03-20-2011, 12:41 AM
[quote name='vollframe' timestamp='1300574099' post='6953']
Looking to upgrade to full frame.
Requirements:
- fast auto-focus
- low light, no flash
- controlled bokeh strongly desired
- indoor event / outdoor street (not much time to compose, no tripod)
- preferred focal ranges 50mm (35mm, 85mm)
- occasionally ultra-wide cityscapes, though not critical
Considerations
- Nikon D700, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G, Nikkor 17-40mm N VR
- Canon 5D Mark II, 50mm f/1.2 L, 16-35 f/2.8 L
Pro Nikon
Nikon appears better in low light
Nikon finally updating their lens collection
Nikon settings more easily adjusted (maybe just what I'm used to)
Pro Canon
Canon appears to have greater lens selection
Canon handling/feel in hand preferred over Nikon (smaller body, better grip)
Can't tell any difference in auto-focus speed.
Help is appreciated!
[/quote]
Autofocus speed of both is very fast, it mostly depends on the lens how fast the combination focusses. If I remember correctly, the Nikon 50mm AF-S is actually quite a slow focussing lens. Its bokeh is not very pretty.
The Canon 50mm f1.4 has nicer bokeh, but it is not the most study lens.. one can actually damage the motor too easily.
The 50mm f1.2 L USM from Canon is a nice lens, but you have to learn how to use it due to a focus shift when closing down a bit.
The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is a good lens, when you get a good copy.
The Nikon 50mm f1.8 is a surprisingly good lens, and a steal for its price.
Nikon does not have a 17-40 N VR. Nikon's AF-S 16-35mm f4 VR is maybe the lens you mean, what I do not like about it is the quite heavy barrel distortion (I am not a fan of "coorecting" distortion in post processing as you lose either filed of view or sharpness). The Canon 17-40mm f4 USM is quite comparable in resolution, and has less barrel distortion. It lacks image stabilization. It is less heavy than the Nikon.
The Canon 16-35mm L USM II is a good lens for its type, about the weight if the f4 lens from Nikon. Its Nikon equivalent had quite a few fans (the Nikon AF 17-35mm f2.8).
Tokina now has a new contender in this field, and image samples I have seen are very impressive (it even has nice bokeh for such a lens)... the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8. Downside is that it has a protruding front element, not allowing the use of filters if desired.
The D700 has a higher possible frame rate and more AF points, making it a bit more suited for sports photography. The 5D mk II has higher resolution, so it is preferable if bigger print sizes are important. The 5D mk II also has a better implemented live view and a better movie mode (if that at all is important to you). The 5D mk II has a bit more noise at higher ISO on pixel level, but on image/print level they are quite comparable (due to its smaller pixels).
Both camera bodies are good, it is up to you to decide which features actually matter and which don't.
Looking to upgrade to full frame.
Requirements:
- fast auto-focus
- low light, no flash
- controlled bokeh strongly desired
- indoor event / outdoor street (not much time to compose, no tripod)
- preferred focal ranges 50mm (35mm, 85mm)
- occasionally ultra-wide cityscapes, though not critical
Considerations
- Nikon D700, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G, Nikkor 17-40mm N VR
- Canon 5D Mark II, 50mm f/1.2 L, 16-35 f/2.8 L
Pro Nikon
Nikon appears better in low light
Nikon finally updating their lens collection
Nikon settings more easily adjusted (maybe just what I'm used to)
Pro Canon
Canon appears to have greater lens selection
Canon handling/feel in hand preferred over Nikon (smaller body, better grip)
Can't tell any difference in auto-focus speed.
Help is appreciated!
[/quote]
Autofocus speed of both is very fast, it mostly depends on the lens how fast the combination focusses. If I remember correctly, the Nikon 50mm AF-S is actually quite a slow focussing lens. Its bokeh is not very pretty.
The Canon 50mm f1.4 has nicer bokeh, but it is not the most study lens.. one can actually damage the motor too easily.
The 50mm f1.2 L USM from Canon is a nice lens, but you have to learn how to use it due to a focus shift when closing down a bit.
The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is a good lens, when you get a good copy.
The Nikon 50mm f1.8 is a surprisingly good lens, and a steal for its price.
Nikon does not have a 17-40 N VR. Nikon's AF-S 16-35mm f4 VR is maybe the lens you mean, what I do not like about it is the quite heavy barrel distortion (I am not a fan of "coorecting" distortion in post processing as you lose either filed of view or sharpness). The Canon 17-40mm f4 USM is quite comparable in resolution, and has less barrel distortion. It lacks image stabilization. It is less heavy than the Nikon.
The Canon 16-35mm L USM II is a good lens for its type, about the weight if the f4 lens from Nikon. Its Nikon equivalent had quite a few fans (the Nikon AF 17-35mm f2.8).
Tokina now has a new contender in this field, and image samples I have seen are very impressive (it even has nice bokeh for such a lens)... the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8. Downside is that it has a protruding front element, not allowing the use of filters if desired.
The D700 has a higher possible frame rate and more AF points, making it a bit more suited for sports photography. The 5D mk II has higher resolution, so it is preferable if bigger print sizes are important. The 5D mk II also has a better implemented live view and a better movie mode (if that at all is important to you). The 5D mk II has a bit more noise at higher ISO on pixel level, but on image/print level they are quite comparable (due to its smaller pixels).
Both camera bodies are good, it is up to you to decide which features actually matter and which don't.