2. And all these canon lenses are into their second version and great.<br>

I will just wait for about a couple of months.</p>

 

<p>Will Nikon ever come out with fast primes - 24mm/28mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2? Or is it time to look for other options?<br>

</p>

<p>But the only problem with D300 is that its fps drops to 2.5 from 6 when you use 14 bits. Even the cheap Canon 40D maintains its 6fps in 14 bits.</p>

<p>Lex and Noah, thanks. What you have said has helped me... yes the launch of 35mm f1.8 points to more such prime fast lenses by Nikon. This will ut it on a par with Canon in this segment.</p>

<p>Lex, I read the reviews of these two lenses in photozone.de, and was left with the impression that Canon is not as sharp - edge to edge - as Nikon is. <br>

The reasons I am asking this question is this: I am a Nikonian and interested in Nikon 28mm f1.4, but it will cost me at least 3G. As an alternative, I am toying with the idea of buying Canon 5D and 24mm f1.4. Plus there are other fast prime Canon lenses which Nikon does not have.<br>

</p>

<p>Anybody ever used these two fast wide lenses and can comment on their relative performance?</p>

<p>Considering that it is about $1000 cheaper than 5D Mark II, does it make sense to buy 5D now? I am tempted by its full frame as I want to upgrade there. But Mark II is certainly beyond me reach at this stage. However, at the same time I don't want to regret wasting money if... Please suggest. </p>

<p>I have just bought padded bags to keep lenses. But these small bags have silica gel packets. Should I keep these silica packets in the bags in which I am keeping mylenses or take them out.<br>

I am told that if they are kept inside the sealed bag with the lens, they can cause problems for lubrication of the lens.</p>

 

<p>Why Nkon D700 makes a lot more shuuter noise than D300? </p>

<p>I bought a D300, but got it replaced with D700 within two weeks. But it has a lot noisier shutter than D300...why? Why does D700 make so much more noise than D300?</p>

 

<p>I bought a D300, but got it replaced with D700 within two weeks. But it has a lot noisier shutter than D300...why? Why does D700 make so much more noise than D300?</p>

 

<p>Ed, go for 40D as 70-200 f/4 is a very very good lens indeed. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is more for full frame. Don't waste your money on the lens, upgrade to D40</p>

<p>Scott, you have helped me make an important decision as I was debating 40D versus Nikon 700 for sports/action and night/wide angle photography. Since D40+5D cost as much as Nikon 700, I have decided to buy these two canons (40D and 5D0), and put separate lenses on them like you have done. Thanks </p>

<p>Sarah, thanks for your post.<br>

Yes, you are right I am fixated on high fps because I am a journalist by profession based in Toronto.<br>

Having produced a top English newspaper as chief sub-editor/news editor for some years, I know how important ``action'' pictures to grab attention of readers/observers.<br>

I think I must go with D40, and later add 5D/sDII and ID MarkIII.<br>

Thanks </p>

<p>Mary Kossik, do you think 1D MarkIII is an alternative to 5DmarkII. They are two different cameras.</p>

<p>Hendrik and Sarah, my point is this: if I can get the kind of work I am looking for (sports and night photography) from D40 with superb L lenses, I have the choice to move to better canons (5D2, or ID MarkIII) later.<br>

I am told ID MarkIII is a pretty all-round camera with very good high ISO results and the highest fps. Your thoughts?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Sarah and Dan for your suggestions. I am coming to the conclsuion that Nikon 700 is great for night scenes and wide angles (I am not interested in fisheye lenses). <br>

How about a battery grip with 700 (which will boost it to 8fps) to serve my purpose for sports/action photography as well?<br>

I feel 5D and 5DII are slow camera for action photography.</p>

 

<p>Hey guys, I have been a dabbler in photography so far. Did some work on Nikon F10 some time ago for a coffee-table bbok.<br>

Now I want to take up photography seriously. I am interested in sports action, night scenes, and wide angle photography. After studying Nikon, Sony and Canon, I have come to the conclusion that Canon 40D/50D or Nikon 700, coupled with 70-200mm/ f2.8, 50mm/f1.4 or 1.8 and a ultra wide, will be the best for me.<br>

I want to go with Nikon, but Canon 40D plus lenses are much cheaper. But then Canon 40D/50D has low ISo versus Nikon 700's.<br>

Since it will be a long-term investment because of lenses, I want your suggestions. Thanks </p>