I'm hoping my next camera doesn't have the built in focus motor, just another reason to off load my old non-AFS lenses.

I'm sorry I can only compare it to my 50 1.8, squamish, but I thought there was no difference at apertures f/2.8 and smaller between those two. The 1.2 is slightly sharper at f/2 and wide open gave a halo around objects that were slightly out of focus. I still have some shots up from when I sold it if you want an idea of the performance, with one series running through the aperture range:
nikkor 50mm 1.2 gallery
I decided to sell it because I liked having autofocus, especially with the depth of field so razor thin. It might have been different if I had a Katz Eye focus screen instead of the standard one. Even though the 50 1.2 was sharper at f/2, I still prefer the 50 1.8 wide open because the bokeh is a little more uniform. I didn't think it was worth keeping to use only at f/1.2.

I think you're right about the future of in-camera focus motors, mb, but don't forget the D1 series, D2 series, D50, D100, D200, D70(s), and D80.

jonnyapple said:
? I used a manual focus AI-S 50mm f/1.2 for a while (I sold it and used part of it to get the 35 1.8, actually) on a D300 and there were no problems except that it was a manual focus.

What were the optics like on that lens compared to either of the 50mm 1.4s presently available? Im quite interested in the supposed AF-S version of the 1.2 that is to be released at some future date.

The only Nikon DSLRs with focus motors are the D90, D300(s), D700, D3(sx) ...
I'll call it a draw for now ... but in the future non AF motor will be more common

foofiebeast said:
I believe thats correct, and not that I mind manual focus, but what bodies besides the d90 have an internal motor (I know this is getting a bit off topic, but if anyone has a link, or just the info, I'd appreciate it), how common is it?

The only Nikon DSLRs without focus motors are the D40(x), D60, D3000 and D5000.

Dang now I'm confusing myself! Yeah I was thinking low end DX cameras. Not high end D1 or D100 series cameras. You can use DX lenses on a D3 but in order to not get vignetting you have to use crop mode. That just makes your 12mp D3 shoot at like, what is it again, 5 or 8 megapixels.

jonnyapple said:
There wasn't AF in the mid-60s was there? I used a manual focus AI-S 50mm f/1.2 for a while (I sold it and used part of it to get the 35 1.8, actually) on a D300 and there were no problems except that it was a manual focus. If it's AI or AI-S you shouldn't have problems with it if you're okay with manual focus.

I believe thats correct, and not that I mind manual focus, but what bodies besides the d90 have an internal motor (I know this is getting a bit off topic, but if anyone has a link, or just the info, I'd appreciate it), how common is it?

D200, D300, D1 series, and D2 series are the only DX cameras that can meter non-CPU lenses.

NikoDoby said:
Also some DX cameras will not meter with some older 35mm lenses. Meaning you have to "guess" and set your exposure manually.

Now I see what you meant, Niko. Sorry I assumed you meant AF. Yes, metering will definitely be guess and check unless you have a DX00 or above.

Just remember that FX really just means 35mm. So any 35mm Fmount lens should work fine with an FX (or full frame) or DX camera.

DX lenses on the other hand can not be used on a 35mm camera without getting dark corners (vignetting).

Also some DX cameras will not meter with some older 35mm lenses. Meaning you have to "guess" and set your exposure manually.

You always get more vignetting on FX because you're using more of the edges of the lens's image circle. All lenses that don't say DX on them (this includes all the really old lenses) were designed for FX, though, and vignetting should be under control on FX.

There wasn't AF in the mid-60s was there? I used a manual focus AI-S 50mm f/1.2 for a while (I sold it and used part of it to get the 35 1.8, actually) on a D300 and there were no problems except that it was a manual focus. If it's AI or AI-S you shouldn't have problems with it if you're okay with manual focus.

ah, muchas gracias señor.

but visually it would be the same correct? no vignetting on the fx? having the af would only, well auto focus right?

I have a few old lenses I use with my FTN and when I upgrade I plan on having them converted to use with the d90, and not that it matters much, but one day on a fx model. mostly I was just asking out of curiosity though.

It won't as long as the DX camera you use it with has an AF motor like the D90 and not a D3000 or D5000, etc.

MaxiVisVires said:
I already have the 50mm 1.8 and I'll be sad when I lose use of my 35mm 1.8 cause it's DX.

I have kind of a question relating to this. I have one of the old old nikkor 50 mm 1.4's from probably about the mid 60's. How will that lens act differently on a dx vs an fx body?

If you like your 35 1.8 DX and own and like the 50 1.8, there's no problem switching to FX because the 50 will give you the same angle of view the 35 did and buying the 85 1.8 will give you about the same angle of view (but even better, IMO) as using the 50 with DX. The net cost would be around $250 for the upgrade (sell 35 1.8 for ~$200, buy 85 1.8 for ~$450). You wouldn't regret owning the 85 1.8 now, either. It's a beautiful lens for portraiture on DX and FX.

I already have the 50mm 1.8 and I'll be sad when I lose use of my 35mm 1.8 cause it's DX. I plan on getting the new 85mm depending on the price

I think it's a safe bet to get the 24-70 as an everyday lens.

As far as Tokina lenses are concerned, I rather just stick with the Nikon stuff.

Thanks for the help guys

I agree. Tokina 16-28 looks very enticing. I am planing to get 14-24 soon, but I will see how the Tokina works out. Besides Tokina glass is pretty good.

What I would do is this

14-24 or Tokina 16-28

nikon 50mm 1.8 or 1.4

70-200mm

Hello Max and welcome to the forum.

You can use FX lenses just fine on any DX camera. It's when you do it the other way around that you get major vignetting. I doubt the 24-70 will get updated any time soon. It's not that old. It's already one of the best lenses Nikon makes. The 14-24 is a great lens but it's very wide and it really depends on how and what you shoot.

There is also the newly announced Tokina 16-28 f2.8 you might want to wait for and try out. I tend to only recommend Nikkors but the recent Nikon's have been very expensive and if these third party optics turn out to be good AND affordable it'll be hard to pass them up.

Hello all, I'm currently a Photography student and I've been lurking here since November, ever since I started googling "Nikon D700 Replacement".

So obviously, I am planning on making the jump to FX as soon as it comes out. I currently shoot with a D90 and I do have quite a few DX lenses. I am fine with my current results so I'm not in a major hurry to make the jump, so I am willing to wait for the D700 upgrade.

Now here's the thing, I am planning on phasing out my current lenses for some FX lenses. Really only 3 lenses I want. The 14-24, 24-70, and the 70-200. As I obtain each lens, the appropriate DX lens (according to focal length) I'll sell off. Here's my questions.

Which lenses do I buy first? At first, I was thinking of getting the 14-24 (as I don't currently have a lens of that length) and the 24-70 as I hardly use my 200mm zoom as it is. But then I've been reading that there may be a chance that the 24-70 will get an upgrade. Should I wait? Also, is there any problem using an FX on a DX camera? I haven't read anywhere that it was, but that's been a nagging question in the back of my head, and everyone here at my university shoots with canons. So I thought I'd ask.

Thanks for any help. It's appreciated.