DX-FX… What's a good "interim" lens?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

DX-FX… What's a good "interim" lens?

(19 posts) (15 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

edstate

new member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 4
offline

I have a D60 now, and am patiently (stupidly?) waiting for the D700 update.

Thing is, I don't really like the kit lens that came w/ it (18-55). I have a handful of old Nikkor lenses (from my F2) that I use sometimes (but they're cropped, obviously)… so… I was thinking about buying a new lens.

But I don't want to get a DX lens.

Does it make ANY sense to get one or 2 FX lenses now, knowing that I'll 98% be getting an FX camera next year at some point? I'm aware that I won't get the "full" lens, but again, buying a DX really doesn't appeal to me. At all.

I was looking at the new 24-120 (knowing I'll be getting essentially 30-150 ish).

Any ideas? Good therapists?

:)

Posted 2 years ago #
edstate

new member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 4
offline

Actually… the 18-200 might be a better choice?

Posted 2 years ago #
Rummer

member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 28
offline

If you are sure that you're going to ditch the DX for a FX next year, perhaps the 28-300mm VR? While it doesn't quite give you the wide end on a DX, it may be a good investment if you are going to FX and looking for a decent zoom lens that doesn't need a very fast aperture. (You could just keep the 18-55mm for the wide end while you have the D60).

The other option would be to get a prime lens, such as a 50mm f/1.4G, which would autofocus on the D60 and be a decent normal lens on FX. When I had the D60, the 35mm f/1.8 was my favorite lens on it (and still is on my D7000), but obviously this isn't a FX lens...

Posted 2 years ago #
smarterchild

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 678
offline

24-70 2.8 :)

Posted 2 years ago #
edstate

new member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 4
offline

Hmmm. The 28-300 is interesting! …assuming I could end up w/ an FX "two-lens travel set up" is there a good wide compliment to that? Say… 12-28?

I think I just made that up!

I have a couple of great older lenses that could serve as "prime" for now, even cropped. I don't shoot sports, etc, so i could go w/out autofocus for a few more months.

PS, although "usable", I tend to think of my DX 18-55 as going from "nothing to nothing": not really wide enough in most situations, and not zoomy enough to be a decent portrait. Although I've taken some darn good pics with it (in other words, I've gotten used to it). But could definitely hold me over on the "wides" until the awesome new D700x with 4k video and holographic projection capabilities comes out in the spring ! :P

Posted 2 years ago #
The Man From Mandrem

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 151
offline

I would second the 24-70/2.8 ED AFS which gives a range like 36-105 due to crop on DX, which is absurdly useful for portraits and street photography.
Another good choice for 1 lense is Nikkor Ultra-Wide Angle lenses, but I think the ability to do portrait and a mildly wide angle (36mm) will do enough for people.

I think the resale on some of the better DX lenses is good enough that if you really need to add Ultra-Wide Angle, you couldn't go wrong buying a UWA like Tokina 11-16 or Nikon 10-24 and sell it later (especially if you can find it used at a good price from respectable seller).

Posted 2 years ago #
avro

member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 41
offline

28-300 is not bad as an all purpose lens.

But the 24-70mm F/2.8G is sooooo NICE! I have one of those, it is the sharpest lens I've got.

It has the Nano Crystal Coat to minimise ghosting and flare, that works quite well.

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

the 35 1.4g.

if you are serious about changing to fx, you better get serios about spending money on glass.

35mm is 52.5mm on dx, which makes it a standard lense, but sharp all over at 1.4. when you get a fx, it will be 35mm sharp all over at 1.4.

i find my 50 1.4g too long on dx and not really sharp until f/2 (1.8 is OK).

i use my 50 1.4 more than my 70-200 and my 300 2.8.

if 35mm is not wide enough, the 24 1.4 would be good too. assuming it auto focuses.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

Gareth is right get ready for the Big $$$. For what I do I actually like the crop sensor. FX is great, but for me, my 70-200mm turns into a 105-300 f2.8. Try finding another 300 2.8 for under $4k! Same goes with all of the rest of my FX glass.

That being said, I have found the 24-120mm (36-180 on DX) to be a good useful range for DX and capturing people. If you don't have any newer primes, the 50mm G and 35mm 1.8 G are great as well and not real expensive. If you like the wide angle you are kind of stuck at DX for that - 16-85mm or the 18-200 for the all in one. 12-24 Tokina Ver II will work with your camera and is a great wide lens for not that much. Built like a tank.

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

Your original idea of the new 24-120 VR is a good choice. However it really depends on what you like best in terms of subjects... If you like tele and birds maybe go for the 70-300 vr instead. If you like candid and portraits that 24-70 is great. (I use the old 35-70 F2.8 for that (on dx and FF(35mm film)) ) if you like wide get the 14-24.. For a general all round lens the 28-300vr or the new 24-120vr looks nice. If you love portraits get the 85mm 1.4

Posted 2 years ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

I have the 24-120 on a D700, it’s fabulous, and my most used lens. I normally use wide open at f4
The 28-300mm is only f 5.6 for most of its range. 28mm, is not wide enough for me.The 28-300mm also has quite a lot of plastic in its construction
There is some distortion and falloff (Darkened Corners) in the 24-120, both easily corrected in LR3
Regarding the D60, is 24 mm wide enough? Why not buy a second hand 18- 200 and sell it when and if the D700 replacement comes out
Apart from a lack of video the D700 has few, if any faults (if you want video buy a D3s or a D7000)
PS 300mm is not powerful enough for bird photography on FX format you need at least 400mm probably with a x2 converter

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Thing is about the 24-120 is that the 24-70 is about $500 more. I dunno if you're interested in big fast glass though.

Posted 2 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

I would say if you're looking for a good starter zoom, would recommeng 28-300 vrii;
the 24-70 is great if you shoot professionally, but too large to casually travel with...
The 28-300 has come down quite a bit in price, saw it for$ 979 the other day....amazing!

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

Since I can't imagine being stuck with the equivalent of 36mm and up, I couldn't recommend any of the 24-XXX zooms to you.

The idea of a pro-zoom on a D60 also makes me giggle. Not because the D60 is a bad camera, but the lopsidedness of such a partnership seems silly.

Let's take a step back and ask "what don't you like about the 18-55"?

EDIT: _I_ would be happy if the 16-35 was my only lens* on FX and at least it is bearably wide on DX.
*Except for the 85 1.4

Posted 2 years ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

I tried my 80-200mm on a friends D40, that was pretty fun. It is like putting a 400mm f2.8 on a D300s, off balance!

Posted 2 years ago #
lewinp

member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 21
offline

I am in the exact same boat as you Edstate, have been waiting a year now for a D700 update and slowly moving my lens collection to FX, which - as the others point out - is very expensive.

I do a lot of landscapes so I went for the 16-35mm, which works great on my D200 as a 24-50mm, but will really shine with FX. Its tack sharp and the auto focus is very fast. On the long end I did go for a very expensive piece of glass, the 70-200mm VR II, but its been worth every penny.

For a midrange lens I was looking at the new 24-120mm VR, the reviews for this look pretty good after the first version of this lens, which was supposedly one of Nikon's worst performing lenses ever. I think the 24-120mm would cover most basic travel needs. The other option if you occasionally need a longer lens would be to get a Nikon teleconverter, at about $500 its a lot lighter in the camera bag and wallet!

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

lewinp

you have a 16-35 and a 70-200. i am relly with ken rockwell on this, you don't need a zoom to cover in between, you need a 50mm prime.

the tc-20eiii is sharp on the 70-200 vrII (i have both) from f/8.

Posted 2 years ago #
edstate

new member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 4
offline

Wow!

…I went OOT for a few days, and didn't expect so many good replies!

Thanks for all the info, and it looks like I have some reading and thinking to do over the next few days :)

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

I would get the 28-300 as a walk around lens, as for the wide end, maybe N14-24 :), wide enough on the wide end and perfect on FX

Posted 2 years ago #