A question for you Nikon DX users

Sootchucker

Sootchucker

Messages
2,490
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
I haven't really used DX much since transitioning to FX about 4 years ago, and at the time sold off almost all of my DX lenses and bodies.

Well I got a D7200 a few months ago (for long reach birding), and to be honest I'm becoming really quite fond of this little camera. Compared to the D300 I had some years ago, the image quality is light years ahead and ISO 3200 almost needs no (or very little) NR. TBH, to my eye, it's not massively behind 1st or second generation FX (D700 / D3 etc.). So I dug out my Sigma 10-20 that I retained and no surprise, on the D7200 that is stellar as well. Then tried the Tamron 70-300 VC USD that I purchased really cheaply from WEX a few weeks ago (for my D750 and D810, for when I wanted to travel lighter and not take the 300mm F4 or 150-600). Again, it's a really sharp lens so well pleased.

So that gives me a 15-30 equivalent, a 105-450 equivalent, so all I am missing is the "standard range". Now (eventually) here's the question.

In my position, would you purchased a dedicated DX standard zoom (e.g. the Sigma 17-50, 17-70 or Nikon 17-55, 16-85 or 18-140), as 2nd hand these can be hand quite cheaply, or would you stick with my super sharp copy of the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC USD, which gives me the equivalent of 36-105, and resign to have to swap lenses when I need something wider than 36mm ? (i.e back to the Sigma 10-20) ?

I don't know if swapping lenses all the time would be a bit of a pain, as I do like the wider angle views of a true 24-70, and the Tamron 24-70 isn't exactly a compact and light lens, so for travel on a DX system, doesn't seem to make that much sense ?
 
The Nikon 17-55 is the biz mate. It's to the same standard as other Nikon pro grade lenses such as the 24-70 although it doesn't have the nano crystal coating and it can flare a little. I also had the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vc and that too is a nice lens but not as nice as the Nikon version.
 
I have the Sigma 17-70 OS and it works well for me. Cheap and light and a bit of extra range.
 
Depends how much you're going to use the standard lens - if its not that much then a Tamron 17-50 would be an ideal lens, great quality and low price / weight. Make sure its a non VC one for ultimate quality.
 
Bang for buck, an 18-70 kit lens isn't the worst option. For convenience, one of the assorted superzooms could be an option too. IMO though, FF does the shorter end so much better that I don't worry about it too much on crop sensors.
 
stumeech said:
Depends how much you're going to use the standard lens - if its not that much then a Tamron 17-50 would be an ideal lens, great quality and low price / weight. Make sure its a non VC one for ultimate quality.
Click to expand...

Not sure if the D7200 has the same issue as the D7100 and D7000 whereas the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 won't autofocus in Live View, for that reason alone i went with the Sigma 17-50mm on my D7100 and for the price it's a cracking piece of kit, it spends about 75% of it's time on my camera, really can't fault it
 
Last edited:
Depends what you want. Personally I'd stick with what you've got in terms of the 24-70mm and swap it for the 10-20 or 70-300 when needed.

But if you want a decent walkabout lens that's going to be on the camera maybe 60-70% of the time, then go for the 17-50 option. Personally I'd go for the Sigma - a better option than the Tamron VC and a heck of a lot cheaper and smaller than the Nikkor 17-55.
 
The 17-55mm was my best lens own I had DX - really worth while going for - super results!
 
Normally stuck to the front of my D7200 is the Nikon 24-70 which I bought with the intention of going FX but have never managed it. If I want lightweight I use the Nikon 16-85 VR. Lovely little lens in my opinion. Regarded as one of the best DX kit type lenses and built very well compared to the 18-105.
If I had the choice though I would go for the Nikon 17-55 but that's not lightweight.
16-85 - you won't regret it:)
 
Last edited:
I would stick with your stellar Tamron 24-70mm VC personally or you will be doubling up again on FX & DX lenses.
And you will be using only the sweet spot on the Tamron a win win situation I think :):):)

Or just buy a Nikon AFS VR 18-200mm or 18-300mm job done for travel with your Siggy 10-20mm :)
 
Last edited:
Agreed, when you want super sharp, use your 24-70, 18-200 or 18-300 maybe for a walkabout.
 
Thanks for all the opinions chaps - decisions, decisions...............
 
The Nikon 17-55 2.8 isn't exactly compact and light as you mention at the end of the first post.
But I'd still have one:)
 
I used to have a 17-55/2.8 a couple of years ago and it has got to be the ultimate lens designed specifically for a DX body but it's a beast of a lens!
I used it with a D2x body and it seemed to balance well with the body but unfortunately D2x was the end of the line when nikon abandoned DX on pro bodies in favour of FX.
 
Ask yourself why you are in this situation. It appears that you have decided DX is good enough and it is therefore a viable option for shedding weight. In which case sticking a massive Nikon 17-50 on the end seems counterproductive so I would look at the Tamron standard zooms, or maybe the Nikon 18-70 which has been mentioned.

Otherwise, stick with the FF kit.
 
That's probably the most sensible post yet Ned. When did you get so zen like :D
 
Another vote for the Nikon AFS VR 18-200mm. It's reasonable quality and covers a good range. It's my first choice on a DX camera if I want to travel light.
 
rpsmith79 said:
Not sure if the D7200 has the same issue as the D7100 and D7000 whereas the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 won't autofocus in Live View, for that reason alone i went with the Sigma 17-50mm on my D7100 and for the price it's a cracking piece of kit, it spends about 75% of it's time on my camera, really can't fault it
Click to expand...

I had a 17-50 tamron and a d7100 and don't recall ever having any problems with live view?

The Nikon 17-55 is indeed a great lens, but comparatively heavy to other contenders (the sigma and tamron 2.8's, nikon 16-85 and 18-70).

PS I tried both the VC and non-VC tamrons and couldn't see much difference at all so went with the VC. If I had another dx body I would either get another tamron, or possibly the 16-85.
 
Interesting to read this post as I've just picked up a D7200 from the classifieds for similar reasons to yourself for a little more reach (and as a remote wildlife camera too). Interested go here you feel it's performance is good enough.
 
I used to have the Nikon 17-55 on my D7100. I sold it and replaced it with Nikon's 16-85. No regrets whatsoever, probably the best decision (equipment wise) I ever made.
 
Rapscallion said:
I had a 17-50 tamron and a d7100 and don't recall ever having any problems with live view?

The Nikon 17-55 is indeed a great lens, but comparatively heavy to other contenders (the sigma and tamron 2.8's, nikon 16-85 and 18-70).

PS I tried both the VC and non-VC tamrons and couldn't see much difference at all so went with the VC. If I had another dx body I would either get another tamron, or possibly the 16-85.
Click to expand...

I could never find anything official about it on the internet either to be fair, but both myself and my friend (he had a D7000, i had a D7100) both had issues with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 in LV, the focusing would just hunt front to back non stop and never actually focus on anything, and we tried both lenses on both bodies and they all had the same issue
 
rpsmith79 said:
I could never find anything official about it on the internet either to be fair, but both myself and my friend (he had a D7000, i had a D7100) both had issues with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 in LV, the focusing would just hunt front to back non stop and never actually focus on anything, and we tried both lenses on both bodies and they all had the same issue
Click to expand...

I suppose it will be best to test then just in case. Was it the VC model you had - thats what I had on the D7100.
 
Rapscallion said:
I suppose it will be best to test then just in case. Was it the VC model you had - thats what I had on the D7100.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it happened with a VC and non VC, thinking back it might have only been in one particular focus mode too, most likely continuous AF as that is what my body is always set too as i use BBF

As soon as you attempt to focus it just scans from close to infinity and back over and over, never actually achieves focus lock on anything

It's only a minor issue, and the times i use LV is very infrequent, but it was enough to make me switch to Sigma, and i haven't been disappointed since the switch over :)
 
It's a common thing with third party lenses - Nikon don't release the focus algorithm so they have to reverse engineer it to make their lenses compatible.
I had to get Sigma to update my 70-200 OS lens as the OS wouldn't work on my D7200. Worked fine on the 7100. They had it for a couple of days and updated it under warranty. That's why Sigma now have the dock available so you can do updates yourself.
My older Siggy 70-200 also wouldn't focus in live view on my D7100 but I never bothered getting that one rechipped.
 
Sootchucker said:
I don't know if swapping lenses all the time would be a bit of a pain, as I do like the wider angle views of a true 24-70, and the Tamron 24-70 isn't exactly a compact and light lens, so for travel on a DX system, doesn't seem to make that much sense ?
Click to expand...

I do find swapping lenses a pain, but will not consider the compromise of a wide to long zoom. Swapping lenses in wind, rain or while walking all carry risks, and often you can never predict exactly what lens you'll need and miss shots. This is why in the new year I'll be buying either another D7100 or a D7200 body to cut down on lens swopping. I have an old Nikon 24-50 from film camera days, and on DX 24mm isn't wide, so it never gets used. I like shooting wide.

My standard lens is the Nikon 16-85, it's excellent, small and light and worth considering as a DX replacement for your 24-70. Similar faster lenses don't have the 16mm at the wide end, and to me 1 or 2mm make all the difference. I often like shooting up close, either wide with the 16 - 85 or an 8mm fisheye. In poor light or to catch action I up the iso, the D7100 handles it well.
 
Well I've purchased a really cheap (sub £200) but mint copy of the 16-85 off a friend who's selling all his gear as he has no time for photography anymore. So I'll pick it up from him on Friday and give it a quick test. My rational was that for serious work, I have the D810 and D750 with the superb 24-70 F2.8, and as the D7200 (when not used as a wildlife camera), will be a travel camera, I thought keep the size and weight down, and the VR coupled with the much better ISO performance vs. my older D300, will go to offset most of the effects of slowish aperture on this lens.
 
Sootchucker said:
Well I've purchased a really cheap (sub £200) but mint copy of the 16-85 off a friend who's selling all his gear as he has no time for photography anymore. So I'll pick it up from him on Friday and give it a quick test. My rational was that for serious work, I have the D810 and D750 with the superb 24-70 F2.8, and as the D7200 (when not used as a wildlife camera), will be a travel camera, I thought keep the size and weight down, and the VR coupled with the much better ISO performance vs. my older D300, will go to offset most of the effects of slowish aperture on this lens.
Click to expand...
You won't regret that choice - and that's not a bad price at all for one of those.
Great little lens and perfect for walkabout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top