Canon vs Nikon 500mm agony..

Of various reasons I am now making a full switch to Nikon. Not only because of Af problems, but Canon has no fullframe camera with 9bps and great high ISO (which I need). Got a great offer on a new Nikkor 500f4VR, but then i got to sell my beloved Canon 500mm IS to get the finances. So I am curious to hear if anybody else has experience on using both of these lenses (I assume the Nikkor compares very well to the Canon, as it is also a newer design). How does the Nikon e.g compare on sharpness at f4 and focus speed?

All input greatly appreciated!

cheers

Kjetil

I have experience with bot. Shot with the Canon for many years and the Nikon more recently as it is now what I own.

AF is faster and more accurate with the Nikon not so much because of the lens but just that the Nikon AF system is so much better than Canon's in initial acquisition, tracking and is dramatically better in low light. The spool up lag before you can get a sharp photo with Nikon's VR is longer than with Canon. On the Canon I never worried about this knowing that the image would be stabilized even if I went from not touching the shutter to taking a photo immediately. Nikon, if you do this will give you a slightly soft frame as your first frame but after that it's every bit as sharp. You just have to learn to either keep the VR active during action or wait a fraction of a second to allow the VR to stabilize the lens.

Sharpness is equal between the two.

Thanks for the quick reply. I often have the IS active with the AF-on button (set to AF off) with the Canon as well. Do you feel any difference between IS/VR otherwise? Nikon claims a 3-4 stop benefit over Canons now older IS two stop IS.

cheers

Kjetil

As you say, on paperVR is more effective since it is a much newer system - in other word you can shoot a bit slower. But I haven't actually tested the claims.

I'll agree with a lot of what E.J. said. The IQ of the Nikon 500 is top notch the AF is fast (don't own one, have only used it twice so far). Regarding Nikon AF, I will say that the Nikon seems to track better (especially when the subject is in front or passes in front of a busy background), however the Canon Mark 3s do better (in every way that I've tried) in low light (though the Nikon is better than the Mark 2 without doubt). FWIW, my experience is with a 1D3/1Ds3 for the last 20 months and with a D700 and D3x the last couple of months (I currently shoot with both Canon and Nikon). As nice as the latest Nikon bodies are and as fine as the 500 VR is, I honestly couldn't say that it would be worth the $$$ to switch. If cost is no object though, then absolutely go for it.

thedigitalbean wrote: however the Canon Mark 3s do better (in every way that I've tried) in low light (though the Nikon is better than the Mark 2 without doubt).

I actually tested that and have quite the opposite experience. Even the D300 drastically outperformed 1Ds3, 1D3, 1D2n and 5D in low light aquisition and lowlight tracking. But of course that can be heavily influenced by all sorts of AF system settings.

Thanks for input. Its not only Af.. Nikon got a better crop-body (D300) than the 50D - no contest at all... They got the 14-24 (almost a deal-breaker) and the 200-400. And also small things like that I can use the same battery charger on different bodies. Here in Norway I actually get the 500VR at the same price or even cheaper than the Canon.

Kjetil

Here in the US the Nikon 500 is in the neighborhood of $2000 more than the Canon.

Absolutely. The 200-400 is the main reason I have some Nikon gear and having pro AF in a 1.5x crop body would be quite useful (I really hope Canon does something similar soon). I haven't had a chance to shoot with the D300 + 200-400 combo but I suspect it'll make a very effective 'light' or 'portable' (well its light and portable compared to a 500, 600 or 800) wildlife / bird kit.

I have the 14-24 and I'll admit I was very excited when I got it. The IQ is as superlative as people have described. Sadly, for me its not a lens I use that often.

If what you say is true and the 500VR in Norway will be the same price as the Canon, then definitely go for it, sadly the same is not true here.

Have to agree with EJ's comments. My own experience was extensive with Canon (Digital bodies, 1Ds II, 1ds, 5D, 1DIII, and that 500 IS). My switch came in November 2007, so don't have the 500 VR, but the 500 Af-S II, however, I do not expect any difference really between the lenses mentioned, other than the VR is reputed to be slightly better than the AF-S II. Go for it. What differences between systems I do expect to be seen though, is that the Nikon ergonomics are far more user friendly and practical in the field, from MY OWN view and experience. For me, using the D300 & D3 is more enjoyable, and AF as EJ mentioned, is more accurate and faster. Bit like being going from one major frustrated dude, to hey, I've got a system I can use, now all I have to concentrate on, is getting "out in the field" and my own mistakes. All I can say, is that I don't even own the alternate 500 to the IS, having the AF-S II, and most certainly have no regrets. You go and enjoy! (PS, my D3 is 18 months old, and I have only had to use a "brush" on the sensor twice. No swabs yet..... mustn't invite one by this comment, LOL, but that is another little irritation gone, yet alone the af issues. Sharpness, though.... no worries there.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Here in the US the Nikon 500 is in the neighborhood of $2000 more than the Canon.

Also remember that the Nikon Lenses have a 5 year warranty vs the Canon which has a 1 year. That certainly does not make up 2k, however one or 2 problems will add up quickly. I had a problem with my VR making a knocking sound on my 600vr when it was 14 months old, brought it in and they replaced the VR mechanism. Not sure how much that would have cost but at least a few hundred I would guess.

Interesting George I did not know that!

Also note that many credit cards will double the warranty period if you bought the item with that card.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Also note that many credit cards will double the warranty period if you bought the item with that card.

Do you really think this would mean 10 year warranty instead of 5? Sounds too good to be true.

think they limit is 2 years more - that's what the fine print says on my credit card pamphlet. So a 1 year warranty becomes 2, a 2 year a 4 a 5 year goes to 7...

My credit card only gives up to an additional 1 year.

It all depends on the card I'm sure.

I finally got the 500VR last week. Went on a short trip to test it out. I still got the Canon 500 so I got to compare them side by side. They are very similar in performance (but the 5D2 and 50d pulls way more detail on low iso than the D700) - the most obvious difference is focus speed. The Nikkor seems slower (again, could be the D700) but the slightly better MFD translates to longer focus wander. Focus acquisition is often painfully slow on the Nikon, so much that the action has passed when the mkIII has fired off 30 frames (with at least 1-2 in focus:-). When the focus hits, the AF on the Nikon combo is very very impressive. I tested on little auks - which are *very* fast flyers, and the the nikon combo sometimes tracked these flying head on. I was very frustrated on the focus acquisition, but at the end of the day I got some images I was very happy about (stuff my Canon equipment would struggle with). Also high ISO performance and dynamic range (especially the red channel) is a step up from the current Canon offerings IMHO.

cheers

Kjetil

Of course at low ISO you are going to have more resolution with cameras that have up to twice the number of pixels (5D2) or a much higher pixel density (50D) but that advantage disappears very quickly as the ISO goes up. I have not had any issue with focus acquisition and it is as fast if not faster than the Canon and definitely tracks better so i am thinking some of your AF settings are not optimal. See the other current thread about exactly this. If you can fire 30 frames on the Canon before the Nikon acquires focus you have either a defective camera or a defective lens or some setting is very wrong.

See this thread:
http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/view ... 1&t=159654

Thanks for reply. I've read that thread. I got best result with center af point only, but will have to experiment more with the dynamic setting. Anyway, impression is that the D700 is noticably less responsive than the mkIIN/mkIII (but tracks better). But I guess I need more time with the new gear to say anything certain about it.

cheers

Kjetil