Switched from Canon to Nikon, choose my new setup!

Personally I'd consider the (new) Tamron 70-200mm a better choice than the Nikon. It's very good (equal if not better than the Nikon) and costs a considerable amount less. That leaves you more money for other lenses.

Thanks J-see,

I never considered trying out Tamron for it's 70-200. Read a few reviews and see that it's pretty stellar. Just doing poorly in low light situations. I'll consider it. Thanks!

critalon said:

Hi everyone!

I've been extensively shooting Canon for the past few years. I just sold my Canon 5d MKIII and all my Canon Lenses to switch to Nikon. I have a limited budget for my new setup for Nikon lens. I'm curious as to which you guys would choose?

I like shooting portraits. But I also need a wide angel...who doesn't? I do have needs for a macro in the near future, but wouldn't mind getting it now.
I've used Canon's 70-200 MKII @ 200mm 2.8 extensively for portraits and had the 85 1.2 II as well. My other Canon lens line up was the 100mm L IS Macro, 16-35 2.8 and the 40mm 2.8 STM.

I have $3900 to spend. I've done my research and here is a list of the lenses I'm juggling around to see which is the best mix. I already have the D810 body.

Sigma 105mm Macro - $670
Nikon 85mm 1.4G - $1600
Sigma 35mm 1.4 - $900
Nikon 70-200 VR II - $2400
Nikon 14-24 2.8 - $2000


Any input would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
-Clement

Click to expand...

Will the Nikon be full frame, or cropped DX frame? That can make a lens choice difference.

With full frame, I use the Nikon 70-200 at about ten feet, around 120mm. That would be 80mm DX.

Click this one to enlarge it a little. 70-200.


I also have the Nikon 24-70mm, it's great for most everything else.

I also have the Nikon 14-24mm, but don't use it much. It's an absolutely great lens, but seems rather special purpose to me. When I do use it, it's usually closer to 24mm. 24mm is pretty wide on full frame.

f/1.4 is something I don't have use for (I prefer flash), so no comment.

@WayneF
Thanks for the input! It'll be for the D810 using FF and not crop mode.

Why the switch?

@FastGlass
Better dynamic range, better ISO performance, recommendations from a few fellow fashion photographers and a chance to try something new!

I was reading this thread earlier and thinking - quite a dramatic switch considering the investment in C gear.
However the explanation helps clear that up and it is interesting to note that the recommendations came from your peers.
I believe you will be happy with whatever lenses you choose as you are buying at the top with a great body.
Looking forward to seeing your work

I've yet to meet a Nikon using wedding photographer who doesn't use the Nikon 14-24mm. It's a weapon of choice for all the ones I've come across. There's usually the Holy Trinity in attendance

critalon said:

@FastGlass
Better dynamic range, better ISO performance, recommendations from a few fellow fashion photographers and a chance to try something new!

Click to expand...

You're going to love the D810. At ISO 64 it makes your eyes bleed. It however isn't a performer when you shoot a lot quickly. The buffer runs dry pretty fast at max quality RAW and its fps is not impressive. But the quality it delivers is phenomenal.

critalon said:

@FastGlass
Better dynamic range, better ISO performance, recommendations from a few fellow fashion photographers and a chance to try something new!

Click to expand...

I can understand the ISO performance but better dynamic range? Seems like a huge cost to switch for those reasons. I like my gear but if I were to do it again I would probably go with Canon. Why? I think they put more thought into their bodies. The WIFI is a huge deal for me and Nikon hit the market to late on that one. Plus I think there are better lens choices from Canon than Nikon. There's tons of pros and cons between the two but the reason I chose Nikon was the D90. It was the newest best entry level body out at the time and I was new to photography.

Welcome to Nikon and Nikonites. If you don't mind buying pre-owned, you might find these three Nikkors for $3900 or less: 16-35 f/4, 85 1.4 and 70-200 2.8VRI or II.

I could have gold doubloons falling out my ass and I'd still not even so much as CONSIDER paying Nikon for f/1.4 glass. They're bad enough when it comes to their f/2.8 stuff and on an even more practical level, how many people really need/use f/1.4 enough to justify the outrageous price? With $4K to spend you could assemble an arsenal to reckoned with but not if you're going to spend three times what you need to for an extra half-stop or some s--t like that.
....

FastGlass said:

I can understand the ISO performance but better dynamic range? Seems like a huge cost to switch for those reasons. I like my gear but if I were to do it again I would probably go with Canon. Why? I think they put more thought into their bodies. The WIFI is a huge deal for me and Nikon hit the market to late on that one. Plus I think there are better lens choices from Canon than Nikon. There's tons of pros and cons between the two but the reason I chose Nikon was the D90. It was the newest best entry level body out at the time and I was new to photography.

Click to expand...

I shoot with a couple fashion photographers, one who was a Nikon shooter from the start, and another who switched over from Canon (not as invested as I was). One using the D800 and the other using the D750. Shooting outdoors and low light often, we don't always get the perfect scenario. Whenever it came to post process, there was quite a large difference in terms of IQ in the same scenario we were shooting in. The huge mp jump is always a bonus to me, as we all like to pixel peep and our workstations can handle the files.
I could always wait for the 5DSR, but real world reviews seem to show that the dynamic range and ISO is not up to par as the D810. I could also wait for the 5d MKIV....

But I'm done justifying my actions for switching to Nikon. I'm just looking to get the awesome lens and have fun shooting!

Horoscope Fish said:

I could have gold doubloons falling out my ass and I'd still not even so much as CONSIDER paying Nikon for f/1.4 glass. They're bad enough when it comes to their f/2.8 stuff and on an even more practical level, how many people really need/use f/1.4 enough to justify the outrageous price? With $4K to spend you could assemble an arsenal to reckoned with but not if you're going to spend three times what you need to for an extra half-stop or some s--t like that.
....

Click to expand...

My 50 is 1.4 and I've used it many times wide open. Had I had gold doubloons coming out my ass when I bought my 85 1.8, I would have bought the 1.4, but that's just me.

Welcome to nikonites! I don't have any of those lenses, so I'm afraid I can't be of help in that. But I'm sure you'll have a blast with your new Nikon! I have the D800e and I'm loving it!

FastGlass said:

Why the switch?

Click to expand...

Realizing that even 600 family has better DR and IQ than old mk3?

On-topic, I'd just get a used 70-200VRII (or even VRI, it's honestly NOT as bad as many make it out to be in real-life conditions), used 14-24, Tamron SP90 for macro, and choice of most used prime in 35-85 range. I feel 24-70 range is pointless next to 14-24 and 70-200, when say a 35 or 50 prime will basically cover what's missing.

Nikkor 24mm-70mm 2.8G and 70mm-200mm 2.8g

critalon said:

I shoot with a couple fashion photographers, one who was a Nikon shooter from the start, and another who switched over from Canon (not as invested as I was). One using the D800 and the other using the D750. Shooting outdoors and low light often, we don't always get the perfect scenario. Whenever it came to post process, there was quite a large difference in terms of IQ in the same scenario we were shooting in. The huge mp jump is always a bonus to me, as we all like to pixel peep and our workstations can handle the files.
I could always wait for the 5DSR, but real world reviews seem to show that the dynamic range and ISO is not up to par as the D810. I could also wait for the 5d MKIV....

But I'm done justifying my actions for switching to Nikon. I'm just looking to get the awesome lens and have fun shooting!

Click to expand...

Understand. Welcome to the Nikon world.

critalon said:

Hi everyone!

I've been extensively shooting Canon for the past few years. I just sold my Canon 5d MKIII and all my Canon Lenses to switch to Nikon. I have a limited budget for my new setup for Nikon lens. I'm curious as to which you guys would choose?

I mostly shoot portraits. But I also need a wide angle...who doesn't? I shoot engagements and weddings from time to time. I do have needs for a macro in the near future, but wouldn't mind getting it now.
I've used Canon's 70-200 MKII @ 200mm 2.8 extensively for portraits and had the 85 1.2 II as well. My other Canon lens line up was the 100mm L IS Macro, 16-35 2.8 and the 40mm 2.8 STM.

I have $3900 to spend. I've done my research and here is a list of the lenses I'm juggling around to see which is the best mix. I already have the D810 body.

Sigma 105mm Macro - $670
Nikon 85mm 1.4G - $1600
Sigma 35mm 1.4 - $900
Nikon 70-200 VR II - $2400
Nikon 14-24 2.8 - $2000


Any input would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
-Clement

Click to expand...

If you are mostly shooting with strobes in a wedding, then VR is not of much help.

I feel that the Tamron 90mm is a fantastic macro lens. If you want long working distance then the Nikon 200mm is the best. For copy work nothing really beats the Nikon 60mm D lens.

Regarding subject isolation, unless you are shooting up close, there is not much difference between F1.8 and F1.4, so you can consider the 85mm F1.8 initially, or else you can borrow/rent both the lenses and see if the F1.4 is really worth the markup. Another option you may consider is the 50mm F1.2 AIS manual focus lens. It is one of the sharpest 50mm Nikons F2 onwards.

The 14-24 is the best lens in this range, better at 14mm than the 14mm prime. I have noticed that this is used mostly for industrial shoots and rarely in wedding or landscapes, so I was wondering of its utility for you. Unless you need the 14-18mm range, the Nikon F1.8 primes would be better buy.