Hi all,

Short answer, 'arm and leg'.

Long answer, depends...

I still have and use a lot of stuff from film days and have bought stuff that was FX/DX compatible, so...

I will likely get a D800 in time.

My best to all,

Mike

TaoTeJared said:

Out of curiosity why do you think you need a FX camera or even 2.8 Glass? That is not a normal start for most just getting going.

I have a D800, apart from a very expensive leaf, nothing else has the dynamic range. My most used lens is the 24-120 f4 and if working out side, It is stopped down to f8. indoors at ISO 3200 f4 is fine for me

If I need a shallow dof, i do have a 70-200 f 2.8 but it is my least used lens
the other f 2.8 lens i have is a 16mm fish eye, but it is nearly always stopped down to f8

Thanks guys for dropping comments in this thread.

I just want to inform you all that I have purchased the 70-200 VRI for 90,000 yen (US$1100). I just couldn't help it- what a bargain! The lens is in superb condition and has 6-month warranty from Nikon for its autofocus reparation. I have also read the warranty card (actually it's like a receipt) and it says that the lens has been repaired, cleaned and fully checked. I just tested it for a few shots and I'm very satisfied with the results. I think the autofocus is superbly fast and the VR works really well. Even though it's heavy, I think I can cope with it.

Now, I have two lenses to play with: a 35mm/1.8 and a 70-200mm/2.8 VRI. My next targets are the 24-70mm/2.8 and 50mm/1.8G or 1.4G. I would like to know, which 50mm lens that performs well (1.8G or 1.4G)? How about the Sigma 50mm/1.4 OS?

Thanks to you all on this topic. I admit ever since I saw TaoTeJared bought a D800 I have wondered....why not. And thanks to NR I have known for a long time the D600 was coming out. I am pretty happy with all of my DX Nikons and the D7000 does the best video of that group.

So I have been running estimates for what FX would cost adding gear to what I have. My own rough guess if I added what I think would work is $18,000. I have six FX lenses now. Adding the 200-400 Nikkor is the most expensive addition. Then I began to get data and reviews on the 300 Nikkor f4 and with a teleconverter 2.0 that does help some.

Much of my personal reluctance comes in based on my large and medium format 8 or 10 year run. I had camera bodies which cost more than my possible FX first estimate. Since I metered when I did larrge and medium format with 35mm Minolta film camera, I began to notice that on a few too many occasions that the 35mm work was actually more useful. I was fairly well known in some circles for large format photos, but in retrospect I sincerely regret that era. B&H Photo and Video guys argued that I SHOULD NOT GO TO LARGE FORMAT. I need not discuss here why I think large format was not the right move. But for certain it was VERY expensive. I also think of the 80-200 2.8 Nikon lens I traded in when I moved to the 70-300 lens. Now the 70-300VR lens is easily one of my favorites.

Where am I on the Switch to FX?? I sure don't know as yet. Meanwhile I photograph almost every day. I also realize almost every day DX is a better choice than FX as part of what I photograph does not require or appreciate high res. Still for the really great moments?
So that is why I am here tonight trying to figure D600 or D800? And what other costs are there? One for sure is BIGGER gear. And I will be blunt.......for me bigger gear is a big problem. If I were just taking photos maybe. But when I am using a shovel or a chainsaw, or surveying gear, or some other HEAVIER tool......big cameras can be a severe drag. I am always surprised when someone writes....when I go on vacation they use SMALLER cameras. AND I DO RESPECT THEIR REASONING! But for me.....at least then my hands are not covered in dirt and my shirt covered with sawdust..... But I do love taking photos and seeing the photos of others>
It truly is a beautiful world!

Well, good luck to you all! And I am certain the D600 will sell very well! But I do think msmotos prediction for a D400 will come true, just NOT TODAY!

DaveyJ

n0msky said:
@TaoTeJared: thank you for your straighforward advice. Why I want to shoot FX and have 2.8 lenses? First of all, maybe two months ago, I borrowed my friend's FX camera (D700) and I was stunned by results, especialy in low lights. It was like a love at a first sight for me. At that moment, I just realized that there was another level of quality in photography which will satisfy you with great images in low lights: shooting FX (full frame). The second reason is that when I go back to my country (not Japan or the US), I know that I would probably oftenly deal with low lights situations (please don't ask me why :))? Thus, I think a FX body and fast lenses will help me in that situation.

Yeah, after reading your comment I guess I just have to hold on my plan to switch to FX any soon. I have to learn and get my current gear out for shooting. As time goes by, I think I would have enough experience and knowledge to pick the best gear that meets my need. I just hope that time will be coming soon.

Be careful not to rely on a few experiences to decide what you need. We have seen the new DX sensors being released performing as good or better than the D700 in many instances. FX was the only option 1-4 years ago but that has changed. If want the best low light, bars, restaurants, evening city scenes, you need f/1.4-2.0 glass - 2.8 doesn't cut it many times. Plus if you are in these situations, a 70-200 is 100x to large to use and the 24-70mm is close to being too large. Any Street shooting I do, I use a Fuji X100 and a film rangefinder with ISO 400 film in it. You can easily shoot at iso 400 with experience. I find my D800 is just to large and people notice it too much for me to get good candid shots.

Some people pick up a mid level camera like the D5100 and put it into the auto mode, and take some decent shots, try some more creative stuff, also can learn a lot if they put some effort into it.

Without a basic foundation in photography skills, they actually may do better with a good point and shoot.

There is another side to it. With a camera like the D700, I honestly think that with good basic knowledge of exposure and camera menu systems, the nice FX cameras are a lot easier to take great pictures with. I really have to work hard at it with the D5100 to get the same result, because I'm not that talented. With the D700 set properly and with a 70-200 set to f-2.8, it's hard not to take a beautiful picture. The color, the sharp focus, the beautiful bokeh, it's obvious to everyone that the camera does do a lot. Skill and artistry can also get you there with a cheap camera, and is so amazing with a great camera. A lot of good seasoned photographers look down on people with nice FX cameras and top shelf glass who don't have much skill or experience.

There's a nice lady who works in the marketing department of a company I worked with, and has a beautiful Canon 1DMark4, and a collection of L lenses. She's not dumb by any means, but has no clue what an F-stop is, and takes thousands of beautiful pictures and incredible video. A pro could do much better with cheap stuff, but she definitely couldn't. And I've heard one excellent photographer talk about how he was almost sick to his stomach seeing her with gear worth multiple times what his car was worth, but it's her money.

I'm probably not adding much to this discussion... but I will say this. The 70-200 f2.8 makes a great portrait lens, great pro-journalist lens, and a great sports lens. It focuses fast on a good body. BUT... a very cheap 55-200 VR on an DX body will do as good with static subjects, with the same camera settings, in good light. Unless you need fast lens, fast focus, shallow DOF (notice I said same setting, the 55-200 is a long ways from f/2.8), you can save a lot of money and weight.

@TaoTeJared: thank you for your straighforward advice. Why I want to shoot FX and have 2.8 lenses? First of all, maybe two months ago, I borrowed my friend's FX camera (D700) and I was stunned by results, especialy in low lights. It was like a love at a first sight for me. At that moment, I just realized that there was another level of quality in photography which will satisfy you with great images in low lights: shooting FX (full frame). The second reason is that when I go back to my country (not Japan or the US), I know that I would probably oftenly deal with low lights situations (please don't ask me why :))? Thus, I think a FX body and fast lenses will help me in that situation.

Yeah, after reading your comment I guess I just have to hold on my plan to switch to FX any soon. I have to learn and get my current gear out for shooting. As time goes by, I think I would have enough experience and knowledge to pick the best gear that meets my need. I just hope that time will be coming soon.

n0msky said:

As to my finding on a used 70-200mm 2.8 which is very attractive to me, I have these (another) silly questions: What is this lens best for? And what is the 20-70mm best for? I mean, I really want to know from you guys who own these lenses about in what occassions you mostly use them for your shooting.

And if you guys don't mind, how did you start shooting FX DSLR? What kind of combinations were your first FX set-up?

Sorry for asking so many questions. I really appreciate your time to write a comment here. Thank you.

The 70-200 mm is a lovely lense and is one everyone should own imo. Excellent for portraits, nature work and whatnot.

My path to FX (got a D800) took a while but ever since I got the urge to upgrade my first digital DSLR (D80) I have wanted a FX. Since the D700 replacement never came I ended up getting a D7000 as an upgrade to the D80.

As my plan was to eventually get to FX I kept that in mind when i added to the collection and I think I had 6 FX lenses (50 1.8, 24-70, 70-200, 120-300 sigma, 60 mm macro and a 150 mm macro sigma) before I got hold of the D800. Only DX lenses I bought was the 35 mm and a tokina 11-16. Truth be I didnt find many DX alternatives as the line up of quality DX lenses is severly lacking.

n0msky said:
What is this lens best for? And what is the 20-70mm best for? I mean, I really want to know from you guys who own these lenses about in what occassions you mostly use them for your shooting.

And if you guys don't mind, how did you start shooting FX DSLR? What kind of combinations were your first FX set-up?

Simple answer for both lenses, everything and everything. They are not specific to any type of photography.

D800 is my first FX although I have shot with a D700 in the past. I have around 25 lenses - been quite a few years since I started - the collection just grows.

Out of curiosity why do you think you need a FX camera or even 2.8 Glass? That is not a normal start for most just getting going.

Since you are getting going, and if you can get a good D700 (which I have been thinking of picking one up as well since they are only $1,400 on ebay) I would suggest for you to get the 28-300 VR and a 50 1.8G. The 50mm is a no brainer and you will end up with one anyway. I suggest the 28-300vr so you can have something that covers everything. Starting out, going straight to pro glass seems overboard and ill advised to me.

See what range you shoot most then pick up better glass for that range. While you are learning and using something like the 28-300, you will begin to learn where it doesn't or does fit your needs and then you can add lenses to fill those gaps. To be honest, if you do not know what you need a 70-200mm for, you shouldn't be buying one. You have a long learning curve before you will see the need for it. I know pros who have never owned one, and probably never will.

After sometime shooting, that will tell you what you NEED. Right now it sounds like you are deciding on lenses based on what you think you should want, rather than what you do need. You need to build experience up before you will know what to get. THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER nor can any of us tell you what you need - only you can decide that through experience.

@DavidHarsay: thank you for sharing your inspiring story here. I learned many things just by reading it. :)

I cannot believe that I am so lucky that I joined this forum and asked questions before deciding to make a purchase. You guys have been helpful and supportive. いつもお世話になりました。本当にありがとうございます。

@Wataru and starralazn: thank you for your comments. I guess I was wrong that those lenses are more than enough to start shooting FX. I thought that the "trinity" should be collected first to get an excellent gear to shoot.

@bjrichus: yeah, I will go that way; collecting FX glassess before getting a FX body.

@TaoTeJared: thanks for the comprehensive answer to my silly questions. I do appreciate it.

@kanuck and msmoto: yeah, I guess I am lucky enough to start shooting Nikon DSLR this year since there are many options available- both old and new products are just too overwhelming to me. This year would be perfect for Nikon if they announce the D400 or D7100/7200 - I'll go crazy!! Actually, I am thinking about getting a used D700 as my first FX camera since its rice is quiet attractive: around 100,000 yen (US$1250) for a mint copy and has around 10,000 clicks.

As to my finding on a used 70-200mm 2.8 which is very attractive to me, I have these (another) silly questions: What is this lens best for? And what is the 20-70mm best for? I mean, I really want to know from you guys who own these lenses about in what occassions you mostly use them for your shooting.

And if you guys don't mind, how did you start shooting FX DSLR? What kind of combinations were your first FX set-up?

Sorry for asking so many questions. I really appreciate your time to write a comment here. Thank you.

I agree, minimum $3000 all the way up to stupid amounts are possible. Alright, this is long, so I hope you enjoy reading it:

As people mentioned, moving to FX, the "investment" is in the lenses, the "cost" is in the body. Most of the value IS in the lenses, they work on the DX cameras too, and they hold their value especially if you buy refurbished or good used lenses.

Perhaps get the good FX lenses you want now, they will work on the DX, and you're much closer to the quality you need, pushing the capability envelope a little bit with glass. They will generally focus faster, look crisp, better bokeh, work with lower light, and again, can be sold for what you bought it for if you do it right. The FX "trinity" zooms are the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. That's $8K in glass right there, depending on what you want to do. You can also look at some popular primes if you have a specific need, 24mm, 50mm, 85mm (big favorite), 135mm, 200mm, 300mm, etc. Depends on what you need.

Not that this is a great idea, but here's the story of what I did as things evolved:

For decades, I used a film SLR with a 40mm prime and an 85-210 zoom. Did everything i wanted. Then I got into the DSLR's... and it is a whole new story as I really enjoyed getting into the digital stuff.

Here's my cashflow for going from DX-FX over a few years. I went from a D300S ($1600) with a 50mm f1.8 ($150)... cheap combo, great for the HDR stuff i wanted to do... but limited obviously. Wanted to do some motorsports also, so I added a 55-200 VR DX ($150)lens - which worked really nice actually, but looked cheap I thought that more expensive lenses were better... then sold that 55-200 and went to a big 70-300 VR ($400) lens, not any better really, much bigger and better quality build, and this I used for a while, but for motorsports stuff I wasn't too crazy about the 300mm end of it... this was an FX lens though. Sold it and got the 70-200 f/2.8 VR ($1500) and really liked it, another FX lens. Got a 35mm 1.78 DX ($200) lens. Bought a Tokina $600 ultrawide DX lens, sold it, got a Nikon $800 ultrawide DX lens, sold it. Bought a grip ($200) Bought a D700 ($1800), didn't like it, bought another D700 ($1900), sold the first D700 and the D300S, DX lenses, bought a 14-24 f 2.8 FX lens ($1900)a nd a 50mm f/1.4 ($300)... still with me? There's a 1.4 TC and a 1.7 TC in there somewhere also ($400).

Went from a $2,200 DX system to a $6,200 FX system, which cost me an additional $500 maybe as I bought and sold a lot of stuff, that's the cost of learning what works for me.

I love the FX setup I have now. It's a pleasure to shoot with nice stuff, it really makes it easy. But it's a lot of big, and heavy, and there's a lot of cash tied up there. I could so easily double the $ it if I got the lens I really want, and then some.

Later, I looked at a second DX body, I bought a DX kit D5100 with an 18-55 VR lens, and another 55-200 VR lens, for a DX setup for $1100 total. When I travel for work, I take the DX kit with me to take some shots occasionally. I did this because I needed something compact and light. That $1100 system does 99% as good as the $6,000 system until I push the limits with sports or creativity. That extra umph... can cost so much more. That 85mm f/ 1.4 lens which i don't have does just a liiittttle bit more than I can do. That 300 f/2.8 I want but don't have can focus a little faster, reach a little farther and narrow the DOF even more. Ha, yeah, for another $7K!

I tried the 24-70 to get the "trinity" but the 14-24 was immensely more impressive at the 24 end... and I have the 50mm prime.... and the beautiful 70-200... so I didn't see a need to spend $1700 for it. Everything is a trade off.

In the future, I will probably not get the extra FX stuff I want, but get a D400 and an 18-200 ($2500) and sell the current DX kit. The D400 will work nice for travel with the 18-200, and als for motorsports with the 1.7X TC and the 70-200. The FX kit will be fine for everything else, and may upgrade the body in a few years to a D800 or maybe D900 by then.

It has been exciting being a Nikon shooter since the mid 1960's actually. But, with the DXOmark scores on the D600 putting it into a very exalted place.... I think Nikon has even more to offer.... And FX has no real drawback unless one wants the extreme telephoto... which gets a bit pricey.

Well I think its safe to say that the price to move to FX has dropped considerably. The D600 with a 24-70mm lens is a heck of a start and both should be very obtainable if you trade in gear, or maybe you already have some great glass that works on FX. I think its an exciting time to be a nikon shooter :)

n0msky said:
@TaoTeJared: thanks for sharing with us. Do you think the 17-50 non-VC would be a better choice, since there are many reviews that confirm it?

Do you think a 24-70mm 2.8, a 70-200mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8G will be enough for starter? I think I will go for 14-24mm 2.8 after I get those three lenses.

The reviews I have seen about the Non-VC vs VC lack the part about the wait for VC to kick in so I assume that they just don't know how to use it or didn't bother reading the manual. The VC is just as sharp, just as fast if you turn the VC off and just a bit slower with it on due to the VC winding up. I think the VC is worth it - but if you wanted to save some money, the non-vc is not a slouch either.

Those three lenses are way more than enough to start. If you are starting out, and especially if you are not sure of your focus and what lenses you will use the most of I would not suggest dumping money into the highest end glass yet. For instance if you get into macro photography, you are going to wish you had the money for a 105mm and a 60mm.

I spend my money on the lenses that I use most, and go cheaper on the others. I use the 70-200 range a lot so I have that, 50mm 1.4 so I have that over the 1.8 and the 105mm VR tons as well. So there is my main $$$ I spent. I don't use the 24-80 zoom range much so I have an old used Tokina that performs great but not technically as good as the Nikkor. Wide angle is not my forte yet, so I just have an old Tokina 17mm and a sigma 15mm fisheye that fits the bill for what I need now.

I probably will pick up the 24-120mm VR F4 in the next year since that is a great utility lens with VR and I prefer the overlap of the 70-120mm as most of my shots fall in that range. I rented that lens as well and fell in love with it and didn't find the build quality or the F4 to be limiting at all.

As others have stated, you really do need to consider how big those lenses are. If I'm not shooting for a job, I take usually 2 or 3 lenses out of these; 17mm, 50mm, 85mm, 60mm, 105mm or a 70-300vr. I love the 70-200vr but it is too big to just walk around with for no specific reason. The 70-300vr covers it, weighs probably 1/3, is half the size and is probably one of my most used lenses outside of work.

In the mid to wide range I would take a look at these. Less money, VR and optically great. I take VR over 2.8 almost any day. You do not need 2.8 glass to get great shots. Most pros choose them in a big part because of the build quality since they will get banged around - or at least I do.

24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR
24-120mm f/4G ED VR
16-35mm f/4G ED VR

Just to add my 2c worth ... I have a couple of old manual AI lenses from the late 1970's and they work (one has a slight color cast probably due to age, which can be corrected in software) perfectly on my D7000. So my message is buy the better glass as early as you can and when/if (as not everyone will) you DO upgrade to an FX body you are all set to go.

I am also going to put a real spanner in the works ... On Monday, I did a shoot using a D4 and a 14-24mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 lenses.

This was the first time I was out "in the wild" so to speak doing a shoot with this gear. I have used a D3 and the D4 in a studio setting before, but never on my own with two subjects at a location. The only 'extra' item of gear was an SB-800 in a softbox on a stand.

The only problem for me is now I am spoiled. Never again will I be as satisfied with my own lowly, humble D7k as I was just last week. ;-)

Get FX glass ... in the long run you won't regret it.

lol. like wataru says, thats not really a 'starter' solution. if you can get that you don't really need much afterwards.

n0msky said:
...

Do you think a 24-70mm 2.8, a 70-200mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8G will be enough for starter? I think I will go for 14-24mm 2.8 after I get those three lenses.

For a starter? That is a pretty advanced lens selection. You will be very happy indeed and have some fine lenses. I'd get the used 70-200: it sounds like a good deal if the warranty is transferrable, but even not, it should be great.

@SkintBrit and Eric: thanks for the advice on the CLS. Surely I will learn it before purchasing a flash.

@ golf007sd: $1300? Wow, what a bargain! Unfortunately, I think I could not do the purchase since I am in Tokyo. Here, a used 24-70 2.8 lens in a mint condition is around 120,000 - 135,000 yen (US$1500-1700).

@TaoTeJared: thanks for sharing with us. Do you think the 17-50 non-VC would be a better choice, since there are many reviews that confirm it?

@Wonkylens: thanks for the advice. I think I would take the second path which is collecting FX lenses first before purchasing an FX camera. I think this way will help me progress and get me used to the gear and its weight etc. I think a D600 is not my option at the moment since its price is still around 200,000 yen (US2,500).

Anyway, I just found a used 70-200mm 2.8 VRI for 100,000 yen (US$1250). It is in a very good condition (mint no scratches), just came out from the Nikon Service Center for an autofocus problem reparation (the owner said that the reparation cost was US$350). It also has a 6-month warranty from Nikon for the reparation. Should I go for it? Will a lens be and perform like a new one once it got repaired, cleaned and callibrated etc by Nikon? Please kindly give me any idea on this matter.

Do you think a 24-70mm 2.8, a 70-200mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8G will be enough for starter? I think I will go for 14-24mm 2.8 after I get those three lenses.

One thing to consider when looking at pro level FX glass like the 24-70 and 70-200 is that they are not small and they weigh fair bit. I would sugest you visit a well sorted camera store and feel the lens out so you know what you are getting into. Excellent glass thou.

When it comes to moving to FX doing it at once can be costly. If you want to straigt up switch your gear today the D600 and a 50 mm as someone suggested is probarbly an excellent suggestion or get the kit with the 24-85. Other way is to keep FX in mind when you shop for glass (new or used) and step by step add to your lens collection until you feel its motivated to get a FX body. Good glass will last you much longer than a camera body probarbly will.

n0msky said:
ToaTeJared, what is your experience with the Tamron 17-50 VC? Would you mind to share it with us?

I rented one for a week for a gig to see how I liked it and actually I thought it was a solid performer. If you want the fastest, sharpest, bla bla bla, you will have to spend $1,200 for Nikon's 17-55 f2.8, but for $500-600 it is a good little lens. Sharpness etc. is very good. Distortion is noticeable till 19mm and so is a bit of vignetting. The AF is quick with the VC off. With the VC on, you have to wait for it to "kick in" (about 1-2 seconds depending on situation- < 1 second with the shutter button held half way) which isn't bad unless you are trying to shoot moving objects. If you are shooting static objects I think it is a great choice. If the subject is moving, I think the 16-85mm VR or even the 18-105 is actually better with the VR.

DX has a real issue with the 16-100mm range with 1 great option and numerous ok, and iffy lenses where the trade-offs are quite large in comparison to other focal ranges. I have always struggled with it, and in the end, never found an good option outside of the the Nikkor 17-55, which I never bought. I ended up using a Tokina 12-24mm and then a 28-70 f2.8 lens (or nothing) which wasn't an ideal gap fill, but at least on the wide range the Tokina never let me down. At a 18-35mm equiv, it is a great option for the full range of wide angle shooting. If you want a wide lens that is what I would suggest if you don't shoot much in the 35-75mm range - which I rarely do except for primes only. That also leaves a great spot to add a good FX lens that will carry over when you do upgrade. For a long time I paired the 12-24 with the 24-120vr (ver I) and the 70-300VR. 3 good lenses that covered everything from 18mm-450mm in one bag.

Eric said:
If you are really planning on doing a lot with flash read up on Nikons CLS (Creative Lighting System) before buying. I highly recommend the Nikon flash units to go with your Nikon body. There is a lot of good use FX glass on the market and some of the older professional lenses can be a bargain. Try giving some of the older glass a careful look and you might be surprised.

+1

With respect to FF glass, I just found a 24-70 2.8 on craigslist which is only 3 months old for $1300. Hence, when you are ready the deals will be out there.

If you are really planning on doing a lot with flash read up on Nikons CLS (Creative Lighting System) before buying. I highly recommend the Nikon flash units to go with your Nikon body. There is a lot of good use FX glass on the market and some of the older professional lenses can be a bargain. Try giving some of the older glass a careful look and you might be surprised.

golf007sd said:
As to your last question, the 24-70 2.8 is the one you should get....period!

Plus 1. That's the lens I would recommend if you could only buy 1 pro FF. If that 1 lens is beyond your budget right now, I'd go for a D600 with a 50 1.4/1.8, and save up.

regarding third party flashes, as far as I'm aware, all work perfectly well "on camera", the only time differences tend to show is when you want to use CLS (Nikons wireless Creative Lighting System). If you intend to use this regularly, a Nikon flash might be the best option.