Advice for lenses on a Nikon D7000...

You don't want to use a DX lens on a FX body unless it's in crop mode. DX lenses are designed for the smaller sensor so when used with a full frame sensor, you'll get vignetting.
 
rymack said:
So why then would there be a disadvantage for me to buy an FX lens for a DX body if it will still give me the same angle of view as the DX on DX equivalent?? lol I've just confused myself I think....
Click to expand...

The disadvantage would be cost since FX lenses are more expensive. They are also heavier. And if you shoot wide, the widest FX lens is 14mm which makes is about 21mm on DX.
 
I just went through my photo library very quickly and saw that the majority of my shots were taken between 20-55 at the widest, and then usually in the 140-200 range. It seems the majority of my shots in the 18mm range were taken when the only lens I owned was the 18-55 kit. I think I might be leaning towards the 24-70 f/2.8 at this point as opposed to the 16-35....
 
Vudoo said:
3rd party lenses are fine if they can do equal or better than the Nikkor. In my experience, I have only come across two lenses that fitted the criteria. The Tokina 12-24mm f/4 for almost half the price of the Nikon version and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 prime which is better than the Nikon version in my opinion.

I shot a wedding two weeks ago and the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm were the ones that I used the most.
Click to expand...


Like I said some people do fine with them. I actually shot with a Sigma 70-200. IMO for what I shoot it was too slow focus for me. I tried a Tamron 24-70mm ??? and it had too much purple fringe for my liking. Some people I know like the 3rd party lens in that range. Me, it just didn't work for me.

I like the 24-70 Nikkor as a kit lens. Very sharp. Nice zoom. Good solid investment considering the 28-70mm Nikkor used price has gone up about $400 in the last 2-3yrs.
 
Vudoo said:
The disadvantage would be cost since FX lenses are more expensive. They are also heavier. And if you shoot wide, the widest FX lens is 14mm which makes is about 21mm on DX.
Click to expand...

For non-fisheye, the widest FX lens is 12mm, while for DX it is 8.
 
Just keep in mind that the 12-24mm sigma lens for full frame or the 8-16mm lens for crop cameras are about as special purpose lenses as a fisheye is. 12mm on FX is a MASSIVELY wide lens, with a near-fisheye 122 degree FOV at the widest setting. A lot of compositions simply don't work with this kind of width.
 
Ruahrc said:
Just keep in mind that the 12-24mm sigma lens for full frame or the 8-16mm lens for crop cameras are about as special purpose lenses as a fisheye is. 12mm on FX is a MASSIVELY wide lens, with a near-fisheye 122 degree FOV at the widest setting. A lot of compositions simply don't work with this kind of width.
Click to expand...

You have range up to 24 equiv. No problem, you have the freedom.
 
cube said:
You have range up to 24 equiv. No problem, you have the freedom.
Click to expand...
Even 24 mm on full frame is very wide, somewhere between a long UW lens and a wide wide-angle. My 12-24 mm on DX tempts me way too often to use extreme settings and it's definitely a lens for special purposes.

Considering the OP's situation, I think he'd be much better off with a good bread & butter zoom (e. g. a used 17-55 mm Nikkor) rather than going for an UW lens. ~28 mm on full frame is plenty wide.
 
cube said:
You have range up to 24 equiv. No problem, you have the freedom.
Click to expand...

At the cost of speed and/or quality. I believe the Sigma 12-24 is 4.5-5.6: making it a full 2 stops slower than the Nikon 14-24 at the long end. If you need the ultra, ultra, ultra wide angle that 12mm FX gives, then it's here- but for most people, going down to say 14mm is "wide enough" (even 14mm on FX is pretty darn wide), and can be done at f2.8 with legendary optical quality (as per the Nikon 14-24). I'm sure the Sigma does fine (beats any other lens out there at 12mm) but it isn't on the same level optically as the 14-24.
 
rymack said:
So why then would there be a disadvantage for me to buy an FX lens for a DX body if it will still give me the same angle of view as the DX on DX equivalent?? lol I've just confused myself I think....
Click to expand...

There isn't a disadvantage. DX cameras can use both DX and FX lenses. Technically FX cameras can also use both DX and FX, but with DX there is noticeable vignetting at the edges (i.e. past where the crop would occur). FX cameras also have a crop mode so you can use a DX lens and get the same general result as using a DX camera. However, might as well shoot full-frame and crop in Aperture/Lightroom/Photoshop/etc.
 
rymack said:
So why then would there be a disadvantage for me to buy an FX lens for a DX body if it will still give me the same angle of view as the DX on DX equivalent?? lol I've just confused myself I think....
Click to expand...
That's because the focal lengths FX zooms in particular are designed with full frame bodies in mind, but photographers really work with viewing angles when they compose an image. Giving the focal length has just become the customary way to label certain angles of view. This means a 24 mm lens on a DX body (whose crop factor is 1.5) will have the same viewing angle as a 36 mm lens on a full frame body, i. e. it's a moderate wide-angle lens.

Over the course of history it turned out that there are some classical zoom ranges, the most-popular ones being 28~70 mm and 70-200 mm on full frame. That's why most kit lenses cover 18-55 mm: they have the same viewing angle as a 28-80 mm lens on full frame.

If you buy a lens, you have to make up your mind as to what viewing angles you want: whether you want a wide-angle or a tele lens, a prime or a zoom, etc. If you want a standard zoom that covers most situations and you own a crop body, a 24-70 mm will give you the wrong viewing angles. In particular, you will lack headroom in the wide-angle department. E. g. I own a 80-200 mm Nikkor. This corresponds to 120-300 mm on my D7000 in terms of viewing angles and 120 mm is quite long if you take shots indoors.

Photographers should care about focal length first when choosing lenses, the rest comes naturally.
SatyMahajan said:
There isn't a disadvantage.
Click to expand...
Of course there are disadvantages when using FX lenses on DX bodies. Most notably, it's an issue of whether the focal lengths offered actually suit your needs on a DX body.
 
Well, I know I'm getting the D7000 and the 70-300 VR for sure. I also have it narrowed down to the 16-35 f/4 VR and a 50mm prime, or the 24-70 f/2.8 and adding a third party wide angle lens at a later date when funds have replenished.

Thanks again for all the input. I'm learning a lot from reading everyone's posts and discussions back and forth. I appreciate it!
 
The 70-300 lens on crop would be like a 105-450 on full frame.

Unless you are more interested in the very long end, the appropriate replacement for a full frame 70-200 f2.8 would be the crop Sigma 50-150 or maybe the crop Tokina 50-135.

There's a new Sigma 50-150 f2.8 DC with OS that has been announced some months ago, but it's still not available.
 
cube said:
The 70-300 lens on crop would be like a 105-450 on full frame.

Unless you are more interested in the very long end, the appropriate replacement for a full frame 70-200 f2.8 would be the crop Sigma 50-150 or maybe the crop Tokina 50-135.

There's a new Sigma 50-150 f2.8 DC with OS that has been announced some months ago, but it's still not available.
Click to expand...

I'm definitely more interested in a longer reach for this lens, for playing around with some mild wild-life telephoto shots. Nothing that would justify spending more for a 2.8 70-200, but I would like something nicer than the 55-200 VR I had before...
 
rymack said:
I also have it narrowed down to the 16-35 f/4 VR and a 50mm prime, or the 24-70 f/2.8 and adding a third party wide angle lens at a later date when funds have replenished.
Click to expand...

Unless you really need two additional stops of light, the 24-70 will be much more useful overall than a 50mm.

Paul
 
rymack said:
I'm definitely more interested in a longer reach for this lens, for playing around with some mild wild-life telephoto shots. Nothing that would justify spending more for a 2.8 70-200, but I would like something nicer than the 55-200 VR I had before...
Click to expand...

70-200 is not appropriate for crop. I said the equivalent 50-150 DX.
 
cube said:
70-200 is not appropriate for crop. I said the equivalent 50-150 DX.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. It is great glass and as long as you are prepared for what you have on the short end it is a great lens for any and all outdoor uses.
 
I have older DX cameras (D2H and D300) and the 16-85 and the 24-70 amongst others. The former lens is great as a holiday lens, but the 24-70 shines in image quality. The 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 VR (first version) and 300 f4 AF-S are my favourite lenses. Although I have a 12-24 f4 I hardly ever use it, as in the mountains it is too flattening.

I hope this is helpful. I am happy with what these lenses do on a FX body after 8 years and I still hope Nikon with produce a D3 style DX camera, but I doubt it and am thinking that I will need to change to FX in the future as both cameras get a pretty tough time.
 
H2Ockey said:
Sure it is. It is great glass and as long as you are prepared for what you have on the short end it is a great lens for any and all outdoor uses.
Click to expand...

I would be similar to buying a 120-300 f2.8 for FX.

But if you get the 50-150 2.8 DC matching a 16-50 DX or 17-55 DX, you can then just get precisely that 120-300 FX for a massive 180-400mm f2.8 equiv.
 
cube said:
I would be similar to buying a 120-300 f2.8 for FX.

But if you get the 50-150 2.8 DC matching a 16-50 DX or 17-55 DX, you can then just get precisely that 120-300 FX for a massive 180-400mm f2.8 equiv.
Click to expand...

You confuse me and absolutely overcomplicate the whole process of choosing a lens going way overboard on crop vs full frame equivilants and conversions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top