Moved from DX to FX, equipment dilemma, thoughts?

N

nictry

Messages
1,197
Edit My Images
No
Having bought a D750 to finally take the leap from my trusty D7100 to FX, I realised that despite having had a 24-70 attached to my D7100 for some while (against some folk's advice!!!) I absolutely love it on the D750 but what now for my second body dx (7100) and related lenses?

I know its a personal thing but just seeking other's thoughts on what you would do/have done before I make some changes to my remaining set up.

So as it stands I have a D7100 now as a second body - useful as a back up should the dreadful situation arise that the new D750 drops dead etc. but seeing the increased 'performance' from the D750 am left wondering now if the D7100 wont really make me feel warm and fuzzy anymore, I cant afford nor feel I should by a second FX body so thats off the table as an option.

As to lenses I have a Tokina 11-20 f2.8 dx only really, a Tamron 90mm new VC version (either) and a 50mm f1.8 which I could just keep use.

What is missing for me now I feel it a UWA for the D750 and its doing my head in thinking about the ideal option of the 14-24 Nikon but realistically would a 16-35 or even a 18-35 work fine, or possibly even a Tamron 15-30? Otherwise I could keep the Tokina on the D7100 but would I regret not have a FX UWA.......Arrghhhhhh!!!!!

Anyway, thought some of you kind folks would give me a bunch of different perspectives/experiences before I decide what to do next, sell/buy/sick with what I have?
 
ST4 said:
14-24 if you don't use a 100mm filter system, 16-35mm if you do. Another option is a 20mm f1.8 Nikkor?

I assume 24mm isn't wide enough for you?
Click to expand...

Yep thats the big question, I really enjoy landscapes and often found the width an issue even when using the 17-55 on dx so I guess the answer is probably not.
 
I went from a D7100 to a D610 (now D750) I was going to keep my D7100 but after using the D610 sold the D7100 along with all my DX lenses this helped me fund my FX lenses. Went for the Nikon 24-70mm and like you I wanted to go wide.

After doing loads of reading and watching youtube I found a shop with the Nikon 14-24mm & 16-35mm in stock, I had a good play with both and came away with the 14-24mm, the 16-35mm had advantages i.e. for the price of the 14-24mm i could get the 16-35mm and a set of lee's filters but I just loved the 14mm end of the 14-24mm. I don't use it as mush as I hoped but I'm off to New York in 2 weeks and I'm sure it will get some hammer there.
 
Billy said:
I went from a D7100 to a D610 (now D750) I was going to keep my D7100 but after using the D610 sold the D7100 along with all my DX lenses this helped me fund my FX lenses. Went for the Nikon 24-70mm and like you I wanted to go wide.

After doing loads of reading and watching youtube I found a shop with the Nikon 14-24mm & 16-35mm in stock, I had a good play with both and came away with the 14-24mm, the 16-35mm had advantages i.e. for the price of the 14-24mm i could get the 16-35mm and a set of lee's filters but I just loved the 14mm end of the 14-24mm. I don't use it as mush as I hoped but I'm off to New York in 2 weeks and I'm sure it will get some hammer there.
Click to expand...

Arrggh, you were supposed to be putting me off the 14-24!!!!!!! If I am not being too cheeky roughly what price did you pay for it? New or Second hand?

Only downside of course is the filters and I do like to play with a 10 stop on my Tokina?!?!?!?
 
Last edited:
The Lee filter system for the 14-24 is eye wateringly expensive ...

14mm is insanely wide on FX but does offer some creative options, but it isn't for everyone. The lens is also really rather heavy and doesn't balance well on the D750 imo ... it is also a flare monster, seems to bend light and flare something terrible imo, so much that I went for the Tokina 16-28mm as it was more resistant to flare and I couldn't see any difference in IQ. I now use the newest version of Nikkor 18-35 AF-S on my D810 as I can use filters a lot easier and cheaper!!
 
PaulButler said:
The Lee filter system for the 14-24 is eye wateringly expensive ...

14mm is insanely wide on FX but does offer some creative options, but it isn't for everyone. The lens is also really rather heavy and doesn't balance well on the D750 imo ... it is also a flare monster, seems to bend light and flare something terrible imo, so much that I went for the Tokina 16-28mm as it was more resistant to flare and I couldn't see any difference in IQ. I now use the newest version of Nikkor 18-35 AF-S on my D810 as I can use filters a lot easier and cheaper!!
Click to expand...

Flare and that SW150 Lee system put me off the 14-24 due to costs. The 16-35 resists flare well and if you have Lee 100mm filters, you are good to go. I ran into a chap who has both 16-35 and 14-24 and he said he couldn't tell the difference in terms of sharpness between the two. Certainly the 16-35 is comparible to the 24-70 for IQ when shooting landscape.

A good quality 15/18/20/21mm prime is another option.
 
Yep I keep being drawn to the Nikon 20mm, can be had for relatively reasonable price from amazon germany now too (~£520) but the 16-35 seems to have a bit more flexibility, just feels such a big overlap with the 24-70????
 
nictry said:
Arrggh, you were supposed to be putting me off the 14-24!!!!!!! If I am not being too cheeky roughly what price did you pay for it? New or Second hand?
Click to expand...

I got it new but when I say walked away with it well I tried them at the shop and went straight home and purchased from Panamoz for about £980.00 with 3 years warranty

Paul is correct in saying 14mm is insanely wide on FX
 
nictry said:
Yep I keep being drawn to the Nikon 20mm, can be had for relatively reasonable price from amazon germany now too (~£520) but the 16-35 seems to have a bit more flexibility, just feels such a big overlap with the 24-70????
Click to expand...

It is a big overlap and this initially put me off but a few things to consider

The 16-35 in terms of IQ even stopped down falls of after 28mm

The 24-70 fringes like a pig at short FL. C/A is really bad. By 35mm its pretty much gone but its not good at 24-28mm for sure.

The 16-35 is at its best between 19-28mm and sharpness wise in my copies is better than my 24-70 from 24-c.28mm. C/A is much less in the 16-35 from 24-28mm than the 24-70

From 28mm I'd rather use 24-70 than 16-35 but under 28mm 16-35 hands down

The overlap is much shorter thus than you think.
 
Last edited:
I went from a D7000 with a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 (and other lenses) to full frame the other year, bought a 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 and have only occasionally missed having an ultra wide lens since, as 24mm on FF is still pretty wide. I'd say as you don't have a telephoto lens that could open a few new options depending where you are and what you like to photograph - I find a 70-200mm invaluable in mountainous/hilly areas to compress a scene or focus on subjects poking out above mist etc
 
Last edited:
When I had a D600 I used the 18-35 which had just been released. It's a very good alternative to the 16-35 if you don't need VR. The 18-35 is lighter and smaller and has pretty good performance at all focal lengths. Something to consider at least...
 
ST4 said:
It is a big overlap and this initially put me off but a few things to consider

The 16-35 in terms of IQ even stopped down falls of after 28mm

The 24-70 fringes like a pig at short FL. C/A is really bad. By 35mm its pretty much gone but its not good at 24-28mm for sure.

The 16-35 is at its best between 19-28mm and sharpness wise in my copies is better than my 24-70 from 24-c.28mm. C/A is much less in the 16-35 from 24-28mm than the 24-70

From 28mm I'd rather use 24-70 than 16-35 but under 28mm 16-35 hands down

The overlap is much shorter thus than you think.
Click to expand...

This is a superb analysis and really makes me think more about the 16-35 option, hmmm lets see what the classifieds offer up ;)
 
Scirocco_09 said:
I went from a D7000 with a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 (and other lenses) to full frame the other year, bought a 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 and have only occasionally missed having an ultra wide lens since, as 24mm on FF is still pretty wide. I'd say as you don't have a telephoto lens that could open a few new options depending where you are and what you like to photograph - I find a 70-200mm invaluable in mountainous/hilly areas to compress a scene or focus on subjects poking out above mist etc
Click to expand...

I do have a 70-300 tamron (newer VC) and deliberately didn't spend a lot as frankly i rarely used my old 70-200 vr and felt like it was wasted on me so sold it a long while back.
 
nictry said:
I do have a 70-300 tamron (newer VC) and deliberately didn't spend a lot as frankly i rarely used my old 70-200 vr and felt like it was wasted on me so sold it a long while back.
Click to expand...
Fair enough Nick, I must have missed that. They are specialist, have to admit I haven't used mine since being in the Lakes in November. Almost a permanent fixture there mind!
 
Scirocco_09 said:
Fair enough Nick, I must have missed that. They are specialist, have to admit I haven't used mine since being in the Lakes in November. Almost a permanent fixture there mind!
Click to expand...

You didnt miss it, I just didnt detail in my original post :oops: :$
 
Its a personal choice.
Analyse what you do, what you need, what you like, how much you are prepared to spend and generally there really is only 1-2 lenses possible.

I mainly used a 24-70 f2.8 on my crop sensor in the past.
I moved to full frame and looked over my library over the last several years to see where my tastes lay and what my customers wanted.
From there it was easy.
I needed a 24-70 f2.8.
I was often left unable to get shots without VR so that had to be a feature in my next purchase.
I needed a new backup lens to cover the same focal range. So entered a 24-120 f4 VR. Not as sharp but very good for most paid work. The dof is too much compared to a f2.8 lens, but suitable as a backup or when I do not need the shallow dof.
I also knew I'd need to cover the 70-200 range as I like portraits typically around 100mm +/-30. So entered the 70-200 f2.8 VR
Weather proofing was required.
A budget was set.
Lenses with 95% of the performance for 30% of the price were compared. Then measured against the questions: would I be able to tell on a print which lens took which photo? Would my clients?
I also try to feel the lenses as I've changed my mind when one felt too light, flimsy and insubstantial in my hands.
A shortlist created against the above requirements.
Then the budget was blown to a degree and I got what I needed and met all my other criteria.
 
southernjessie said:
When I had a D600 I used the 18-35 which had just been released. It's a very good alternative to the 16-35 if you don't need VR. The 18-35 is lighter and smaller and has pretty good performance at all focal lengths. Something to consider at least...
Click to expand...

I too considered it...my only downer was 16-35 has a better coating for flare resistance and imparts more contrasty images.
 
nictry said:
Having bought a D750 to finally take the leap from my trusty D7100 to FX, I realised that despite having had a 24-70 attached to my D7100 for some while (against some folk's advice!!!) I absolutely love it on the D750 but what now for my second body dx (7100) and related lenses?

I know its a personal thing but just seeking other's thoughts on what you would do/have done before I make some changes to my remaining set up.

So as it stands I have a D7100 now as a second body - useful as a back up should the dreadful situation arise that the new D750 drops dead etc. but seeing the increased 'performance' from the D750 am left wondering now if the D7100 wont really make me feel warm and fuzzy anymore, I cant afford nor feel I should by a second FX body so thats off the table as an option.

As to lenses I have a Tokina 11-20 f2.8 dx only really, a Tamron 90mm new VC version (either) and a 50mm f1.8 which I could just keep use.

What is missing for me now I feel it a UWA for the D750 and its doing my head in thinking about the ideal option of the 14-24 Nikon but realistically would a 16-35 or even a 18-35 work fine, or possibly even a Tamron 15-30? Otherwise I could keep the Tokina on the D7100 but would I regret not have a FX UWA.......Arrghhhhhh!!!!!

Anyway, thought some of you kind folks would give me a bunch of different perspectives/experiences before I decide what to do next, sell/buy/sick with what I have?
Click to expand...
I have the 18-35mm G on the D750 and am really impressed. Tests show that it's actually sharper than the 16-35mm but obviously it's not as fast and not weather sealed if those things are important to you. It is lighter though which is nicer to carry around.
 
Personally on the d750 I would go 20 1.8g takes the 77 lee as well sharper and faster than the zooms unless you want the zoom range if for landscapes I would go with the 20mn
 
Can only really say what I have settled on over the years of being first a film user then Dx and now Fx. Starting from widest, Sigma 8mm fisheye, Sigma 12-24, Tamron 14 f/2.8, Nikkor 24-120 f/4, Nikkor 50 f/1.8, Nikkor 70-300 VR, Nikkor 105 Micro. The first 3 will only accept gel filters slipped into slots behind the rear element, so if you're a polariser or grad user, you're stuffed, although there might be a Lee adaptor for the 12-24. For most uses, including landscapes, the 24-120 is wide enough and accepts more conventionally sized filters/adaptors and (IMO) anything wider than 24 starts introducing very uneven polarization in skies anyway (and I'm not a grad user!) Current Fx body is (like the OP) a D750 and all the above work very well on it!
 
After a lot of thinking I bit the bullet and went for a 16-35, managed to pick up a UK version 3 months old with warranty for less than £600 so very happy,

Now the bigger question, do I keep the D7100 and Tokina 11-20 as a back up or sell up and buy a second FX body?!?!?!?!?!? Decisions!
 
nictry said:
...
Now the bigger question, do I keep the D7100 and Tokina 11-20 as a back up or sell up and buy a second FX body?!?!?!?!?!? Decisions!
Click to expand...
If you don't need the "reach" of the D7100 I seriously doubt you will use it much once you start using the D750 so I'd get rid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top