For a long time I have used Canon, I loved my 5D. I hated my 50D. I love and hate my 7D. I love my 500 f4 IS. I hate not having a 200-400 range zoom with f4. That single Nikon lens has always been a draw for me. I would love one. But Canon announced they intend to make one and one has been spotted out and about in Africa. But it will not be cheap, based on the prices for the new L teles and the way Canon have priced the 5DmkIII I doubt it will come cheap.
For the estimated price of the Canon I could buy a used 200-400 and a damn D4...so I am honestly considering it. Would mean selling alot of stuff. I may wait a bit, see how the 5DIII and D800 pan out.
Anyone thoughts on this? Anyone else done the same, I know a few togs did this, some because of the reasons above...Nikon have a 200-400.
Posted by Rene de Heer on March 5, 2012 at 9:41 AM
I am a Nikon user. Personally i do not think there is that much between both makes. Both have advantages and disadvantages. I did use the 200-400VR for a while but found it too short for the kind of photography i was doing. I was always adding a 1.4 converter in between to get more reach. Saying that: it is a great allround lens and fantastic for Safari's and larger wildlife i would say. The big plus of the Canon system is that it offers a wider range of lenses then Nikon. Yes they do not have a 200-400 but one will be on the market shortly...at a price! They also offer lenses like the 5.6/400 and a 4/300, the latter with IS. Nikon only has a 4/300 NON IS.
Nikon offers, at the moment, better performance at higher ISO's then Canon and this has all been well documented. It will be interesting to see what the new D4 and D800 will bring. I have a D4 on order at the moment but i am now contemplating a D800. it is a bit slower, probably produces more noise (but then i hardly ever shoot on high ISO.s) but is half the price with the same AF engine.
Where Nikon always seem to be the more expensive camera make, it looks now that Canon has become very expensive. (Especially the new lenses) .
So as you can see there are plusses and minusses when it comes to moving from one camera make to another. I must also say that i feel more comfortable with the Nikon camera ergonomics.
Rene de Heer
Posted by Neil Burton on March 5, 2012 at 10:37 AM
Exactly, the one that Canon will make will be out of reach for me, how do I know? Look at the price of the 300 2.8, add 50% because it zooms, add another 30% because it has a built in TC and add another 30% because we got away with it on the 5DmkIII. ;)
I do eagerly await the results of the 5D vs 1Dx vs Nikon for IQ. I am not sure the slow D800 is a really bad thing, the AF is from the D4 so at least those 4 shots per seond should be in focus ;)
Posted by David Sewell on March 5, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Like Rene, I am a Nikon user, so may be slightly biased. Over the years, however, I have noticed many ups and downs in their line ups, at the moment Nikon seem to be coming into a period of slight advantage, but I am sure Canon will overtake them again before long. Rather than consider a complete swap why not go for a nikon 200-400 with a relatively cheap body and see how you get on with it?
I have both Canon and Nikon systems. I bought the Nikon gear a couple of years ago specifcally for the 200-400/f4. It is a very versatile lens and is sharp throughout the zoom range and also wide open (its the only lens I will use wide open) from minimum focus distance to medium range. For subjects at long range its performance is less good.
As others have said, Nikon has advantage in some areas, while has Canon has some advantage in other areas. In your position, I wouldn't trade the reach of the 500 for the framing capabilities of the 200-400 zoom.
But the D7000 looks like a good body, maybe worth trying one out. Yes I agree Nikon are in a strong spot right now, and perhaps are playing prices down to catch Canon off guard.
Posted by Nick Mckeown on March 5, 2012 at 3:20 PM
I am a Nikon user and did have a 200-400mm VR but as Phil S has said it has limitations. At long range its performance is pretty poor and I actually tested it against my trusty 300mm f4 and at distance it blew the 200-400 out of the water at both 300mm and 400mm. It also did not seem to produce images with contrast and colour as good as the 300mm and I was very disappointed with it. I got rid of it soon after. The 200-400mm is ideal for close to medium range and for safaris is probably ideal and for hide work where the target species will be relaitively close. Most of my photography involves stalking so I never seem to be near enough. The Canon 200-400 of course could be a different animal.
The Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 with 1.4 TC gives 170-420mm f4 but there are so many contradictory reviews on this lens but I think if you get a good copy it could be a much cheaper alternative.
Nikon have lagged behind Canon in MP's until recently. The D7000 at 16mp is a superb camera and I have been very happy with it. The D800 has really raised the bar with 36MP and is full frame so tons of resolution.
Nikon lenses also lag behind Canon with vibration reduction but many of them are cheaper than Canon especially when you compare the big teles with VR II being over a thousand pounds cheaper than the Canon IS II.
There is no ultimate answer really as both systems have pro's and cons and if you have invested heavily in one system you really have to justify a complete move. You could try renting the 200-400 if someone will lend you a Nikon body and see how much of an impression it makes on you.
Nick.
Posted by Rene de Heer on March 5, 2012 at 3:29 PM
I would like to add that I have bought recently the new Sigma 120-300 OS with a 1.4 converter. I have used this lens recently in Sweden and I think it is a terrific good Lens. Very sharp with image stabiliser and compared to the 200-400 kind of affordable.
If you go to my Facebook page, there is a hands on test. Www.Facebook.com/renenaturepics
Rene de Heer
Posted by Paul Whippey on March 5, 2012 at 3:42 PM
Good topic Neil. This is something that I'm pondering at the moment as well. I don't think completely swapping to Nikon is a good idea though. Us IT bods call it "vendor lock in" and its not a good place to be! I can see that having a Nikon body as well as a Canon adds flexibility for lenses.
I'm just at my first big lens investment, so a D7000 and a 200-400 VRII is making sense to me at the moment. Then a 600mm from either manufacturer later on.
As Nick says though, it depends on how heavily you have invested. For me its not such a difficult decision.
Hmmm, I do love my 500 f4 IS and would miss that, it is true I use it with a TC alot too :| Plus a friend of mine who shoots Nikon told me the 5DII, which he molested at Focus, is amazing and holds detail at ISO6400 rather well.... A 5D that can do alot of things, with decent Af and high ISO capability I have been waiting 5 years for....
As for Sigma, well yes I fancy it but never had a single good Sigma lens and there seems to be many conflicting reviews of the lens.
Neil
My twp penneth- I had Nikon and Sigma all my digital life and never really had a problem.
Cheers
John
Posted by Rene de Heer on March 6, 2012 at 7:54 AM
I would be very interested to read about the conflicting reviews about the Sigma 120-300. There were a few minor issues but i can honestly say that i like this lens a lot and this also seems to be the genral view on various websites. You always find people moaning and complaining whether its about Sigma, Nikon or Canon!
Personally i would stay with Canon, they are due to release a great new full frame body and the new lenses look pretty impressive (at a cost) and having 2 different systems side by side? i am not sure whether that is a good idea.
Rene de Heer
As for Sigma I refer mostly tot he number of people who bough a brand new out of the box lens and could not make it work. I do not mean the idiot whould could not get a sharp shot, they would struggle with G12 let alone a real camera and lens. No, I mean people who took itout, put it on the camera and the focus whined, or the OS would not turn on, or the zoom mech ground itself to a standstill. Having previously had no luck with 3 Sigma lenses and finding their AF lacking I am sceptical.
But it is a hobby, why do I take it so seriously? Oh yeh, cos I wish it was more.
I owned Nikon to 2002(ish), then moved to Canon, at the moment if I was buying afresh I would probably chose Nikon. That probably next year that will revert to Canon then Nikon then Canon....
My point, these companies will always play leap-frog as that is the competitive game, one then the next. All that does is entice you to spend cash on the perception that you will get better photographs - the reality, they are both much of a muchness, and the way to get better photos is to practice with the kit you have.
So why do I say if I was starting afresh now I would chose Nikon; they are cheaper for the stuff I would use than the equivalent Canon equipment -its really that simple and thats about the only reason.
T
PS don't underestimate the importance of 'reach' in enabling you not to disturb the subject.
Discussion
15 repliesFor the estimated price of the Canon I could buy a used 200-400 and a damn D4...so I am honestly considering it. Would mean selling alot of stuff. I may wait a bit, see how the 5DIII and D800 pan out.
Anyone thoughts on this? Anyone else done the same, I know a few togs did this, some because of the reasons above...Nikon have a 200-400.
Nikon offers, at the moment, better performance at higher ISO's then Canon and this has all been well documented. It will be interesting to see what the new D4 and D800 will bring. I have a D4 on order at the moment but i am now contemplating a D800. it is a bit slower, probably produces more noise (but then i hardly ever shoot on high ISO.s) but is half the price with the same AF engine.
Where Nikon always seem to be the more expensive camera make, it looks now that Canon has become very expensive. (Especially the new lenses) .
So as you can see there are plusses and minusses when it comes to moving from one camera make to another. I must also say that i feel more comfortable with the Nikon camera ergonomics.
Rene de Heer
I do eagerly await the results of the 5D vs 1Dx vs Nikon for IQ. I am not sure the slow D800 is a really bad thing, the AF is from the D4 so at least those 4 shots per seond should be in focus ;)
David
As others have said, Nikon has advantage in some areas, while has Canon has some advantage in other areas. In your position, I wouldn't trade the reach of the 500 for the framing capabilities of the 200-400 zoom.
Bob
But the D7000 looks like a good body, maybe worth trying one out. Yes I agree Nikon are in a strong spot right now, and perhaps are playing prices down to catch Canon off guard.
The Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 with 1.4 TC gives 170-420mm f4 but there are so many contradictory reviews on this lens but I think if you get a good copy it could be a much cheaper alternative.
Nikon have lagged behind Canon in MP's until recently. The D7000 at 16mp is a superb camera and I have been very happy with it. The D800 has really raised the bar with 36MP and is full frame so tons of resolution.
Nikon lenses also lag behind Canon with vibration reduction but many of them are cheaper than Canon especially when you compare the big teles with VR II being over a thousand pounds cheaper than the Canon IS II.
There is no ultimate answer really as both systems have pro's and cons and if you have invested heavily in one system you really have to justify a complete move. You could try renting the 200-400 if someone will lend you a Nikon body and see how much of an impression it makes on you.
Nick.
If you go to my Facebook page, there is a hands on test. Www.Facebook.com/renenaturepics
Rene de Heer
I'm just at my first big lens investment, so a D7000 and a 200-400 VRII is making sense to me at the moment. Then a 600mm from either manufacturer later on.
As Nick says though, it depends on how heavily you have invested. For me its not such a difficult decision.
As for Sigma, well yes I fancy it but never had a single good Sigma lens and there seems to be many conflicting reviews of the lens.
My twp penneth- I had Nikon and Sigma all my digital life and never really had a problem.
Cheers
John
Personally i would stay with Canon, they are due to release a great new full frame body and the new lenses look pretty impressive (at a cost) and having 2 different systems side by side? i am not sure whether that is a good idea.
Rene de Heer
As for Sigma I refer mostly tot he number of people who bough a brand new out of the box lens and could not make it work. I do not mean the idiot whould could not get a sharp shot, they would struggle with G12 let alone a real camera and lens. No, I mean people who took itout, put it on the camera and the focus whined, or the OS would not turn on, or the zoom mech ground itself to a standstill. Having previously had no luck with 3 Sigma lenses and finding their AF lacking I am sceptical.
But it is a hobby, why do I take it so seriously?
My point, these companies will always play leap-frog as that is the competitive game, one then the next. All that does is entice you to spend cash on the perception that you will get better photographs - the reality, they are both much of a muchness, and the way to get better photos is to practice with the kit you have.
So why do I say if I was starting afresh now I would chose Nikon; they are cheaper for the stuff I would use than the equivalent Canon equipment -its really that simple and thats about the only reason.
T
PS don't underestimate the importance of 'reach' in enabling you not to disturb the subject.