Considering a Canon switch - Lens help

[Puzz1e]

I have a pretty new D7000 with only a 50mm 1.4G lens. I have been getting really into my photography and want to upgrade to full frame in the near future.

I have been wanting to build my lens collection and have been saving for the 24-70 2.8. I took a look at the Canon equivalent today and it is significantly cheaper. The Canon 70-200 2.8 also seems to be a huge amount cheaper than the Nikon equivalent. Couple the cheaper lenses with the fact that the upcoming 5d mk3 will also probably be selling for significantly cheaper than the yet to be announced D800. I am really starting to consider selling my almost brand new gear and moving over to Canon.

From what I am reading, the canon vs Nikon lens lineup does not really have a clear winner - with both camps having some outstanding lenses at certain lengths. I would really appreciate some input/advice on this. Is there an explanation of why Canon seems cheaper across the board other than manufacturing costs? I would love to hear the experiences of long term Canon users or those who have switched across.

[arthurking83]

Think of it in terms of swings and roundabouts .. what you gain in one, you lose on the other.

Did you compare the IS II 70-200/2.8 or the older vI model.
From what I know of these lenses, they're basically the same price(or at least should be).

Nikon stopped making their vI of this lens long before Canon did, and it seems that it's a very rare lens to find new .. so maybe if you're seeing a considerably cheaper version of the Canon, then it could still be the vI model.

D700 vs 5DII have always been about on par in terms of pricing.
I remember a time where the D700 was cheaper than the Canon for a while .. by about $200 or so.

But then again, I usually only refer to real world prices and not the institutionally over inflated pricing structure of the local Nikon yakuza! :D
The local Nikon hoodlums would do well as directors of Olympus!!

I'm always checking prices of Nikon gear at the larger well known grey retailers.

If you're serious about wanting a cheaper full frame camera, Sony are generally cheaper again.

[Wayne]

Arthur is right regarding the comparisons, make sure you are comparing apples, and that the lenses are equivalents. Canon seem to make a few versions of some lenses, where Nikon pretty much make one.
An example is Canon make a 70-200/2.8 with no IS (image stabilisation) and one that does have IS vII, the price difference is about $1000 between them, they also make a 70-200/4 IS, that is about $1300 cheaper than the f/2.8IS version. Nikon on the other hand only make 1 version of the 70-200/2.8, and it has VRII, they also do not make a 70-200/4 so it is important to make sure you are comparing like items.

I just did a quick search of a local grey market seller, a very reputable and well known one who is listing the Canon 70-200/2.8IS II for $100 more than the Nikon 70-200/2.8VRII. On comparing the 24-70/2.8 from each, the L version from Canon is about $500 cheaper than the one and only Nikon version.

[arthurking83]

Yeah, Canon do seem to make a larger variety of lenses than all other companies, but there are some very important gaps in Canon's line up against Nikon lenses.

For flexible UWA lenses, Canon only has one offering at the widest end of the focal length spectrum, which is their 14mm prime lens, whereas Nikon have their awesome 14-24mm zoom.
For a flexible UWA from Canon, you lose out by 2mm and get a 16-35mm zoom.
While it's true that the Nikon 14-24 is hard to use filters on, those extra 2mm will make a huge perspective difference especially on a full frame sensor.

Then there is the hugely expensive 200-400/4 from Nikon.
Canon have nothing like that, and for versatility as a nature photographers lens, this is a big one for Nikon shooters.

Most other important lens types are covered well enough tho.

Where Nikon really loses out in price terms with respect to lenses is in the very long prime lens arena!
In the 400 - 600mm prime lens range, Canon's pricing is cheaper by the price of a very capable camera body when compared to Nikon's.

Then you get these weird anomalies such as the 200/2 lenses! :confused013
Canon's version is generally $500-$1K more than Nikon's when price checked from most grey sources(both local and overseas based that I've seen) .. and I think this has more to do with the design age of the lens, more so that simple manufacturing costs.

It seems obvious that where the design of the lens is newer, it's generally more expensive.

For a cheap 70-200mm pro lens, where Canon offer the non IS 70-200/2.8 or 70-200/4, Nikon's equivalent price range lens is their 80-200/2.8 AF-D lens .. for approx $1K (give or take).

Nikon is slowly updating a lot of their lenses now to AF-S, from the AF-D type, and it's only a matter of time for the entire range to go to AF-S .. eg. 80-400mm is much maligned for it's slow AF-D design. I'm sure that one day soon it will get the upgrade to AF-S, which usually means faster AF and more accurate too.
It's just a matter of time.

[Cyza]

I agree with arthur if you have a small kit which you would be willing to sell to make way for a Full Frame upgrade than it'd be hard to look past the Sony System.

although I have never used a sony camera before the A900 seems like a stellar camera on paper.
Full Frame, 24.6 megapixels and for under $2100 dollars grey.
You'd save even more buying third party lenses, such as the sigma 24-70 F 2.8 or the Sigma 70-200 F 2.8 OS The general consensus is that these lenses are inferior to the canon/nikon versions but the price tag is significantly smaller and they can't be that bad since plenty of people with Nikon and Canon bodies use them.

my 2 cents. :)

[Wayne]

It's certainly not a decision to take lightly when aligning yourself (and your wallet) with a particular brand. Once you get a body or 2, a few fast pro lenses and things like speedlights etc, you have invested a significant sum of $, and changing over down the track would be a painful experience, even though in the USA lots of people do it more than once, but they have a huge used market that will make buying one and selling another pretty easy, so the hassle isn't great, and neither is the cost, but doing it in Aus, and/or buying all new gear in the switch will cost a packet and be a headache.

You really need to consider where your interests photographically are headed, and then evaluate what gear and at what cost is available from each of the manufacturers before spending to much $ on any one brand. Nikon has historically been more expensive to shoot than Canon, but it seems Canon prices of late have started to rise in some areas.
I am a Nikon shooter (since I started in this hobby 2 years back) and have spent well over $20K on Nikon gear alone when I look into my bags, and I am very happy with my Nikon products, but even if I thought I would be happier or better off with a switch to Canon, I am way too heavily invested in Nikon to contemplate the change and it would take a Nikon disaster for me to even consider it.

[Kym]

I don't think Canon have a camera sensor that performs as well as the D7000, that alone would be a good reason to stay with Nikon.

[zollo]

I don't think Canon have a camera sensor that performs as well as the D7000, that alone would be a good reason to stay with Nikon.

truth. if you've been using the 7000 for a while, a canon sensor may disappoint you.

unless you dont have an income, saving for an extra couple of weeks will buy you nikon gear that you wont regret in the long run. but then having no income wont help you buy canon either.

Also i'm not so certain the 5dmk3 will be selling significantly cheaper than a d800 would be. why would it??

[Lance B]

I think Kym has hit the nail on the head with regards to the D7000's sensor. For low light ability and for DR the only camera that matches it (and possibly has a very, very slight advantage for IQ) in APS C format is the Pentax K-5.

The other things to consider are AF performance, both accuracy and speed between the Canon and the Nikon equivalents. Make sure that the Canon equivalent is at least as good as the D7000 in performance, speed and AF point spread. AF speed has alot to do with the lens as well. I know the D700 (FF sensor) generally outperforms the Canon 5D MKII (FF sensor) for AF and this may be the case for the Canon APS C equivalents to the D7000.

If you switch to Canon, you will lose a substantial amount in changeover and this amount you lose could be put to one or two of the lenses you desire in Nikon. If you stick with APS C, I wouldn't have thought the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 would have been a logical choice for APS C as it is like a 36-105 on FF, but then that may be the range you desire on APS C. A more logical "standard" zoom would be the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 - still same price as the 24-70 f2.8 though - but you can use a Tokina, Tamron or Sigma equivalent with an f2.8 max aperture.

However, if you decide to go FF then the only real difference I can see is the 24-70 f2.8 lens price difference because as far as I can see with regards to the 70-200 f2.8 zooms are concerned, a Canon is about the same price as the Nikon according to Digital Camera Warehouse pricing. However, you can still get Tamron and Sigma equivalents for less.

It will be difficult to know what the price of the future D800 is compred to the Canon 5d MK3 as they haven't been released yet, but the point is, there are many variables as to which constitutes best value. As I stated above, the AF of the D700 is superior to that of the 5D MKII by all accounts as is high ISO noise and DR. However, the 5D MKII has higher resolution and was cheaper.

It is not a simple fact of swapping systems due to price. There is no way in the world I could ever come to grips with the Canon system as for me, the menu system and design layout etc of their cameras are just not logical and I would forever be missing shots and no amount of price difference can make up for that! Nikon ergonomics etc are just better IMO. However, you really need to do your homework and make up your own mind on that score as it is a very important aspect of camera buying.

[Puzz1e]

Thanks everyone for such great detailed responses. I think the 70-200mm canon I saw was the old version, hence being half the price. Ooops! I have been really happy with the D7000, and Nikon in general. Maybe I just got a short feeling of the 'grass being greener on the other side', but I think staying with Nikon will be a better move for me.

I have considered the 17-55, but since I want to move to full frame soon - I see no point in spending soo much on a DX lens. The 24-70 will not be brilliant on my d7000 on the wide side, but its an investment in the direction of Full Frame.

I'm crossing my fingers that the d4 will bring the price of the d3s right down and I may be able to pick up an excellent camera at a good price!

[Wayne]

If stocks of the D4 are available and selling for the RRP of US$6K, then the price of the D3s will hover about the US$4K mark for mint low shutter count examples for a little while, and may even trend upwards, especially if the D4 is scarce. The D3s is a very capable body, and there would be plenty of people ready to spend $4K to get one Vs spending $6K for the D4, so expect a fair bit of buoyancy in those prices, same will apply to the D700 once it's replacement is released.

I suspect there will be a price break fairly quickly, because there should be a good demand for the D4, and all of the usual re-sellers will be trying to get a slice of the market, so I expect the price to come down a few hundred $$ from the $6K RRP early on, but I don't think it will drop to the current full RRP of about US$5200 of the D3s for a while, and it will depend heavily on stock availability.

[arthurking83]

I wouldn't expect D4 prices to come down at least until a few months after the London Olympics end.
Maybe some time Oct-Dec before we see any real discounting(>$500) from the RRP.

[fess67]

Buy a Canon.....then start to live :lol:

[Lance B]

Thanks everyone for such great detailed responses. I think the 70-200mm canon I saw was the old version, hence being half the price. Ooops! I have been really happy with the D7000, and Nikon in general. Maybe I just got a short feeling of the 'grass being greener on the other side', but I think staying with Nikon will be a better move for me.

I have considered the 17-55, but since I want to move to full frame soon - I see no point in spending soo much on a DX lens. The 24-70 will not be brilliant on my d7000 on the wide side, but its an investment in the direction of Full Frame.

I'm crossing my fingers that the d4 will bring the price of the d3s right down and I may be able to pick up an excellent camera at a good price!

Or wait until the D800 is available and the D700 prices will fall accordingly too. The D800 is rumoured to be annouced February. However, the downside to this is that you'll probably find a lot of D7000 on the market too meaning that the sale of your D7000 will possibly attract less money for resale. The reason for this is that there are probably many people like me who have both the D700 and D7000 and use the D7000 for reach, but with the D800's (rumoured) 36Mp sensor then cropping it to APS C size yields the same Mp's as the D7000 of 16Mp and therefore makes the D7000 redundant for "reach" due to it's 1.5x crop factor. 36Mp FF is the same as 16Mp APS C or DX.