Second camera a Nikon to go with my Rebel?

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/04/2006 01:29:09 PM · #1

I am really tempted by the new 18-200 VR lens from Nikon. I hate changing lenses, carry lenses, etc. My 18-125 lens on my Rebel is still my most useful lens, but I love the IS on my 70-300 IS DO.

I was tempted to spend on the 24-105 IS, but it falls short on both ends of range. And it's $1100 or so.

For a little more than that, I could get a Nikon D50 and the 18-200 VR, which I understand is hard to find. Then I could walk around with either just that, or that + my Rebel with my 10-22. Gives me pretty complete extreme wide angle to telephoto without ever changing lenses, and both pretty light.

What do you think of

1) Having two different camera bodies
2) The 18-200 VR lens
3) The Nikon D50 (as good as my Rebel XT?)
4) Will Canon ever put out a compact lens like that with IS (not the mammoth L they have)?

k4ffy

05/04/2006 01:35:31 PM · #2

i'm wary of buying into two completely different camera systems. as far as i know canon and nikon cameras each have their own "personalities" in terms of color balance of images, configurations, etc. i would personally prefer to stick with one system, either canon or nikon.
but what do i know, i'm an amateur! :)

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

05/04/2006 01:41:21 PM · #3

I'd be amazed if at some point Canon didn't put out a lens to compete with the 18-200VR. The idea of carrrying two bodies of different brands is interesting. Surely one catch is that you'd have to be intimately familiar with each control system and able to switch gears at a moment's notice. I think that's possible, but a hassle. Whether it's too big a hassle is a personal thing.
FWIW, I don't think IS (or VR) is all that useful below 50mm. At those shorter focal lengths, you're confined to static subjects with the very slow shutter speeds you'd be using to see a benefit from IS.

DjFenzl

05/04/2006 01:42:48 PM · #4

Personally I wouldn't do it. As you build up your camera system it would be a lot cheaper and easier in the long run to only be buying into 1 system. Plus the file formats waill be different etc and the whole thing could end up becoming very confusing.

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

05/04/2006 01:43:34 PM · #5

You can just give me the 10-22.

;-)

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

05/04/2006 01:49:46 PM · #6

Sounds like a workable idea. Another benefit you didn't list is having a second camera available. Covers you if either one has to go into the shop.

On the downside, the camera bag could get a bit cluttered - extra batteries for both, etc...

If it doesn't work out you can probably sell one or the other and not lose too much at some point down the road.

Prof_Fate

05/04/2006 01:50:56 PM · #7

Originally posted by nshapiro:

I am really tempted by the new 18-200 VR lens from Nikon. I hate changing lenses, carry lenses, etc.

So carrying 2 bodies (with lenses) is going to be less annoying?

I feel your pain. For walking around I usually use my tamron 24-135 SP. For weddings I shoot one body with an 18-50 2.8 and the other with a 70-210 2.8 - it's not too bad and no one looks at me funny - but i am the photog at a wedding, not at the park with my kids.

how is that Nikon lens optically? Most of the 18-200 lenses are not pro quality - distortion, vignettig, etc. VR/IS below 50mm is not a must have.

the lens i want:
50-150 2.8 (preferably F2.0 and IS...but it has to be somewhat affordable)., I love the 70-200 on a full frame, but on a 1.6 crop it's a little not wide enough.

kenskid

Nikon D700

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

05/04/2006 01:56:37 PM · #8

I'd stick with one camera but:

I got the 18-200 and it is nice. Here is my test of the VR

This shot is with VR turned on at 200mm 1/15 shutter.

This is the same 200mm 1/15 with VR off.

Both taken inside, handheld. This shot should need lots of light and a speed of about at least 1/200 without a VR lens !

Comments?

Message edited by author 2006-05-04 13:58:41.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

05/04/2006 01:58:47 PM · #9

How about instead getting the Sigma 120-300mm or 70-300mm APO and throwing that on a Konica Minolta 5D?

I guess the only real reason that you would want to do something like this is that you would like to avoid switching lenses.

However, if you already have a 300D with a lens you like (18-125), why not just stick with that and get a complementary lens on a 5D.

The upside of that is that if you wanted to, you could get the very nice 50mm f/1.7 as well and have a 50mm prime with Anti-shake... or any other lens out there.

Think about lens pairings.

I am personally of the opinion that after using the cameras for a few weeks, you will get used to switching.

There are plenty of subtle and not so subtle differences between my DSLR and my P&S, but as I am learning to use my DSLR, I'm not forgetting how to use my P&S.

I don't think you will lose anything by learning a new camera.. It's kinda like learning another language, or riding two styles of bicycle. You might think you forget stuff, but if you keep using them both, you won't suffer any really significant loss. Especially if you practice switching back and forth... Lots of pros use two bodies and they are OK with switching.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/04/2006 02:16:26 PM · #10

Thanks for the replies.

I was at a crew race the other day, shooting with the 70-300, and wanted some wide shots, but didn't want to swap lenses because then I might miss an opportunity on the long end when the next race came by.

But in many cases, I would just carry the one camera, the D50 with the 18-200. Much like I often now just carry my XT with the 18-125.

In cases where I might want some wider shots, I would carry the Canon with the 10-22 mounted as well. Or if I wanted both wide and long shots, I might carry the D50 with the 18-200, and the Canon with the 70-300.

But my preference would still be to carry one camera. Before this, I thought about buying the KM 5D and getting a Sigma 18-200 for it. But KM is defunct, and the Nikon lens is getting some really good reviews.

I don't think I need IS at 10-22, but above that I think it can help even at moderate speeds. My hands aren't very steady, I inherited a hand tremor from my dad. No, that doesn't explain my abstract portfolio--it's not that bad ;)

ragamuffingirl

Sony Alpha NEX-5N

05/04/2006 02:58:10 PM · #11

What does VR stand for?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/04/2006 02:58:37 PM · #12

Originally posted by nshapiro:

...No, that doesn't explain my abstract portfolio--it's not that bad ;)

LOL Neil! BTW, I really like your abstracts :-)

The tremor situation definitely makes the VR much more desirable! So, carrying a Canon body with the 10-22 and a Nikon body with the 18-200VR does seem to hold a real attraction in your particular case.
I guess the only real question is if the quality of that lens is up to your requirements. Pretty hard to answer with the limited availability right now :-P

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/04/2006 02:59:10 PM · #13

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

What does VR stand for?

Vibration Reduction, Nikon's equivalent to Canon's IS.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

05/04/2006 10:59:23 PM · #14

Dude, Konica Minolta is NOT defunct. They were purchased by another company.

Sony has already reported that they will be supporting the Alpha mount. While to some this looks like a dangerous move, I have more of a background in business myself and I (along with most others who are aware of the issues) actually see this as a very good thing.

KM made great lenses. Japanese and German Tech... What more to say?
KM was slow in developing cameras. One reason may have been the need to purchase the sensor from Sony. Another might have been funding from the company which had been somewhat limited to photographic products.

Sony's income is HIGHLY diversified and already has a VERY strong position to support their marketing as well as R&D dollars.
Sony has strong links to Zeiss and already features a lot of their glass for their cameras, including T* coated lenses.
Zeiss has started making moves to make DSLR mount lenses. Sony will likely be very high on their priority list once they release the camera... (don't be surprised to see Zeiss unveil alpha mount lenses at the same time that Sony releases their DSLR)
Sony has suggested that they may be releasing their own DSLR as soon as the summertime.
Sony makes the CCD that is used in many DSLR's. This speaks of experience AND a straight line to cutting edge technology. This puts alpha mount's future AHEAD of Nikon's as alpha will gain 'in-house' priveleges and Nikon will remain a "customer".
The KM 5D and D50 both share a Sony CCD. Image quality will be virtually identical (if you do little in-camera processing). Future cameras may see alpha mount taking the edge in image quality over Nikon for the above reason.

You may wish to use a more specialized and higher quality lens at some point than the 18-200 VR if you go with the D50. You will lose your VR advantage that you paid so dearly for. On the other hand, with the 5D, any lens you stick on there will become AS.

You could use the Canon with 18-125 and the KM with a longer telephoto (like the Sigma 70-200, or 120-300, or....) Greater versatility here for sure.

Please don't feel like I'm browbeating you into a decision. It's just that I don't really feel that the AS body is really all that 'defunct'.

Might save you a lot of money, but still give you very good quality and versatility that you need.

05/05/2006 02:31:46 AM · #15

Keiran, thanks. Actually, I already have a good portable IS lens at 70-300 (the EF 70-300 IS DO). The problem is that I want a lens like my 18-125, perhaps with more range, to have IS. So any zoom I am looking at, I look at both the low and high end.

That's why the 24-105 Canon is tempting. But 105 isn't enough if it's the only lens I'm carrying. Hence, an 18-200 is much more tempting.

But in fact you are right--I could go KM with the Sigma 18-200, or Nikon with the 18-200VR.

The one thing though, I've come to appreciate about my 70-300 with my not-so-steady hands is that the IS stabilizes my view as well as the pics. That makes it easier to manually focus too, just hold the shutter halfway while focusing.

For a system where I was going to buy a lot of lenses, the KM makes a lot of sense. For a camera with mainly one lens (so he plans), the D50 might make more sense.

colda

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

05/05/2006 03:19:00 AM · #16

Neil,

I'd say go for it!

Not just because I'm a Nikon user myself and will be getting an 18-200 VR as soon as I can, but also because I don't believe in being tied down to one system when you don't need to be.

For digital I mainly use the D70 and swap lenses too often (one of the main reasons for getting the 18-200), I some times use my wife's D50 which always has a Tamron 28-200 attached. Yes, a 'grab' camera with an all-round lens is a great asset.

For film, again I mainly use Nikon but also quite a bit of M42 stuff, I have a number of manual (Praktikas and a Mamiya) bodies but in all honestly tend to favour 'A' mode, as I cannot mount M42 onto a Nikon without losing infinity focus (or an impractical adapter with glass) so I bought a Canon EF-M.

So, like you there is a lens that I want to use (I have a Super Takumar SMC 50mm 1.4) but cannot use it with my standard system - the solution, get another body that can handle it.

Darren

paddles

Pentax K10D

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

05/05/2006 08:15:35 AM · #17

The question I'd ask about the Nikon 18-200 or any other superzoom is, what is the image quality like?

Superzooms are very convenient when you want to travel light. But I have noticed that shots taken with my Tamron 28-200, particularly at the long end, are somewhat softer than images taken with my other lenses - and I've got the third generation of Tamron's 28-200 (which, admittedly, is a couple of years old now) - enough so that my 28-200 is sitting in a box and I'd sell it if I could.

The 18-200, being a newer lens, would benefit from a couple of extra years' development in lens technology. But is it good enough, or would the satisfaction you get from ease-of-shooting be balanced by disappointment in the results? I guess we need advice from someone who has one.

As much as I like the KM 5D and think there is a future in it, I wouldn't generally advise having two different familes of DSLR - because it means you have to have doubles of everything. Different flash units, different batteries, etc. I'd have thought you'd be better off with two bodies from the same manufacturer, and use the money saved in having less duplication and a smaller bag to get the glass you want for the system you're in. Either that, or completely change system if you see the KM/Sony antishake bodies as a preferable solution to IS/VR lenses.

deapee

Kodak V803

05/05/2006 08:32:37 AM · #18

get it...you'll probably end up liking it more and selling your canon stuff all together. Once you join the dark side though, I don't think you'll switch back.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

05/05/2006 08:46:03 AM · #19

dude, get a Maxxum 7d. oh the manual dials and buttons and switches galore :P

I'm starting to think I was right about KM from the bigginning, and like eschelar said, and that Zeiss lovin is not far off for the good ole AF mount. sigh...

I wouldn't be suprised to see Sony ?? sitting under my name in a year.