Posted by Scott Bideau on September 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM
So the Nikon D600 came out today and I was intrigued by it's low price. Since I just recently sold some of my fast glass to be replaced by slower (f/4) and lighter glass, the idea crossed my mind of simply switching to this Nikon body. I went out to Nikon's website to research price points on lenses to match my ideal Canon full frame selection (17-40 f/4, 24-105 f/4 IS, and 70-200 f/4 IS). I was surprised to see that Nikon doesn't have a lightweight 70-200. They've got a 70-200 f/2.8 VR (too heavy for my landscape use) but no lightweight 70-200 fixed aperture (or similair). Am I missing something obvious? How could such a popular lens with Canon be nonexistent for Nikon users?
Posted by Grant Collier on September 13, 2012 at 5:06 PM
Nikon does have a 70-300 that's rated well for the price.
Posted by George Hager on September 13, 2012 at 5:18 PM
How could such a popular lens with Canon be nonexistent for Nikon users?
A question Nikon users have asked over and over again. As Grant stated - there is the 70-300mm. It's light, it's cheap and up to 200mm it is very good. I would gladly trade in my 3.2 pound 70-200mm f2.8 lens for an f4 that was half as heavy.
Posted by Scott Bideau on September 13, 2012 at 5:40 PM
Thanks, I appreciate the 70-300 option and validation that I'm not crazy in wanting this type of lens. I really can't stand variable aperture lenses since I also enjoy ski photography and love shooting in manual once I've locked in the right exposure.
Posted by Kane Engelbert on September 13, 2012 at 8:54 PM
Scott, your question is one of the big three reasons why I can't go back to Nikon. Until they release a 70-200 f4 that's optically as good as the 70-200 2.8, clean up the weird greens and yellows in their viewfinders and update the 24mm tilt shift then I have zero problems shooting my 5Dmark II.
If it were me, I wouldn't think about switching to Nikon unless I could affort the 14-24 and the 70-200 2.8. Your gonna need that resolution to take advantage of the 24mp. They have a killer sharp 50mm 1.8G that's cheap and wicked sharp and their 24-70 2.8 is optically a lot better than the 24-105 in my opinion.
The 70-300 f5.6 is super-sharp and used by a number of top pros, full frame, high megapixel. I own the 14-24, 24-120, an old 80-200 f2.8, 80-400... and more. Oh yeah, and that sharp 70-300. Some pros like the 28-300, including my friend Michael Forsberg. Lots of ways to get it done in Nikon world.
I too was hoping for a 70-200 F4, but ended up going for the older 80-200 2.8 AFD for my D800 and I'm pretty dang happy with it. Very sharp, half the price of the 70-200. Downside is no VR or nano coat. Think it weighs slightly less than the 70-200 as well. It's worth checking out.
Discussion
6 replieshttp://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-USA/Nikon_2161_AF_S_VR_Zoom_Nikkor.html
A question Nikon users have asked over and over again. As Grant stated - there is the 70-300mm. It's light, it's cheap and up to 200mm it is very good. I would gladly trade in my 3.2 pound 70-200mm f2.8 lens for an f4 that was half as heavy.
If it were me, I wouldn't think about switching to Nikon unless I could affort the 14-24 and the 70-200 2.8. Your gonna need that resolution to take advantage of the 24mp. They have a killer sharp 50mm 1.8G that's cheap and wicked sharp and their 24-70 2.8 is optically a lot better than the 24-105 in my opinion.