Switch to d90 From 40D

[zoom]

Hello folks
I'm currently using Canon 40D with 50mm 1.8 prime lens.
Now I'm thinking about switching to Nikon d90 and use it with its kit lens 18-105mm VR.

Do you think that's a logical decision ?
40D is quite a decent camera. However I couldn't find a proper lens to use on it. Considered to buy 17-40mm F4 but it's a rather expensive lens.
Now as far as I've researched 18-105 is a decent one for a kit lens.

I'm really confused. Have two decision the first one is keep the 40D and save more to get the 17-40 and the second one is selling 40D along with 50mm lens and buy a nikon d90 with kit lens.

What's your opinions, what would you do if you were me ?

Thanks in advance.

 

[IDLaxStar]

In no way should you go for the d90. Keep your 40d. That 50 1.8 is an awesome lens. Just save up your money and buy a nicer piece of glass. Why do you want a d90 over your 40d?

 

[zoom]

Actually I've bought the 40D as S/H and whenever I get something not new I can't feel comfortable with it. Don't know why. (Don't ask me "then why did you buy it" I don't know )

Moreover I liked the range and quality of the kit lens of Nikon.
17-40 is a nice one but too expensive and range is too narrow.
On canon in a wide range there is no good glass like nikon's kit lens.
Actually that's the main reason.

 

[gsgary]

Actually I've bought the 40D as S/H and whenever I get something not new I can't feel comfortable with it. Don't know why. (Don't ask me "then why did you buy it" I don't know )

Moreover I liked the range and quality of the kit lens of Nikon.
17-40 is a nice one but too expensive and range is too narrow.
On canon in a wide range there is no good glass like nikon's kit lens.
Actually that's the main reason.

Lenses with a wide zoom range do not compare to the quality of the 17-40, the Nikon lens will not be as sharp as your 50F1.8

 

[Derrel]

The 17-35 and 17-40mm range on a 1.6x body is really kind of a PITA for many situations...it is simply not long enough...it has no "range". I have a 17-35mm in Nikon fit, and it's an okay lens strictly indoors, for wider-view stuff, but it sucks as an all-in-one type lens,and the Canon is slow, at f/4, whereas the 17-35 is an f/2.8 lens...I dunno...

The 40D is a nice enough middle of the road camera...the D90 is similar in many respects, but probably has better light metering when used as a d-slr style point and shoot, or "walkabout" or "weekend" type camera. The Plastic Craptastic Canon 50/1.8 Mark II lens is quite a middling performer...I owned one for a litle under 2 years...it's pretty sucky compared to the Nikon 50/1.8 whuich is quirte simply, a better lens design, optically, and a better performer, in terms of focusing speed, and accuracy, and the Nikon 50/1,8 has better image bokeh and build quality and optical quality.

The Nikon 18-105VR is a lens I bought from a dealer friend of mine, and my wife almost immediately commandeered it and kept it as her own, everyday, all-occasion lens. It is suprisingly sharp for such a wide-range zoom, but then again, it is a "new" design, and is made to perform well, although not exceptionally. I think the 18-105 V is actually a better optical performer than my Canon 24-105-L series lens is, truth be known. But it is slower, aperture-wise.

The optical quality of some of the newer kit zooms when stopped down to around the f/8, f/9.5 range is QUITE high; extremely close to the pro-grade lenses on the sharpness-only criteria,and the Nikon cameras have programmed-in correction software that can eliminate residual chromatic aberration that cameras of other brands leave in their JPEG images, so the 18-105 VR and the newer Nikons are sort of optimized for people who want to shoot RAW+ JPEG and crank up the sharpening, set the right tone curve for the prevailing lighting's contrast levels, and use the various modes, like Direct Print, to get good out of camera files. So, I can understand why you might be attracted to the D90 + 18-105VR...it is actually "the lens" that Nikon has decided to pair with the D7000 in the first batch, and it is a better lens than many Canon owners might expect...especially given the Nikon company's in-body chromatic aberration reduction routines...

The fact that Nikon's first D7000 kits will be paired with the 18-105VR is an indication of where Nikon sees this lens as belonging, and who wants THIS specific lens.

 

[cfusionpm]

Hello folks
I'm currently using Canon 40D with 50mm 1.8 prime lens.
Now I'm thinking about switching to Nikon d90 and use it with its kit lens 18-105mm VR.

Do you think that's a logical decision ?
40D is quite a decent camera. However I couldn't find a proper lens to use on it. Considered to buy 17-40mm F4 but it's a rather expensive lens.
Now as far as I've researched 18-105 is a decent one for a kit lens.

I'm really confused. Have two decision the first one is keep the 40D and save more to get the 17-40 and the second one is selling 40D along with 50mm lens and buy a nikon d90 with kit lens.

What's your opinions, what would you do if you were me ?

Thanks in advance.

If you are already familiar and comfortable with your 40D body, then there's really not much reason to switch. You've got a perfectly fine camera that could benifit from some nicer lenses. Differences between camera systems are minimal at best, and it's my opinion to shoot with what you know and feel comfortable with. If you spend less time thinking about different button and setting differences, you can spend more time capturing your shots. Plus you won't be taking a hit in the wallet to replace essentially what you already have, and can spend the money on new lenses.

The 17-40mm's focal range doesn't work very well on a crop sensor, it lets in only half as much light as an f/2.8 lens, and it does not include IS. With that in mind, I strongly recommend the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens. It's designed specifically for crop sensors to give a great wide-to-medium-telephoto focal range, wide f/2.8 max fixed aperture, and Image Stablization. The Canon 17-55 is about $300 more than the 17-40L, but Tamron has an alternative that is a lot cheaper. I've never used it myself, but I have heard great things about it from users here.

I think the 18-105 V is actually a better optical performer than my Canon 24-105-L series lens is, truth be known.

I'm curious why you think this.

 

[ghache]

GO AWAY FROM THE DARK SIDE! ITS NOW TIME TO RUN!

 

[Neil S.]

You arent very invested in glass, so I would go with which system you think is best.

I would have to say in all honesty that if I had to buy into a system today, it would be Nikon. This is today though, and that might change tomorrow.

Canon doesnt really have that much going except good glass right now, and its not like their glass is much better (if at all) over Nikon.

I in no way regret buying into Canon though, and they have their own strengths just like Nikon does.

You cant really go wrong with either brand imo.

I would recommend that you buy a body that is constructed well if you can afford it, like the 7D or D300s.

Hope this helps.

- Neil

 

[Derrel]

The 18-105 is a DX lens, and is optimized for a smaller field...the 24-105-L is a full-frame lens that has to cover a 43mm circle...it's easier to cover a smaller field than a larger field, and with a DX-only lens, the key criteria is high resolution and higher MTF over a *reduced field*. This is why the 18-105 has nearly excellent edge performance from 70 to 105mm, whereas the Canon's edges are not nearly as good as the center in the range from 70 to 150mm.

It's kind of like saying, "We have an NFL free safety who runs a much faster 40 yard dash than this particular 327 pound 6'7" defensive tackle." Yeah...the safety is smaller...he is "faster"...a DX lens is a lot like a free safety. The same thing exists between the old Nikon 70-200 VR-I lens: it is a far,far better DX-only lens than the Canon 70-200 2.8 L-ISM which is/was designed for Full-Frame...but the Nikon 70-200 VR-1 model is not nearly so good on FX as the Canon is on FX...because both are optimized for different formats.

It's an optics thing, not a fanboy thing...

AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (5.8x) | Nikon

pic_002.png

pic_003.png
Nikon 18-105 very CONSISTENT image quality across the DX frame, with edges that do NOT suck from 70 to 105mm, the way the Canon 24-105 sucks at the edges from 70mm to 105mm.



Canon 24-105-L MTF Chart from Canon USA
ef24-105mtf_wide.gif
ef24-105mtf_tele.gif

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS (full format) - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis on F-F

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS - Retest @ 15mp (APS-C) - Analysis on APS-C 15 megapixel

 

[zoom]

Hello folks
I'm currently using Canon 40D with 50mm 1.8 prime lens.
Now I'm thinking about switching to Nikon d90 and use it with its kit lens 18-105mm VR.

Do you think that's a logical decision ?
40D is quite a decent camera. However I couldn't find a proper lens to use on it. Considered to buy 17-40mm F4 but it's a rather expensive lens.
Now as far as I've researched 18-105 is a decent one for a kit lens.

I'm really confused. Have two decision the first one is keep the 40D and save more to get the 17-40 and the second one is selling 40D along with 50mm lens and buy a nikon d90 with kit lens.

What's your opinions, what would you do if you were me ?

Thanks in advance.

If you are already familiar and comfortable with your 40D body, then there's really not much reason to switch. You've got a perfectly fine camera that could benifit from some nicer lenses. Differences between camera systems are minimal at best, and it's my opinion to shoot with what you know and feel comfortable with. If you spend less time thinking about different button and setting differences, you can spend more time capturing your shots. Plus you won't be taking a hit in the wallet to replace essentially what you already have, and can spend the money on new lenses.

The 17-40mm's focal range doesn't work very well on a crop sensor, it lets in only half as much light as an f/2.8 lens, and it does not include IS. With that in mind, I strongly recommend the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens. It's designed specifically for crop sensors to give a great wide-to-medium-telephoto focal range, wide f/2.8 max fixed aperture, and Image Stablization. The Canon 17-55 is about $300 more than the 17-40L, but Tamron has an alternative that is a lot cheaper. I've never used it myself, but I have heard great things about it from users here.

I think the 18-105 V is actually a better optical performer than my Canon 24-105-L series lens is, truth be known.

I'm curious why you think this.

17-55 is extremely expensive for me. I can't afford it, even if I can, I don't want to spend such a high value on a lens.

That's actually why I would like to use 18-105. It's pretty nice and has a good IQ for such range. Also I've heard things you mentioned about 17-40 on a crop body.

Now as you can guess point is not about the body, problem is that I couldn't find a proper lens for canon body which meets my needs.

So actually I can change the question; Is there any lens equal to 18-105 in every aspect, I mean quality, price, performance and so on.

Don't suggest tamron or sigma 17-50 range since I don't want to buy a 3rd party company product.

 

[Destin]

Theres nothing wrong with 3rd party lenses. I swore I would never buy anything but nikon glass. I'm now the proud owner of a sigma 70-200 2.8, and do not regret buying it at all.

Have you looked into the canon 17-85? or the 18-135? Or the 18-200?

 

[gsgary]

Hello folks
I'm currently using Canon 40D with 50mm 1.8 prime lens.
Now I'm thinking about switching to Nikon d90 and use it with its kit lens 18-105mm VR.

Do you think that's a logical decision ?
40D is quite a decent camera. However I couldn't find a proper lens to use on it. Considered to buy 17-40mm F4 but it's a rather expensive lens.
Now as far as I've researched 18-105 is a decent one for a kit lens.

I'm really confused. Have two decision the first one is keep the 40D and save more to get the 17-40 and the second one is selling 40D along with 50mm lens and buy a nikon d90 with kit lens.

What's your opinions, what would you do if you were me ?

Thanks in advance.

If you are already familiar and comfortable with your 40D body, then there's really not much reason to switch. You've got a perfectly fine camera that could benifit from some nicer lenses. Differences between camera systems are minimal at best, and it's my opinion to shoot with what you know and feel comfortable with. If you spend less time thinking about different button and setting differences, you can spend more time capturing your shots. Plus you won't be taking a hit in the wallet to replace essentially what you already have, and can spend the money on new lenses.

The 17-40mm's focal range doesn't work very well on a crop sensor, it lets in only half as much light as an f/2.8 lens, and it does not include IS. With that in mind, I strongly recommend the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens. It's designed specifically for crop sensors to give a great wide-to-medium-telephoto focal range, wide f/2.8 max fixed aperture, and Image Stablization. The Canon 17-55 is about $300 more than the 17-40L, but Tamron has an alternative that is a lot cheaper. I've never used it myself, but I have heard great things about it from users here.

I think the 18-105 V is actually a better optical performer than my Canon 24-105-L series lens is, truth be known.

I'm curious why you think this.

17-55 is extremely expensive for me. I can't afford it, even if I can, I don't want to spend such a high value on a lens.

That's actually why I would like to use 18-105. It's pretty nice and has a good IQ for such range. Also I've heard things you mentioned about 17-40 on a crop body.

Now as you can guess point is not about the body, problem is that I couldn't find a proper lens for canon body which meets my needs.

So actually I can change the question; Is there any lens equal to 18-105 in every aspect, I mean quality, price, performance and so on.

Don't suggest tamron or sigma 17-50 range since I don't want to buy a 3rd party company product.

That is where you should be spending the money, top quality lenses never go out of date like bodies

 

[sam_justice]

Go Nikon and you won't go back! They are leaps and bounds ahead in the i-TTL lighting technology.
(que rant)