Nikon Lenses DX - FX

[cliff123]

Hi. I currently have a D300 with the 18-70 from off the D70. I'm now at a stage to upgrade this for the 17-55 2.8. My only query to whether this is the best choice is the presence of the D700 and D3. If in a year I was to buy one of these full frame cameras the 18-70 would not be fully useable. Is there a way around this, or is that just the way of the lens world? Any insight advice is welcomed. Thanks.

[GetCarter]

It's the way of the lens world. Any DX lens will work on an FX camera but it will only utilise just over half the sensors. (or Just under - Ta Simpo!)

ETA 17-55 DX is a bloody great lens though! Did most of my Landscapes from the past 3 years.

Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 16th September 10:02

[Simpo Two]

You can use DX lenses on the D700 and D3 - they just vignette horribly depending on focal length. For example I've tried the 17-55 on my D700 and it looks fine at the long end, but gives almost a circle at the wide end.

Certainly the D700, and therefore probably the D3, have an 'AutoDX' feature whereby they automatically crop the images from DX lenses - however the result is only 5Mp instead of 12Mp, so rather wasteful. You can turn it off, take the vignetted image instead and make your own crop - in most circumstances that would leave more image, but make more work for you!

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 16th September 10:02

[VxDuncan]

Well the D3 and D700 will run in DX (crop mode) so you could keep the lens working, but that would be a big waste of the camera. Personally I wouldn't worry too much, esp if you can buy the 17-55 second hand. You don't tend to make a massive loss selling a lens SH if you didn't pay over the odds in the first place, and a well respected lens like the 17-55 2.8 should hold its value well, despite the rush to FX. Alternatively you could consider the Sigma alternative and put the other £500 in the D700 pot?

[Simpo Two]

GetCarter said:

ETA 17-55 DX is a bloody great lens though!

Until you see the 24-70 f2.8 FX...

I hadn't realised how much I liked my 17-55 until I had to consider parting with it. It's bizarre, you almost end up choosing your lenses first, then finding a body that fits them... wibble.

[GetCarter]

Simpo Two said:

GetCarter said:

ETA 17-55 DX is a bloody great lens though!

Until you see the 24-70 f2.8 FX...

Which is what I bought to replace the 17-55.

[cliff123]

Does the 24mm fx work out to be roughly as wide as the 17mm dx in reality?

[Simpo Two]

cliff123 said:

Does the 24mm fx work out to be roughly as wide as the 17mm dx in reality?

If you're used to 17mm on DX then yes, you want 25.5mm in FX so 24mm is the closest. The factor is 1.5x.

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 16th September 13:40

[cliff123]

Thanks for your replies.

Does anyone happen to have a Nikon 17-55 2.8 in very good condition that they want to sell for a reasonable sum?

I will also have the following to sell as soon as I've got my hands on the above mentioned lens. Let me know if anyone interested.
Nikon 18-70mm 3.5-4.5
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Nikon 70-300mm 4-5.6

[GetCarter]

Sold mine last month... sorry.

If you can afford it, Grays of Westminster have two second hand in stock. They cost more but solve any problems without a mutter.

[Simpo Two]

cliff123 said:

I will also have the following to sell as soon as I've got my hands on the above mentioned lens. Let me know if anyone interested.
Nikon 18-70mm 3.5-4.5
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Nikon 70-300mm 4-5.6

You may want to keep the 18-70 as a backup in case you drop the 17-55. I speak from experience!

[cliff123]

Simpo Two said:

You may want to keep the 18-70 as a backup in case you drop the 17-55. I speak from experience!

Ouch, imagine the air was blue for a minute or two after that.

[Simpo Two]

cliff123 said:

Simpo Two said:

You may want to keep the 18-70 as a backup in case you drop the 17-55. I speak from experience!

Ouch, imagine the air was blue for a minute or two after that.

I was working with a client at the time (I moved my bag which was holding up the lighting bag which fell forwards and swiped the lens off the top of a filing cabinet) so had to shrug it off and pretend it was nothing. Except it was so broken that it wouldn't mount on the camera... did the job with the 50mm instead, but it was rather long at times.

The repair bill was more than the job

[vitamin_b]

Cliff123

in reply:Does anyone happen to have a Nikon 17-55 2.8 in very good condition that they want to sell for a reasonable sum?

I may be selling my 17-55 f2.8 nikon lens. I bought it less than a year ago. I am thinking of selling it and going for the FX format D700, unless I get crap money for it. I have not looked at what they go for used, but mine is in great condition.

[cliff123]

Vit, if you could email via my profile letting me know what you would like for it that would be great. To confirm, its the 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX NIKKOR I'm after, not the non AF-S version. I've just found a mint 2nd hand one in a local shop, though of course its got shop premium on it, but I'd like to buy one sometime soon. Thanks.

[jason-l]

GetCarter said:

Simpo Two said:

GetCarter said:

ETA 17-55 DX is a bloody great lens though!

Until you see the 24-70 f2.8 FX...

Which is what I bought to replace the 17-55.

I recently purchased a D700, and so wanted a 24-70 to replace my 17-55... tried THREE samples and all were terrible Very soft wide open, and even stopped-down they were soft outside centre-frame. Glad I'd kept my 17-55... my example of which is vastly superior to those three I tried.

Can only assume I was trying a bad batch considering the glowing reviews

For now, I'm using 17-55 as a 30-55 lens - still producing great results until I feel confident enough to revisit trying for a good 24-70 sample again.

[vitamin_b]

The 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor is a cracker lens. I am worried that the 24-70 might be considerably heavier and bulkier. Correct me if I am wrong, but the weight comparison is something like 750grm v 1kg, that is 250grm extra on already a rather heavy lens, for exactly the same performance, in my mind.

Originally, I was considering which one to go for 17-55 or 24-70. The main reason I bought the 17-55 is because it is smaller and lighter lens. May be I am deluding myself of thinking there is a noticeable difference between the two. Did anyone ever compare the two next to each other? Am I the only one who's concerned about the size and weight of the two lenses?

I never thought of migrating to the full sized sensor that quickly. I've read reviews of both lenses and they're both superb, but I want full sensor for low noise.

I thought the 24-70 is the gold standard for the FX nikon cameras. How does Sigma's equivalent compare?

PS cliff123, I will be able to send you an email tomorrow, as I have been registered less than 24h.

[Simpo Two]

jason-l said:

For now, I'm using 17-55 as a 30-55 lens - still producing great results until I feel confident enough to revisit trying for a good 24-70 sample again.

Using the 17-55 on the D700 vignettes impossibly at the wide end - do you use Auto DX crop and simply take 5Mp images?

Another option to the 24-70 is the 28-70 (which looks like the 17-55 but bigger) - but it's still about a kilo...

NB Vit B - did you get my mail?

Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 18th September 06:59

[jason-l]

Simpo Two said:

jason-l said:

For now, I'm using 17-55 as a 30-55 lens - still producing great results until I feel confident enough to revisit trying for a good 24-70 sample again.

Using the 17-55 on the D700 vignettes impossibly at the wide end - do you use Auto DX crop and simply take 5Mp images?

I use it in the range 30-55mm shooting on FX - I don't switch to DX mode. It still vignettes (as opposed to masks) at 30mm but it's a quality I sometimes want and can be easily removed in Lightroom. At 28 it does vignette/mask badly in the extreme corners, but I can happily use this if I'm planning a 5:4 crop.

It's a temporary compromise though, I'll admit that... I wouldn't recommend it for landscapes on FX, the corners aren't brilliant. I want a 24-70 but had no luck finding one that wasn't a total dog last month