From Canon to Nikon D610...

[z2122]

I switched from a Canon APS 450D, 17-55 f2.8 IS, 70-200 f4 IS, 100f2, to a Nikon D610 with 28 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 70-200f4 VR and a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC (which will go back to the dealer).

It took me a while until I was ready to switch the system, I tried different FF Canon and finally decided for Nikon, because of the superb image quality of the D610 (24 MPix is enough for me). D610 is simply outstanding . A friend has a Canon 5D MkII and it was not a big improvement in image quality compared to a good APS-C camera. The Nikon has much better resolution, than Canon APSC, better dynamic range (visible), a very good user Interface and a build in flash, that I like a lot if I have bad light and want to shoot my children or use it as a fill light. I do not understand why Canon is producing high Price FF cameras without flash.

For more than 2 years I was not ready to switch to FF , but this D610 makes the difference and I am really happy that I did it.

The Nikon lenses 50 f1.8, 28 f1.8 and the 70-200f4VR are very good (also border sharpness) , but the 'Tamron is not that good. I am not pixel peeping, but with 1:2 magnification you can already see the difffernce in IQ.

The question is, if I really need a zoom - maybe the primes are fine.

 

[Alejandro Daz del Ro Fery]

Welcome.
Depending on your style, your taste, my 16~35/4 is almost glued to my D800.

 

[filipebv]

i also changed system (well i still keep my 5d and some lens) the D610 is quite amazing...for now i only have samyang 14 mm...waiting for my second copy of 50 mm f/1.8 (first with descentering problems)...thinking in getting 16-35 f4 (after selling some canon lens).

just one photo, HDR look, no banding or noise at 100% view (accepted in stock sites, with canon a lot of post processing work in shadows)... i also discovery this lens and it´s SHARP as hell with PT lens distortion is corrected (not applied in this example)

 

[z2122]

Oh yes - the HDR function is really good at the Nikon D610 - I can shoot HDR without tripod and it has the same sharpness as a single shot

 

[filipebv]

yep! but the thing is i didn´t use HDR mode...DR is so good!! just one picture and shadow recovery...for me this is new!

 

[Lord Mox]

Oh yes - the HDR function is really good at the Nikon D610 - I can shoot HDR without tripod and it has the same sharpness as a single shot

HDR function worked great for me too. Although I only needed it once (on my D600 by the way not d610).

 

[TQGroup]

I switched from a Canon APS 450D, 17-55 f2.8 IS, 70-200 f4 IS, 100f2, to a Nikon D610 with 28 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 70-200f4 VR and a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC (which will go back to the dealer).

It took me a while until I was ready to switch the system, I tried different FF Canon and finally decided for Nikon, because of the superb image quality of the D610 (24 MPix is enough for me). D610 is simply outstanding . A friend has a Canon 5D MkII and it was not a big improvement in image quality compared to a good APS-C camera. The Nikon has much better resolution, than Canon APSC, better dynamic range (visible), a very good user Interface and a build in flash, that I like a lot if I have bad light and want to shoot my children or use it as a fill light. I do not understand why Canon is producing high Price FF cameras without flash.

For more than 2 years I was not ready to switch to FF , but this D610 makes the difference and I am really happy that I did it.

The Nikon lenses 50 f1.8, 28 f1.8 and the 70-200f4VR are very good (also border sharpness) , but the 'Tamron is not that good. I am not pixel peeping, but with 1:2 magnification you can already see the difffernce in IQ.

The question is, if I really need a zoom - maybe the primes are fine.

Welcome to the dark side ;-)

IMHO, you have started off with very fine glass. So, what next? That's up to what you want to shoot most often. I have had a D600 for 18 months and here are three thoughts as I don't know what, where or how you shoot:

1. For extra "reach" on the excellent 70-200 F4, try a TC14eII tele converter that will give you a very good (and cheap) F5.6 280mm, even better at F8.

2. For travel and to go ultra-wide, the 16-35 VR is unbeatable. The VR enables me to shoot hand held at below 1/15 sec (I have examples at 1/3 sec) and gets the shots the others can't. Its my first chosen travel lens... (the others are usually the 70-200F4 and the 50 F1.8G, which you already have).

3. As a general purpose, one lens solution "walkaround", the 24-85 VR is excellent value (ie cheap) and a very good, light weight and unobtrusive performer. I often use this instead of the 24-70 F2.8 I also own.

Enjoy Nikon! Cheers Andrew

 

[z2122]

I switched from a Canon APS 450D, 17-55 f2.8 IS, 70-200 f4 IS, 100f2, to a Nikon D610 with 28 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 70-200f4 VR and a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC (which will go back to the dealer).

It took me a while until I was ready to switch the system, I tried different FF Canon and finally decided for Nikon, because of the superb image quality of the D610 (24 MPix is enough for me). D610 is simply outstanding . A friend has a Canon 5D MkII and it was not a big improvement in image quality compared to a good APS-C camera. The Nikon has much better resolution, than Canon APSC, better dynamic range (visible), a very good user Interface and a build in flash, that I like a lot if I have bad light and want to shoot my children or use it as a fill light. I do not understand why Canon is producing high Price FF cameras without flash.

For more than 2 years I was not ready to switch to FF , but this D610 makes the difference and I am really happy that I did it.

The Nikon lenses 50 f1.8, 28 f1.8 and the 70-200f4VR are very good (also border sharpness) , but the 'Tamron is not that good. I am not pixel peeping, but with 1:2 magnification you can already see the difffernce in IQ.

The question is, if I really need a zoom - maybe the primes are fine.

Welcome to the dark side ;-)

IMHO, you have started off with very fine glass. So, what next? That's up to what you want to shoot most often. I have had a D600 for 18 months and here are three thoughts as I don't know what, where or how you shoot:

1. For extra "reach" on the excellent 70-200 F4, try a TC14eII tele converter that will give you a very good (and cheap) F5.6 280mm, even better at F8.

2. For travel and to go ultra-wide, the 16-35 VR is unbeatable. The VR enables me to shoot hand held at below 1/15 sec (I have examples at 1/3 sec) and gets the shots the others can't. Its my first chosen travel lens... (the others are usually the 70-200F4 and the 50 F1.8G, which you already have).

3. As a general purpose, one lens solution "walkaround", the 24-85 VR is excellent value (ie cheap) and a very good, light weight and unobtrusive performer. I often use this instead of the 24-70 F2.8 I also own.

Enjoy Nikon! Cheers Andrew

Thank you for the warm welcome on the dark side of life ;-)

There are some interesting thoughts in your reply ...

TC I will get - the question is TC14 or TC20 but I think it will be the 14.

Interesting that you recommend 16-35 as walk around. Is the IQ compareable to primes?

How is the IQ of 24-85 compared to 24-70?

 

[toomanycanons]

"Interesting that you recommend 16-35 as walk around. Is the IQ compareable to primes?"

You're joking, right?

 

[rhlpetrus]

I switched from a Canon APS 450D, 17-55 f2.8 IS, 70-200 f4 IS, 100f2, to a Nikon D610 with 28 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 70-200f4 VR and a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC (which will go back to the dealer).

It took me a while until I was ready to switch the system, I tried different FF Canon and finally decided for Nikon, because of the superb image quality of the D610 (24 MPix is enough for me). D610 is simply outstanding . A friend has a Canon 5D MkII and it was not a big improvement in image quality compared to a good APS-C camera. The Nikon has much better resolution, than Canon APSC, better dynamic range (visible), a very good user Interface and a build in flash, that I like a lot if I have bad light and want to shoot my children or use it as a fill light. I do not understand why Canon is producing high Price FF cameras without flash.

For more than 2 years I was not ready to switch to FF , but this D610 makes the difference and I am really happy that I did it.

The Nikon lenses 50 f1.8, 28 f1.8 and the 70-200f4VR are very good (also border sharpness) , but the 'Tamron is not that good. I am not pixel peeping, but with 1:2 magnification you can already see the difffernce in IQ.

The question is, if I really need a zoom - maybe the primes are fine.

Welcome to the dark side ;-)

IMHO, you have started off with very fine glass. So, what next? That's up to what you want to shoot most often. I have had a D600 for 18 months and here are three thoughts as I don't know what, where or how you shoot:

1. For extra "reach" on the excellent 70-200 F4, try a TC14eII tele converter that will give you a very good (and cheap) F5.6 280mm, even better at F8.

2. For travel and to go ultra-wide, the 16-35 VR is unbeatable. The VR enables me to shoot hand held at below 1/15 sec (I have examples at 1/3 sec) and gets the shots the others can't. Its my first chosen travel lens... (the others are usually the 70-200F4 and the 50 F1.8G, which you already have).

3. As a general purpose, one lens solution "walkaround", the 24-85 VR is excellent value (ie cheap) and a very good, light weight and unobtrusive performer. I often use this instead of the 24-70 F2.8 I also own.

Enjoy Nikon! Cheers Andrew

Thank you for the warm welcome on the dark side of life ;-)

There are some interesting thoughts in your reply ...

TC I will get - the question is TC14 or TC20 but I think it will be the 14.

Interesting that you recommend 16-35 as walk around. Is the IQ compareable to primes?

How is the IQ of 24-85 compared to 24-70?

It depends on your shooting style, but I find an UWA a must, and the 16-35 f/4 is likely the best alternative unless you really need the extra 2mm in the 14-24 (but then, no easy solution filters and flare become issues). But, if you really like primes, there is the 15mm Zeiss ...

The D610 is looking like the a classic FF "for the masses". Its sensor is a gem, as Jack Hogan has posted here recently.

 

[benjaminblack]

I switched from a Canon APS 450D, 17-55 f2.8 IS, 70-200 f4 IS, 100f2, to a Nikon D610 with 28 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 70-200f4 VR and a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC (which will go back to the dealer).

It took me a while until I was ready to switch the system, I tried different FF Canon and finally decided for Nikon, because of the superb image quality of the D610 (24 MPix is enough for me). D610 is simply outstanding . A friend has a Canon 5D MkII and it was not a big improvement in image quality compared to a good APS-C camera. The Nikon has much better resolution, than Canon APSC, better dynamic range (visible), a very good user Interface and a build in flash, that I like a lot if I have bad light and want to shoot my children or use it as a fill light. I do not understand why Canon is producing high Price FF cameras without flash.

For more than 2 years I was not ready to switch to FF , but this D610 makes the difference and I am really happy that I did it.

The Nikon lenses 50 f1.8, 28 f1.8 and the 70-200f4VR are very good (also border sharpness) , but the 'Tamron is not that good. I am not pixel peeping, but with 1:2 magnification you can already see the difffernce in IQ.

The question is, if I really need a zoom - maybe the primes are fine.

No advice really. I just wanted to say how happy this posts makes me. Leaving the world of Canon was the best thing I ever did. We should make a Facebook group called I Left Canon for Nikon, or have a potluck

 

[z2122]

facebook group ? nice idea ;-)

 

[TQGroup]

I switched from a Canon APS 450D, 17-55 f2.8 IS, 70-200 f4 IS, 100f2, to a Nikon D610 with 28 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 70-200f4 VR and a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC (which will go back to the dealer).

It took me a while until I was ready to switch the system, I tried different FF Canon and finally decided for Nikon, because of the superb image quality of the D610 (24 MPix is enough for me). D610 is simply outstanding . A friend has a Canon 5D MkII and it was not a big improvement in image quality compared to a good APS-C camera. The Nikon has much better resolution, than Canon APSC, better dynamic range (visible), a very good user Interface and a build in flash, that I like a lot if I have bad light and want to shoot my children or use it as a fill light. I do not understand why Canon is producing high Price FF cameras without flash.

For more than 2 years I was not ready to switch to FF , but this D610 makes the difference and I am really happy that I did it.

The Nikon lenses 50 f1.8, 28 f1.8 and the 70-200f4VR are very good (also border sharpness) , but the 'Tamron is not that good. I am not pixel peeping, but with 1:2 magnification you can already see the difffernce in IQ.

The question is, if I really need a zoom - maybe the primes are fine.

Welcome to the dark side ;-)

IMHO, you have started off with very fine glass. So, what next? That's up to what you want to shoot most often. I have had a D600 for 18 months and here are three thoughts as I don't know what, where or how you shoot:

1. For extra "reach" on the excellent 70-200 F4, try a TC14eII tele converter that will give you a very good (and cheap) F5.6 280mm, even better at F8.

2. For travel and to go ultra-wide, the 16-35 VR is unbeatable. The VR enables me to shoot hand held at below 1/15 sec (I have examples at 1/3 sec) and gets the shots the others can't. Its my first chosen travel lens... (the others are usually the 70-200F4 and the 50 F1.8G, which you already have).

3. As a general purpose, one lens solution "walkaround", the 24-85 VR is excellent value (ie cheap) and a very good, light weight and unobtrusive performer. I often use this instead of the 24-70 F2.8 I also own.

Enjoy Nikon! Cheers Andrew

Thank you for the warm welcome on the dark side of life ;-)

There are some interesting thoughts in your reply ...

TC I will get - the question is TC14 or TC20 but I think it will be the 14.

Good call!

Interesting that you recommend 16-35 as walk around. Is the IQ compareable to primes?

Good question! Yes and No and a definite Maybe...

As stated above for travel where UWA is very necessary, the 16-35 VR is the only pro lens around with VR (to my knowledge). It definitely gets me shots I would not otherwise get and so that makes its IQ unbeatable.

However, on a tripod, mirror up, 4 sec delay, etc, etc it will be "out-performed" by a number of primes and the 14-24 F2.8. But, if you are buying primes, you will need something like the Zeiss 15, a good 20, a good 24 and any reasonable 35 to beat it ... and in poor light without a tripod, most likely this VR zoom will output better quality handheld than a non-stabilised prime due to the better management of camera shake. After all, most sharpness on the better lenses these days is due to operator performance than the theoretical maximum performance of a lens under "laboratory conditions"!

This lens is very, very good from around 18-30, a bit weak at 16 and soft at 35mm.

Here are 3 examples from recent posts and there is good discussion on recent forums...

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

How is the IQ of 24-85 compared to 24-70?

Another great question! Exactly the same answer as above, sort of...

I have both. For serious events, eg weddings with flash, I use the 24-70 F2.8 ED because it does render better colour and contrast that I can see, but I cannot see any difference in sharpness on a 4K UHD TV. Unfortunately, the 24-70 F2.8 is nearly double the weight of the 24-85 and has no VR and that costs in shots away from controlled conditions.

Let me answer you this way... a very good friend will be taking his D800, wife and 3 kids to Southern California for 3 weeks in May. He owns a 24-70 F2.8 ED but he will take my 24-85 VR as his "walkabout" lens instead. IMHO, for many situations, that 24-85 VR will get you a "better shot" than the 24-70 F2.8 but, under conditions / situations comfortable for the 24-70 F2.8, it will render better colour and contrast.(While he is away, I will arrange to borrow his baby 200 F2 VRII) ;-):-D

In any case, for a planned shoot from a tripod, etc, I will invariably use a prime ... but aren't some of the best opportunities "unplanned grab shots" in bewitching hour light conditions and that is where VR is priceless and the "best" lens is the world is the one you have on your camera then and there. :-O

Hope this helps... cheers, Andrew

 

[TQGroup]

Awww, come on guys, please be kind!

That Canon photocopier was the best I ever owned! :-D