Bit of advice re DX lenses

Gary Coyle

Gary Coyle

In Memoriam
Messages
12,654
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
Never really had anything to do with DX specific lenses even when i had a DX camera over 3/4 years ago

Spent a couple of years waiting for the D300S replacement but it doesnt look like its coming ever so might opt for a D7100 assuming thats currently the best Nikon DX camera available (anyone know any different)

Body/lens will be just used for general walkabout stuff with the odd wideangle pics when i dont want to lug about mega expensive D3S or D800

Question is, what is the best ultra wide and best mid range zoom available for DX

Im specifically interested in the sharpest lenses available, AF speed isnt as important to me as overall IQ, im not a

Having been an FX shooter for the last 3/4 years i know little or nothing about DX lenses.

EDIT: should add that im on a budget of approx £1000 for body and lens/lenses, used is good as well, will also consider the cheaper FX bodies but must be one of the current models
 
Last edited:
Mid range would be the Nikon 17-55 mate, an absolute corker of a lens. Tamron 17-50 is very close behind it, not as well built, but damned near as good IQ wise.

Had both of them when shooting DX.

Dunno about UWA, never really used them.
 
Cheers Ade, hearing decent things about the 16-85mm as well, any experience on this one, as for ultra wide, im used to 16mm on FX so would be looking for something as wide taking into account the FX crop factor
 
No mate, I only had the two previously mentioned mid range zooms, I was doing stuff that needed F2.8 at thetime, so only used those two.

I did have a Sigma 10-20 when I had my old D70s, that was ok but I didn`t use it a great deal and sold it on a while back, so pretty unfair to comment on that to be honest. Other who use it more will have better knowledge of it.
 
WOW, just seen the 17-55 is over £1,000, would be easier for me to take out the D800 and equivalent focal length lens i already own

As the object of this exercise is just to get hold of a "cheap" FX option the Nikon 17-55mm is out

My budget is approx £1,000 all in for a FX body and a lens/lenses to cover approx 16-120mm

Obviously im looking at used gear but thats not an issue, ive added an edit to the opening post
 
Last edited:
Hmm...for an all in one solution you'd be looking at a D7000 & 18-200mm but if you're wanting the sharpest solution, I'd be opting for something like the sigma 10-20mm & 28-105. That'd cover your UWA, short tele, 1:2 macro and a super sharp combo. The 28-105 would also come in handy on your FF bodies.

Used, that lot should give you about £250 change.
 
OK then, Tamron 17-50 non VC F2.8 as a starter for about £200.

D300 secondhand, dunno what they go at to be honest.

Secondhand 80-200.

You might be lucky and get them for a grand mate.
 
ah.......missed the weight bit.........:coat:

Just get an 18-200 and a cheap crop body then Gary.D300/7000 would do.
 
When i was using DX i had the nikon 16-85mm+tokina 11-16mm.
Delighted with both of them
 
Thanks Phil/Ade, dont need anything in the 200mm range as i already own the 70-200mm VRII, just looking for light and cheap, dont really want to go back to the D300, it was an excellent body in its day and got me shooting professionally in the first place but anything over 800 ISO was horrible looking, might go used D7100 and Tamron 17-50mm to start with
 
But, Gary, the D800 without the grip is quite small, I don`t really get why you would want a DX body when you have the 800?

Why not get a good compact type camera for when you want to go out lightweight?
 
Monkeyhanger said:
When i was using DX i had the nikon 16-85mm+tokina 11-16mm.
Delighted with both of them
Click to expand...
I like the look of the 16-85mm lens but as im used to the supers high ISO's the D3S and D800 offer me with my f/2.8 lenses dropping down to FX and slower lenses might just be a push too far for me, however it has VR so that would help as my current mid range zoom hasn't and at an effective 24-127mm it offers a great focal range
 
fracster said:
But, Gary, the D800 without the grip is quite small, I don`t really get why you would want a DX body when you have the 800?

Why not get a good compact type camera for when you want to go out lightweight?
Click to expand...

Cost Ade, if the DX body works for me as a general walkabout then ill let the D800 go and keep the D3S if i need an FX solution
 
Hi Gary
tokina 50-135 2.8 lens is a really good dx lens good range and fast glass
nikon 17-55mm 2.8 lens is brilliant
nikon 35mm 1.8 dx great lens nice and wide and fast glass
you could buy one of these second hand
the d7000 16mp is a better buy and a lot cheaper than the d7100 unless your chasing 24megapixel
by the way i have for sale
very low act d300 approx 3500 shots 1 owner me low act d7000 approx 3000 shots 1 owner me
nikon d3200 low act approx 1170 shots belonged to my deceased father so i inherited it
tokina 50-135 -nikon 35 1.8
just sold the nikon 17-55mm 2.8 last week
 
+1 for the 17-55 f/2.8, it's probably the best mid range DX zoom to be had. I saw a used one @ Bristol Cameras for about half the price of new.

Best UWA I would say would be the Nikon 12-24 f/4 or the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8.
 
Last edited:
I have the Nikon AF-S 12-24mm f1.4 DX ED lens for my D300 which is plenty wide enough for me, Nikon have not produced one that goes around corners yet but this is pretty close to it without being a fisheye type.
 
Last edited:
cms9.jpg


Taken with my lens in a room/kitchen type setting. What to watchout for is eg look at the window and the door, see how much out of being upright they are. Using 12 mm setting .Taken with Nikon D300
 
Last edited:
Sigma have a nice 18-35mm f1.8 for DX, pair that up with a SH D7000 and have a bit of change for maybe the 50mm prime f1.8d or the afs, nice and light setup.

Add a longer length Zoom later if really needed?
 
Hi Gary

You might consider D7100 from HDEW (£625 ?), a Tokina 11-16 used (approx £300) and buy back the Tamron 24-135 (£175) currently for sale on TP ? Looks like a great set-up for about a grand give-or-take 10%.
 
Last edited:
Just moving the other way from D300 to D800. I've loved the 18-70 for wide to mid-range, a very good performer and cheap as chips allowing you to buy a decent UWA. I own a Sigma 10-20 but I've not been at all happy with it and was considering a Tokina 11-16 before moving to FX.
 
realspeed said:
cms9.jpg


Taken with my lens in a room/kitchen type setting. What to watchout for is eg look at the window and the door, see how much out of being upright they are. Using 12 mm setting .Taken with Nikon D300
Click to expand...

That's just perspective due to the camera pointing down, straighten the camera and the verticals will not diverge like that.

Ive got a 16-85 for my DX walkaround, nice lens and refreshingly small compared to the FX equivalent 24-120. Might add either the Nikon 10-24 or cheaper 12-24 as an ultrawide, fairly sure both can also be used on FX from 16/18mm or so which is a bonus.
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
Cost Ade, if the DX body works for me as a general walkabout then ill let the D800 go and keep the D3S if i need an FX solution
Click to expand...
Fair comment pal, i`ll bow out of this now as i`m not really sure how I can help.

I`m sure you`ll get there though, you always do.

I hope your health improves as well Gary, all the best.
 
John


maybe your right. Using that lens on my D800 the camera sees there is a DX lens on it and adjusts automatically. In other words it takes the same as a DX lens by reducing the area . Through the viewfinder below 18mm you start to see the circle of the lens
 
Last edited:
Comparison on D800
First at 24 mm on a 12- 24mm DX lens
4bbw.jpg


Again at 24 mm using 24-70mm FX lens
l6ma.jpg


Both taken on tripod and only a lens change to show the difference. Please ignore focus etc , just to show difference between DX an FX lens both set at same 24mm. Just to show the D800 does alter its setting between DX and FX, if that makes sense
 
Last edited:
Bazza, have you posted the wrong captions on those photos? An FF body with a 24mm FF lens will have a much wider AoV than a 24mm Dx lens will give and your captions seem to suggest the opposite!

Gary, I think that if I was in your position, I would see what a Sigma 10-20 was like (apparently individual copies can differ fairly widely so try the actual lens you're considering!) compared to a Nikkor 12-24. For me (YMMV), UWAs needn't be super fast - DoF is needed more than width of aperture. The Nikkor won't be cheap, even 2nd hand! As for the midrange, how about the 18-70 kit lens? Possibly a bi long in the tooth these days but I'm sure there are some good ones around!
 
Forgot to say that if you wanted to try the lens out on a DX body, I've also got a D90 you can us to see what it's like whilst you're deciding on what crop body you want to get. If that's any help?

S
 
If you are looking for a general walkabout solution I'd give consideration to using the D7000, can still be had new too, but many good used ones around. It is still an exceptionally good camera and given the intended use there would be little to choose between that and a D7100 - there are differences but not sure they are overly relevant for the intended use. It would also leave you more cash for glass too. The best mid zoom I used was the Nikkor 17-55 BUT it is expensive (best buying used) and heavy. If you need (or want ;)) fast glass then either the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-50 are both good options (recently used a mates Siggy and was very impressed). If a variable zoom is fine then the nikkor 16-85 takes a lot of beating it really is very decent. For ultrawide the Tokina 11-16 takes some beating, though my preferred lens was the Nikkor 12-24 f4 (again expensive so buy used!!).
 
I've found the Nikon 16-85mm VR the perfect lens for my D300S. I've used a friends Sigma 10-20mm in the past whilst on holidays, but although it gave a very wide view, the 16-85mm did most of what I wanted.

The 16mm gives an equivalent to 24mm on an FX camera, and I've found that to be wide enough for 95% of my wide angle pictures, and I don't have the money to buy a Sigma 10-20mm, or another UWA, for 5% of my shooting. Not seeing as the Euromillions ticket was unsuccessful again last night. :( ;) :LOL:

It depends on how often one takes images that need to be wider than the 24mm FOV. :thinking:
 
sounds like i'm too late to the party as everyone has said it all already :)
i will chime in about the Tamron 17-50 being an excellent lightweight choice as a midrange zoom on DX. Very sharp, reasonable contrast plus small & light. AF is a bit slow though..
the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 is everything you'd expect of a gold ringed lens re IQ plus blazing fast AF & the solid build although it is big & heavy & one of Gary's key points was a smaller lighter package.
The Nikkor is a relative bargain used nowadays as its still around £1050 new & can be had used for around half of that! definitley a great used buy if you're staying DX.
just seen in the sales section there are at least 3 of the Tamrons selling cheaply on the first page! definitely a buyers market with used DX stuff now as lots of people are either moving to FX or mirrorless.
a D7000 & Tamron 17-50 would be a very capable DX package for not a lot of money :)
 
the D90 is still a great little camera. cheap now too :)
my mrs has kept hers even after she got the D700 & after looking at some of her old pics with it i can see why :)
did you keep yours "just in case"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top