Thinking of switching from Nikon to Canon

[CNCO]

Ok Im a Nikon guy, I enjoy their products but their prices are high. I saw on ebay a 400mm f2.8 is 6k. Now Im not ready to buy a lens like that but down the road as I get more clients for sports yes that lens is do-able. I see a lot of guys on tv that use canon so it can't be poor equipment. Im looking to sell everything so I dont get stuck with something and then regret loosing out.

Any ideas or opinions would help. Basically I'm looking to get rid of everything and get a 7d and a 70-200 f2.8 right away. Eventually I will get the other stuff, 35/50mm and a flash but with spring sports coming up, I need better equipment. I am trying to work for Max Preps and do my own thing on the side.

 

[Trever1t]

uh, why switch from Nikon? Canon prices are lower for comparable quality? I don't think so.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Reliable sources repeatedly tell us Nikon is superior.

 

[CNCO]

i know, i know its just that the long stuff is so much cheaper. everyone on tv is using canon. someone convince me!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

If you say "everyone on tv is using canon" one more time, I will call you a troll, and this thread a joke.


The 400mm 2.8L lens is over $7K

 

[NayLoMo6C]

nikon? canon? who cares? it's you that matters

UPDATE: lol i guess this thread no longer needs this advice :scratch:

 

[CNCO]

um yes on tv they are using canon, can't you tell by the grey lens at basketball and the dugouts in baseball. im glad you think this thread is a joke, please leave looser.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Troll.

 

[CNCO]

i guess what ever that means in piss poor ohio. what a loser state! get a life n a job! wake up to modern day technology then you can coment on my post. until then you are some amateur who knows dick!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

i guess what ever that means in piss poor ohio. what a loser state! get a life n a job! wake up to modern day technology then you can coment on my post. until then you are some amateur who knows dick!

 

[Derrel]

Look into what Sports Illustrated shooters are using TODAY...not five or six years ago--boatloads of SI guys today are shooting Nikon once again. The Nikon D3's incredible High-ISO performance AND full-frame sensor have redefined sports cameras. Many of the low-rent newspaper media one sees on TV are stuck with pool Canon gear that's several buying cycles old...a top-level big glass Canon or Nikon lens will easily last for 10,15,20 years if used with reasonable care and not involved in a major accident. At the most recent Olympics, Nikon was about 50-50% with Canon among the top-level shooters that get sent to the Olympics. Canon's 1D Mark III autofocus debacle caused thousands of top level shooters to abandon Canon; Nikon's development of the D3, with a bigger sensor, and better High ISO performance than anything Canon has ever had, convinced legions of others to move back to Nikon after the period of Canon dominance that lasted from roughly 2002 to 2007. Nikon's 200-400 f/4 VR zoom was another major draw; the SPorts-Illustrated magazine cover of the New Orleans Saints's Drew Brees holding up the Lombardi Trophy after his team's win in the Super Bowl two years ago was shot with that 200-400mm f/4 lens, a "mere" f/4 zoom, but yet when combined with superb ISO 6,400 and usable 12,500 ISO settings of the D3 or D3s, that one single lens is turning in superior daytime AND nighttime football at NCAA and NFL arenas all across the USA. Look a little closer at what "everyone on TV" is actually using...you're missing the black lenses, which don't stand out very well. If you want cheap lenses, Canon has em. One year warranty and all.

 

[Overread]

Oddly the cheap long telephoto argument for canon isn't really a massivly strong one for their supertelephoto lenses (ie the really expensive ones) but more for their more moderately priced options - the 400mm f5.6 - 300mm f4 - 100-400mm - where they have a wider variety of choice on the market than Nikon do for the similar price range (least as far as I am aware).

Also canon is restructuring their prices and a fair few of the original super telephotos are being upgraded with new versions which are hitting at a very high initial price point (it will come down, but only in time) and I suspect that long term the economic changes in the world will result in their pro lenses are nikons being on a more even price footing with each other. Further the original version will go out of production so second hand costs and new costs will go up (new costs will rocket up as the stock reduces).

Overall I get the feeling that you've seen the mighty 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 and had your mind wiped out by its quality (its a darn nice lens! ). You need a lot more research (ok anyone making this choice does) to really have concrete advantages that you will get from moving brands from one to the other. That said canon will oneday be offering a nice 200-400mm with built in 1.4TC which nikon does not have


(oh and only canon offer a 5:1 macro lens - )

Ps canon don't need long warranties because the stuff never breaks! Nikon on the other hand .. well they need that longer support structure - :greenpbl: :mrgreen:

 

[CNCO]

I saw tonight a 400 f2.8 sold for 6k on eBay. For shooting sports f4 isn't goIng to cut it. The best 400 f2.8 nikon I found was 9k. That's a big difference. My 70-200 nikon is great. I'm going to try a 200-400 rental n go from there if I can't sell everything. I'm a nikon guy but as mic jagger said you can't always get what you want.

 

[Overread]

I can't easily compare US prices but UK side brand new :
Canon
EF 400mm f2.8L IS USM Lens: £6007.98

Nikon
AF-S 400mm f/2.8G ED VR Lens: £6648.00

However canon are also releasing a M2 of the 400mm which means that lens will very soon be out of production (chances are it already is) which means ever though its a slower item to sell, once the stock is gone its gone. So I fully expect to see its price both new and second hand rise:
The current price of the M2 of that lens is:
£8607.98
It's due to hit that market in March so that is when I expect to see the market start to slowly react - just like the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L the original lens will boost up in price whilst the new lens will (far slower) reduce in price as it remains on the market longer (many also expect that prices will drop - least UK side - after the Olympics as well).

 

[pgriz]

I'm a Canon user, but if I had to start fresh, I'd take Nikon in a heartbeat. Two key factors: hi-iso performance and AF performance. Many of the pros (and here I mean guys and gals who know their stuff and are published in the high-end mags) are selling their Canon gear and re-equipping with Nikon. I haven't yet maxed out on my equipment, so for the time being, I'll stay with my investment, but if my pattern of shooting starts requiring fast-moving action under dim conditions, I'd be strongly tempted to switch. As well, Canon loses in the matchup with flash performance, but here too, my skill level is still low enough that I'm not being seriously compromised. As for the lenses, I have to believe that the two companies have comparable prices for lenses with the same specs.