A student considering switching Nikon for Canon.

[chyidean]

Right now my kit is sparse. It consists of:

Nikon D90
16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikkor
50mm f/1.8 Nikkor

I'm mainly getting into concert photography where low light and high ISOs reign supreme. The D90 is superb for low light, and coupled with the 50mm f/1.8, it's quite killer. I'm feeling a little bit limited by the prime though. Variable focal length would be really nice. (I don't even bother using the 16-85mm unless I have time for a crowd shot or something since the f/3.5-5.6 needs seriously high ISO).

So I've been looking at the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor and prices are consistently around $1800 (I'd consider going third party, but I'm a student, and resale value is pretty important to me). Yet the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 (and other pro lens) is/are significantly cheaper than their Nikon counterparts.

Canon -
24-70mm f/2.8 - $1300
70-200mm f/2.8 IS - $1750

Nikon -
24-70mm f/2.8 - $1800
70-200mm f/2.8 - $2400

It kind of got me thinking - since Canon pro lens are cheaper by a couple hundred dollars than the Nikons, it might be in my best interest to switch to Canon and save more in the long run as I acquire more and more pro lens. And if I switch right now, it's probably the best time to do so - none of my lens are particularly expensive.

What are your thoughts? Would I stand to gain anything if I stayed with Nikon and bought the 24-70mm f/2.8 and worked my way towards acquiring the "holy trinity"?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, are both Nikon and Canon lenses of the same image quality? Because if they are the same, wouldn't Canon be undoubtedly the better buy? (Since their bodies are pretty much competing neck to neck, differences should be negligible, right?)

 

[Tighearnach]

Haha. You have just opened a big can of worms here!

From an economic point of view it does seem to make sense. However (Im a Canon man by the way) in my opinion Nikon bodies are king when it comes to High ISO Image quality. My friend has a D3 and its the absolute Mutts Nuts in my humble opinion. However ive also tried a Canon 5D and it is also excellent at high ISO's. Afraid i cant answer which glass is better. From what ive read on here and elsewhere the advantage lies with different sides for different lenses. Maybe a pro who uses both will be able to direct you on that. I have also heard pro nikoners say that QC is better with Nikon so there is a less chance of a dodgy lens but i dont know how much truth is behind this.

 

[IgsEMT]

Price is always a B****H on Nikon, No doubt about it. Go with Tokina, they have Nikon engineers working for them.

What are your thoughts? Would I stand to gain anything if I stayed with Nikon and bought the 24-70mm f/2.8 and worked my way towards acquiring the "holy trinity"?

I believe, that unless ALL YOU HAVE is a camera and one lens, jumping brands is isn't cost effective.

Image Quality: working with both nikon and canon, more often then not you can't tell the difference b/n the two. UNLESS you'll sit in front of a 24inch calibrated monitor and will be analyzing raw files (not knowing extension) you might tell the difference b/n the two if you know what to look for
Price: some say that b/n price of Yan went up compared to USD, thus the change in Nikon price.

 

[chyidean]

Haha. You have just opened a big can of worms here!

From an economic point of view it does seem to make sense. However (Im a Canon man by the way) in my opinion Nikon bodies are king when it comes to High ISO Image quality. My friend has a D3 and its the absolute Mutts Nuts in my humble opinion. However ive also tried a Canon 5D and it is also excellent at high ISO's. Afraid i cant answer which glass is better. From what ive read on here and elsewhere the advantage lies with different sides for different lenses. Maybe a pro who uses both will be able to direct you on that. I have also heard pro nikoners say that QC is better with Nikon so there is a less chance of a dodgy lens but i dont know how much truth is behind this.

Thanks for your input, nevertheless

I believe, that unless ALL YOU HAVE is a camera and one lens, jumping brands is isn't cost effective.

Lol, I technically have a lens and a half, since the 50mm f/1.8 is practically disposable. But yeah, I also have a old old old SB-28 that I inherited from my aunt. I only use it in extremely dark situations where I HAVE to have a flash, and even then, I need to manually set everything since it doesn't meter correctly with my D90 (it's a film-era flash), so I was thinking of getting a SB-600/800/900 anyways.

Image Quality: working with both nikon and canon, more often then not you can't tell the difference b/n the two. UNLESS you'll sit in front of a 24inch calibrated monitor and will be analyzing raw files (not knowing extension) you might tell the difference b/n the two if you know what to look for

So what are those differences? Is one better than another?

 

[JIP]

I think that kind of price difference is a silly thing to base you decision on. The system you decide to use should be based on what works best for you and not some price difference. If you feel like Canon is a better system for you then by all means switch but don't make a decision that costly on price alone. Basically all I can say is what if you go over to Canon for the price difference and hate everything about the system, now you are stuck with several thousand dollars worth of gear you do not like.

 

[sA x sKy]

I moved from a Nikon D60 to the 5D Mark II a little while ago. I think it was worth it but since you have the D90, you have to deal with less BS than I did. The D60 didn't AF while Canon bodies did. There was no AEB on the D60 and no support for a intervelometer remote.

I say go for it. I have the the 24-70mm f/2.8L and it's really good. Here are a few of my pictures taken with that lens: Misc. - a set on Flickr

 

[Plato]

Go with Tokina, they have Nikon engineers working for them.

Gee, I wonder why Nikon doesn't object.

 

[manaheim]

If you're debating spending $1800 on any lens, I wouldn't worry too much about a couple hundred dollars here and there.

That being said, both Nikon and Canon are great, so you really can't go wrong either way. Whatever you think is best.

I'm a Nikon shooter, btw.

 

[battletone]

Look into the functional differences between Canon and Nikon. As much as I like to save money, I think for anyone who takes photography seriously will find that there are big differences in how things work and what they will or will not do.

 

[seekinglight]

You can jump brands any time. Lenses hold their value and even appreciate.
Two things to consider:
1. Prime lenses at f2 or faster. (135mm f2 is gorgeous!) Rent them for events. Check out lensrentals.com
2. An usher hunted me down in my balcony seat because the shutter on my Canon 20D was too loud. On the stage far below was a 60 piece brass band and a dozen percussion instruments. True story. I also shot an outdoor wedding at a zoo. I was far back and at 300mm and heads turned everytime I took a shot. (no flash) Nikon is quiter. Google Canon noise and shutter.

Forget what you hear from fanboys. I love my Canon for sports photography. I'll not use it again at concerts, shows, or weddings.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Right now my kit is sparse. It consists of:

Nikon D90
16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikkor
50mm f/1.8 Nikkor

I'm mainly getting into concert photography where low light and high ISOs reign supreme. The D90 is superb for low light, and coupled with the 50mm f/1.8, it's quite killer. I'm feeling a little bit limited by the prime though. Variable focal length would be really nice. (I don't even bother using the 16-85mm unless I have time for a crowd shot or something since the f/3.5-5.6 needs seriously high ISO).

So I've been looking at the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor and prices are consistently around $1800 (I'd consider going third party, but I'm a student, and resale value is pretty important to me). Yet the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 (and other pro lens) is/are significantly cheaper than their Nikon counterparts.

Canon -
24-70mm f/2.8 - $1300
70-200mm f/2.8 IS - $1750

Nikon -
24-70mm f/2.8 - $1800
70-200mm f/2.8 - $2400

It kind of got me thinking - since Canon pro lens are cheaper by a couple hundred dollars than the Nikons, it might be in my best interest to switch to Canon and save more in the long run as I acquire more and more pro lens. And if I switch right now, it's probably the best time to do so - none of my lens are particularly expensive.

What are your thoughts? Would I stand to gain anything if I stayed with Nikon and bought the 24-70mm f/2.8 and worked my way towards acquiring the "holy trinity"?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, are both Nikon and Canon lenses of the same image quality? Because if they are the same, wouldn't Canon be undoubtedly the better buy? (Since their bodies are pretty much competing neck to neck, differences should be negligible, right?)

With those lenses, the Nikon's are considerably sharper. FOR SURE.

Honestly, I'd stick with the D90, and if you need something wider/faster, look into the 35mm f/1.8. It'll outperform all of those lenses you listed at the same apertures (except the new nikon 70-200 most likely), is smaller, lighter, more discreet, and goes to f/1.8. If you need even wider, than you can get nikon 20mm and 24mm f/2.8's for a song and a dance.

If you need longer, look into the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 as well, awesome lens, small, sharp, bright, unobtrusive, same story as the 35.

Not to mention, it would save you a ridiculous amount of money! Nikon's got the lenses, and unless you shoot with a 5DII or 7D, high ISO performance will only be worse on the canon's and you'll be using slow zooms anyway compared to the fast primes.


So I say stick with the D90, and shoot with the 35 f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 (or 1.4), and the 85mm f/1.8. All of which give you a stop and a half over a 24-70.

Or you could spend a retarded amount of money to switch to a canon body (7D or 5DII), and again, MORE money to get the 24-70, and you'll be using bigger cameras with slower lenses, only ONE body which gives you significantly better high ISO, that 5DII, but it's cancelled out because you'll be shooting ISO6400 when you could be at ISO 1600ish. And ISO 1600 on a D90 looks better than the 5D at 6400.

 

[chyidean]

With those lenses, the Nikon's are considerably sharper. FOR SURE.

Okay, exactly the information I was looking for. Thanks!

Honestly, I'd stick with the D90, and if you need something wider/faster, look into the 35mm f/1.8. It'll outperform all of those lenses you listed at the same apertures (except the new nikon 70-200 most likely), is smaller, lighter, more discreet, and goes to f/1.8. If you need even wider, than you can get nikon 20mm and 24mm f/2.8's for a song and a dance.

If you need longer, look into the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 as well, awesome lens, small, sharp, bright, unobtrusive, same story as the 35.

Not to mention, it would save you a ridiculous amount of money! Nikon's got the lenses, and unless you shoot with a 5DII or 7D, high ISO performance will only be worse on the canon's and you'll be using slow zooms anyway compared to the fast primes.


So I say stick with the D90, and shoot with the 35 f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 (or 1.4), and the 85mm f/1.8. All of which give you a stop and a half over a 24-70.

Or you could spend a retarded amount of money to switch to a canon body (7D or 5DII), and again, MORE money to get the 24-70, and you'll be using bigger cameras with slower lenses, only ONE body which gives you significantly better high ISO, that 5DII, but it's cancelled out because you'll be shooting ISO6400 when you could be at ISO 1600ish. And ISO 1600 on a D90 looks better than the 5D at 6400.

Interesting analysis, thanks. The thing is though, for concert photography, the photogs with photo passes are limited to shooting only the first three songs in the pit. As a result, I highly doubt I'll have time to change lenses - I need to get as many shots as I can in.

 

[IgsEMT]

Quote: Originally Posted by IgsEMT
Go with Tokina, they have Nikon engineers working for them.


Gee, I wonder why Nikon doesn't object.

Last time I called B&H looking for glass, that is what they told me .
----------------------------

I moved from a Nikon D60 to the 5D Mark II a little while ago

Did you have any other accessories for D60? B/c if not, it is like moving from P&S to SLR.

 

[KmH]

The D60 didn't AF while Canon bodies did.

This is not an accurate statement. Canon hasn't made any camera body, since 1987, that can AF.

The Nikon D60/D40/D40X/D3000/D5000 does not have a focus motor in the body. Neither do any of Canon's DSLR cameras made since 1987.

While Nikon supplies lenses, both consumer and pro level, with a built-in auto focus motor, they also offer some lenses that do not.

Canon doesn't offer a choice, all of their lenses have a built-in auto focus motor, unless you acquire a lens made before 1987.

 

[KmH]

Look into the functional differences between Canon and Nikon. As much as I like to save money, I think for anyone who takes photography seriously will find that there are big differences in how things work and what they will or will not do.

Go to DXOMark.com and compare the RAW image quality, SNR, dynamic range, color depth, ISO performance of comparable Nikon and Canon cameras, like the D90 compared to a T1i. DXOMark is an independent testing lab.
In fact here's a link for you. Look closely at the difference in ISO performance.

Did you know that Nikon's metering and auto focus can see in color? Canon's can't, black and white only.

You, and your clients, would be best served basing your decision on technical merit, rather than emotion.