Coming over to the Dark Side... need some help

Okay... I've done it. I sold all of my nice Canon gear (5D, 40D... L lenses, etc.) and picked up a D300. Pending a few months with the D300, I may think about the D700, but that's to be seen.

Here's what I have for now:

70-200 f2.8 VR
30mm 1.4 (this is a sigma, just for low light indoor stuff)
85 1.4
17-55

Although there are a few less lenses here than I had w/ my Canon (17-40L, 70-200f/fL IS, 300 f/4L IS were my main setup). Are there any suggestions? I would like something in the 300 or 400mm range, but my god Nikkor lenses are $$$. Maybe a converter on the 70-200?

Anyway, glad to be here... I was a regular in the Canon forums.

--
http://www.jaytom.net
5D, 40D
'You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it.'

Welcome aboard. Just a minor point, don't you mean "Coming over FROM the Dark Side"?? )

Whatever - enjoy your new camera. I've just posted some images (in this forum) taken with the Nikkor 28-70mm f2.8 you might like to have a look.

One thing you will like - the Nikon flash system is way ahead of the competition - get your head around a few simple principles and you will have total control of your flash photography (including daylight fill-flash) for the first time.
--
Regards & Welcome
Kev G

I'll reserve judgement on that for when I take some photos with this thing! I've never held a grudge for either Canon or Nikon. They both have their strong points (I'll miss the high ISO performance, but my 2.8 suite will help negate that!).

Thanks for the welcome!

Jay
--
http://www.jaytom.net
5D, 40D
'You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it.'

jlangiewicz said:

(I'll miss the high ISO performance,

Click to expand...

Not if you get the D700 you won't!

Wouldn't bash Canon - nearly bought an A1 in 1980 when I was working in Saudi Arabia. At that time it was the "best" 35mm camera around - ended up buying a Mamiya RB67 Pro S instead!

--
Regards
Kev G

The 17-35 will be a better lens than the 17-40 I think, except for the missing 35-40 range obviously. The 1.4x and 1.7x converters are well regarded, the 2x less so but I've had usable results from it. The 300 F4 isn't too expensive, but no VR, it is small and light for the focal length. Perhaps a new 80-400 that's rumored might give more reach and not cost a fortune, but it's still going to be in the $1500 range.

I'm not sure I'd have traded a 5D for a D300. I have and love my D300, but your going to see a step down in image quality in anything but lower ISOs. The D300 however is a MUCH nicer camera sensor quality aside. Now the D700, now that's another matter. Amazing body, great sensor! If you can still return the D300, just get the D700, trade the 17-55 for a 28-70 or 24-70. Add a 14-24 or 17-35 if you do landscape or wide angle often.

But the new 5D might trump the D700 in image quality, I'd be surprised if it didn't to some degree.

jlangiewicz said:

Okay... I've done it. I sold all of my nice Canon gear (5D, 40D... L
lenses, etc.) and picked up a D300. Pending a few months with the
D300, I may think about the D700, but that's to be seen.

Here's what I have for now:

70-200 f2.8 VR
30mm 1.4 (this is a sigma, just for low light indoor stuff)
85 1.4
17-55

Although there are a few less lenses here than I had w/ my Canon
(17-40L, 70-200f/fL IS, 300 f/4L IS were my main setup). Are there
any suggestions? I would like something in the 300 or 400mm range,
but my god Nikkor lenses are $$$. Maybe a converter on the 70-200?

Anyway, glad to be here... I was a regular in the Canon forums.

--
http://www.jaytom.net
5D, 40D
'You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it.'

Click to expand...

We'll see about the D700. The 5D is a great little camera... although it seems to be a dust magnet for some reason. Had it cleaned several times by Canon, and have had nothing but issues even after it was serviced. Anyway, excited to try something new...

--
http://www.jaytom.net
D300, Yes... I've kissed my Canons goodbye
'You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it.'

jlangiewicz said:

Okay... I've done it. I sold all of my nice Canon gear (5D, 40D... L
lenses, etc.) and picked up a D300.

Click to expand...

Would you mind sharing your reasons for the switch with us?

Just wondering.

Thanks,

Since you've got the DX body, getting a Sigma 10-20 will be the bargain ultra-wide that you'll enjoy. As stated before, the 17-35 2.8 would be fine, but you already have the 17-55 and need to save for longer glass, right? I'd get the Sigma if you need to go wider now in DX.

I noticed that you don't have a macro lens yet. If you're in the market on a budget then check out the Tokina 100. Hard to beat for the bucks (the Tamron 90 costs slightly more while I cannot tell the difference in sharpness).

For a compromise in quality with added reach, the 1.7x TC shold work fairly well on your 70-200 stopped down to 5.6 and get out to 340mm with stabilization.

The best budget telephoto Nikkor prime is the 300 f4.0, which is quite sharp wide open, and would give you the same coverage that your old lens provided (albeit without stabilization).

If speed and zoom matter and you've got a resonable amount to start with, the Sigma 120-300 2.8 has been well touted by some here. You could use a 1.4x TC and lose only a stop while reaching 420mm at f4.0, reasonably sharp opened up. No stabilization, however.

Personally, as much as I enjoy my D300 in most instances, the D700 would be my next acquisition more than more glass at this point. The image quality and ISO performance is just insanely better.

In fact, you could get ahead by selling the 17-55 and the 30 1.4, and use that $$ to help fund the new body. Get a Tamron 28-75 2.8 to make up for your loss at the normal perspective, and keep the D300 for long reach stuff. If you make money from your shooting, it will balance out quickly and you can rest assured that your switch from Canon was not in vain.

I'm betting that by Christmas, the D700 will be discounted to around $2500 so perhaps that will entice you...

--
Paul

“The worth and excellency of a soul is to be measured by the object of its love”
Henry Scougal

If you were using your 17-40L F/4 lens on your 5D, you may want to consider getting the Nikkor 12-24 DX F/4. It is a very sharp and high contract lens. It will give you back your wide angle choices. It will work like a charm on your D300. However, since you are considering D700 in the future, you may want to future proof yourself and get the 14-24 F/2.8 instead. It is significantly more expensive but significantly better as well. And more importantly, it an FX lens.

--
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

jlangiewicz said:

Okay... I've done it. I sold all of my nice Canon gear (5D, 40D... L
lenses, etc.) and picked up a D300. Pending a few months with the
D300, I may think about the D700, but that's to be seen.

Here's what I have for now:

70-200 f2.8 VR
30mm 1.4 (this is a sigma, just for low light indoor stuff)
85 1.4
17-55

Although there are a few less lenses here than I had w/ my Canon
(17-40L, 70-200f/fL IS, 300 f/4L IS were my main setup). Are there
any suggestions? I would like something in the 300 or 400mm range,
but my god Nikkor lenses are $$$. Maybe a converter on the 70-200?

Click to expand...

From what I've read and seen, the Nikon 1.7 tc works really well with the 70-200. Even some have mentioned using the 2x tc, of course, that slows you down some.

GL

And I'd agree he's coming to the dark side...our lenses are black. Canon lenses are white. You don't know the powers of the Dark Side! ;-)

Boredom really. I think I need something to excite me in to getting back out there and finding things to photograph.

I'm actually just curious on the differences between the two suites of gear. I know their both fantastic... I just want to get my hands on different equipment for inspirational purposes!

--
http://www.jaytom.net
D300, Yes... I've kissed my Canons goodbye
'You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it.'

Yeah... not much beats that 17-40 on a full frame. Super wide angle with great results and no vignetting.

Thanks for the suggestions... if the Nikon works out I'll get a D700. There's nothing like a full frame!
--
http://www.jaytom.net
D300, Yes... I've kissed my Canons goodbye
'You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it.'

jlangiewicz said:

I'll reserve judgement on that for when I take some photos with this
thing! I've never held a grudge for either Canon or Nikon. They both
have their strong points (I'll miss the high ISO performance, but my
2.8 suite will help negate that!).

Click to expand...

Coming from 5D, 40D you will notice a big IMPROVEMENT in high ISO performance! D300 is quite excellent in this regard. Also you will now be able to take multiple shots at lower ISO's and VERIFY if you actually got a sharp one, because the 3" LCD is hi-res and you can zoom in to make sure you got at least one sharp! This feature is especially useful for low light shooting and a huge ADVANTAGE over the 5D, 40D. Hope this helps!

That's a first for me... 5D, for intermediate cameras, has one of the best ISO performances (not sure about D700). If the D300 outperforms it, I would be pleasantly surprised.
--
http://www.jaytom.net
D300, Yes... I've kissed my Canons goodbye
'You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it.'

jlangiewicz said:

Okay... I've done it. I sold all of my nice Canon gear (5D, 40D... L
lenses, etc.) and picked up a D300. Pending a few months with the
D300, I may think about the D700, but that's to be seen.

Here's what I have for now:

70-200 f2.8 VR
30mm 1.4 (this is a sigma, just for low light indoor stuff)
85 1.4
17-55

Click to expand...

You seem to be prety well set.

jlangiewicz said:

Although there are a few less lenses here than I had w/ my Canon
(17-40L, 70-200f/fL IS, 300 f/4L IS were my main setup). Are there
any suggestions? I would like something in the 300 or 400mm range,
but my god Nikkor lenses are $$$. Maybe a converter on the 70-200?

Click to expand...

The 200-400mm seems to be a popular choice although spec wise it seems not as sharp as most would like. Yet there are lots of positve threads on it. The 1.7 converter works well on the 70-200mm but dont do the 2.0 - seems not to work as well. I have been watching that one. You can do the 300mm which is very very good too. Do a search and you will find numerous examples.

jlangiewicz said:

Anyway, glad to be here... I was a regular in the Canon forums.

Click to expand...

I like your approach.
gk
-
'I'm not as smart today as I will be tomorrow.'

My D3 was also a dust magnet. Something about not having the extra space around the sensor on the full frame cameras? I haven't had the D700 long enough to judge, but at least it has the shaker. I haven't need to use it much so far.

jlangiewicz said:

Yeah... not much beats that 17-40 on a full frame. Super wide angle
with great results and no vignetting.

Click to expand...

That will be on the EF mount hehe , when you get the D700 you'll get to play with some truly amazing uw zooms , the 17-35mm f2.8 and the 14-24mm f2.8.