Simple. 24-70mm for a start
I'm swaying towards the Tamron ,read a few more reviews ,some saying the non VC is sharper but think I want VC for the moto x in lousy weather...probably !
Guess what I've just been looking at, yup D750, and 24-70..... And 12-24.
Gasp.
Cheers.
Tis your fault I'm looking
I would agree that there are some superb primes, but that wasn't what the OP asked for, it was zoom lenses.
To access the better FF quality zoom lenses however is not cheap.
Depending on subjects, primes might be the better way to go, but that means carrying a selection with you and the faff of changing lenses during a shoot. Again it depends on the subject as to whether this is practical or desirable at the time.
Yup , when at moto x I really don't wanna be changing lenses , I'd have the 70-200 on the D300 & the 24-70 on the D750 unless it's really pants weather in which case I'll probably either stick with bigger lens ....or stay at home
Isn't the 12-24 a dx lens?
I'd just go with the 24-70. Simples. No need to make it more complicated than it is...
Cheers David ...that's what 'm close to doing so was hoping to simplify it again by asking on here
Depends.
The Nikon 12-24mm f/4 is a DX lens and it's wide. The Sigma 12-24mm is an FX lens and it's very, very wide.
Why?
The pixel density on DX bodies is generally way higher than on FX bodies. The D3000 series cameras are much more demanding when it comes to lens resolution than a D600/610 or D750, or even a D800/810.
Why?
What do you think an FX body will do for you, apart from increase your costs?
Well, those lenses will work on FX but they won't necessarily be "good". For example, if you find the 70-200mm range is good for you on your D7000, then it won't be long enough on an FX body.
Which leads me back to the question as to why you want to switch to FX. If I were in your situation, unless there are relevant facts you haven't told us, I'd run the D7000 until it dies and then replace it with a D7100 or whatever comes after the D7100.
Thanks Stewart.....I've been mulling this very question for a while....I want to upgrade the D7000 before it gets too long in the tooth , there's nothing else about that offers a significant improvement in a DX body ( D7100 isn't worth moving to IMO) so the D750 seems the logical choice .There are rumours of a replacement D7100 ( D7300 or D9200 I think is what I've read with most of the D750 bits ie more pixels,tilting screen ,more fps, faster autofocus etc) but that's possibly not till the end of the year .
For majority of the time the 70-200 would be on the D300 but as you can get right up close & personal at moto x track's I don't think the slight loss of reach would be a problem .For the majority of the time the ff would be used for landscape & macro stuff .BUT ,I'm still pondering waiting for the D7100 replacement....I never have been very good with decisions that involve spending money
Don't know Nikon myself but I wonder about you getting more for your money by going to a reputable dealer and buying
second hand. There are also some regular sellers on here whose feedback you can check. Good luck.
Thanks Chipper , it may be a little odd but I prefer to buy a new body where as lenses I'm happy to look 2nd hand
The Nikon f2.8 70-200mm lens is a great lens but depending on age comes in two flavours, the earlier VR and the later VRII.
Whilst not designated as a DX lens, because it predated the Nikon FF introduction, there is some minor vignetting on the VR when used on a FF frame body. Nikon intrododuced the VRII version as a response, which largely addressed those issues by altering the barrel size at the mount end slightly.
Some people like the vignette effect and it is certainly correctable in PP. I still have mine, just because the upgrade seemed negligible but it is a factor. If you have the VR II then you can ignore these comments if you do upgrade.
Going to FF must be a personal decision and yes you do lose some "reach" due to the loss of the multiplication factor of the smaller sensors. Equally at the macro level, a DX sensor can have very positive advantages regards depth of field.
It is correct to think carefully about why you want to go FF, but whatever you do, enjoy, and don't be constrained by too many varying opinions.
If you want to move to FF then go for it.
That's not something I was aware of Shreds, so thanks for that info .My 70-200 is indeed the VR1 so yet more food for thought !
I can absolutely understand why someone would go FF from a d7000 right now.
Second hand prices on the older semi-pro camera bodies ain't great for the number of shutter counts and the price of ones with low counts are just madness.
I watched a second hand D300 with a 6000 shutter count go on eBay for near enough £600 the other day and even though I owned one I can't for the life of me understand why when you can find the D7100 in that condition for less and the D600 for £100 more.
I was surprised at the prices for 2ndhand D300's ,managed to get a low shutter count from a dealer at a sensible price though ,couldn't bring myself to buy a camera from ebay especially at those prices
With regards to Marco, I actually think FF serves the subject better. The increased DOF of the smaller sensor isn't really that noticeable when so close to the subject, so even with cropped sensors you're tightening the aperture to get as much in focus as possible, hense upping the ISO higher and higher. On my cropped bodies the ISO increase was killing the IQ, but my 6d was eating the noise for breakfast, even at silly ISOs enabling me to close the aperture right up and get very good DOF.
I was surprised at this, but FF is definitely better for macro IMO.
I digress...
Interesting to get opposing views...I need to take a look at some ff v crop body macro shots I think to see if I can actually tell the difference .
I've just upgraded from a 50d (1.6 crop) to a 1d (1.3 crop) and the difference in reach on my longer lenses and angle of view on the shorter ones is quite surprising. Just out of curiosity the other day I tried my 24-105 f4L on an old eos 600 film camera and its a huge difference between that and the 50d.
Hi ya Chris , hope all's good with you n Jak's
It's cetainley a minefield trying to make this decision .I tried a ff with a wideangle lens on a few weeks back but was surprised at how little difference I noticed between my crop /18-300 lens in terms of how much extra view I got on the ff camera.....perhaps I'm just odd
