Posted by Mat Malone on February 28, 2012 at 3:19 PM
At the moment I'm considering a switch from a Canon 5D Mk1 to a Nikon D800/D800e, depending on what Canon announces in the next week or two. However, the biggest problem I have with Nikon is the lack of a high-quality 70-200 F/4 like I've enjoyed with the Canon. There is of course the absolutely superior IQ Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 VR II. However it's big, heavy and expensive. And for long hikes and backpacking I would like to have a smaller alternative. There are always rumors of Nikon releasing a 70-200 F/4 but that may never be released.
I'm primarily a landscape shooter. I figure my options are:
* Nikon 28-300: IQ will probably be a constraint on the D800. Also nice to have if I run into wildlife.
* Tokina 70-200 F/4: Announced but not released. Could be interesting. I've had good results with Tokina in the past but again IQ is a question mark.
* Suck it up and lug around the 70-200 F/2.8. I guess the increased weight will be offset by my lighter wallet!
What do you Nikon guys use in these situations? Anything else I should consider? Thanks for your help!
Posted by Eva McDermott on February 28, 2012 at 8:39 PM
Does the camera body really matter Mat? I think it is all about lens/glass quality IMO. I am definitely not a Nikon user but have started using Pentax 67 lenses (later versions) with an adapter on my 5DM2 because I recently bought a MF film Pentax 67II with 2 zoom lenses and thought, why not try them on my Canon 5DM2. Still in the experimental stage for me but a lot of cinematographers are using them on the 5DM2. Weight wise - heavier than any of my Canon glass. Just thought I would add my 2 cents but I only shoot landscape and some macro abstracts.
Posted by Dan Roberts on February 29, 2012 at 12:36 AM
I finally got a 70-200 and it is an awesome lens. IQ is so good that you also have the option of toting along a teleconverter and you've got a wildlife lens too. Though I don't own one the new 2x TC has been well reviewed. I plan on adding one this year specifically for travelling with the 70-200. I have used a 1.4x with good results. My experience with the D7000 with the same pixel density as the D800 is that you will definately see lens flaws that weren't noticeable on lower resolution bodies.
Posted by Nick Baldwin on February 29, 2012 at 8:33 AM
As I discussed in a recent reply to another lens hunter, you can't go wrong with the 70-200f/2.8. I use an earlier version with VR-I, on my D300, but it mates well with the new 2.0 version III TC, for those longer reaches you sometimes come across.
As mainly a bird shooter, who loves flight shots, I keep that set up ready at all times. That said I still have both the 1.4 and 1.7 TC for those other occasions, like visits to a rookery such as The Alligator Farm in St. Augustine where the 2.0 TC is too much.
Yep it is heavy and a bit expensive but it will last you a long time-I have had mine for over 8 years....used it first on a Fuji S2 Pro...and have never had a single problem.
good shooting to you.
Posted by Ryan Pfleger on March 1, 2012 at 3:11 PM
I am also in the process of switching from Canon to Nikon. Have you thought about the 24-120/f4, and then another lens for the 200+ range? Maybe the 200/f4 Micro, or if you shoot wildlife the 200-400?
Ryan, that's not a bad option. I think for my personal preference I would prefer to have the telezoom instead of the mid-range zoom for my light kit, but it's certainly something to consider. Now when I'm traveling light I like to take my 17-40 and 70-200, and I'd like to continue to keep most of that range. Looking at the variability in IQ on the 24-210 at different focal lengths and apertures concerns me a bit: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon24-120f4g/tloader.htm
Actually I'm thinking that the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR may be a good way to start out. IQ is not as good as the 70-200 2.8, but it's still quite good. IQ seems to be better than the 28-300, comparable to the 24-120 depending on focal length, and probably better than the not yet released Tokina, Also light and relatively inexpensive. Then I can decide if I want to drop some real money for the 70-200 2.8 I can, or whether I would prefer to go with the 24-70 2.8 or 24-120 f/4 for the mid-range.
Posted by Rudy Ruberti on March 2, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Mat,
The 70-200 F/2.8 VR II will be the next lens I purchase, but it's going to be a while. I currently use the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR on my D700 and I'm very happy with it. It's lighter and smaller than my 24-70mm and 14-24mm, and fills my requirements for a longer lens. I usually don't shot anything that moves faster than the moon, so the f/4.5-5.6 has not been an issue. It does produce a vignette at larger apertures, but again that's not a big issue for me.
Rudy
Discussion
6 repliesI'm primarily a landscape shooter. I figure my options are:
* Nikon 28-300: IQ will probably be a constraint on the D800. Also nice to have if I run into wildlife.
* Tokina 70-200 F/4: Announced but not released. Could be interesting. I've had good results with Tokina in the past but again IQ is a question mark.
* Suck it up and lug around the 70-200 F/2.8. I guess the increased weight will be offset by my lighter wallet!
What do you Nikon guys use in these situations? Anything else I should consider? Thanks for your help!
As mainly a bird shooter, who loves flight shots, I keep that set up ready at all times. That said I still have both the 1.4 and 1.7 TC for those other occasions, like visits to a rookery such as The Alligator Farm in St. Augustine where the 2.0 TC is too much.
Yep it is heavy and a bit expensive but it will last you a long time-I have had mine for over 8 years....used it first on a Fuji S2 Pro...and have never had a single problem.
good shooting to you.
Actually I'm thinking that the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR may be a good way to start out. IQ is not as good as the 70-200 2.8, but it's still quite good. IQ seems to be better than the 28-300, comparable to the 24-120 depending on focal length, and probably better than the not yet released Tokina, Also light and relatively inexpensive. Then I can decide if I want to drop some real money for the 70-200 2.8 I can, or whether I would prefer to go with the 24-70 2.8 or 24-120 f/4 for the mid-range.
The 70-200 F/2.8 VR II will be the next lens I purchase, but it's going to be a while. I currently use the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR on my D700 and I'm very happy with it. It's lighter and smaller than my 24-70mm and 14-24mm, and fills my requirements for a longer lens. I usually don't shot anything that moves faster than the moon, so the f/4.5-5.6 has not been an issue. It does produce a vignette at larger apertures, but again that's not a big issue for me.
Rudy