Which primes on FX for land/cityscape?

M

Mystical Sound

Suspended / Banned
Messages
27
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I might be upgrading to nikon fx. I currently have a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens which has focusing problems (I dropped the lens!) and I dont think I can afford a replacement or brand new lens when I buy a fx camera.:nuts:

My question is, when I had the tamron on my D300 (cropped sensor), I would stroll in london near the london eye (so other side looking at the eye), I remember zooming in around 1/2 way(35mm?) on my tamron to get decent framing that I liked. Does this mean I was effectively shooting at 50mm on my cropped camera?

and if so, I would need a 50mm prime to achieve the same result if I had a fx camera?

:nuts:
 
I too had the tamron 17-50 for DX, sweet lens. Since I've moved to FX the Nikon 24-70 [much-of-a-muchness on FX] has been the instant replacement as my go-to, general purpose, and will be my landscape lens also. I don't really like wider than that.

It's pricey, but it is so damn good. Feels like a right weapon. I have the 105mm micro, which is a very solid, lovely to hold lens. But the 24-70 crushes it in terms of solid feel and joy to hold dept. I would say it's sharper too, just about. But since it doesn't do 1:1 I keep the micro around too, and for that extra length :)
 
Last edited:
Hi Cagey,

I did consider that, I would love to get the 24-70mm, my best friend has that permanently attached to his camera too... the only big problem is the price! :eek: :lol: (unless you want to sell me yours for cheap :D)

thanks for your input :)
 
You can get the older version which is the nikon AF-S 28-70 F2.8 "beast" lens as thats also very sharp all the way through the frame. Its bigger than the 24-70 though and weighs more as far as I'm aware, hence its name!
 
One went on here for £900 - I near got sick, had just spent almost £1400 on one! And the one on here looked mint.

Keep an eye out on ebay maybe? Otherwise, as suggested, look out for the older version. I bet it's as sharp, much cheaper, but a bit of a hulk if you don't mind the heft? The newer one is already pretty heavy.
 
James J said:
You can get the older version which is the nikon AF-S 28-70 F2.8 "beast" lens as thats also very sharp all the way through the frame. Its bigger than the 24-70 though and weighs more as far as I'm aware, hence its name!
Click to expand...

Knew this picture would come in handy sometime!


TRI_4998 by G.A.D, on Flickr

The 28-70 actually weighs a tiny but less though you'd never guess it. Must be an illusion as I always thought it felt heavier too. It's much fatter as you can see and generally feels bulkier but not in a bad way. I actually prefer the 28-70 to the 24-70. It's usefully cheaper these days, every bit as sharp and to my mind feels more solidly built. You lose 4mm of course but I don't think the 24-70 is at it's best at the widest end anyway so it's no big deal.
 
The 35-70 f2.8 afd is a pin sharp zoom and can be picked up second hand for around £200, a little bit more flexibility than a prime without breaking the bank, worth considering
 
gad-westy said:
Knew this picture would come in handy sometime!


TRI_4998 by G.A.D, on Flickr

The 28-70 actually weighs a tiny but less though you'd never guess it. Must be an illusion as I always thought it felt heavier too. It's much fatter as you can see and generally feels bulkier but not in a bad way. I actually prefer the 28-70 to the 24-70. It's usefully cheaper these days, every bit as sharp and to my mind feels more solidly built. You lose 4mm of course but I don't think the 24-70 is at it's best at the widest end anyway so it's no big deal.
Click to expand...

Ha thanks for that. Never seen them side by side before so thats a new one on me. I really like mine and the new one just isn't worth upgrading to from what is already a great lens.
 
005269 said:
The 35-70 f2.8 afd is a pin sharp zoom and can be picked up second hand for around £200, a little bit more flexibility than a prime without breaking the bank, worth considering
Click to expand...

I bought one of these off the forum here, as a "stop gap" lens until I could afford the 24-70.
Wonderful little lens. Sharp, very little aberration of any kind, lightweight in comparison to the beast or the 24-70, and it has a macro mode too.
I never did get round to buying the 24-70, as I am going down the primes route, but I will definitely keep my 35-70 2.8, as it such a nice lens.
And best of all, around £200 !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top