Swapping to FX lenses

GFWilliams

GFWilliams

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,360
Name
GF
Edit My Images
No
First of all, I'm not the biggest tech expert out there but have a fair old idea (I do a computer science degree, so should have a pretty god idea!).

Now I've recently bought a D700 and am having to sell my D300 to help fund it a bit.

On the D300 I was using these lenses: Sigma 10-20, Nikon 18-200VR, 50mm, Sigma 70-200.

On the D700 I've only been using the 50mm and 70-200. When I sell my D300 I will need the wider end of the scale to replace my 10-20 and 18-200. I shall therefore be selling the 10-20 and 18-200.

I reckon i can get 350 for the 18-200 and 300 for the 10-20. I therefore have £650 to spend on new lenses which are FX.

What would you recommend for that sort of price?
20mm prime?

Thanks :)
 
GFWilliams said:
First of all, I'm not the biggest tech expert out there but have a fair old idea (I do a computer science degree, so should have a pretty god idea!).

Now I've recently bought a D700 and am having to sell my D300 to help fund it a bit.

On the D300 I was using these lenses: Sigma 10-20, Nikon 18-200VR, 50mm, Sigma 70-200.

On the D700 I've only been using the 50mm and 70-200. When I sell my D300 I will need the wider end of the scale to replace my 10-20 and 18-200. I shall therefore be selling the 10-20 and 18-200.

I reckon i can get 350 for the 18-200 and 300 for the 10-20. I therefore have £650 to spend on new lenses which are FX.

What would you recommend for that sort of price?
20mm prime?

Thanks :)
Click to expand...

If you want to fill out the wider end of the focal range, a used Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 is probably going to set you back about 650GBP. It was a legendary lens, until the 14-24mm and now the 16-35mm FX lenses came along and (for some) knocked it off its pedestal :lol:.

I think that 17-35mm, 50mm and 70-200mm are probably all many people will ever really need in terms of focal lengths - it's what a lot of photojournalists have survived with for years :naughty:.
 
I have just bought the 16-35 f4 VR today. I started a thread asking for advice on buying a ultra wide fx lens and one of the suggestions was the 16-35. Up to now I have only taken a few shots in the shop were I bought the lens. One of the photos is now on the thread if you wish to have a look.
It just goes to show how helpful this site is. I had almost decided to pay over £1,200 for the 14-24 2.8 but asked for advice on here and was pointed towards the 16-35 which I had missed. It saved me £400.
 
sorry to interrupt jackflash but how do u like your sigma 120-400 with the d300

thanks graham
 
mrgvd said:
sorry to interrupt jackflash but how do u like your sigma 120-400 with the d300

thanks graham
Click to expand...

As long as you have some decent light the 120-400 is very good. It is a large heavy lens so unless you are doing a wildlife shoot or some other shoot where a long zoom is needed you probably won,t use it as a walkabout lens.
It is a full frame lens so I am hoping to give it go on my D3. For the price of just over £600 you can,t go wrong.
 
Agree with the 17-35 but I'm not sure if you'll get one for £650, although if you do it's a bargain :) 17mm is very wide on a FF body though (suppose it's just like using your Sigma at 10mm), although that might be great for those rig shots you do.

Of course, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is regarded as the 'must have' for FX bodies... don't know how that focal length would sit with you......
 
I'm a D700 user and have a selection of zooms from 12mm up to 500.
Sigma 12-24
Sigma 24-70
Sigma 70-200
Nikon 70-300
Sigma 150-500.

In an ideal world, where money didn't matter, I would upgrade the Sigma to their nearest Nikon equivalents but this is the real world, so I'll stick with what I've got for now.
 
Sigma's 15-30mm zoom would give the same coverage on FX as you're used to with the 10-20mm on DX, it seems to be fairly cheap s/h (one on here for under £200 I think). I'm happy enough with the Nikon 18-35mm for wide angle duties, I don't really do wide shots all that much any more though and tend to stop down to f/8 and beyond when I do. Nice results from it so it'll do for me.
 
Switching lens is a real pain - it will make you question why you moved to full frame... And realistically the only real gain from a D300-D700 switch I can see is high iso. If you're not using the high isos I'm not sure if the switch is going to be worth it.

I have a D300 and Sigma 10-20, and also a D3. There really isn't anything that can replace it like for like that I've seen - I've got a tamron 17-35 but that is still not as wide as 10mm DX - its about 11mm equivalent. I also have the Sigma 12-24 which is ever so slightly wider - but is filterless so no ND filters for you...

Unfortunately what you gain with high ISO ability you lose with cheaper, lighter lens choices which mostly have no like for like equivalent...although the 24-70 is a beauty of FX!
 
Try the new Nikon 24-120 f/4 VR? Depending on your style this might be the only lens you need.

Then Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 might be affordable.

Or as suggested consider 17-35 / 16-35mm lenses.

There was also a great bargain lens Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 (not SV version). They go cheaply on ebay and may be worth a try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top