Canon lenses are much worse than Nikon's? Should I stop planning buying 5D II?

Started Dec 9, 2008 | Discussions thread
Bills nature photo Regular Member • Posts: 377
Canon 24-105 f4 IS is awsome between 24-70 and @ f4 of course

I kinow that this is not a practical solution if you really need f2.8, but if what you are doing is landscape work at smaller F#s anyway or walk around stuff that would benefit from IS, I would put this lens up against the Nikon.

I was a Nikon guy for a long time, and there are many positives in the Canon line.

For the nature folks outthere, the Canon 100-400mm IS is much better than Nikon 80-400mm VR and Nikon doesn't make a 400mm lens other that the 200-400mm VR and the 400mm f2.8.

So to me the Canon line up is much more compelling. BTW the Canon 400mm f4 DO is also awsome if you have about $5K to spend.

The Nikons I do miss.. 17-35, the 70-200 VR was actually pretty good for me, and I would love to try the new wide zoom. But on the whole I don't miss Nikon lenses, I do miss the ergonomics.


 Bills nature photo's gear list:Bills nature photo's gear list
Canon EOS-1D X Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS II USM +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow