Main lenses in my Nikon day was as follow:

• AF Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8 D (last gen. w/tripod collar).
• AF Nikkor 50mm F/1.4
• AF Nikkor 35-70mm F/3.3-4.5
• Sigma EX 10-20mm F/4-5.6 HSM

Changed into my Canon days with the followings:

• Canon EF 17-40mm F/4 L
• Canon EF 50mm F1.8 Mark II (replaced later with Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F/1.4)
• Canon EF 35-80mm F/4-5.6 (sold later)
• Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM (sold later)

Trusting a number of reviews on the net – which proven to be true – saying that even cheap crappy lenses result in better pictures in full frame cameras compared to top-of-the-line lenses on APS-C cameras, I comfortably decided to go for Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM to replace my brilliant AF Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8 D for portraiture and telephoto.

Definitely the feeling in my hand between the two was extremely different. About 1,300 grams in full metal barrel and inner zoom of Nikon super-fast tele-zoom felt a lot more sturdy in my hand compared to 400 grams or so small plastic tube of the mediocre Canon. But price was extremely different as well. I got the used Nikon for about $750 (brand new was priced at $1,000 at that time) whilst I spent only $110 (brand new was priced at $180 at that time) for the used Canon a year later.

Coming to the most critical issue which is result, Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM gave brilliant result with my Canon EOS 5D, regardless almost all friends and online reviews advised the opposite, especially when used with APS-C bodies. Sharpness, detail, and tone were brilliant. I would say that bokeh is nothing to worry too much in this range. Even bad lenses offers creamy bokeh in long focal.

However, performance is of a different issue. A am not a technical savvy who knows good technical presentation to show performance indicators, so it is purely a experience of an amateur user. Whilst focusing speed was sufficient to my need, and absence of IS was not felt as a problem as my previous Nikon did not have VR as well, I note a few problems:

• Vignet was clearly visible.
• Softening around the edge was visible, although in most telephoto shots with smooth bokeh it may even offer positive effect.
• Flare handling was mediocre, just don’t try to use it against the sun.
• Focusing performed bad in overcast background.

The picture below compares shots taken with different telephoto zooms. The left-hand side was taken by Nikon D200 with AF Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8 D, and the right-hand side was taken with Canon EOS 5D with Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, both at their own maximum focal length of 200mm and 300mm respectively.

Whilst my mind has been firmly locked to trading my Nikon setup with Canon’s full frame, I realized that it would be hard to do, especially as I am not prepared to spend any additional money. I could only afford a trade, I released my current Nikon D200 and lenses ranging from ultra-wide to mid-range telephoto with similar set from Canon.

My Nikon D200 had a vertical grip with an extra battery attached, the brilliant professional lens 80-200mm F/2.8D ED, ultra-lightweight 35-70mm F3.3-4.5, small but razor sharp 50mm F1.4, beautiful ultra-wide Sigma 10-20mm, and a pair of speed-lights.

After weeks of research, I decided to reverse the setup. I had rather cheap ultra-wide and professional telephoto lens. Being focused more to landscape, architecture, and product photography, I only did telephoto like birds, sports, and wave surfing for fun. I expected the new setup to be the opposite way round, professional ultra-wide is essential, cheaper telephoto is acceptable.

Weeks of communication in local photographer forum finally yielded. It was not as complicated as I have thought before. Thinking that I would have to sell each of my stuffs one after another and only can start buying the new stuffs after all the old ones sold out, I got into a very quick triangular arrangement, trading my Nikon setup with a set of Canons which included a full set of 5D body, a professional EF 17-40mm F4 L, a small ultra-fast EF 50mm F1.8, an entry level telephoto zoom EF 75-300mm F4.5-5.6, and a powerful 550EX speed-light. All are used but in good shape coming with all boxes, plastics, books, warranty cards, etc.

Yeah, as I did myself, it was less than what I wanted, but with only adding IDR300,000 – equal to approx. USD33 – it was definitely a fair deal.

Whist it may sounds inferior, width of 17mm on full frame is similar to Canon’s 10mm and Nikon’s 12mm in camera with crop factor, plus an advantage of less distortion.

I lost the mid-range, no replacement for my Nikon 35-70mm, but I do not really need it anyway. The 17-40mm gave me more coverage in standard focal length than my previous Sigma 10-20mm.

I got 50mm F1.8, which was slower than my previous Nikon 50mm F1.4. Nothing more I can say, I do expect the same 1.4 aperture, but seems I have to live with what I got temporarily, otherwise I would have to put at least IDR2,000,000 (approx. $220) into the deal.

The very cheap 75-300mm zoom was among the cheapest lens in the world. I understood that I could not expect to much, especially compared to my previous Nikon pro. But again as always in my life, money matters. As so far I mostly need telephoto only for fun, I have to live with it at least temporarily. Ken Rockwell wrote on his website that even the crappiest lens on full frame works better than professional lens on a crop-factor camera. So I relied on it, hope he was correct, and of course dreaming of professional lenses on full-frame.

Last thing in the package was the high power 550EX speed light firing at the maximum GN of 55. Whilst it has been replaced by the newer more powerful 580EX and then the newest reface version 580EXII, its power and functionalities is better than the cheaper 430EX. To a surprise I got to know that Canon also has wireless capability, but unfortunately unlike my Nikon D200, Canon 5D does not have built in wireless flash commander function.