Wider lense suggestions « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

[closed]

Wider lense suggestions

(6 posts) (6 voices)

Started 2 years ago by Photofan
Latest reply from NikoDoby
Related Topics:
1. Which WINDOWS Laptop For Photography
2. The best DSLR for Peace Corps

Tags:

No tags yet.

Photofan

member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 10
offline

Hello all, I recently upgraded from film to a D90 and I could use a wider lense now. I have the 28-80mm 3.5-5.6d lense that came with my N80 and a 80-200 2.8 D lense selection now. I really miss being able to go at least as wide as the 28mm did on film. I know there are many choices in lenses and don't mind overlapping or even giving up the 28-80, and it's weight,for a quality lense that will take me into a future FX sensored body. 4+ years down the road. I have a couple questions for the knowlegable here:

1: Do I go with a DX lense for now and sell it 4 or more years down the road? If so, what suggestion do you have?

2: Do I bite the bullet For a what will probably be a more expensive lense that will work on a FX body down the road even though there may be a replacement "equivelent" lense those 4+ years out? Suggestions on lenses?

I'll like to use this lense for a variety of things. I'm not afraid to go with a non Nikon brand lense, nor am I afraid of a $1k+ lense selection. I just like to feel that I'm making the proper puchase now, and this is a great forum to get some education toward a final decision.

Thank You.

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

I love my Tamron 17-50 2.8. DX won't die even if you leave it, and you can sell it if you go FX. It's a bargain.

Posted 2 years ago #
noxin

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 246
offline

I started with a film camera so my first few lenses were FX. When I got the D70 I stuck with the FX lenses. Now I have an FX camera and don't have to sell anything. If you can afford to get a good FX lens now and feel you are definately going FX in a few years, I would avoid the lost money from selling and buying your equipment. If your not 100% sure your going to upgrade, or don't want to spend the money on expensive lenses you won't lose much so I would say save your money for now and go with DX.

Posted 2 years ago #
Niz

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 139
offline

I would stay with FX lenses if you can. That way they work with your film camera and will move up with you when you get a FX camera. Don't worry to much about a better lens coming out in a couple of years, the one you buy will last for a long time if you put the money into a good lens. The 17-35mm 2.8 is great, but not so wide on a DX camera, its about a 26-52mm on DX. I learned the hard why about not putting money into DX's lenses and now only have one lens to put on my F5 and only about half saved up for the 17-35mm. It is worth putting the money in the lenses to have to carry over with you to FX instead of having lenses that wont work for you in the future and wont be worth much to resell. If the kit lens doesn't work for you then I would get something that will that is a FX lens.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

I have a D90 and a D70, both DX, with no real plans of buying an FX-frame camera anytime soon. I've been thinking real hard about a DX ultra-wide zoom, specifically, the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Niko, Ken Rockwell, and others, seem to think it's a pretty decent lens, and it's only $599. If Nikon made it, it would be like $1,799. The alternative Nikkor DX ultra-wide zoom is fairly slow. Although I've only had Nikkors, and never owned any off-brand lenses, I may jump on that Tokina.

Not sure I'll convert to all FX bodies, since the 1.5x crop factor sure makes buying long lenses more affordable. I would say that the Tokina DX lens is affordable enough to enjoy the heck out of for a few years, regardless. Stupid me, I didn't even realize that much of the barrel distortion of super-wides are correctable in Photoshop.

Oh, one more thing . . . ultra-wide FX lenses are huge and heavy. My Nikkor 14mm is a monster, and I hate using it. Similarly, a fast, ultra-wide, FX zoom is quite a chunk of glass. Previously, I didn't even consider DX lenses (for whatever reason, mostly ignorance), and, as a result, resigned myself to using not-too-wide, fixed-focal length short lenses (a 14mm f/2.8, an 18mm f/2.8 and a 20mm f/2.8), which weren't all that wide by today's standards. But now, I see DX ultra-wide zooms in a whole new light. They're lighter and more compact than their FX counterparts. And that's a point worthy of serious consideration.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Please search the forum. This topic has been covered numerous times already

"What's the Best landscape or UWA lens for d90?"
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=604

"Nikon AF-S DX 12-24mm or Nikon AF-S 10-24mm?"
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=365

"torn between Tokina 11-16 or Nikkor 12-24" lots of samples in this thread to look over
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1416

"Ultra Wide for use on D40 and D90"
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1735

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

Wider lense suggestions

Topic Closed