lens advice from dx to ff

iwols

iwols

Messages
918
Edit My Images
Yes
hi all just making the move to full frame from dx(d7100) and have the following lens,just wondered if anyone could give me any advice what to keep/sell ,i tend to photograph anything from macro to long range cheers guys

SIGMA 150-500MM DG F5-6.3
TAMRON 70-300MM F4-5.6 DI
TAMRON 90MM F2.8 MACRO DI
NIKON 18-70 AFS F3.5-4.5 ED DX
SIGMA 10-20F4-5.6 DC
NIKON 35MM F1.8 G DX

Thanks

 
I would swap the:

35 look at Nikon 50 1.8, Nikon 50 1.4, Sigma 50 1.4
10-20 look at Tokina 16-24, Tokina 17-35, Nikon 16-35, Nikon 14-28
18-70 look at Nikon 24-85, Nikon 24-120, Nikon 28-70

You can always run in DX mode so it will work with your lenses so there is no rush to swap.

The other 3 lenses will work though on a full frame camera they will end up substantially wider effectively speaking. Best to give it a go and see how you get on with those 3.
 
Serious question but how on earth do people reach the decision to spend a large sum of money on full frame without even knowing which of there lenses will need replacing?

When I went through the same process i factored it into the equation as it was even more money!
 
Last edited:
I have one FF lens and that is the reason holding me back from buying a D610. Although it is a superb lens and would suit my current photography interests well, not having the available cash to replace my other DX lenses is holding me back.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Serious question but how on earth do people reach the decision to spend a large sum of money on full frame without even knowing which of there lenses will need replacing?

When I went through the same process i factored it into the equation as it was even more money!
Click to expand...

And as a general observation, seems to be alot of people upgrading to FX at the moment!
 
minnnt said:
I have one FF lens and that is the reason holding me back from buying a D610. Although it is a superb lens and would suit my current photography interests well, not having the available cash to replace my other DX lenses is holding me back.
Click to expand...
you can run the dx lens on the 750 till you can manage to buy ff lens,so that didnt really put me off
 
stumeech said:
And as a general observation, seems to be alot of people upgrading to FX at the moment!
Click to expand...

I think that the situation is now that if you want to spend over £1,000 on a Nikon body it can only be FX and all FX bodies have a DX mode

Nikon strategy .. if you want semi pro DX buy FX and crop ….. and once you are in FX you start looking at £1k + lenses

Had Nikon made a D400 maybe the situation would have been different ……….. if you use all the sensor and don't crop maybe it is fine with FX

Enthusiasts always want to spend money

If I only had £1k to £2k to spend and had say a D700, (which I have) .. I would spend that money on glass …….. but the D750/D810 is very tempting ………… If I had a DX Body, say the D7100, (which I had), the same considerations, but it would be FX glass because of the way it is going ………. with Nikon seemly (semi pro) current strategy, i.e. the focus is on FX, they seem to have deserted the semi pro body DX ……… so we are going to have "cheap" DX, under £500 …………. and expensive FX, over £1,500 ……. then £2,500 and then £5k …… at UK current retail.

When they put the FX sensor, say in a larger V3 body …….. that will be another market

It is quite logical the way Nikon are going - dictated by sensor price/performance - ……… FX sensors are now the same price as DX sensors were……… but they rely on Sony for their top quality sensors

so if you are a Nikon enthusiast, it's a no brainer - spend more money and move to FX and move to more expensive FX lenses, leave the DX market to the "hobbyists" and the people who have never heard of FX and DX.

I am still not convinced that the conventional DSLR with a mirror has much of a future of more than the next up to 10 years ……. it is being held together by Nikon and Canon …….. the Sony AR7 and AR7r must be the way it will go………..
 
Last edited:
iwols said:
i tend to photograph anything from macro to long range
Click to expand...
Surely that's a good reason for NOT switching to full frame?
 
iwols said:
i tend to photograph anything from macro to long range
Click to expand...
StewartR said:
Surely that's a good reason for NOT switching to full frame?
Click to expand...
iwols said:
why do you come to this conclusion please
Click to expand...

Macro - A "true" macro lens gives 1:1 reproduction whatever the size of the sensor, but the smaller sensor of a DX camera gives you a greater apparent magnification.

9375-1418139011-da6b29cfc28be0f55908684deece6910.jpg

[Stock photo - not taken by me]

Distant subjects - The crop factor gives you greater apparent reach with the same lens.

9376-1418139814-037619c696cc4a5b7136e65fac8dca0b.jpg

[Stock photo - not taken by me]

Your turn now. What do you think you will gain by switching from DX to FX?
 
Wow. Two pairs of 600 pixels wide images that say it all.

Sorry. No offence Stewart. I know what you wanted to demonstrate. But the OP had a question about lens selection. Lets pretend for a minute that it is possible to take great macro or wildlife pictures even without resorting to DX gear and its superior apparent reach/magnification :)
 
mpe said:
Wow. Two pairs of 600 pixels wide images that say it all.

Sorry. No offence Stewart. I know what you wanted to demonstrate. But the OP had a question about lens selection. Lets pretend for a minute that it is possible to take great macro or wildlife pictures even without resorting to DX gear and its superior apparent reach/magnification :)
Click to expand...
Well, I could have made them 6000 pixels wide if that would have helped....

Of course it is possible to take great macro or wildlife pictures with full frame gear. Nobody was suggesting otherwise, so that's a really feeble straw man you've demolished there. The question is whether the OP would see any benefit by switching from DX to FX. If he does a lot of wildlife stuff, then he'll need to increase his focal lengths by 50% in order to achieve the same framing. I know that, you know that, but I'm mentioning it just in case the OP hadn't realised that. You know, to try and be helpful?
 
The other advantage of crop for macro is the greater apparent dof at the same settings and framing.

Full frame is seen by many now as a bit of a right of passage a bit like people getting all excited when they shoot 'fully manual' the thing missed is the reason for doing these things! I went full frame as I wanted better ISO performance than my old 30d and I only really take pictures of landscapes and people. I rarely shoot in M because I find it easier to use the technology I paid for most of the time as it does as the same job faster!
 
StewartR said:
If he does a lot of wildlife stuff, then he'll need to increase his focal lengths by 50% in order to achieve the same framing
Click to expand...

Yes. Supposing that he'd use the same lens at the same working distance, become disabled without being able to get closer to the subject and lock himself out of his Photoshop installation at the same. Then the native camera crop would be indeed the only chance how to achieve the same framing.

In reality, FX shooters are smart enough to work out their lens selection (or ask for advice if unsure). Some even consider rental if they can't afford buying one ;) They know how to crop their pictures to get the framing they want. I bet they must be also statistically more successful in getting closer to wild animals.

A side note: Wildlife photography isn't a synonym for narrow field of view. In fact if you look at Wildlife Photographer of the Year gallery you'll find as many if not more wide/normal/short pictures than super telephoto ones. For some reason winners also tend to prefer full-frame gear. Clearly they must have worked out the framing problem somehow :)
 
mpe said:
Yes. Supposing that he'd use the same lens at the same working distance, become disabled without being able to get closer to the subject and lock himself out of his Photoshop installation at the same. Then the native camera crop would be indeed the only chance how to achieve the same framing.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I think I might have missed something somewhere. You seem to be saying that it is ALWAYS possible to get closer to the subject and it is ALWAYS possible to crop an image whilst leaving enough pixels for the desired end product. Is that right? If so I'd really appreciate it if you could explain how, because I've never managed to work out those things myself.
mpe said:
In reality, FX shooters are smart enough to work out their lens selection (or ask for advice if unsure). Some even consider rental if they can't afford buying one ;) They know how to crop their pictures to get the framing they want. I bet they must be also statistically more successful in getting closer to wild animals.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting set of claims which I don't think I've seen made before. You seem very certain, so presumably there must be some fairly solid evidence to support them. Do you mind sharing it?
mpe said:
A side note: Wildlife photography isn't a synonym for narrow field of view.
Click to expand...
Nobody said it was. The OP said he was interested in photographing distant objects and I offered a wildlife scenario as an illustration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top