Nikon comparisons to Canon L?

[Chimera]

I have looking at Nikon lenses and trying to figure out how to compare them to Canon lenses, and was wondering if some of the more informed people here could help me, on one lens right now in particular. Many of the lenses I was looking at are Tamron or Sigma and made in both Canon and Nikon mounts, but I really like the Canon L series and would like to know what I should be looking for in a Nikon lens that is the equivalent to that.

Right now in particular I am looking at the Canon 70-200 F4 IS L lens. What would Nikons best lens compared to that be? A high quality tele-zoom around 1000$?

Thanks!

[shoturtle]

nikkor 70-200 AF 2.8G VRII compares well against the canon 70-200 2.8L MKII

the high end nikon lenses are as good as the L.

[TCav]

Originally Posted by Chimera

Right now in particular I am looking at the Canon 70-200 F4 IS L lens. What would Nikons best lens compared to that be? A high quality tele-zoom around 1000$?

The 70-200mm f/4 lens is kind of an oddball, even in Canon's own lineup. Nikon and Minolta both used to make equivalent lenses, but no more. It's neither a large aperture lens, nor is it a long telephoto. It's neither fish nor meat, though it does have its fans,

In your quest to equate Chevys to Fords, you came upon the Corvette and got stumped.

[DigMe]

There isn't really. The closest you'll get in that price range would be a used Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRI at $1400-$1500 (I often see that on the fred miranda forums) or the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD for $1400 new or cheaper used. The Sigma usually receives top notch reviews. Of course the Nikon does too!

brad

[tclune]

Originally Posted by TCav

The 70-200mm f/4 lens is kind of an oddball, even in Canon's own lineup. Nikon and Minolta both used to make equivalent lenses, but no more. It's neither a large aperture lens, nor is it a long telephoto. It's neither fish nor meat, though it does have its fans.

I think that has been the view. But ISTM that it may be a bit out-of-date. The new cameras have good enough high-ISO performance to make an f/4 a very attractive option. Getting first-rate IQ (including wide open, like with the holy trinity) in a lens that could weigh half of what the comparable f/2.8 would weigh, would be a very attractive option for serious amateurs. With a $1K price, ISTM it would be a slam-dunk.

[JohnG]

Yes, the 70-200 f4 IS and non-IS are both very popular canon lenses. Pro grade build, pro grade image, pro grade focusing in a light package. for a lot less weight than f2.8 counterparts. The truth is, there are always lenses in every system that are unique to that system. This is such a case. If I didn't shoot sports I would have chosen the 70-200 f4 IS over the 70-200 2.8 non IS. Do not underestimate the size/weight of a 70-200 2.8 lens. If you need 2.8 you need it. But you definitely incur a weight penalty as well as a potential price penalty.

By the way, the "IS" version is so popular not just because of "IS" but because it is sharper as well.

[TCav]

I was always very pleased with my Minolta 70-210mm f/4.0 'Beercan', and missed it when I switched to Nikon, but now I like my Tokina 100-300mm f/4.0 even better. That's size, weight, and all.

But I don't carry a lot of gear with me everywhere I go, either.