What do i buy ? (Canon)

[Energize]

Nikon offer a 70-300vr, 80-200 af-d and 70-200 f4.0 VR. How many more budget options do you need?

A fast cheap zoom (with af motor since Nikon crippled their crops) for the masses of wildlife and sports photographers would be an obvious option, I believe cannon offer one for little more than the sigma.

I think it's reasonable to expect nikon to sell a range of lenses to cater to the main areas of photography at both consumer and professional levels. Otherwise it kind of makes their cameras useless to many.

 

[Amp34]

Canon do have more options in that area but the difference is not so big when you factor in things like the cost of the 70-300 DO and L versions they are really a different price.

For a budget 300mm f4 you can get the older 300mm f4.0 AF, which is also around 400 quid. Nikon do need to update their 300mm f4, it is overdue, it has been rumored to be replaced for a long time and that might happen this year.

You included things like the crop 55-250 canon, in which case you can add lenses like the 55-200 VR and non VR, 55-300VR, 18-200, 18-300, 28-300VR full frame lens.
Nikon now have a 70-200f 4.

400mm 5.6 is easily achieved with the 300mm f4.0

Nikon don't offer non VR of their lenses but I don't see this as a weakness,if you want a non-VR lens then just buy the older generation second handoff less money. Lenses like the 70-200f4 non-is are not really that important, if you want a slower and lighter lens then you will definitely want the IS, and the difference with the 70-300 IS is then small.

So in reality there is small difference. Nikon really need to get out the 300mm f4 VR and 80-400 replacements. I don't think there is a need for much else. Other areas should be a priority.

I included the 55-300 VR in my list of Nikon gear, it's not exactly what I would call the target quality for the argument I was making (neither are a couple of the Canon lenses - 55-250 and 70/75-300 non IS) but I thought I would add them anyway just for completeness. I discounted the superzooms as thats again not really the point, however Canon also do similar lenses, alongside the 28-300L if you really want a bulletproof superzoom).

The point was if you want a step up from a (cheap) consumer telephoto (the 55-300, 70-300 VR/IS) then you really are stuck with Nikon. There isn't really anything under £1k for you to choose from, unless you buy used and in which case the weight is something that would put most people off for general shooting (I doubt many carry a 70/80-200 f/2.8 on a family day out for example). Even the 70-200 F/4 VR (which I did mention as well) is currently out of most consumers price ranges so unless you want to spend bug money* you're a bit stuck for Nikon Teles.

It's all well and good saying this can go with this to make this but, for example the 400 f/5.6, these lenses are speciality lenses. Many birders would never swap their stunningly sharp 400 f/5.6 for a 300 with a TC. Again like the non IS stuff, it is annoying not to have IS but it does mean you can get that step up (and it is a big step up) to an professional style lens (with all that comes with it, build, IQ, focus speed) for a budget.

There is a big difference in the prosumer market between Canon and Nikon ranges but as has already been pointed out Nikon do have better lenses in other areas, although not as big a difference.

Anyway we've had this discussion several times and for me there is a big hole in Nikons lineup, I've pretty much decided on the 120-300 now for my trip (other thread) but it's still not solved the everyday walking long lens conundrum!

* An arbitrary £1k as it's a round number and four figures does make a difference to the buy mindset of a lot.

 

[Amp34]

A fast cheap zoom (with af motor since Nikon crippled their crops) for the masses of wildlife and sports photographers would be an obvious option, I believe cannon offer one for little more than the sigma.

I think it's reasonable to expect nikon to sell a range of lenses to cater to the main areas of photography at both consumer and professional levels. Otherwise it kind of makes their cameras useless to many.

They do have a nice range for both the consumer* and professional**, unfortunately what Nikon lack is the prosumer level kit. The stuff that is still light and fairly cheap but built to be used regularly outside of the occasional trip to the park (such as the 70-200 f/4 range and a number of slower primes - f/4 and 5.6 range).

*55-300 VR, 70-300 VR etc.
** 300 f/2.8, 200-400 f/4. 400 f/2.8 etc.

 

[Energize]

The point was if you want a step up from a (cheap) consumer telephoto (the 55-300, 70-300 VR/IS) then you really are stuck with Nikon. There isn't really anything under £1k for you to choose from, unless you buy used and in which case the weight is something that would put most people off for general shooting (I doubt many carry a 70/80-200 f/2.8 on a family day out for example). Even the 70-200 F/4 VR (which I did mention as well) is currently out of most consumers price ranges so unless you want to spend bug money* you're a bit stuck for Nikon Teles.

This hits the nail on the head really, a fast zoom is far more expensive from Nikon than Cannon or 3rd parties, big gap in their lineup I think.

 

[An Exception]

I think it's reasonable to expect nikon to sell a range of lenses to cater to the main areas of photography at both consumer and professional levels. Otherwise it kind of makes their cameras useless to many.

What's a 70-300 VR if it's not a consumer lens?

The 70-200 F4L is a good option for people on a budget.
For me it would probably make a good stop gap until I had the budget for something with IS and/or a faster aperture.

I won't be buying a long lens for a while though...

 

[Energize]

What's a 70-300 VR if it's not a consumer lens?

It is a consumer lens but it's too slow to be useful for sports and wildlife in many cases, that's where the f/2.8 zooms are popular. As it stands Nikon don't have any consumer sports lenses except one with no af motor. Canon do, and 3rd party manufacturers also do.

 

[Mp4]

Greetings all,

Well 2013 is going to be expensive
I mainly shoot Seascape/Landscape/Portraits/ will be plunging to Weddings this year.


Looking to upgrade my 400D+ Grip

Lens: 50mm 1.8/85mm 1.8/70-300 Sigma/Kit lens

Did have my eyes set on a 40D but want something new with a good sensor for low light (not too grainy)

Budget 1k (and no Nikon's)

 

[An Exception]

Did have my eyes set on a 40D but want something new with a good sensor for low light (not too grainy)

Budget 1k (and no Nikon's)

Looks like your choice is between a used 5Dii, 1dsii, 5Di.

 

[Raymond Lin]

£1k will get you a secondhand 5dii.

And I would get a wide angle lens too, surprise that you don't, being on crop and shoots landscapes.

 

[King Damager]

5Dii, and later when you can afford it 17-40L or maybe a 35/1.4

kd

 

[shaggyd]

I am looking at expanding from an outgrown Fujifilm bridge camera to a decent dslr in the reign of D5100+ (not an entry level). I have developed lots of experience from my bridge in manual mode.
What do you guys think of me getting a used Canon EOS 7D or Nikon D300s over a new Nikon D7000? I have no lenses yet and want a cracking image quality camera which will oushine my trusty Fuji S200exr.

 

[D.P.]

I am looking at expanding from an outgrown Fujifilm bridge camera to a decent dslr in the reign of D5100+ (not an entry level). I have developed lots of experience from my bridge in manual mode.
What do you guys think of me getting a used Canon EOS 7D or Nikon D300s over a new Nikon D7000? I have no lenses yet and want a cracking image quality camera which will oushine my trusty Fuji S200exr.

Depends what you shoot but unless you shoot sport then the D7000 is in another league compared to the other 2 image wise.

 

[Mp4]

£1k will get you a secondhand 5dii.

And I would get a wide angle lens too, surprise that you don't, being on crop and shoots landscapes.

a wide angle is my next lens choice and 35mm 1.4

 

[An Exception]

I am looking at expanding from an outgrown Fujifilm bridge camera to a decent dslr in the reign of D5100+ (not an entry level). I have developed lots of experience from my bridge in manual mode.
What do you guys think of me getting a used Canon EOS 7D or Nikon D300s over a new Nikon D7000? I have no lenses yet and want a cracking image quality camera which will oushine my trusty Fuji S200exr.

I would choose the D7000 every time. I'v owned both the D7000 & D300.

 

[Snaggle]

i would love a mk2 but at 1k secondhand (i did mention i wanted new ) plus a decent lens that closer to £1500

I have maybe 1k to play with if i sell all my gear . The 7000 interests me but i dunno if i fancy Nikon. Mate has one so might need to pop down and have a play . Other than that i dont know if there is a Canon that is worth the upgrade unless i go secondhand

 

[42zx]

I had a D7000 and Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 combo and it was fantastic, I chose it over the 7D and D300s because I thought it offered better features and IQ at a better price. Nikon have better/newer primes at the moment but Canon probably have the edge in consumer zooms as mentioned.

Just make sure you wont regret not spending that bit extra, it will cost you more in the long run i.e. You will get the full frame itch like I did

 

[shaggyd]

Uuurgh, more headaches - The D5200 is out with kit lens for same price as D7000 body, would this be recommended above the D7000? I do plenty of landscape photography (especially sunrise/sunsets, my bridge seems to struggle with bright colours and gives a dither/noise in clouds or fog) and recently everyday portraits.

 

[D.P.]

I would still choose the d7000 for the better body and controls.

 

[Energize]

D7000 is also compatible with a lot more lenses. AF motor for non AF-S lenses and mechanical metering with non-cpu lenses.

 

[shaggyd]

Thanks guys, I'll wait until next month when I get some extra cash. Keen on purchasing the D7000 secondhand with a 2nd hand lens from a reputable camera dealer.