Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: D3X versus MkIII, regarding lens choices  (Read 7252 times)
NickJB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« on: April 09, 2009, 12:36:18 PM »
ReplyReply

The eternal question, Nikon or Canon - in this case the D3X or MkIII? (Actually I really want a Hassy H3D 50, but thats going to have to wait for another year or two).
I shoot people and locations. Portraits and environmental portraits, mostly keeping within the normal range of lenses, so probably looking at the 16-35mm f2.8 on the Canon and 14-24 2.8 on the Nikon as the absolute widest and then 200mm on the longer end for both makes. If I need longer lenses, I'd be renting.
So I'm looking at a wide angle, normal and short telephoto zooms to cover me from 14/16mm up to 200mm, all at 2.8, then maybe a fast wide/normal lens and a couple of faster portrait lenses (85/105mm) and a good macro.
I'm looking for top quality lenses. I'd love to get some thoughts on best lenses to consider for each camera in the range I'm looking at (and the use I'm looking at) plus any thoughts on relative costs of either set-up.

many thanks.

nick
Logged
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 460


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2009, 03:35:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Nick,

I shoot with a canon 1DS Mrk3.

Just to give you a quick overview without getting into every lens:

Nikon wide pro zooms are currently better than Canon's offerings. Especially the 14-24mm

Standard primes, macro and short pro telephoto primes. Both Canon and Nikon make good lenses in this range.

70-200mm f2.8 Canon leeds the way here.


Cheers
Dave




Quote from: NickJB
The eternal question, Nikon or Canon - in this case the D3X or MkIII? (Actually I really want a Hassy H3D 50, but thats going to have to wait for another year or two).
I shoot people and locations. Portraits and environmental portraits, mostly keeping within the normal range of lenses, so probably looking at the 16-35mm f2.8 on the Canon and 14-24 2.8 on the Nikon as the absolute widest and then 200mm on the longer end for both makes. If I need longer lenses, I'd be renting.
So I'm looking at a wide angle, normal and short telephoto zooms to cover me from 14/16mm up to 200mm, all at 2.8, then maybe a fast wide/normal lens and a couple of faster portrait lenses (85/105mm) and a good macro.
I'm looking for top quality lenses. I'd love to get some thoughts on best lenses to consider for each camera in the range I'm looking at (and the use I'm looking at) plus any thoughts on relative costs of either set-up.

many thanks.

nick
Logged

NickJB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2009, 04:01:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Perfect! Thanks Dave. That's the quick info I needed.
If I was looking at 2.8 zooms right now for the Canon, what would you think, 16-35mm 2.8L; 24-70mm 2.8L: 70-200 2.8L then the 85mm 1.2 for portraits?
A lot of the primes out there by both companies are just beautiful, but the way commercial styles are moving these days (fast moving lifestyle), zooms are just so much more usable than primes.

Quote from: DaveDn
Nikon wide pro zooms are currently better than Canon's offerings. Especially the 14-24mm

Standard primes, macro and short pro telephoto primes. Both Canon and Nikon make good lenses in this range.

70-200mm f2.8 Canon leeds the way here.


Cheers
Dave
Logged
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 460


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2009, 05:08:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NickJB
Perfect! Thanks Dave. That's the quick info I needed.
If I was looking at 2.8 zooms right now for the Canon, what would you think, 16-35mm 2.8L; 24-70mm 2.8L: 70-200 2.8L then the 85mm 1.2 for portraits?
A lot of the primes out there by both companies are just beautiful, but the way commercial styles are moving these days (fast moving lifestyle), zooms are just so much more usable than primes.

That's a good choice and it's pretty much what I shoot with. The 70-200 2.8L and the 85mm 1.2 are both great lenses. I expect Canon will improve it's wide angles over the next couple of years. Already the new 24mm f.1.4 is getting good reviews so the technology is there.
Logged

dseelig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 459


« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2009, 08:15:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Unless you need the speed. I would go with the 24-105 f4 over the 24-70 as the 24-70 is just too damm heavy. Get the new 16-35 mk 11 over the original.  David
Logged
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2009, 09:01:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Nikon has a new 70-200 in the pipeline,designed for the full frame D series.
Also the current Nikkor 24-70 is a lot smaller than the Canon 24-70,plus it's not that horrible off white.
My pet hate with Canon.
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2009, 09:03:49 PM »
ReplyReply

There's also older lenses if you're looking at primes.  Canon has the edge on wide and fast primes by a bit - IF you can afford it, that is.(50mm f/1.2 USM for instance)  If that's not critical - pushing that last stop or two, then it's a coin toss.  I personally like Canon's feel and features a bit more than the Nikon.
Logged
NickJB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2009, 09:34:46 PM »
ReplyReply

It's interesting that price was mentioned, regarding Canon. I just did a rough price comparison of a D3X with 2.8 zoom lenses (shooting people and editorial, a necessity as well as a visual style choice) from 14 to 200mm for the Nikon and 17-200 for the Canon, plus the fastest 85mm portrait lens they have (all priced non imports at B+H) and the Canon came in at $13,210 and the Nikon at $14,630. Quite a difference. The Canon would have been even cheaper, but the Canon 85mm 1.2 was $1870 versus the Nikon 85mm 1.4D at $1230. That was of course with the Mk III at $7G and the D3X at $8G
(if you're interested, that was choosing in the Canon line up - all L series 2.8's  - 16-35 ; 24-70 ; 70-200 (plus the 85 1.2) / Nikon line up - all G ED 2.8's - 14-24 ; 24-70 ; 70-200 (plus the 85 1.4)).

In 35mm I've been always been a Nikon user and I much prefer their hand feel to the Canons, plus the SB on camera flash units are unbeatable, but with things like NX software (way too slow for any high volume pro application) and having to pay for Camera Control Pro just to tether the camera, it might be time to jump ship.

The Nikon 70-200 lens is another major issue. Why release a camera like the D3X and not have a pro 70-200 2.8 available for it? I've used it with the D2X and it was fabulous, but I've heard horrible things about it on the full frame sensor.

So, if I'm going to go Canon and want to stick with 2.8 or faster (which I do) for zooms, would there be any other lenses I should look at apart from the L series 16-35 ; 24-70 ; 70-200?

Thanks for your help guys. Much appreciated!

nick
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1729



« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2009, 09:52:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Remember you can mount a Nikkor lens on a Canon body but you can't mount a Canon lens on a Nikon body. I have a 5DII w/Nikkor 14-24,  and the rest Canon lenses 24-105IS 4.0. I started with the 24-70 2.8 but found the "IS" more important than the 2.8 and both equally sharp. I had a 70-200IS 2.8 and now have the 4.0 version because it is a tad sharper and much lighter.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Daniel Browning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2009, 11:59:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NickJB
So I'm looking at a wide angle, normal and short telephoto zooms to cover me from 14/16mm up to 200mm, all at 2.8, then maybe a fast wide/normal lens and a couple of faster portrait lenses (85/105mm) and a good macro.

The primes are a pretty obvious choice, but let me describe what I think are the most basic and common zoom configurations for Canon:

A. Light weight, extreme range.
24-105 f/4 IS
100-400 f/4 IS

B. Ultra wide angle, higher quality, still light weight.
17-40 f/4
70-200 f/4 IS

C. Typical wide aperture zoom
16-35 f/2.8
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8 IS
Logged

--Daniel
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2009, 06:08:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NickJB
Perfect! Thanks Dave. That's the quick info I needed.
If I was looking at 2.8 zooms right now for the Canon, what would you think, 16-35mm 2.8L; 24-70mm 2.8L: 70-200 2.8L then the 85mm 1.2 for portraits?
A lot of the primes out there by both companies are just beautiful, but the way commercial styles are moving these days (fast moving lifestyle), zooms are just so much more usable than primes.

You can save a bunch of money without giving up too much quality by going with Canon's dirt-cheap 85 mm f:1.8; it's not officially an L-lens, but it's extremely sharp and very light. Wide open it goes soft in the corners, but that's actually a nice look for a portrait lens. The 135 mm f:2  L is simply a fantastic lens; scary sharp, light enough to handle easily, great bokeh. I actually like the working distance for tight portraits.

Canon's original 16-35 f:2.8 L is pretty bad in the corners with distortion, color fringing and poor sharpness. The 16-35 f:2.8 II is a lot better, but still no match for Nikon's 14-24.
Logged
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1911



WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2009, 07:12:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 16-35 f:2.8 II is a lot better, but still no match for Nikon's 14-24.

Agreed - but then again.. the Canon 24mm F1.4L MKII makes the Nikon 14-24 look like mush.

All depends on what sort of quality you want vs. convenience.

For ultimate image quality - Go primes at the wide end.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 07:13:29 AM by Josh-H » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7896


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2009, 10:16:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

I have some reservations about that. The way I'm shooting there is often little choice of vantage point, so we either frame or crop. Zooms allow for optimal framing. Single focals may be better than zooms but most of the advantage may be lost if you need to crop.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Josh-H
Agreed - but then again.. the Canon 24mm F1.4L MKII makes the Nikon 14-24 look like mush.

All depends on what sort of quality you want vs. convenience.

For ultimate image quality - Go primes at the wide end.
Logged

harlemshooter
Guest
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2009, 11:39:55 AM »
ReplyReply

i use a D3X, 5D2 and a Contax 645+DB.  oddly, i end up using the 5D2 (initially purchased as a back-up) the most as it is the lightest and i care less about knocking it around.

you could just get the lighter 5D2 with one or two wide primes (zeiss nikon mount recommended) until you are ready to spend the dough on MF digital.  unless you are a sports photographer and/or need robust design and weather proofing, differences in image quality are questionable (i.e. between the 5D2 and 1DSM3).  the D3X's sensor is better than that of the 1DSM3 - the extra $1600 you cited is worth it.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 11:41:23 AM by harlemshooter » Logged
NickJB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2009, 12:02:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: marcmccalmont
Remember you can mount a Nikkor lens on a Canon body but you can't mount a Canon lens on a Nikon body. I have a 5DII w/Nikkor 14-24,  and the rest Canon lenses 24-105IS 4.0. I started with the 24-70 2.8 but found the "IS" more important than the 2.8 and both equally sharp. I had a 70-200IS 2.8 and now have the 4.0 version because it is a tad sharper and much lighter.
Marc

Thanks Marc,

I didn't think of that.
What's needed to mount a Nikon onto a Canon (1Ds MkIII in this case)? Do I lose any functions of the lens (auto focus, aperture settings etc) or do I need to jump into the menu settings to set up the lens (can be problematic on a fast paced shoot)?

Thanks!

nick
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2009, 03:54:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd have a hard time imagining a better setup for your uses than the A900 with Zeiss 16-35, 24-70, 85, 135 and the Sony 70-200 2.8...plus you could buy a backup body as well.  I shoot primarily portraits/editorial myself, and I wouldn't trade that setup for any other 35mm option, regardless of price.  Just food for thought.  
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 03:54:32 PM by douglasf13 » Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1729



« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2009, 04:09:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NickJB
Thanks Marc,

I didn't think of that.
What's needed to mount a Nikon onto a Canon (1Ds MkIII in this case)? Do I lose any functions of the lens (auto focus, aperture settings etc) or do I need to jump into the menu settings to set up the lens (can be problematic on a fast paced shoot)?

Thanks!

nick

I ended up with a Nikkor 14-24 and a 16:9 lever adapter, focus and aperture control manual only, no menu selections needed, great for landscapes and liveview not good for speed, the 17-40 used is cheap enough so I would use that for fast shooting and the Nikkor when IQ is more important. The Canons are great for the rest of your needs.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2009, 04:27:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's interesting that price was mentioned, regarding Canon....
So, if I'm going to go Canon and want to stick with 2.8 or faster (which I do) for zooms, would there be any other lenses I should look at apart from the L series 16-35 ; 24-70 ; 70-200?
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm
Like I said, $1400 kind of puts a damper on it real quick...      OTOH, the 50mm 1.4 is nearly as good at a paltry $300 or so.

My point is that Canon IS expensive if you get into specialty lenses, pretty quickly.  But thankfully, there are so many to chose from that you can almost always get the same results for a fraction of the cost(though your lenses might not all say "L" on the side - heh)

I like primes.  Never really got into zooms, though as others have mentioned, they are nice to adjust the framing with.  A short-range high quality zoom is also a good choice.  Of course, a T/S lens is a valuable tool as well.
Logged
NickJB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #18 on: April 10, 2009, 04:43:44 PM »
ReplyReply

The Sony's are very interesting and in a couple of years I'd be more open to considering them seriously, but right now they aren't supported in the rental houses. On the other hand I can rent Nikon/Canon/Hassleblad/Profoto etc just about anywhere in the world. I think if I was going to save some coin on the bodies, I'd be more inclined to look at the 5D MII, which is what I'm doing right now. The build quality is not like the 1Ds MkIII, but at $4300 cheaper.........
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2009, 07:43:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, if Minolta is in the mix as well, yes, there are hundreds of older Minolta lenses out there that will work on the A900.  Yes, they are all used, but used isn't a deal-killer in my book.  My own preference was always Minolta in the old days of film.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad