Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New to FX glass, thoughts?

28Fiend said:
What do you think of the 14-24? I've only ever read about them.
Click to expand...

It's an excellent lens. However it's use is not "to get everything in the frame."

I love it, but unfortunately I don't think it's for everybody. A better choice in my opinion would be the 17-35mm f/2.8

Recently I picked up 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6; it's got a bit of distortion, but overall it's a great carry around lens; it is however big, but uses the standard 77mm filter size. Range is excellent and 28mm offers a pretty good view.

My current favorite prime is the 35mm f/1.4—superb. Fast; the main reason I picked it over the 24mm is it's a good balance where it's not too wide like the 24 and not too close like the 50. I sold my 50mm… not sure why, my next prime would be 85mm f/1.4

For a zoom, I have the 70-200mm f/2.8; with a 1.7x teleconverter, offers great zoom while still fast enough for AF to work correctly.
 
28Fiend said:
True, but a dx lens from my understanding is nothing more than 5mp when used on a full frame body.
Click to expand...
No, not quite: Nikon's FX bodies will recognize DX lenses (not sure how reliably that works with third-party lenses) and automatically switch to DX mode. But you can override that manually. Since DX lenses are not made for such a large sensor, the corners may be blacked out (especially with UW lenses) or very degraded in terms of image quality.

Just by overriding the automatic switch to DX mode, you can take pictures at full resolution, but YMMV depending on the lens.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

OreoCookie said:
28Fiend said:
True, but a dx lens from my understanding is nothing more than 5mp when used on a full frame body.
Click to expand...
No, not quite: Nikon's FX bodies will recognize DX lenses (not sure how reliably that works with third-party lenses) and automatically switch to DX mode. But you can override that manually. Since DX lenses are not made for such a large sensor, the corners may be blacked out (especially with UW lenses) or very degraded in terms of image quality.

Just by overriding the automatic switch to DX mode, you can take pictures at full resolution, but YMMV depending on the lens.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I did not know that, I mean in the since that you still get full resolution. I knew the cameras ability to switch to dx. Though I still would like all my glass to be fx.
 
Hi,

I would be happy with a 24-70 mm, f/2.8 in a full frame or DX camera. Popular are for many people the Zeiss ZF.2 prime lenses for Nikon.
You may find them interesting. They are only manual focus lenses, but
great glass though.

Kind regards,

igmolinav : ) !!!
 
28Fiend said:
Great point, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Personally I love primes in the since that it forces me to really think when I'm out shooting, allows me to get into the thick of things so to say. But where I'm at a cross roads is I want to shoot more landscapes, when I'm out an about I've noticed a prime isn't always ideal.
Click to expand...

If you browse through your library of images, what focal length(s) are most of your pictures taken at?

What is it about primes that makes you think more? Seems like you just lack shot discipline.

If you're interested in landscapes, I think the 24mm PC-E is a good suggestion.
 
Ruahrc said:
If you browse through your library of images, what focal length(s) are most of your pictures taken at?

What is it about primes that makes you think more? Seems like you just lack shot discipline.

If you're interested in landscapes, I think the 24mm PC-E is a good suggestion.
Click to expand...

What I meant was when I'm shooting with primes I can't just zoom in and take the picture, I physically need to move around to get an angle or up close. I've noticed quite a few of my pictures are shot either wide or mid range.
 
28Fiend said:
What I meant was when I'm shooting with primes I can't just zoom in and take the picture, I physically need to move around to get an angle or up close. I've noticed quite a few of my pictures are shot either wide or mid range.
Click to expand...

That's the rub huh? You either shoot with zooms and lose a bit or shoot with primes and have to walk up to your target. Let me know how that works out when walking put to a black bear or trying to shoot a tiger cub with mommy nearby and all you have is 85mm prime. :)
 
Lens for D700

Have you considered the 24-120 f/4? It's a great lens, with a constant aperture, superior IQ, and a very practical range. I also have an 85mm for portraits and plan to get a 50mm for when I want to go light.

Love my 24-120.
 
Thanks for all the insight! I've decided to go down and just rent a couple lenses and just go shoot. See where the lenses fall inline with my needs. Again thanks the for insight, time to go play.
 
I have the Nikon D700 with the Nikon trinity (14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm VR II) and the 24-70mm gets the most use followed by the 70-200mm and then the 14-24mm. All three lenses are fantastic although heavy to carry around. I have the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 as well, but I only use it in really low light situations. The quality is good, but I find it to be slow to auto-focus.

Three primes are fine if you don't mind changing or carrying around lenses. I personally prefer to just grab the D700 with the 24-70mm for street photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back