Mixed Bag, FX with DX?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by dan_brown|4, Jul 3, 2008.

  1. First, let me say that with the advent of the D700, I am very excited about my 50/1.4D-AF becoming a "normal" lens again, and as well,
    my 35/2.0D-AF becoming a "street" lens again.

    However, I am wondering what lens set-ups others are using for event work with two bodies, an FX and a DX.

    I am thinking that eventually, a D700+24-70/2.8 and the D200 (or D300) with a 70/80-200/2.8 would be the way to go. On the other had, I
    have the dandy 50-150/2.8 DX Sigma, and I don't see myself letting the 16-85 DX Nikkor go anytime soon. I'm also wondering how the
    17-35/2.8 might fit into the equation, since it would be pretty useful on both bodies.

    For the record, my primes are the 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 300/4. My zooms are the 16-85DX, 50-150/2.8DX and 70-300/5.6 VR Nikkor.
    BTW, and am not a super-duper ultra-wide shooter (24mm on FX is usually wide enough for me). Of course, it would be nice to go wider
    for fun from time to time.

    Any thoughts and/or discussion are most welcome.
     
  2. "I am very excited about my 50/1.4D-AF becoming a "normal" lens again"

    Personally, I'd rather shoot portraits on my 50 with a DX than with my 85 on FF. The only reason I'd consider a
    D700 or D3 is the high iso performance. Otherwise, I'm a DX lover. I shoot medium format and 4x5, so I don't have
    a "normal" focal length when it comes to small format.

    I can see your conundrum though. I'm top of the list for a D700 in this area and will leave the "24-70" decision
    when the time comes at the store as having a D300 with 17-55 along side a D700 with a 24-70 seems redundant.
     
  3. dan, you just bought the 11-16 and 16-85, right? cant see dumping those for a 14-24. you'd still need the mid/long
    end, and you'd give up VR. similarly, the 50-150 is nice on DX. if you shoot longer lenses, there's no reason to get a
    D700, so i'd think most FX maneuvering will be on the wide end. it's all bad for the 17-55, unless you are in the
    market for a used copy under $900.

    problem is, the wide FF 2.8 zooms (i.e. the 14-24 and 17-35) but the 17-35 could definitely fit into the equation as
    you say for DX/FX folks. for many D700ites it will be a choice between that, the 14-24 and the 24-70... hmmm,
    suddenly i wish i would've picked up the sigma 15-30 when it was $240 on amazon

    anyway, with FX, primes now make more sense. i think 20/24/28 primes could experience a renaissance, along with
    the 50 1.8 and 1.4. also the tamron 28-75 will no longer be too wide, and the sigma 12-24 could also get a second
    look. i'd be stoked to use my 15mm sigma fisheye on FX, since it's only semi-fishy on DX
     
  4. Then your DX has a conversion factor of 5.71. The DX camera with a 50mm gives the approximate FOV of a 285mm lens on the 4x5 camera. Both are longer than the normal lens for the format. The normal lens is generally considered to be the diagonal of the film or sensor. Or 28mm for the DX and 160mm for the 4x5.

    But back to the original question I just have a 12-24 in the DX format. The rest of my lenses are for the 35mm camera since I use both formats. So if I had a D700 which I don't I would just use any lens I own except my 12-24. Apparently that would work on the 5mp crop sensor mode of the D700.
     
  5. No, I don't have the 11-16, but I did get the 16-85 fairly recently. The D200+16-85VR is a great camera to grab when the family
    heads out to do, well, whatever. But event shooting, which covers a wide range of activities, is when I carry two bodies and
    concentrate on the photography. From day one, I guess I'll use the 35/2 on it mostly. It'll be a good while before I can add a 2.8
    zoom, just from the $$ point of view. I will press the D700 into service in my home studio, using strobes and my 60 Micro for
    product-style photography, as well as the 50 and 85 for people shots. The D700 is going to be the low light tool, and will also
    give me live view, the bigger, clearer display.
     
  6. I think now that more affordable FX DSLRs will be available to us the 17-55 is doomed. I'm not planning to buy a
    D700 right now coz I don't feel the need of FX or maybe I just don't understand its benefits but eventually, when
    the time comes, I'm sure I will have one. For that I have my plan ready, my 17-55 is a goner. I will keep my
    11-16 on a DX camera, a 24-70 on my FX and the telephoto lenses can be used on either one. I just don't see a
    purpose on having the 17-55 when you own an FX body. One thing I would like to try is my 35-70 f/2.8 on an FX
    DSLR. Has anyone of you tried on a D3? Any comments on that? Rene'
     
  7. I'm just going to port over all my lenses from my F4s to the D700. It's the camera that I've been waiting for. Got a 28mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/2, 105mm f/2.5, 105mm f/4 micro, 200mm f/4, 400m f/5.6, 35-70mm f/2.8D and 80-200mm f/2.8D
     

Share This Page