canon's 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 24-70 f/2.8, 50 f/1.2 (all L's) have
somewhat of a replacement. People often consider nikon's 70-200 f/2.8
VR to be superior to canon's 70-200 f/2.8L IS but in reality, they
are too close to call. Cropped sensors the nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR wins
in IQ, but on Full Frame, canon wins. Reason is that corner sharpness
is soft on the 70-200 f/2.8 VR with the extra frame coverage.
so, the OP would not benefit from trading this lens for comparable Nikon.
as far as the 24-70 f/2.8 lens, from what I hear, nikon's 24-70 f/2.8
is superior (my guess is that canon Quality Assurance has slipped on
this particular lens). I've heard complaints about people buying 3-4
24-70 f/2.8L lenses only to find one being "tack sharp" while the
nikon 24-70 f/2.8 I've heard of no such thing.
i had this Canon lens. mine worled fine, but i too have read complaints about ones that had soft focus. however, i found that 70mm wasn't enough reach when i moved into the FF 5D, and, frankly, it was too heavy for a walking-around lens.
so, i sold it and got the 24-105 f/4L IS instead. it's light, it's sharp, and the IS more than makes up for the loss of a stop when its wide open.
Nikon doesn't have a 50 f/1.2, but they have a 50 f/1.4 and it's not
weather sealed like their premium glass. However, they do have the
incredible 14-24 f/2.8mm glass that beats anything that canon has
ever made (including primes) in terms of edge to edge sharpness.
Nikon really dropped the ball on that lens, and it's the reason why a
lot of people switched to the D700.
okay.
I shoot a 5D mark 2, and before that, I shot a D300. Naturally, I
prefer the ergonomics of the D300, but I'll get use to the 5D mark 2.
The only reason why I wanted the 5D mark 2 was:
full frame
21.1 megapixels
1080p video recording.
okay.
nikon only has the full frame, but doesn't have the high MP and the
1080p video. IQ is comparable, one favoring the other for their own
personal reasons. One thing that everyone can agree on: D700 have
SUPERIOR low light shooting (high ISO) compared to the Canon.
well, i
don't necessarily agree (chuckling). so far, i haven't seen tests that compare the 5D II and D700 at high ISO when the Canon image is DOWN-REZED to the measely size of the D700.
my guess is that the D700 advantage in high ISO will largely disappear when this comparison is made.
admittedly, i have found that when the 5D II is set to sRAW2, with internal NR on "Strong", ISO 25600 is still an "iffy" proposition. nevertheless, sometimes it is just fine at ISO 25600. see, for example, my shots at:
http://gcphotoblog.com/?p=278
but, at ISO 12800, i have found the 5D II to be better than i had ever dreamed. see examples elsewhere at
http://gcphotoblog.com/
on balance, i see no reason for the OP to downgrade to the Nikon dSLR system.
--
http://gcphotoblog.com
'if we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called 'research'.' (attributed to Einstein)
