I'm thinking about switching over from Canon. I thought about this a few months ago, but decided not to. Anyway, is Nikon zoom glass really "prime" sharp? Is there a substantial difference between the canon equivalents which I own? I would be looking at a 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 w/ D3 setup.

no not much. mostly there is a difference between photographers - I find.

the primes are definitely "prime" sharp.

nice landscape shots ... btw.

That's a lot of money to spend on equipment. Before buying I'd be test driving the gear myself with my own memory card rather than relying upon web advice. That way you can judge for yourself whether or not its good enough for you.

The gear you listed is from what I've heard ok but it seems the D3 has freezing problems in cold weather. Seriously though, try it out for yourself.

That's a nice setup you chose, can't get much better than that really.

grmedhat1 wrote:
The gear you listed is from what I've heard ok but it seems the D3 has freezing problems in cold weather. Seriously though, try it out for yourself.

I'll be glad to get rid of any of your freezing D3s.

panos.v wrote:
grmedhat1 wrote:
The gear you listed is from what I've heard ok but it seems the D3 has freezing problems in cold weather. Seriously though, try it out for yourself.

I'll be glad to get rid of any of your freezing D3s.

Don't think it's his. Should be that recent thread about that guy going through a few D3 bodies during a game..

I believe that all three lenses you mention, the newest Nikkor versions are shaper than the Canon equivalents. But if you have a lot of Canon lenses, why are you making the switch, the differences are not that big (even for the wide angle) and you are already used to the system?

I own those lenses and camera. It is the best Nikon kit I've owned. Never having owned a Canon, I can't compare it to Canon.

pookipichu wrote:
I believe that all three lenses you mention, the newest Nikkor versions are shaper than the Canon equivalents. But if you have a lot of Canon lenses, why are you making the switch, the differences are not that big (even for the wide angle) and you are already used to the system?

A few of the reasons that get me thinking about the idea

1. FF pro DSLR that isn't slow. I want a hybrid between MK III and 1dsMKIII
2. Nostalgia
3. I like putzing w/ new gear
4. Better speedlights

The 24-70, 70-200 Nikon equivelants are certainly better then whats offered in the Canon camp, personally speaking. The 14-24 is also again in my opinion superior to the 16-35 in all aspects.

I have all the lenses mentioned above and have just switched from canon. I think the 24-70 and 70-200 are sharper - and I was very impressed with canon's lenses! The 24-70s are very close with the nod going to Nikon, and the 70-200, well, the Nikon unit is way better than the one I had!

I also have the 14-24 and it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever seen. I think you'll be very impressed when you switch. I've switched and never looked back. Best photographic equipment move I've made.

Steve

panos.v wrote:
grmedhat1 wrote:
The gear you listed is from what I've heard ok but it seems the D3 has freezing problems in cold weather. Seriously though, try it out for yourself.

I'll be glad to get rid of any of your freezing D3s.

I was hoping the little winky smiley face would have revealed the note of sarcasm in my comment. For those who missed the article...clicky.

grmedhat1 wrote:
panos.v wrote:
grmedhat1 wrote:
The gear you listed is from what I've heard ok but it seems the D3 has freezing problems in cold weather. Seriously though, try it out for yourself.

I'll be glad to get rid of any of your freezing D3s.

I was hoping the little winky smiley face would have revealed the note of sarcasm in my comment. For those who missed the article...clicky.

No sarcasm on my part, I'm serious. Just send me those D3s!

Here is a shot I did just for fun with a 17-35mm Nikkor f2.8 zoom. I was shooting with my 105 Micro Nikkor and decided to give this a try. Below is a 100% crop of the image that I took with the zoom... I don't see much difference between the much lauded 105 and the very respected 17-35 in the crop.

If you want to compair... I have an earlier post taken with the 105 and there is a 102% crop of the shot taken with that lens of the same area...same lighting, exposure, same ISO, etc..............

Geez, you're certainly not going to go wrong with that setup. Is there a substantial difference between the lenses mentioned. In real life, not really. Though the 14-24 is quite remarkable.

And something that's rarely been mentioned about that lens, you almost can't find a bad copy. The QA is very high. Could be that there is variation , but even the bad copies are better than anything else on the market (as long as you're not shooting nto the sun).

The next two (24-70 and 70-200) are much closer. But, there are definitely more people unhappy with their Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS than there are Nikon users un happy with theirs. In fact, I'd go for the Sigma f2.8 or Canon f4 IS version over it to tell you the truth. If only the Sigma had image stabilizer on that little beauty.

Lastly...

"2. Nostalgia
3. I like putzing w/ new gear"

Damn fine reasons right there!

Jay Kopinski wrote:
The 24-70, 70-200 Nikon equivelants are certainly better then whats offered in the Canon camp, personally speaking. The 14-24 is also again in my opinion superior to the 16-35 in all aspects.

jay, you still shooting with you canon?

bagtagsell wrote:
I'm thinking about switching over from Canon. I thought about this a few months ago, but decided not to. Anyway, is Nikon zoom glass really "prime" sharp? Is there a substantial difference between the canon equivalents which I own? I would be looking at a 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 w/ D3 setup.

I happened to be at Birdland (jazz club in NYC) a few months ago to attend the debut of a jazz pianist friend of mine when I noticed a fellow-photographer shooting with Nikon. Being a Canon shooter, I couldn't help but walk up to the photographer and ask about the gear, talk shop, etc.

The photographer, it turns out, is a very accomplished and much sought-after talent who specializes in photographing performers at work. She's been doing this for over 20 years and has photographed some real super-stars all over the world.

When I asked the simple question, "Why Nikon?," she answered: "The glass. Much better than Canon," she said pointing straight at the lens on her camera.

I never forgot the certainty in her answer, so I recently purchased my first Nikon DSLR, a used D2x, and will now have an opportunity to compare the two systems .... and their respective lenses ... for myself. Should be interesting.

— Steve

I will go with Pavel on this one. I think that the photographer, not necessarily his or her gear, is the strong force behind the lens.
Today, optical technology is better than ever. I mean better than ever for every lens manufacturer. I know that Nikon makes an excellent 85mm f1.4 lens but so also Pentax, just to mention someone.
Be confident that Nikon and Canon make excellent optics and yes, many professional zoom Nikkors are as good as their prime counterparts. Just asked John Shaw, who swears by his Nikkor zooms.
Primes are excellent but a zoom could make the difference between getting or not a shot...and they are very convenient and excellent cropping tools.
Good luck!
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

panos.v wrote:
grmedhat1 wrote:
panos.v wrote:
grmedhat1 wrote:
The gear you listed is from what I've heard ok but it seems the D3 has freezing problems in cold weather. Seriously though, try it out for yourself.

I'll be glad to get rid of any of your freezing D3s.

I was hoping the little winky smiley face would have revealed the note of sarcasm in my comment. For those who missed the article...clicky.

No sarcasm on my part, I'm serious. Just send me those D3s!

Luck would have it I just happened to have an extra frozen one kicking around so its in the mail.

louis fusco wrote:
Jay Kopinski wrote:
The 24-70, 70-200 Nikon equivelants are certainly better then whats offered in the Canon camp, personally speaking. The 14-24 is also again in my opinion superior to the 16-35 in all aspects.

jay, you still shooting with you canon?


I am still currently. I shoot primes only and at this time Nikon does not offer a competitive equivelant. I'm looking for a new pro body but the MKIII's issues leave alot to be desired.

grmedhat1 wrote:
panos.v wrote:
grmedhat1 wrote:
panos.v wrote:
grmedhat1 wrote:
The gear you listed is from what I've heard ok but it seems the D3 has freezing problems in cold weather. Seriously though, try it out for yourself.

I'll be glad to get rid of any of your freezing D3s.

I was hoping the little winky smiley face would have revealed the note of sarcasm in my comment. For those who missed the article...clicky.

No sarcasm on my part, I'm serious. Just send me those D3s!

Luck would have it I just happened to have an extra frozen one kicking around so its in the mail.


Do you recomend thawing out the D3 in a Microwave or Conventional Oven?

Jay Kopinski wrote:
The 24-70, 70-200 Nikon equivelants are certainly better then whats offered in the Canon camp, personally speaking. The 14-24 is also again in my opinion superior to the 16-35 in all aspects.

I agree. I've owned both the Canon 24-70L and 70-200 2.8L, and while they were pretty sharp, the Nikon equivalents blew me away with their sharpness.