• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Jumping Ship (1 Viewer)

Michael Hogan

Michael Hogan

Acroperus
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
 
Difficult decision you have. Don't know whether you should or not but I have a 28-135 so thought I could comment. Basically I'm not particularly satisfied with my lens collection except my 500 f4. I have too much to carry !
10-22
28-135
70-200
so the 18-55 stays at home.

However, going for an extreme range on a zoom is likely to compromise quality.

I wouldn't buy a 28-135 now for a crop camera. It isn't wide enough, and I could get away with less length, even when not carrying the 70-200 (2.8IS so heeeaaavvyy). The 10-22 is a corker of a lens. I have a polarizer for it which I regard as essential 'cos you tend to get a lot of sky (but you have to be careful how you use it at wide angles). But I could probably manage perfectly well with less.

If I had a grain of sense in me, when I travel I'd probably take my 18-55; my 70-200 with 2x which I use for birds (much as I like my 500, I'm not bumming round China carrying that) and leave the rest at home.

If you decide to change I suggest you consider something like 18-55 (cheap), 17-85 (not so cheap) or 17-55 f2.8 (distinctly un-cheap). Between that and your proposed 500 I'd think about a prime to save cost and weight but get reasonable quality and max aperture. 200 2.8 if possible or 300 f4. The latter doesn't get uniformly fantastic reviews, maybe OK in the real world. Not too expensive second hand.

One thing I have decided is that if you really know what you want it's best to save up and get it. Buying compromises is just a waste of money and delays the happy day as well.

Mike.
 
Mike thanks for the advice. I am the same as you - I don't intend to carry a 500 everywhere because you then need the tripod + head (055 + 393 in my case)- so the weight is substantial. It will be used for specific trips. What I really need is a good 300, I think, as a walk around lens that I can put on a monopod and use a 1.4x or 2.0x without much IQ loss if needed
 
I'd wait and see what the feedback on the new VR primes is and if Nikon lower the prices on the non-VR ones etc. They're due next month I believe.
 
In my view there is nothing wrong with Jaff's advice. Do not make your decision too quick. There are issues which you ought to sort out though.

If you are considering spending a large amount on kit then you have to consider a switch of brand if it is necessary to meet your requirements.

Despite what you say I think you should still consider a sigma 500 prime. It is very sharp even at f4.5, it has good reach. I have carried mine all day (not so easy with other long lenses) and have got images just as good as those with 500 IS. What is more, I have carried it all day up and down hills (including Great salty Island. See my gallery)
If however you had to re-sell you will get more back from a canon or Nikon.

Canon are going to release an 800mmf5.6 soon so there may be a flood of canon f4 lenses on the s/h market which may sweeten your options.

Cameras are things you will change in the future and they are improving all the time, lenses pretty much stay the same , or are for keeps. I think you should concentrate on your lens options, camera is secondary.
 
loads of good quality 2nd hand units available with guarantees from good outlets such as mifsuds.
In addition eBay has a few good 2nd hand units in either camp, recently a 600/4 AF-S went for £2000 with case and all the bits, I have just purchased a Sigma 500/4.5 for a shade over £1000 and looking at the images I've seen on the website I doubt I will want to change it.
I don't really see any reason to jump ship unless the body has a remarkable impact and whilst it'll never be settled both Nikon and Canon will return excellent results.

Just noticed the response whilst I was writing mine its Mr Dancy's gallery that made me decide that a Sigma 500 was the cost efficient way to go
 
I think your getting somegood advice here the sigma 500 for a nikon would be a good choice secondhand dont buy new you will lose to much money.If you can get a used sigma 500 youll lose virtually nothing when you come to sell it and by then there will be a better choice on a used 500 nikon.
 
Jumping ship would all depend on how many Nikon lenses of high quality you now have in you arsenal. You don't seem over committed so I would probably make the move. Despite the fact that Nikon is "backward compatible" (but getting less so all the time), the current lineup of Canon "L" lenses really trumps what Nikon now have on the market. In addition, Canon makes a full frame DSLR in several flavors whilst Nikon is just now jumping on the band wagon. Perhaps in birding, this is not as important as the crop factor can certainly be used to advantage.

PLUS Canon has just announced a new 800mm lens!
 
a.dancy said:
Despite what you say I think you should still consider a sigma 500 prime. It is very sharp even at f4.5, it has good reach. I have carried mine all day (not so easy with other long lenses) and have got images just as good as those with 500 IS. What is more, I have carried it all day up and down hills (including Great salty Island. See my gallery)
If however you had to re-sell you will get more back from a canon or Nikon.

Canon are going to release an 800mmf5.6 soon so there may be a flood of canon f4 lenses on the s/h market which may sweeten your options.
Click to expand...

I agree that the Sigma is a great lens, I was certainly very happy with mine. However having recently changed to the Canon 500 f4 (I know that two other members have recently done the same) I can see the difference. In good conditions both deliver amazingly sharp image, however in poorer light the Canon has a clear edge. With the Sigma I was getting ~40% of images being pin sharp, with the Canon it's more like 75%.

I agree that the Sigma is a bit smaller and lighter than the Canon but I don't think that 0.5kg makes the difference when lugging it around for a days birding.

The new Canon 800 f5.6 will be interesting but I doubt it will cause a flood of 500 f4's to hit the secondhand market. Anyone after a lens that size and cost with that kind of reach would have been looking at the 600 f4 anyway, and I don't see that the 800 f5.6 is much (if anything) of an upgrade from that (but the images from it may prove me wrong).
 
I would stick to what I have. My friend has a 500 f4 Nikon and a 300 2.8. He uses the 328 +2X much more often than the 500. I do not know how the price of the 300 compared with the 500 though.
 
postcardcv said:
I agree that the Sigma is a great lens, I was certainly very happy with mine. However having recently changed to the Canon 500 f4 (I know that two other members have recently done the same) I can see the difference. In good conditions both deliver amazingly sharp image, however in poorer light the Canon has a clear edge. With the Sigma I was getting ~40% of images being pin sharp, with the Canon it's more like 75%.

I agree that the Sigma is a bit smaller and lighter than the Canon but I don't think that 0.5kg makes the difference when lugging it around for a days birding.

The new Canon 800 f5.6 will be interesting but I doubt it will cause a flood of 500 f4's to hit the secondhand market. Anyone after a lens that size and cost with that kind of reach would have been looking at the 600 f4 anyway, and I don't see that the 800 f5.6 is much (if anything) of an upgrade from that (but the images from it may prove me wrong).
Click to expand...

I do not disagree that the canon is a sharper lens having the benefit of IS and being slightly faster. Having said that I would be willing to chuck a few of my A4 prints in with some of those taken with the Canon 500mm f4. and you will find it hard to tell the difference. As for low light stuff I have taken pictures of dippers with my rig in a flowing river, shutter speed less than 1/60th sec and I got sharp shots each time the bird held still. If memory serves me correctly I went down to about 1/20th sec. Technique makes a big difference.

I think living in Southern Ireland and carrying gear up and down mountains (I have done it) the extra weight may well be an issue ...it would for me. But then I do not have the luxury of a car so I can say I do truely carry my gear around all day, so I know. ;)

The point I am making is that the sigma 500mm lens is a very attractive compromise and for an amateur you would be nuts not to at least consider it. I agree that people will think that the 800 IS is the logical replacement for a 600mm. That's not the way it works and I think there will be a good number of canon 500mm lenses on the market coming from the birding community alone. If you think about it you will be able reason that one out for yourself.;)

Good luck with your decision.

Adrian
 
eastwood said:
I would stick to what I have. My friend has a 500 f4 Nikon and a 300 2.8. He uses the 328 +2X much more often than the 500. I do not know how the price of the 300 compared with the 500 though.
Click to expand...


Sorry I missed reading this post. This so briefly states the point I was trying to make and made so badly. I should have attempted to try and avoid the competition argument that exists between lenses when we start talking about sharpness. No point in getting a long lens if you are going to leave it at home. I also think that fieldcraft and composition will have a greater influence on how your pictures are received than the difference in sharpness which may or may not be perceived.

AD
 
Michael,

Why would you want to jump ship? You have a good lens and set-up with the 300mm and converter, the D80 is still a good camera, which colour images do reproduce very well indeed, (better than some more expensive Canon models). As Steve wrote, maybe there will be some second hand bargains when the new Nikon kit is launched. I think that it would be worth just holding on.
 
a.dancy said:
I do not disagree that the canon is a sharper lens having the benefit of IS and being slightly faster. Having said that I would be willing to chuck a few of my A4 prints in with some of those taken with the Canon 500mm f4. and you will find it hard to tell the difference.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not playing down how good the Sigma is, just saying that I think the Canon has the edge and if he can afford it then why not go for it now. As for IQ from the Sigma and Canon primes, here is a shot (that I very happy with) from each lens - full and 100% crop for each. (I'd need to check but I suspect that both shots had a 1.4x tc so could have been better).
 

Attachments

  • redbackedshrike0029.jpg
    redbackedshrike0029.jpg
    52.4 KB · Views: 96
  • redbackedshrike0029crop.jpg
    redbackedshrike0029crop.jpg
    131.9 KB · Views: 103
  • wheatear0035.jpg
    wheatear0035.jpg
    89.9 KB · Views: 104
  • wheatear0035crop.jpg
    wheatear0035crop.jpg
    138.7 KB · Views: 105
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

F
New Equipment Starting over
Replies
3
Views
496
Luvfatbirds2
L
C
I've got a Canon R7 and need to update my lenses
Replies
15
Views
1K
Barred Wobbler
Barred Wobbler
A
Beginner camera recommendations?
Replies
6
Views
783
Ash Anne
A
1
Thinking of buying a new OM-1 mk2
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
MelospizaMelodiaFan
MelospizaMelodiaFan
ermine
Canon EF USM L 100-400 Mk1 repair -
Replies
0
Views
788
ermine
ermine

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top