I hated this the first time around with the Nikon D50 and the Canon XT. Got the Nikon, but without a new release, I want to upgrade to a semi-pro level body and Nikon isn't doing it for the around $1000 mark like Canon has with the 40D

Canon Pros:
Eventually will get the Canon 70-200 F2.8L which is super sharp
6.5FPS
Amazing high ISO

Canon Con's
the 50 1.8 isn't supposed to be that great
The 70-200 F/4 which I'd get at first doesn't have a Tripod Collar
Flash isnt as good???

Staying with Nikon Pros:
50 1.8 is super sharp
Already have Sigma 70-200 2.8

Nikon Con's
D90 hasn't been announced and won't likely have 6FPS as it would hurt the D300 sales
the Nikon 70-200 2.8 is VR and super expensive
My SIgma 70-200 2.8 is soft at 2.8 and 200mm

Where'd you hear that the 50 1.8 isn't that great? It doesn't have the best build quality compared to the 1.4 but otherwise it's a fantastic piece of glass for a mere $70.

Haven't heard any problems with Canon speedlites either.

The Canon 50 f/1.8 is most often called the happy meal lens because of its cheap price. It isn't built as well as the Nikon version, but what do you expect for around $50-$70USD? Personally I like the ergonomics of the Nikon cameras. Why are you set on the 70-200 2.8? You could score a 80-200 2.8 for almost half the price and it is a fantastic lens.

Canon Flash = FIT.

just out of curiosity...why do you need 6 fps? are you shooting a crap load of sports? can you sit down and name at least 10 reasons you'd need to shoot that fast? I find it kinda stupid that you're basing your decisions on mostly just that. Nikon makes some very good bodies in the sub 1000$ range, you could probably even find the d100 for around that, and it shoots around 3-5 fps and if you only think the 50mm 1.8 is sharp...you haven't tried the 1.4 or the 85mm 1.4 They are probably two of the sharpest primes, followed by the 24-70 and the 70-200 VR AFS for zooms, and lets not forget the 17-35.

also you know that every lens has it's sweet spot, right? they aren't going to be rock sharp at every focal length and every aperture....I hope you understand that. If you read photography reviews they'll usually tell you where the sharpest point is at. you will find many lenses aren't as sharp wide open as they are at say f5.6-f11

Well my favorite thing to shoot is sports. I shoot for my school paper, and hope to shoot for my college paper - even if I don't, I will still shoot. Its really hard to get things like night football games or basketball games with poor ISO performance. Overall, I've been happy with my D50, but it has its limits at ISO1600 and the 2.5FPS is killing me, since you really can't predict every action - making my keeper rate very low (like maybe of 100 or so pics per game, only 3-5 are "good"

if i'm not mistaken but the 70-200L is more exp than 70-200 VR... both are good lens, and d300 is surely better than 40D but also more expensive. u should decide which brand base on the system and not individual camera model and specific lens.

Mmm, all versions of the 70-200L are cheaper. (at least on amazon).

70-200 VR - $1969

70-200 f/4L - $538
70-200 f/4L IS - $984
70-200 f/2.8L - $1149
70-200 f/2.8L IS - $1574

oo i guess it depends on location then, the nikon 70-200 is cheaper here and also in hk.

Nikon 70-200 VR Imported - 1579.95$
Nikon 70-200 VR USA 1624.95$

get you started right there. I'd not go with the F4 for canon, probably not gonna be as sharp as the 2.8. Also the 70-200 VR is an insanely sharp lens, and the VR works wonders. Even at 1900$ if thats what you'll pay for it its still a good deal. you should price shop around...I gave you two links there to start out.


Back to my last question, IsO 1600 is pretty high, and you are gonna get some serious noise unless you have something like the d3 or d300. a vibration reduction lens will help you out, but you do realize that even if you can shoot 6 fps or 2.5 fps, in a dimly lit gym, you're shutter speeds are gonna still be pretty slow, so you may not get a full 6 fps. The D200 shoots at 5 fps and can boost the iso pretty high.

A bit of a difference here and there, but they're pretty similar if you compare them both at f/4.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...0&APIComp=2

But of course the 2.8 is a faster lens. That's why the f/4 is only $530 and not $1150 like the 2.8

The Nikon version has better IQ than the Canon 2.8 version, as well as the Canon f/4 version. Oh, each lens also being the IS lens too. The Nikon also has less CA's. So while being more expensive, you do get what you pay for.

According to photozone, the Nikkor has the advantage in MTF resolution but the L takes the lead in CA. Both lens aren't perfect, but they come damn close. I doubt something so negligible matter when evaluating both of the lens for real world situations. (and this is proven in the results that both the Nikon and Canon show)

the charts are different. on the nikon one, the top tier starts at 1950 and goes/ends to 2250. on the canon charts, it starts at 1850 and goes/ends to 2250. the charts for the CAs are also different. so in fact, the nikon lens does edge out the canon lenses, even if not by much. the price difference between the IS version and the nikon version is not very much, so it would be more fair to compare feature to feature, however the other flavors of the lens in the canon lineup are more than acceptable and still very sharp. it all boils down to what someone would need out of the lens.

The reason for the different charts is because photozone is testing the lens on a Canon 350D and the other on a Nikon D200. That's why the legend on the left shows "Excellent" at 1850 for Canon and 1950 for the Nikon. So your comparison could be made that yes, the D200 does edge out the 350D.

But yes, it would boil down to what you need and how much you can pay. Any of the Canon Ls are excellent as is the VR from Nikon.

I have nothing but positive things to say about the Canon 40D. I love it.

The F/4 is only until May, when I graduate, my parents will give me money for the 2.8L. I shoot sports, VR is pretty useless as my shutter is always above 1/320

I shoot 1600 on my D50 currently, and although its not perfect, give it a little NR, and its fine. Example here - ISO 1600


The 40D is only better, and reviews have put it very close to the D300. The D200 ISO is even worse then the D50!

why are you guys talking about VR/IS? We all know 2.8 is far supperior while shooting sport since VR/IS only compasates shooter's movement and not subject you're shooting.

Brandon, I don't want to convice you to stay with nikon but changing all your gear is so expensive
You know, you get what you pay for. It's easy to say but not when having a tight budget of course.

I'd wait for D300 if I were you

I'm eventually going to spend the same amount of money that I would on the D300 on canon stuff, but by summer I plan on having:

40D
17-50 F/2.8 Tamron
70-200L F/2.8 Canon
50 F/1.8 Canon
Battery Grip
Canon 430EX Flash

If you can, seriously consider the 50mm f/1.4 instead.

his mommy and daddy are paying for some of this things.

Just for the 70-200 2.8L

that's 1000000x more than I could get my parents to pay for

You've already made up your mind to switch then... Remember, you're investing not in the present, but the future. Sure your gear if well maintained will retain a lot of it's value. You'll do fine with the 40D...

I do love my D300 though.