[Brightcolours]

[quote name='ThomasD' timestamp='1297689182' post='6105']

Hi,



I finally gave up on hoping that any manufacturer will come up with DX(APC-C)-specific fast primes. My next camera will be a full-frame one. I am invested a bit in Nikon, but am not overly inclined towards buying the bulky D700 at the current price. I am not in a hurry, but I have some money to spend for a lens and/or body and am thinking about the long-term plan.



What I have: D90, 35/1.8 (DX), 18-70 (DX), 105/2.8VR, 180/2.8, SB-800.

I will sell the 180/2.8 in any case, as I used it only once in two years.

In the long term I want to have (in this order) the fastest available 50, a 105/2.8 macro, a 35/1.4, and of course a standard zoom, just in case.



Option 1 - Stay with Nikon:

1. get the 35/1.4G now, it will not be useless on the D90.

2. wait for the D700 successor or at least for the D700 to drop in price, get it together with the 50/1.4G.

3. get the 24-120/4 or wait a bit longer for a good standard zoom.



Option 2 - switch brands:

1. get a used 5D Mk.I for the moment, also 105/2.8L IS.

2. when I am sure that Canon is right for me, sell all Nikon gear and get the 50/1.2L.

3. get a 35/1.4L, a flash and the 24-105/4L later.



Is the 2nd option stupid? Actually there is nothing I need that the 5D Mk.I does not have. And a 50/1.2 is something I cannot ever have with Nikon, probably. I have an Ai-S Nikkor 50/1.2 that will work on the D700, but AF would be nice. Canon's standard zoom also looks more attractive than Nikon's. Overall I feel that with Canon I can invest towards lenses now and am satisfied for years (despite maybe replacing the body later). With Nikon this is not really clear for me.



Thanks for any thoughts.

[/quote]

The 5D is not a lot lighter than the D700, so that is not a deciding factor, the bulk.

From the lenses you list (macro, standard + moderate wide angle primes, standard zoom) you seem not to be a portrait photographer, more s everyday life, land/city scape, macro photographer. In those areas the differences are not huge, lens wise, in my opinion. I find that usually, Canon lenses give a (much?) more pleasing bokeh, but that is not really of concern to you?



The Canon 100mm f2.8 L IS USM is a lovely made, very good macro. But the differences between macro lenses IQ wise are not huge, so there won't be a big gap between 5D +100mm L IS and D700 + 105mm VR.

The standard zooms... I have not seen enough images yet to have a preference for the Nikon or the Canon. The Canon has a much better build/finish though... which makes the Nikon appear a bit overpriced. The Canon macro also is a bit better built.

The 35mm f1.4... again, I have not seen that many images yet (for the Nikon). But for now my guess is that the Canon will have more pleasant bokeh, Nikon seems to have a hang to nisen background bokeh, more than Canon.

For the 50mm, I would choose the Canon for sure. Lovely, expensive lens with beautiful rendering for a 50mm. The Nikon 50mm f1,4 has that harsh background rendering I am not a fan of. Of course, one could substitute the Nikon for the SIgma 50mm f1.4.



Then the bodies... the Nikon D700 is of course a nice camera. IQ wise the 5D at times seems to have something special, but that might just be conversion based. The 5D obviously has no liveview. But it focusses well in low light, probably the D700 will beat it in tracking a moving subject (but, just based on specs, not real data).



If it was me, I would go for Canon. But, that is ME, going for the more pleasant rendering. And I would go for the 5D mk II, because of the live view I do need at times for my low angle nature shots.

And I would get different lenses too... The Canon 24mm f1.4 (keeping my 35mm f2), the Canon 50mm f1.2 (or the old f1.0), the 85mm f1.8 USm, the 200mm f2.8 L USM II and the 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM (keeping my 70-200mm L USM).

But, again, that is for me, and my photography.

And for both, I would then get a Tokina 16-28mm 2.8, for when I want/need a wider view.