Comments on: Nikon To Canon: Not http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/ Creativity x Technology Sat, 17 Mar 2012 05:09:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: psu http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/comment-page-1/#comment-5046 psu Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:27:23 +0000 http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/#comment-5046 I have considered that Sigma lens, but Sigma makes me nervous. I have considered that Sigma lens, but Sigma makes me nervous.

]]> By: mausgabe http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/comment-page-1/#comment-5045 mausgabe Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:20:50 +0000 http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/#comment-5045 Try the Sigma 50-150 F2.8 HSM + the Sigma 1.4 TC (must be Sigma TC to work properly -- go figure), and you'll have your 70-210 F4. It'll cost you a bit more, tho. Try the Sigma 50-150 F2.8 HSM + the Sigma 1.4 TC (must be Sigma TC to work properly — go figure), and you’ll have your 70-210 F4. It’ll cost you a bit more, tho.

]]> By: Mark Denovich http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/comment-page-1/#comment-5047 Mark Denovich Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:28:32 +0000 http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/#comment-5047 My definition of what a big lens is changed when I got the Sigma 150-500 lens. It's like attaching a 2 foot section of telephone pole to the front of your camera. My back gets sore after a hour or so shooting with that lens. The 70-200 seems petite by comparison. $1500 for the 70-200 is hard for me to justify when the Nikon 18-200 AF-S VR is what is most often on my camera. Other than speed, I have no complaints. It's a nice size, and is fantastic when you don't know what you'll be shooting next. A perfect travel lens, and considering that's what I'm most often doing, it's a perfect lens for me. My definition of what a big lens is changed when I got the Sigma 150-500 lens. It’s like attaching a 2 foot section of telephone pole to the front of your camera. My back gets sore after a hour or so shooting with that lens. The 70-200 seems petite by comparison.

$1500 for the 70-200 is hard for me to justify when the Nikon 18-200 AF-S VR is what is most often on my camera. Other than speed, I have no complaints. It’s a nice size, and is fantastic when you don’t know what you’ll be shooting next. A perfect travel lens, and considering that’s what I’m most often doing, it’s a perfect lens for me.

]]> By: peterb http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/comment-page-1/#comment-5048 peterb Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:39:11 +0000 http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/#comment-5048 I would be tempted by the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, which is the same weight (according to Amazon, at least) as the 70-200 f/4 IS, but a $100 cheaper. I would be tempted by the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, which is the same weight (according to Amazon, at least) as the 70-200 f/4 IS, but a $100 cheaper.

]]> By: benf http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/comment-page-1/#comment-5044 benf Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:49:36 +0000 http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/#comment-5044 If you ever make it to Vancouver I'll let you play with my 70-200 f/4 L. I think your lens lust should be placed on the IS version now that there is one. It is only 55g heavier. If you ever make it to Vancouver I’ll let you play with my 70-200 f/4 L. I think your lens lust should be placed on the IS version now that there is one. It is only 55g heavier.

]]> By: psu http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/comment-page-1/#comment-5043 psu Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:55:35 +0000 http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/#comment-5043 1. The 2.8 70-200 lenses are great, but they are HUGE. They weigh 3 pounds and are longer than my kid. I used the older 80-200/2.8 once and knew right then that I would never carry such a thing around. 2. Back in my film days, my favorite lens was the old Nikon 75-150/3.5 manual focus lens. I've always wanted an AF version. This lens was small, easy to carry, and very sharp. The best compromise in the Nikon system is the 70-300/VR lens, but it's even slower at F 4.5. I think the 70-200/4, for me, is the perfect combination of cost, size, weight, speed and usability. 1. The 2.8 70-200 lenses are great, but they are HUGE. They weigh 3 pounds and are longer than my kid. I used the older 80-200/2.8 once and knew right then that I would never carry such a thing around.

2. Back in my film days, my favorite lens was the old Nikon 75-150/3.5 manual focus lens. I’ve always wanted an AF version. This lens was small, easy to carry, and very sharp.

The best compromise in the Nikon system is the 70-300/VR lens, but it’s even slower at F 4.5.

I think the 70-200/4, for me, is the perfect combination of cost, size, weight, speed and usability.

]]> By: Mark Denovich http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/comment-page-1/#comment-5049 Mark Denovich Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:11:26 +0000 http://tleaves.com/2008/09/03/canon-to-nikon-not/#comment-5049 I realize it's a bit more expensive, but the 70-200 F2.8 VR AF-S Nikon lens is supposed to be one of the best they make. Why are you longing for the Canon lens? I realize it’s a bit more expensive, but the 70-200 F2.8 VR AF-S Nikon lens is supposed to be one of the best they make. Why are you longing for the Canon lens?

]]>