General Purpose/Walkabout lens - Nikon FX

[8bit]

@Simpo - interesting, why did you go back to DX? What sort of photography do you do?

@conkerman, I don't really do macro or wildlife, if I did then I probably wouldn't consider full-frame either.

[eltawater]

More importantly, what sort of photography so you do?

I have a tamron 17-50 2.8 as my walkabout with the sigma 70-200 2.8 for airshow and bird photography on my d7000. Can't say I've ever wanted for shallower DOF in those ranges.

Excuse the Facebook munged photos....

[Simpo Two]

8bit said:

@Simpo - interesting, why did you go back to DX? What sort of photography do you do?

This was for weddings. I'd used a D200 very happily for a while but then the D700 came out, which was, at that time, the low light monster to have. Weddings, low light capabliity, what's not to like? So I got one. My 17-55 f2.8 was DX so I got a 28-85 to fill in below the 70-200 f2.8. I didn't mind the extra size but I found that at certain times the D700 hunted and lost shots such that I had to get the D200 out and swap lenses hastily. I was also used to the FOVs from my lenses on DX and of course when you change format the FOV changes too - and 200mm wasn't long enough for everything I wanted to do. Another thing was that the D700 had a CMOS sensor and the colours always looked slightly odd. Maybe that was software (I used Capture One Pro) but I couldn't be bothered to experiment; the D700 went back and I stayed with the D200 from then on. It got the results I wanted and was reliable. OK so ISO was marginal at times but with fast lenses and technique I never needed to go above 800. So in short, I stayed with DX because it suited what I did and how I liked to do it. However you may find different!

[8bit]

eltawater said:

More importantly, what sort of photography so you do?

I have a tamron 17-50 2.8 as my walkabout with the sigma 70-200 2.8 for airshow and bird photography on my d7000. Can't say I've ever wanted for shallower DOF in those ranges.

Excuse the Facebook munged photos....

Lovely shots

I did explain some of the sorts of things I want full-frame for on the previous page.

@Simpo Two - thanks for that, useful insight.

[ukaskew]

I know it's probably not on your radar, but have you considered the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art?

None of the options you've mentioned are really going to sing on an FX body (not enough to justify an upgrade, in my opinion), particularly as you specifically want improved low light performance etc.

The focal length is amazingly adaptable, if I go for a day out, holiday etc I can happily use that and nothing else and never really feel restricted. I shoot around 90% of a wedding day with that one lens.

Yes, for day to day stuff there are occasionally shots that simply aren't possible, but for everything else the sharpness, shallow DoF opportunities and low light performance more than make up for it.

[conkerman]

I agree with the above.

A 35 or 50mm f1.8 is a hell of a lot cheaper than going FX. Buy used and If you decide you want FX, sell the prime for around what you paid.

[8bit]

Just to round out this thread, on the basis of cost to replace the lenses I have now I decided to stick with DX for the time being. Thanks all for the input.

I did treat myself to this - still DX but I got a cracking deal on it so I figured I'd be able to sell for what I paid if/when the time comes and so far I love using it...



(shot with Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G)

[Simpo Two]

And always check your post after posting it...

[8bit]

I did, it worked fine. This happened over the weekend. fk you very much, Photobucket.

[8bit]

Anyway, so this is what I bought instead: