Jumping Ship
 

I have almost decided to jump the Nikon ship. I have always been a Nikon fan and I have a D80 + 18-135 and a 300 f4 and a Kenko 1.4x converter. I want to get a 500mm prime but I cannot justify or afford a Nikon. I could afford a Sigma and yes I know it is a good lens but I know that I will not be happy and will want to change it next year and I won't be able to do so as I have one chance here.

The Canon 500mm f4 has IS and I can just about afford it. It comes in almost £1000 less than the non-VR Nikon which is a considerable amount of change.

My questions are - am I mad selling my Nikon Kit and buying Canon.

and Secondly - beside the 500mm what should I be looking at. My main interests are bird photography, natural photography in general and landscapes. The Nikon 18-135 was a nice general lens - not brilliant but quite adequate and the 300 is a brilliant walk around lens for everything. I have had a look at canon and there does not seem to be a replacement for the 18 - 135. The Canon 300 f4 looks like a direct replacement for the Nikon. Should I look at the 28-135 + a 300 or just go for the 28-300, or the 17-85 and a 70-300 (DO or no DO). Some help is required.

I have done some sums and by selling my Nikon kit I will be over my budget but should be able to get a EOS 40D + 500mm f4 + ???

Thanks

I got the Canon 500 f4 a couple of month ago and love it, I'm sure you'll really enjoy using it. The 300 f4 IS is apparently a very good lens too (though I've only used one briefly), I almost ordered one this week as a walkabout lens, but have gone for the 400 f5.6 instead as I always want more reach for birds. I guess a nice replacement for your 18-135 would be the 24-105 f4 IS, it's a great lens, but it doesn't come cheap.

I've never had Nikon kit so cannot comment on the change, I came to Canon from Minolta (an excellent move). Andy Bright made the Nikon to Canon switch earlier this year and he seems very pleased with it.

Short answer YES.

I've been using Canon since 1976 and there is no way I would go over to the DARK SIDE just becuase they made a better lens.

Likewise if I was a Nikon user I would not switch to Canon.

It's not just the 500 lens you have to buy, but a new camera body and other lenes aswell. Then there are the extras such as flash and filters etc.

But, as always, it's your money and you have to live with the decission.

It would be interesting to hear what Andy has to say on the subject. Sold all his Nikon kit to get Canon.

All the systems have pros and cons - as I never buy things like flashes and stick to a couple of lenses [bought s/hand to avoid depreciation], I've never had any qualms about switching systems. Canon to Nikon/Fuji to Canon/Olympus to Olympus to Canon. Lens availabity can be a big incentive. If you're spending most of your money on a long lens then the 28-135mm IS is a pretty nice walkaround lens at a reasonable price - picked mine up for about 200.00.
I've always preferred Nikon to Canon but have to say the 40D is extremely good!

In one way I am lucky - I have not yet invested in flashes or many filters etc. I was going to get a second body anyway. Now I just have to sell the Nikon kit and buy a 40D, a 500 f4 and either one or two other lenses. What do people think of the 70-300 f4 IS (+/- DO) or the 28-300 f3.5 L IS. If I went for the 28-300 f3.4 L IS - is it a good all round lens - maybe I would not need a 24-105 f4 L IS ?

I have just changed my 17-85 IS for a 24-105 IS and this is a great walk around lens. I also have a 70-300 IS in my bag which I think (and so do all the reports I read) is one of the great bargains in the Canon lens line up. Ok so its not L series build quality and its f4-5.6 so its not the fastest lens around but its light very sharp, and IS. I've also just bought the 10-22 which I love for that really wide angle perspective

Why not get the Tamron 24-135? they do it in Nikon fit, as well as many others. Have to agree wih John, can't say that I think it's worth swapping all your stuff for this sort of reason.

I've very pleased with my Tamron 24-135 - well worth the buy.

So am I, it's my everyday walkabout lens.

Sorry, As a long term sufferer of Nikon Acquisition Syndrome I must defend your original choice. The D80 is a great camera. However, as a walk about lens I don't think you can beat the 18-200mm VR Nikkor. And why go for a prime lens? Are you always able frame the picture at that distance? Or do you have to crop? Are you sometimes too close? In the old days I was always told the best and cheapest telephoto was two legs. Mind you - I now rely on a very good Sigma 50-500 (my only non Nikon lens) or 80-400 VR Nikkor when the legs give out.

The only problem with the 28-135 is you lose the wide end due to the crop factor. I have the 17-85 S IS and am very happy with it as long as you remember there is some barrel distortion at the wide end. When you have your new setup you can contemplate taking out a mortgage for the new 800 f5.6 IS Canon have announced will fairly soon be in production! :D :eek: :D That will sort out your birding pictures!

You might do better to wait until the new Nkon 500/4 VR is available. Yes, it's disgracefully overpriced but when you consider the cost of swapping systems you might come out about even. (And if Nikon didn't plan it exactly that way when they set the whopping price, then I'll eat my boots.)

But if you go Canon, then I suspect that you will find the 24-105 (or just about any of the alternatives mentioned) too long at the wide end. I have 24-105 and I have to confess that I don't really like it. It's a great lens, but not really suited to a crop camera. On a 5D it would be a different story.

That leaves you with the lack-lustre 17-85 (not especially cheap, bad barrel distortion), the very expensive but superb 17-55 (might be too short for you though), or (maybe this is your best option) the Sigma 17-70. I haven't tried a 17-70 for myself but they are well regarded and quite reasonably priced. I'm a bit tempted to get one myself for those times when I don't want to lug both the 24-105 and the 10-22 around and swap lenses constantly.

I don't agree the 17-85 is lack lustre at all. It is sharp with good contrast, its one weakness is the barrel distortion which AP described as moderate. I shoot mainly landscape and never notice it at all so unless you shoot architecture or similar I think you would be happy with one. The IS is a boon, I find it easier to shoot sharp low light shots with it than with the 50mm f1.8. Why Canon have never produced a 17-135 like Nikon beats me but apart from the extra length I find the 17-85 a superb general purpose lens.

X or Y brand are choice you make depending on several factors including your passion toward a brand, availability, cost, peer pressure (Yes you heard it right) and many other logical or non logical reasons.

I got into Canon FTb in 1972 when I was a young barely teenager. Went for Nikon F3 because I thought it makes a better me (Photographer) though it was my egos that got most satisfaction out of the change (Soon to find how .... the pros must be when could see what FM2 or FA would offer at much lower cost). With the first digital camera getting out in market I knew what I always wanted so many years of non DSLRs Olympus, Nikon coolpixs, Fuji, then Canons and after getting serious about DSLR, it has always been Canon that made me happy. I have many other camera bodies directly or in vicinity (Child and other family members) and still stick firmly with Canon. I know very well what I will buy next and that is 5D MK II once it is released hopefully early next year.

If you go with canon (Considering you said primary interest is Bird Shooting) I suggest 40D as body, Sigma 50-500 for birds (Though it falls a bit short of Canon L 100-400 that gives you much crisper and color richer image but Sigma is one wonderful lens for the money and the very unique range it offers, not being beaten by anyone in photo industry yet).

But for real life the two lens that by virtue of experience I know are most needed ones (Never off my gear on any shooting situation) are:
- 70-200 L IS F/2.8 and
- 10-22mm None-L None-IS (You really don't need IS for shorter focal lenght lenses and no L is available in this category yet.

Once feel comfortable from the damage if you go in this route, you many want to address low light situations so a
-50mm F/1.8 at about $100 or if you want to spend more for bigger lens, a -80mm F/1.8 both excellent for sport shooting from corner of field if you can get there, then a
- 24-70mm L F/2.8 that is one of the sharpest canons lenses ever made.
Now if you have the budget to get into world of white red collar elegant prime super teles then you have many choices. My suggestion is
- 600mm L IS F/4

You can easily see that either you need to break the bank or you have some special talent with very influential sponsors.

Bottom line:
Body: 40D or 5D (Doesn't take EFs lenses)
Lens: 70-200mm L IS F/2.8
10-22mm EFs
50mm F/1.8
Then build up your gadget as the need may be. Forget about any other third party lenses unless you like to be in buy/sell status just for the sake of it.