DX, FX, Lenses and Dilemma

[Ajith]

I was wondering if someone could advise to get over with my dilemma. Lately, I decided to do some clear out and replenishment of my lens collection (not a huge one anyway). I do not earn a living from this hobby as many of you here, just an enthusiast for now, but at some point I do plan to take up a part-time assistant job to get some pocket money to recoup the investment.

Mine is a very small collection, so I want to make sure that I keep only what I need and that too something which will be useful for my future plans. I am desperately looking for some advice to help me make a decision.

The latest addition to the collection is a used Nikon 27-70mm f/2.8, which I was planning to buy at some point, but the decision came sooner than expected. ;-) and it is arriving tomorrow.

But it looks like I may need to trade a couple of my other lenses to justify the cost, the dilemma is that I can’t decide what to keep and what to sell off. Greatly appreciate any help with this confusion.

I currently shoot with a D90 which I’ve been using for some years and I must say that I am generally happy with the quality of shots. It initially had the Kit lens (18-105mm), then I added the 50mm f1.8 D, a Nikkor 10-24mm ultra-wide angle and a Sigma 28mm Macro after the first year.

Then a year later traded 18-105 with an 18-200 VR, sold Nikkor 10-24mm (which was sold almost unused) and bought an 85mm f/1.8 AF-D, exchanged the Sigma 28mm with Nikkor 105mm Nano Micro VR (was an expensive exchange).

Now with the arrival of 24-70mm, I am planning to sell my 18-200mm VR, although it is only half of the price. As most of the aspiring enthusiasts, I do plan to move up the ladder to FX one day, hence only focussing on FX glasses for future investments. No plans to get rid of the 50mm 1.8, however I am totally confused whether to sell 85mm 1.8 or 105mm Nano VR or sell them both. An FX body may eventually replace the D90 (unless the mirror lens cameras drop in price significantly), but that would be next year provided that I will still have a job and a bonus then ;-)

Many thanks in advance.

 

[wyx087]

depends what you want to photograph really. 105 macro for macro, 85mm for portraits.

i recently stepped up to full frame, because all my lenses are Nikon DX, and i can't afford a D800, also that i've wanted a 5D2 since its release in 2008, then even more as i see film studios use it. i decided to sell it all and go Canon. it was a lot of hassle, so your way of doing it gradually makes more sense and less pain.

as said, what is your main point of interest? the lens collection should match your point of interest. eg, i'm interested in landscapes more than anything else, so currently looking to procure a 17-40mm.

 

[gad-westy]

Both the 85mm and 105mm will work beautifully on an FX camera. If you do a lot of macro stuff I think it's a no brainer, keep the 105. If you don't use that for macro, then my preference would be to keep the 85mm which i just love on FX.

 

[Ajith]

depends what you want to photograph really. 105 macro for macro, 85mm for portraits.

i recently stepped up to full frame, because all my lenses are Nikon DX, and i can't afford a D800, also that i've wanted a 5D2 since its release in 2008, then even more as i see film studios use it. i decided to sell it all and go Canon. it was a lot of hassle, so your way of doing it gradually makes more sense and less pain.

as said, what is your main point of interest? the lens collection should match your point of interest. eg, i'm interested in landscapes more than anything else, so currently looking to procure a 17-40mm.

Thanks wuyanxu, that is precisely my dilemma. I enjoy shooting landscapes, portraits and albeit infrequent Macro as well. Always wanted to have a good all-rounder lens (thought 24-70mm ticked all the boxes) to carry around. The 18-200 VR was fine for general purpose, but never impressed me when it came to the wow factor.
I know 24-70mm is heavy and on DX it will be 36-105mm, read a number of reviews and watched a lot of videos and at the end decided to go for it. But not too sure if I will be using the 85mm or the 105mm to really warrant the Cost of Ownership.

Both the 85mm and 105mm will work beautifully on an FX camera. If you do a lot of macro stuff I think it's a no brainer, keep the 105. If you don't use that for macro, then my preference would be to keep the 85mm which i just love on FX.

Thanks gad-westy. I actually love my copy of the 85mm 1.8 D (~125mm on my DX) and it's Bokeh rendition, the glass is bright and wide open, fantastic really. I do enjoy Macro, but don't always carry that around in the bag and I use it only for those special moments.

If I am being honest, I do want to keep them all, but the other half of my brain shouts, "They don't generate any revenue, they are depreciating assets for an enthusiast. So if you don't use it, sell it".
Wish I had the money to justify all

 

[wyx087]

in that case, i would sell the 85mm and keep the macro as with its ability to do macro, it does more than the 85mm. so if it's one lens to keep i'd keep the 105.

landscapes, portraits and macro.
so if i'm in this position, i'd get the following:
-24-70mm or 24-120mm for walk about
-a 50mm for low light
-16-35 for land scape
-105mm macro for portraits and macro

24-70mm would be a great walkabout lens on full frame. i use a 24-105mm myself. the 18-200mm VR is just brilliant, i had one with my D3100, it is the one lens to rule them all

 

[gad-westy]

Thanks gad-westy. I actually love my copy of the 85mm 1.8 D (~125mm on my DX) and it's Bokeh rendition, the glass is bright and wide open, fantastic really. I do enjoy Macro, but don't always carry that around in the bag and I use it only for those special moments.

I had this issue when I moved to FX. I needed to free up some cash and had a 180mm Sigma macro lens that got used once in a blue moon. I like macro, I just rarely do it. I ended up flogging the Sigma and a have bought an old Nikon 105mm AiS macro manual focus lens. It's as sharp as anything else I've got and cost me £70. It means I can still take macro shots when I want to without having the financial outlay.

 

[Ajith]

in that case, i would sell the 85mm and keep the macro as with its ability to do macro, it does more than the 85mm. so if it's one lens to keep i'd keep the 105.

landscapes, portraits and macro.
so if i'm in this position, i'd get the following:
-24-70mm or 24-120mm for walk about
-a 50mm for low light
-16-35 for land scape
-105mm macro for portraits and macro

24-70mm would be a great walkabout lens on full frame. i use a 24-105mm myself. the 18-200mm VR is just brilliant, i had one with my D3100, it is the one lens to rule them all

Thanks wuyanxu, would you not suggest 24-70 as a walkabout lens on DX?

I did consider the 24-120mm, wasn't too sure about the f/4 constant aperture, but I guess VR would be the USP. I think I will try 24-70 for some time, if it turns out to be too heavy to carry around and if the other one drops in price, will sell the tank and get the 24-120 instead.

 

[Ajith]

I had this issue when I moved to FX. I needed to free up some cash and had a 180mm Sigma macro lens that got used once in a blue moon. I like macro, I just rarely do it. I ended up flogging the Sigma and a have bought an old Nikon 105mm AiS macro manual focus lens. It's as sharp as anything else I've got and cost me £70. It means I can still take macro shots when I want to without having the financial outlay.

Thanks very much gad-westy, I think that is a sensible idea.
105 VR is great for a professional Macro shooter, but not for a hobbyist like me. The other advantage I thought was it's portrait use, but both 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 will serve the purpose for me.

 

[badboy1984]

i have the Nikon 28-70 f2.8 and i don't use it as walkaround lens on DX body and here are the reason.

1) Nice image quality but focal range is short on the wide end.
2) Too god damn heavy to use for holiday/walkaround where you spend most of your time carrying the damn thing then shooting with it. Altho i use it full time for walk purpose tho.

For walkaround i bought myself a tamron 17-50 f2.8 instead but i did think about either the nikon 18-200 or 16-85 at that time but settle with the tamron at the end because of the f2.8

 

[wyx087]

i personally enjoy shooting wide angle a lot of the times. that's 24-35mm on full frame.

unfortunately that is 16-24mm on crop, which you'll not have if you use the 24-70mm on a DX camera. but you may be different.

why not keep the 18-200mm until you sell your DX body?

 

[j07cmt]

i personally enjoy shooting wide angle a lot of the times. that's 24-35mm on full frame.

unfortunately that is 16-24mm on crop, which you'll not have if you use the 24-70mm on a DX camera. but you may be different.

why not keep the 18-200mm until you sell your DX body?

This, when you sell your DX body, the 18-200mm will make an excellent 'kit' lens for the new owner.

 

[Ajith]

i personally enjoy shooting wide angle a lot of the times. that's 24-35mm on full frame.

unfortunately that is 16-24mm on crop, which you'll not have if you use the 24-70mm on a DX camera. but you may be different.

why not keep the 18-200mm until you sell your DX body?

Mainly to keep the "cashflow" can't afford to keep all at the same time.
Having second thoughts about the 24-70 now, wish I had consulted you guys earlier. But, we live and learn, it is a solid lens and I am sure it will retain the value, so if it isn't good for my style will pass on to someone else who would make the best use of it.

 

[Ajith]

This, when you sell your DX body, the 18-200mm will make an excellent 'kit' lens for the new owner.

Hi j07cmt, agreed it's a fantastic lens.
But often I have observed that when bundled with the camera bodies, even quality lenses do not actually get the value they really deserve. So I would sell them separately anyway. I sold the 18-105mm on it's own and I am sure it wouldn't have fetched the same if I had sold it with the body. Then again, I have only traded a handful of lenses so far.

 

[Ajith]

i have the Nikon 28-70 f2.8 and i don't use it as walkaround lens on DX body and here are the reason.

1) Nice image quality but focal range is short on the wide end.
2) Too god damn heavy to use for holiday/walkaround where you spend most of your time carrying the damn thing then shooting with it. Altho i use it full time for walk purpose tho.

For walkaround i bought myself a tamron 17-50 f2.8 instead but i did think about either the nikon 18-200 or 16-85 at that time but settle with the tamron at the end because of the f2.8

Hi badboy1984, thought about getting the 17-55mm 2.8 initially, but then I will be sticking with DX. I could be wrong, but I didn't think there was an FX equivalent in that focal range (of course except the pricey 14-24mm).

Is Tamron 17-50 DX or FX?

All FX zoom lenses I found, start at 24mm (~36mm on DX), so what would be the Wide angle FX alternative for someone who needs to go FX (other than 14-24)? Thanks

 

[badboy1984]

The Tamron is DX lens. Full Frame lens start with 24-70 and DX lens start with 17-50.

FX wide angle is more like 16-35 etc and DX wide angle is like 10-20 or 11-16 etc.

 

[j07cmt]

Mainly to keep the "cashflow" can't afford to keep all at the same time.
Having second thoughts about the 24-70 now, wish I had consulted you guys earlier. But, we live and learn, it is a solid lens and I am sure it will retain the value, so if it isn't good for my style will pass on to someone else who would make the best use of it.

a 24-70 is on my list of lenses to 'collect', especially the Nikon flavour. If you sell in 6 months time, be sure to notify me of your sales thread!

 

[wyx087]

16-35mm f/4 is standard FX wide angle zoom. unfortunately you are in pro-lens territory, so lenses will be more expensive.

you shouldn't obsess with what lens you have, just go out there and shoot. you'll learn what focal range you use the most after a while, then buy lenses based on that.

the 18-200mm is great to get an idea of what focal length suits you, because of its huge zoom range.



Chris, why would you collect a lens? :shrug:

 

[j07cmt]

You are being to literal... It's just a lens I feel I could use, especially when I buy an FX myself.

 

[wyx087]

oh right, sorry. thought you were building a display cupboard for Nikon.


so yeah, you should now expect to spend around £800 or more per lens because good full frame lenses are bloody expensive. same story for Canon, where for good lenses you are pretty much locked into their L series.

 

[Ajith]

a 24-70 is on my list of lenses to 'collect', especially the Nikon flavour. If you sell in 6 months time, be sure to notify me of your sales thread!

Will certainly j07cmt, you'll be among the first to know.
My D90 is pimped up with a battery grip and already weighs quite a bit.
But I like the extra grip and the battery life, will see how much of a difference the new 1kg tank will make

 

[Ajith]

16-35mm f/4 is standard FX wide angle zoom. unfortunately you are in pro-lens territory, so lenses will be more expensive.

you shouldn't obsess with what lens you have, just go out there and shoot. you'll learn what focal range you use the most after a while, then buy lenses based on that.

the 18-200mm is great to get an idea of what focal length suits you, because of its huge zoom range.

Thanks wuyanxu, in all these months that I used the 18-200, I hardly got the full barrel extended to 200mm. I just don't want to take a shot because I have to especially from a great distance. Good to have all that zoom range and VR, and as you said earlier, wonderful single lens for walkabout, there's no doubt about that.
I am actually obsessed with sharpness and bokeh, so mine is mostly <120mm.

So I think the brilliant 105mm VR Micro is also going to part with me
(Forgot to ask, anyone interested btw?)

Not sure about 85mm. NO, I can't, it's just too good.

 

[j07cmt]

So I think the brilliant 105mm VR Micro is also going to part with me
(Forgot to ask, anyone interested btw?)

Another on my list - it gets great reviews on another forum I use for photography of marine aquariums. My dad is in the aquarium industry.

 

[Ajith]

Another on my list - it gets great reviews on another forum I use for photography of marine aquariums. My dad is in the aquarium industry.

Looks like we need to sit down and talk over a coffee (or tea if you prefer)
What I like about it most is the use on Macro Videos. I just switch to manual and adjust the focus while moving from one object to the other, it's fantastic.

Will wait for the £37m jackpot tomorrow, if I win it's not going anywhere.
I just don't have the financial justification to keep them all.

 

[j07cmt]

I don't drink either! I'm the odd one out in the office!

I think I need 3 lenses when I go full frame, a 24-70, 70-200 and a macro lens.

At this point, I'm never going to specialise, so having a good range in 3 lenses is sensible for me. I have a 35mm f1.8 now, which I do kinda enjoy using so would miss this on FX.

 

[Ajith]

I don't drink either! I'm the odd one out in the office!

I think I need 3 lenses when I go full frame, a 24-70, 70-200 and a macro lens.

At this point, I'm never going to specialise, so having a good range in 3 lenses is sensible for me. I have a 35mm f1.8 now, which I do kinda enjoy using so would miss this on FX.

Any particular reason why you left out the wide angle from the Trinity?

 

[j07cmt]

Cos I couldn't leave out the 70-200mm. I use it for photographing my puppies, I've got some great shots (imo) so far.

 

[Ajith]

Thank you all very much for the helpful suggestions, greatly appreciate it.

j07cmt (my prospective buyer): Will let you know how it goes with the 24-70 and 105mm Micro if you are seriously interested

 

[j07cmt]

Let me know if you put a sale thread up - if I have the cash, I'll be all over them like a fat kid on a cup cake

 

[Ajith]

Let me know if you put a sale thread up - if I have the cash, I'll be all over them like a fat kid on a cup cake

j07cmt, I have decided to sell the 105mm Micro VR, but I am not yet allowed to post in any FS threads here (probably being new).

 

[Ajith]

Just a quick note to say that the 24-70mm arrived and I am already starting to like it.
The focus speed is amazing, on par with my other primes. Bright and brilliant colour rendition. Nice.
Bokeh is not as good as the 85mm though (I know, hard to please).
To be perfectly honest, it is not as heavy as I thought (may be because of my padded comfy shoulder strap).
Seems wide enough indoors, perhaps for landscapes will look for a Tokina 11-16 at some point in the future.
I think I'll have to disagree with those who say this is not the good on DX body, (probably overwhelmed), I am perfectly happy.

 

[wyx087]

Just a quick note to say that the 24-70mm arrived and I am already starting to like it.
The focus speed is amazing, on par with my other primes. Bright and brilliant colour rendition. Nice.
Bokeh is not as good as the 85mm though (I know, hard to please).
To be perfectly honest, it is not as heavy as I thought (may be because of my padded comfy shoulder strap).
Seems wide enough indoors, perhaps for landscapes will look for a Tokina 11-16 at some point in the future.
I think I'll have to disagree with those who say this is not the good on DX body, (probably overwhelmed), I am perfectly happy.

Focal length is a personal preference. Most people would like 28-35mm because it is a very pleasing wide angle view without much distortion. If you don't miss it, then don't worry about what other people think.

I totally understand what you mean by fast focusing. I went to the zoo today and my god the ultra cheap telephoto lens I got was terrible. Can't focus on anything except a lazy lion. Whereas my L lens snaps onto whatever I point it at, even flying birds. The switching constant between the great and cheap lenses really makes you hate the cheap lenses.