Anyone on here shoot Nikon?

I don't ever see anyone on TGR talk about Nikon- does anyone here shoot with a Nikon dSLR?

I'm thinking about making the switch, and have come up with a temporarily ideal set of lenses, along with a D90, that I think would serve me well:

Nikon 18-105 VR
Tokina 50-135 2.8
Nikon 70-300 VR
Nikon 85mm 1.8
Nikon 35mm 1.8

Anyone have any thoughts or use some of these lenses currently? I plan on using the 1.8 and 2.8 lenses to shoot portraits and weddings, and then use a combination of them all to shoot landscapes and skiing.

...and the $64,000 question is...

why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gholman12

why?

---

experience both sides of the fanboy fence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gholman12

...and the $64,000 question is...

why?

---

Mostly due to the combination of "quality" lenses I can get with Nikon as opposed to Canon that cover what I want to shoot, within my budget. I'm getting more into weddings and portraits, so I'll need more 1.8 and 2.8 lenses- thus the two of each I want to buy. On top of that, I also shoot a lot of landscapes and skiing photography, so the combination of lenses I get will have to double for those purposes as well. It just seems tougher to do that with Canon lenses, IMO.

Also, I am needing to replace a lens that I currently have, and it got me thinking about other options with Nikon. Their lenses seem to complement each other pretty well, and I've heard lots of good things about the Nikon Nikkor lenses vs. Canon.

It's all about the lens. Best primes, best hero zooms: 18-200 Dx or 28-300.

edit to add: I shoot Nikon but it doesn't make me money. Anyway, look at the D7000 instead of the D90.

If you want to shoot a wide zoom, take a look at the Tokina 11-16mm.

The 50 1.8 is practically free and pretty good. The 50 1.4 AF-S costs a bit more but it's sharp as hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

experience both sides of the fanboy fence?

---

Pay no attention to Hugh's superior attitude. When you filter out the snarky bullshit he generally offers some good info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outabounds

If you want to shoot a wide zoom, take a look at the Tokina 11-16mm.

The 50 1.8 is practically free and pretty good. The 50 1.4 AF-S costs a bit more but it's sharp as hell.

---

I don't. In fact, I actually find myself using my Sigma 10-20 less and less.

I have a d5000.

The lens quiver looks nice, I'm picking up the 35mm f/1.8 today...

Otherwise, I'd echo the d7000 instead of the d90.

The 16-85mm lives on my camera.

I have a Nikon D700 I like quite a bit and use for skiing, as well as shooting rodeos, whitewater, cycle racing, parenting, etc. So I guess I straddle the fanboy fence.

As for lenses, I agree that you can get more lens for the money with Nikon than with Canon at a pricepoint, generally. And if you are looking to upgrade bodies from a 30D or something, that new D7000 looks pretty salty.

Overall, I grab my Canon stuff more often, I just seem to prefer it. But I am fairly invested in Canon glass. I also buy lots of old Olympus and Pentax cheap glass on ebay that I can shoot on either body with an adapater ring.

I shoot with a d3, so my lens choices are obviously a little different than yours, but as someone who has shot crop and full frame I would really encourage you to make sure you want to go the crop route because full-frame really is that much better (albeit that much more expensive).

Also the 85 1.8 is a really awesome lens, I shoot with it and love it, but I found it to be too long on my old d300 so also something to consider.

Also, even though the 50 is really cheap, you will probably never use it. It isn't wide enough on a crop body to be very useful, especially at night. But that's just my opinion after shooting with it.

Lots of Ken Rockwell's opinion here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm#team

I'm not a professional photographer in any way shape or form (but two of my shots are going to be published in a textbook whenever my prof finished writing it!)

I've got a d60, with the kit 18-55 and the 35mm f/1.8. I love the 35mm for going underground, as I'm usually the only person to get consistent, in focus shots. I'm going to get the 18-200 once I have the money / stop buying skis.

Well, my switching idea may have died a quick death... I went to a local shop a little while ago and played around with the D90. I'm not sure I like the feel and the controls so much. I think I'll just re-do my lenses with Canon.

I've got a Nikon D80 (used to have a Canon 300D) and love it. The controls are easier for me to use, it's easier for me to make "on-the-fly" changes in focal point, the low-end lenses product better, brighter, more vibrant pictures and I tend to more in-focus photos now than ever. The biggest downfall though is that I can't really do much night photography now as there's some weird heating issues with the sensor on long exposures.

Yes to Nikon dSLR. Been shooting a D200 since 2006, and before that a D100 and D70. Before that, film N90s, 8008, 6006, and various F bodies. Current Lenses: Nikkor 300f4, 70-200f2.8, 18-200f5.6, Sigma 10-20f?

I also shoot Canon for work on occasion, but I'm not as familiar with them and I think the lenses I'm stuck with (100-400f5.6 and various 70-300 zooms) are garbage. I'll use my stuff if the conditions allow. Sounds like you don't like the feel of that particular Nikon so there you go.

I basically have nothing to add to the discussion that you haven't already figured out, I'm just hoping my post will inspire some more quality from Hugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outabounds

Pay no attention to Hugh's superior attitude. When you filter out the snarky bullshit he generally offers some good info.

---

bullshit? that was a serious answer - if you are buying a set of consumer lenses and a consumer body for still photography (I don't video) they are much of a muchness; every couple years one may get better than the other but it switches back. Spending the $ it would cost you to switch on better lenses or a better body or a class or a gigantic 24" dildo named John_C and a roadtrip with hop would be a better investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

bullshit? that was a serious answer - if you are buying a set of consumer lenses and a consumer body for still photography (I don't video) they are much of a muchness; every couple years one may get better than the other but it switches back. Spending the $ it would cost you to switch on better lenses or a better body or a class or a gigantic 24" dildo named John_C and a roadtrip with hop would be a better investment.

---

See? First post: snark. Second post: useful information. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

Well, my switching idea may have died a quick death... I went to a local shop a little while ago and played around with the D90. I'm not sure I like the feel and the controls so much. I think I'll just re-do my lenses with Canon.

---

That may be the most important factor. Once you can find all of the controls you need in the dark, why mix things up so you're fumbling around and missing shots?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

I don't ever see anyone on TGR talk about Nikon- does anyone here shoot with a Nikon dSLR?

---

guilty

I'm gearing up with the wide sigma 10-20, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, and looking for a 300mm f4 with a 1.7 or 2 TC. May try the new D7000 or wait till next year to see what's new.

I know zip about shooting a wedding but I would think the 2.8 zooms with a good high iso body would be the ticket in either Canon or Nikon or whatever you choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

bullshit? that was a serious answer - if you are buying a set of consumer lenses and a consumer body for still photography (I don't video) they are much of a muchness; every couple years one may get better than the other but it switches back. Spending the $ it would cost you to switch on better lenses or a better body or a class or a gigantic 24" dildo named John_C and a roadtrip with hop would be a better investment.

---

+1. I'm a 20 year Canon guy who went Nikon just to see what I'm missing. Turns out it wasn't much. Nikon doesn't have a lens that can touch the 35L, which is my favorite lens on the planet. I bust out the Nikon for skiing or bike racing when I need the frame rate to blast away and cross my fingers, otherwise they seem like two different scoops of the same ice cream.

I'm a Nikon guy, pretty much because I started out that way 30 years ago.

By far my most-used lens is a 70-200 2.8. I use a 50mm 1.4 from time to time, especially in low light. The other lens I use is a 17-35 2.8.

If I ever get another lens it will be something long - either the 400mm f/2.8 or the 500mm f/4.

When it came out, the D3 was a clear winner for low light with its high ISO performance. I don't know if Canon has caught up yet, but I'm sure they will.

All this Canikon talk makes me gald I walk to the beat of a different drummer!

Sony A900 Always outnumbered, never out gunned! :D

^ but always overpriced, and never enough used lenses available :)

your shots do seem to tell a different story though, so as has been previously said, it's all the same shit, stick with what you're comfortable with so that when you have .5 seconds to make some adjustments to capture that perfect sunset or the oh-so-important first kiss, you don't miss your shot.

(but Lonnie, at the end of the day, i DO think there's a reason that you don't see any photojournalists/pro's shooting sony, I just don't know what it is)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gholman12

^ but always overpriced, and never enough used lenses available :)

---

you forgot a still limited selection of non-consumer lenses available. Example, new >200mm you have a 300f2.8 ($6k) and a 500f8 reflex and that's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonnie

All this Canikon talk makes me gald I walk to the beat of a different drummer!

Sony A900 Always outnumbered, never out gunned! :D

---

Doesn't Sony make the bodies, sensors, and lenses for Nikon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iscariot

Doesn't Sony make the bodies, sensors, and lenses for Nikon?

---

SHHHH! Don't tell anyone...

Just the sensors I think...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gholman12

(but Lonnie, at the end of the day, i DO think there's a reason that you don't see any photojournalists/pro's shooting sony, I just don't know what it is)

---

Two things. The biggest was Sony was late to the game. It's the legacy minolta thing. Minolta basically quit the biz and I think that caused a bunch of folks who were legacy minolta shooters to jump ship. Sony picked up the minolta line and is bringing it back from "the dead".

And two, availability as you have mentioned. Sony is coming out with some serious gear tho, and I think it will cause people to reconsider. There zeiss glass is 2nd to none, but you don't have all the options you do with canikon. Personally, I'd love a 70-200 F4 for hiking, and some more primes, but they have been promised to us. The A33, A55 and A77 (when it's released) are going to change the way people shoot. 10 FPS (the A77 is rumored to be more than 15fps! :eek: )at 16 MP on a crop sensor for under $1000? Talk to me baby.

And I'll disagree with you on the over priced part. Tell me how much a FF canon or nikon with a 20+ MP sensor costs compared to my A900???

But at the end of the day, all of this is just dickwaving. Shoot what you like/feel comfortable with and what you can afford. :)

Fair enough, and you're right about the dickwaving. That A77 sounds like a solid body for the money actually.

And while I guess at $2300 the A900 is the the same price as the 5d mk ii (21mp), we canonites do get the glory of HD video and live view mode, and you're stuck with justin timberlake in your tv commercials, so HA!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gholman12

Fair enough, and you're right about the dickwaving. That A77 sounds like a solid body for the money actually.

And while I guess at $2300 the A900 is the the same price as the 5d mk ii (21mp), we canonites do get the glory of HD video and live view mode, and you're stuck with justin timberlake in your tv commercials, so HA!

---

As bad as JT sucks, I'd rather have him than Ashton Kutcher!


Back to your regularly scheduled dickwaving... :starwars:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonnie

There zeiss glass is 2nd to none, but you don't have all the options you do with canikon.

The A77 (when it's released) are going to change the way people shoot. 10 FPS (the A77 is rumored to be more than 15fps! :eek: )at 16 MP on a crop sensor for under $1000?

---

All Zeiss glass owns. Granted you get AF.
and
Vaporware.

The IS/VR that is built into the sony sensors is pretty sick.

I'm thinking of a switch to Canon. I'm really early in the game. When you ask people for advice, you often here "go with the one that has the features and feel that works for you that you'll want in the long run". And I don't know shit about what feels good or what I want. I need to experience it. Well, you can't figure that out in the shop with some douchebag standing there affraid to let you move a millimeter from the counter and treating multiple bodies like fucking engagement rings you might slip into a pocket. The used D90/50D market is only going to get better in the coming months so why not just buy a 50D and shoot it for a year then move back if it never feels right. Just like with skis, right? Owning and riding for a few days/weeks beats the shit out of riding a demo with demo clamps afraid to damage them for half a day before choosing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

Well, my switching idea may have died a quick death... I went to a local shop a little while ago and played around with the D90. I'm not sure I like the feel and the controls so much. I think I'll just re-do my lenses with Canon.

---

I'd go check out a D300s or D700 before you write off nikon...those are the bodies you'd end up upgrading to sooner or later anyways. I upgraded to a D300 from a D60 and its a big difference in feel.

I obviously shoot nikon, have the 28-75 tamron 2.8, 70-200 2.8 VR1, and my new favorite the 50mm 1.4.

GF shoots canon so I get to play with those too, seems both lines are pretty similar but in my opinion nikon absolutely kills it in any low light high iso kind of shooting.

can I collect reviews, inputs, and impressions on the Tamron SP AF70-200mm F/2.8 Di. I am going to use the lens on my Nikon D60. I am shooting inside a "bubble" - indoor track complex, so it is a low light environment. Am I correct that this lens will autofocus on my D60. And how is the speed of this lens. My friend is willing to lend me the lens, so no worries of dropping cash on this. I was just curious about the performance of the lens.

http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/v...g/DSC_0425.jpg

photo of the environment I'm shooting in.
EXIF
1/160
f/4.0
iso800

Well for video I can use any lenses.. the body changes...... the lenses are more important.

I just bought an Olympus 28mm f/3.5 and a Pentax SMC 50mm f/1.4.

I made the switch from Pentax to Nikon. Currently a d300 shooter. I own several of the lenses you mention below, Nikon 18-105 VR, Tokina 50-135 2.8
and the Nikon 35mm 1.8.

I LOVE my Nikon body. Instant controls for practically everything you could want. Great hand feel and 100% viewfinder coverage. Menu system is pretty simple too. Auto-ISO is a fun feature for travel photography. AF system spoils you; you forget about the possibility of out of focus (at least if you use the center AF points). Hands down the best camera I have ever used (and I have shot a fair share of systems).

That being said, I am not a huge fan of the color reproduction of my Nikon compared to my Pentax. The colors from the Pentax just seemed to suit my tastes, it was just everything else about that system that kinda sucked. When I bump the contrast / saturation I lose a TON of highlights. I prefer to keep the colors to the standard muted Nikon feel and boost in post. Wish the OOC images better suited my tastes. May be a problem with the glass more than the camera...

As far as the lenses, here are my .02

Nikon 18-105 VR - Great travel lens, sharp across the range, slow focus, cheapish feel, distorted images at wide angle. I have considered selling this lens but cannot justify it; it just gets too much use.

Tokina 50-135 2.8 - Actually just sold this lens. Painfully sharp at anything above f4. wide open it is still pretty darn sharp. lovely color reproduction in good light. Slow AF. Incredible build quality and nice focus control

Nikon 35mm 1.8 - Good lens for the price. Nothing stellar here. I find my 18-105 just as sharp, this is just faster. Not terribly impressed with color reproduction. Compact and light, prefer the nikkor 24mm 2.8. Want to buy this off of me?

All that being said, I often find myself wishing for lenses in the nikon lineup. There just seems to be a lot of gaps, unless you are willing to fork over the serious $$$. The grass is always greener I suppose.

What would bring you over to the Nikon side? Why did you pick Canon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

I don't ever see anyone on TGR talk about Nikon- does anyone here shoot with a Nikon dSLR?

I'm thinking about making the switch, and have come up with a temporarily ideal set of lenses, along with a D90, that I think would serve me well:

Nikon 18-105 VR
Tokina 50-135 2.8
Nikon 70-300 VR
Nikon 85mm 1.8
Nikon 35mm 1.8

Anyone have any thoughts or use some of these lenses currently? I plan on using the 1.8 and 2.8 lenses to shoot portraits and weddings, and then use a combination of them all to shoot landscapes and skiing.

---

got this today to go on my D90 body
tokina 11-16 2.8
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5216/...bf6613bd_b.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nufenstein

All that being said, I often find myself wishing for lenses in the nikon lineup. There just seems to be a lot of gaps

---

What are these gaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

What are these gaps?

---

Fast wide angle primes that are not $2k

i.e. 24mm or 28mm 1.8

A fast, wide pancake option would be the teeets

Nufenstein- sorry I didn't get back to your question. I chose Canon because it's what I had, and what I'm used to. I still think Nikon has a better choice of lenses in the range that I use most (15-150mm), but I've got a pretty good setup with Canon that I'm happy with. I may upgrade to the 7D at some point, but right now I'm shooting with:

Canon 50D
Canon 15-85mm IS
Sigma 18-125 OS HSM
Tamron 70-300mm VC
Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro