Thinking of switching to Nikon.

[cdholden]

I'm cheap. I sold my FD 24/1.4L in favor of the 24/2 because I couldn't see a difference in my shots. Call me a heretic, but I really didn't see the need for the L with that focal length. I really only favor that letter in the telephoto range.
I did some tests between my FD 24/2 and my AI 24/2 with MC-N adapter on an FTb. I thought the Canon offering had a bit more punch to it than the Nikon. Since most of my shots are landscape or wildlife, I never looked back after picking the FD lens.

 

[white.elephant]

Jordan, if you reach a point where you want to unload that 35mm lens, give me a hollar. I'd keep it if I were you, but if you decide not to . . .

 

[PhotoJim]

Nikon has a 28/1.4, and 35/1.4 (although the 35 is manual focus). It isn't all that awful.

 

[mawz]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that Nikon lacks fast primes on the wide end? And by fast I mean faster then F2...

That's only the case for modern AF glass. Nikon's got the 35/1.4 AI-S and 28/1.4 AF-D, although the latter is rare and VERY expensive. Nikon's lens selection compares very well to FD though, aside from T/S lenses (Nikon only matched Canon's T/S selection last year, and none of those PC-E lenses will work on manual focus bodies).

 

[RMP-NikonPro]

I moved from Contax to Nikon 4 years ago, broke my heart to sell all those solid Zeiss lenses!
If Analogue Photography is just a hobby, then I can't see the point of changing, Contax is a beautiful system (Although I believe there is no more service support)
But Professionally there are no other choices but to change your Main body to Digital, For Me that meant Canon or Nikon.
Nikon won hands down for me as they are so ergonomic (but it's really a matter of taste)

For Film I've just got hold of a Mint F100, It's now my sole film body after having owned a FM2n & F80

I'm Happy with Nikon and I've not yet met an unhappy Nikon user yet!

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

You'd be losing the 35mm 1.4, which is my personal desert island lens (when size & weight aren't a factor), giving a wonderful 3-d rendering and look.
While I've never used one, the Zeiss 100mm 2.0 is supposed to be exceptional.
While it may or may not be important to you, the Zeiss 35mm & 85mm 2.8 lenses are especially compact and sharp (great travelling and mountain lenses).

The Nikon lenses you mention are good, but in my experience (I have the 24, 35 & 105 you mention) don't equal their Zeiss, or my other favourite lens, equivalents.
I'm actually slowly retreating from Nikon, though keeping some essential focal lengths because of future uncertainties (digital).
My poor Nikkors haven't actually been used for several years now...

 

[marsbars]

I can only speak from experience with the Nikon system and older bodies and lenses. I have an F3HP and and old F2. I have a handful of lenses that fit each. AI and non. For me they take spectacular pictures and I don't consider myself all that good at taking them. For me the decision was based on longevity and build. The bodies I have are like bricks. The lenses, the same way. All except my 135mm e series. But even that one is damn nice and takes a great shot.
But if I was in your shoes I don't think that I would sell off such a nice set up. And if I did, I would probably not start collecting a new system. I would add to what I have. But that is just my 2 cents.

 

[removed-user-1]

Nikon has a 28/1.4, and 35/1.4 (although the 35 is manual focus). It isn't all that awful.

Nikon *had* a 28mm f/1.4, which I desperately wanted back in the day, but apparently it didn't sell that well (they manufactured less than 10,000 of them, according to this link http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#28).

It was discontinued. Now, if you can find one, expect to pay $3000+ ... Seriously.

 

[PhotoJim]

Good thing I can live with f/2.8.

 

[Anthony Lewis]

I still shoot with the Canon FD system, but with 'L' series lenses, the 24mm, 50mm, 85mm and 300mm. The pictures I get from this system are superb and are as good as any camera today except for maybe very high end digital cameras. Nikon would have to be just as good though. What others have repeated is valid, there is no point in changing manufacturers unless there is a gain. Maybe just buy some 'L' series lenses though. I notice they are now getting rare and more expensive. Someone stated that his 24mm 'L' series was no better than an ordinary 24mm. All I can say is my 24mm 'L' lens is beautifully sharp.

Everyone is amazed at the high quality of my family albums. They cannot comprehend that I still use 30 year old film technology, and I still get my 6X4 prints - calmly at the end of the day from the photoshop. I noticed my daughter who shot her treking trip recently on digital, was running around looking for cables, chargers, and several days later she was able to present her shots. The colours were shocking and she was dissapointed. I wouldn't change my Canon manual focus 25 year old film system for quids. Stick with what yourv'e got and upgrade it.

 

[cooltouch]

I went through pretty much what you're contemplating 20 years ago. Exactly 20 years ago, in fact. I had a large Canon FD system -- two old F1s, both with motor drives, and an FTb. FD Lenses from 20mm to 300mm, plus a Sigma 600mm mirror. And I had macro stuff -- the FD bellows, 50 and 100 macro lenses.

While I loved those old Canons and the FD lenses, I was kinda tweaked at Canon at the time for changing their lens mount. I gave it some serious thought and decided to change over to Nikon. The idea was to do it gradually, pick up good Nikon pieces as I could afford them, and slowly move over into autofocus. Fast forward a couple years and I had two large Nikon outfits -- an F2 and an F3, both motor driven -- with an even larger assortment of lenses than I had for my Canon system. All manual focus, though. I just didn't see the need anymore, especially since I was able to pick up used MF gear for quite a bit less than its AF equivalent.

But you know what? The quality of the photos I took with the Nikons was no better than those I took with my old Canons. And I found myself missing my old F1s. In the early 90s, I bought my wife an EOS Rebel, and gradually picked up a lens here and a flash there for it. After the Rebel wore out, I bought her a used Elan IIe, which came with another EOS lens. This past Christmas, she bought me a digital EOS XS with lens, and now I have almost as many EOS lenses as I do for my F2 (the F3 system got sold off during some lean times in the early 90s). So, here it is 20 years later, and I made the Canon MF to AF switch anyway without really thinking about it. I still miss my old F1s though.

I've enjoyed using my Nikon gear -- especially the F2 -- but I guess if I would have had to do it all over again, I would have just kept my FD system and expanded it instead of converting to Nikon, since I wound up going the EOS route rather than the Nikon AF route anyway.

Just a bit of perspective for ya.

Best,

Michael

 

[Sirius Glass]

I went through pretty much what you're contemplating 20 years ago. Exactly 20 years ago, in fact. I had a large Canon FD system -- two old F1s, both with motor drives, and an FTb. FD Lenses from 20mm to 300mm, plus a Sigma 600mm mirror. And I had macro stuff -- the FD bellows, 50 and 100 macro lenses.

While I loved those old Canons and the FD lenses, I was kinda tweaked at Canon at the time for changing their lens mount. I gave it some serious thought and decided to change over to Nikon. The idea was to do it gradually, pick up good Nikon pieces as I could afford them, and slowly move over into autofocus. Fast forward a couple years and I had two large Nikon outfits -- an F2 and an F3, both motor driven -- with an even larger assortment of lenses than I had for my Canon system. All manual focus, though. I just didn't see the need anymore, especially since I was able to pick up used MF gear for quite a bit less than its AF equivalent.

But you know what? The quality of the photos I took with the Nikons was no better than those I took with my old Canons. And I found myself missing my old F1s. In the early 90s, I bought my wife an EOS Rebel, and gradually picked up a lens here and a flash there for it. After the Rebel wore out, I bought her a used Elan IIe, which came with another EOS lens. This past Christmas, she bought me a digital EOS XS with lens, and now I have almost as many EOS lenses as I do for my F2 (the F3 system got sold off during some lean times in the early 90s). So, here it is 20 years later, and I made the Canon MF to AF switch anyway without really thinking about it. I still miss my old F1s though.

I've enjoyed using my Nikon gear -- especially the F2 -- but I guess if I would have had to do it all over again, I would have just kept my FD system and expanded it instead of converting to Nikon, since I wound up going the EOS route rather than the Nikon AF route anyway.

Just a bit of perspective for ya.

Best,

Michael

In my limited experience, technology changes but the physics of optics appears to remain a constant.
​

Steve

 

[ssloansjca]

I wish Nikon would re release the 28mm 1.4 D.

I would get one if it was affordable.

~Steve

 

[Joe Grodis]

The Contax 139Q & RTS are nice cameras but a tad dated. I currently use 22 different cameras for fun and serious stuff. But of the whole lot of them I always find myself with a Nikon F4 or F5 in hand. With used camera prices as low as they are these days it's east to find an F5 for under $500. I like my F5 for astrophotography because I can see all camera settings at a glance (no menu fumbling) in total darkness with its 2 external back lit LCD displays which is a big plus. The F4 is amazing as it seems to be compatible with every Nikon F mount lens no matter how old or new plus is does have VR support for brand new lenses. If I had to choose, it would be the Nikon F5, it's speed (8 FPS with built-in winder) and tank like construction is by far best bang for the buck.