Making my mind between Nikon or Canon

Wouldn't it be nice if it were f/2.8.... It's f/4, unfortunately....

I have the Sigma, it's ok. Too slow (f/4 at 10mm, f/5.6 at 20mm-I ask
you!).

Also Ruether's site,
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html
is excellent.

 

Nikon is changing their mount? I thought they just "defeatured" the
D40 to force people to higher end cameras? Not that it's something to
be applauded, but they all do it...

 

acl wrote:
[]

No, Nikon didn't change the mount.

I see the change more as moving the focus motor into the lens for future
lenses, and that we may expect a gradual upgrade of many of the popular
lenses.

David

 

Isn't that changing the mount? While the physical size
hasn't changed, moving the motor and adding new electrical
contacts is certainly a change.

Roger

 

As far as I know, lenses with focus motors included were available before
the D40, so the D40 didn't change the mount. If anyone knows otherwise...

David

 

Besides, even without AF-S you are "only" loosing the autofocus. You can
still mount the lens and use it with manual focus, just like photographers
have done for over a century.

jue

 

How often would you shoot a wide angle lens at f/4, little enough f/2.8
anyway? There have to be very few cases where this is needed, eh?

 

It is alleged that Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) claimed:

Nikon did not change the mount. My brother has a Nikon N80 that he got
years ago. I have a D40x. We exchanged lenses one day. He could use
both of my lenses perfectly. All of his would mount on my camera, and
while none of them would auto focus, which I expected, only one of them
(a Tamron 400mm tele) wouldn't work at all.

What Nikon did was require the focusing motor to be in the lens instead
of the body with the D40 and D40x.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #223.
I will install a fire extinguisher in every room -- three, if the room
contains vital equipment or volatile chemicals.

 

It is alleged that Yuki claimed:

Then go with the Nikon.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #223.
I will install a fire extinguisher in every room -- three, if the room
contains vital equipment or volatile chemicals.

 

It is alleged that Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) claimed:

A change, yes. But not to the mount. The new lenses will completely
work on older bodies, and many/most older lenses will mostly work on
the D40(x), simply without autofocus.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"I suppose there'll be a war now, hmm? All that running around and
shooting one another. You would have thought sooner or later it would
go out of fashion." (Amb. Mollari, B5 "The Gathering")

 

It's even simpler than that, Nikon glass on a Canon body. The 17-35/2.8
Nikkor is killer on both the 5D and Mk III. The 17-35 Nikkor is Canon's
answer to WA shooting, as is the 5D to Nikon's. There isn't a single piece
of L glass under 400mm worth putting on a Canon body. And Nikon doesn't
offer VR on their 400mm and longer lenses. It's impossible to not own both
platforms if you want the very best image quality.







Rita

 

Ya, oops on that, if they could make it 2.8 it would cost $1,500 like
the 14 & 18mm primes. I made the odd choice of the Sigma 12-24 full
frame 4.5-5.6 and speed is not a problem. That one is beautifully
distortion free, good for architecture but not the sharpest & prone to
spectacular flare, and it's big. You could get one of those for a 5D if
you really like going wide:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1224_4556/index.htm

Following up on the idea of a high quality wide prime, the best thing I
have now is a 20/2.8 AF and I recall a few months ago hunting for such a
beast, the suggestion of also checking David Ruther's list is good:
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html#super and you can ask him
to clarify here in the groups!
He uses the same 1-5 subjective rating as Bjorn R. So what you can do if
not willing to pay $1,200-$1,700 for a new f/2.8 is look at those
reviews & possibilities come out like the old MF (AI-S) 18mm f/3.5 which
if you are willing to stop down on a tripod & protect from flare, can
offer really sharp contrasty wideangle images from right up close to
infinity and that's nice to have these old options with the D200. My 20
AF is not astoundingly sharp, but probably sharper and with less
distortion than any of the wide cropped zooms and was not expensive. My
sigma is sharp stopped way down but then it develops distortion and wide
open it's distortion-free but not sharp <sigh>.

 

Not at all. You don't really think this hasn't already been hashed out
an infinite number of times on Usenet and the web, do you?

http://www.google.com

Greg

 

How's the autofocus?

Greg

 

What is autofocus? Do I even need it?







Rita

 

Around half (or a bit more) of my shots with it are wide open, because
they're handheld at night. The daylight ones usually are stopped down
to decrease the hyperfocal distance, indeed. If you don't use it at
night, then maybe it's not useful to have a faster wideangle.

 

Yes, it's one of the great things about it, you can find old excellent
lenses for very much less than equivalent modern ones. I admit I've
toyed with the idea of a 10.5mm fisheye (it's f/2.8) and defishing
afterwards, but it's too specialise for me... Anyway most of my shots
(almost all, infact) are with a 28mm f/2.8 or a 90mm f/2.8, and the
rest with the 10-20. I almost don't use my other lenses at all. I
guess artificial limitations increase the enjoyment of getting a good
shot!

 

I must say I always found mine to be pretty sharp - making due allowance
for aerial contrast reduction on long distance shots. It may suggest
there are sample variations. The pumping action theoretically seems like
a concern but I have not found it a problem in practice.

David

 

: For the flash system I don't really know how much better is Nikon's but
: it's a bad signal that many people suggest to use Canon's in manual mode.
: With my current T90/300TL I can get away with automatic flash overexposing
: negatives a bit. Slides with flash belong to the category of "forget it".

Be sure to read Gisle Hannemyr's disquisition on this subject, if you haven't
already.

Bob

 

I am sure many of the issues you have were already been covered. I
would like to add one additional issue. That is the personal feel of the
camera. How do your hands fit the camera. It is not likely your hands are
the same as mine so only you can decide if you like the fit. How easy is it
for your to reach all the commonly used controls. Pick up both cameras and
see how they feel. Work all the controls and pay special attention to the
ones you will commonly use.

Also remember that if you have had a Canon or a Nikon sticking with the
same brand will make the switch easier as they tend to keep the same way of
working. It will feel more like home.