But changing brands and sacrificing everything for just the one lens. Not worth it. Its not like the VRII 70-200 is a piece of crap. You wouldn't be sacrificing nearly as much in going with that option.

Almost true.
The fact is that it's not just "a lens", it's a 2k euro investment.
That's why i am considering every option, if it was a random 2-300 euro lens i wouldn't be here thinking about it.
I never said the vrII is a piece of crap but it's a fact that the is II is better.

This post was edited by Verdena on Jan 24 2011 03:38pm

This.



You have to realize that getting the Canon equivalent is only because you feel the need to 'have the best.' No one, other than your pixel peeping, will know the difference. If you shoot people, just shoot raw and remove ~8% orange or change orange hue to ~ 3% yellow-er and the ugly skin tones are improved. Nikon is still an incredible system. The more I shoot with it the more I believe it's effective. Of course, what made me switch from Sony to Canon was the 5D II, and now the 70-200L IS II makes me feel so glad I did. The 35L is also incredible.

90% of my shots are people indeed. Is not my need to "have the best".
I love Nikon aswell, i just happen to ask myself "if with the same money i can have better stuff why not?".
I think this is a question that any of you would ask themselves.

I also think you shouldn´t base your decision on the lens only. why dont you try to get the chance to play around with a Canon ( 5D Mark II ? ) and decide if you like it better than your nikon. I´d recommend you lending a 5D Mk II and a couple of the lenses you wish to purchase in the future, and then decide wether to stick with nikon or to switch systems. But for now, I´d stay with nikon. you have a good body, and you can get good lenses for nikon aswell. I dont know how professional your ambitions are, but unless you´re planning to be a professional photographer you wont necessarily need the canon 70-200mm f2.8 L II IS USM

Haha i wish i could become a professional photographer, actually i study/work as graphic designer, and soon my work will be more photography-related.
Also, if i switch to the mkII(which i already played around with and loved it) i would choose the 70-200 f4 is.

comparing the two things would it be better a 70-200 2.8 vr ii on a d300s or a 70-200 f4 is on a mk II?

This post was edited by Verdena on Jan 24 2011 03:59pm

hmmm let´s put it that way:

Canon body = better , but more expensive
Canon lens = worse or equal less expensive

so if you switch to canon you´ll pay around 2800-3000 bucks and get a kickass combo. if you stick to nikon you´ll have a good body, but not so good as the canon one and you spend like 2000 bucks on a lens that should be abit better than the f4 IS, plus you keep all the stuff you already have.

as I said, if you feel like you´re much happier with canon products, consider the switch. if not, stick to the nikon stuff you already have and add lenses to your lenspark.

I'm not so sure i agree with that.. Nikon has a few better zooms but i truly believe Canon primes put the butt hurt on nikon glass.

There are only two nikon glass i wish we have over here in canon world. The 14-24 and 200-400.

Imo canon telezooms are better and primes are equal or better in nikon.

i have never used both, but don't listen to any one on d2jsp they are all canon zealots!




but if i had the choice i would switch to canon, but that would depend on when you could purchase more glass. i am switching atm to go full frame canon, and buy better glass one lens per month.

if you dont have a budget stick with nikon and get that nikkor zoom, im guess this is the year for a d700s so then you will be smiling.