No need zealots
I need a comparison between 70-200 nikkor 2.8 vr2 and canon 70-200 2.8 is 2

This post was edited by Verdena on Jan 24 2011 10:27am

Thanks man, but i would like aswell some personal opinions or feedback from someone who had the chance to try both.

it´s pretty commonly known that the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 beats the crap out of almost every other nikon tele zoom.

What about canon 4.0? is ofc

the f4 is told to have slightly less sharpness and cropping qualities than the 2.8 IS Mark II ( note: we´re talking about the IS version, which has improved optics, the non IS version is much worse ). I dont know wether the canon f4 or the nikkor f2.8 would win the race for me, seeing as the nikkor costs twice as much. but if I had 2000€ to spend I´d definately get the canon 2.8 L II IS USM.

Would you rather have d300s + 70-200 nikkor 2.8 vr 2

with the chance to keep 35 1.8 aswell, battery grip, sb-900 flash.

or

5d mk 2 + 70-200 f4 IS with nothing else for a long time

This. Don't go jumping to Canon and be left with just that. Maybe if you could have the other lens and a flash. But you are sacrificing too much imo. Plus by that long time, Nikon will likely be announcing at least one new body. Then if you wanted to upgrade bodies, all of your gear would still be compatible.

First option for sure.

Guys i'd go for the first option aswell but it bugs me so badly to spend 2k on a lens while there is a better lens around to serve that purpose for the same price but different brand.
I mean, the 70-200 is the lens of my dreams and if i buy it i will be probably shooting that 24/7. Also as we all know canon's telezooms are better than nikon's(so canon's 70-200s are better than nikons, sorry scuba but it's true ).
What you guys think?