Nikon Lenses. Cropped Sensor vs Full Frame.

Hi, I'm a new member, sorry if I've posted in the wrong category.

 

I have a D3200 and recently bought a nikon nikkor af 50mm f/1.8 d lens and I want a nikon nikkor af-s 35mm f/1.8 dx g, but I eventually

want to upgrade to a full frame nikon. My question is, Will these lenses cover the sensor fully on a full frame dslr? Or should I put the

35mm lens money into my 'new camera' fund? I really dislike variable zoom lenses, so i can live with using the 50mm as my main lens, for

now. I am also unsure of what full frame nikon I will end up with, if that matters. It depends on if I go for new or used andwhen I save up

the money.

 

Thanks in advance. Gareth.

<p>The 50mm lens will be fine on FX. The 35mm will not. The DX in the description of the lens means that is only for DX size sensors (cropped cameras). If a lens doesn't have DX in it's description (Nikon lenses, other manufacturers use other letters), then it is for full-frame cameras.</p>

<p>If you want a fast 35 that will will eventually work (well) for you on an FX body ... it's Nikon's 35/1.4 or Sigma's version. Both truly excellent, but large and expensive lenses (the Nikon more expensive, and not enough better - if it even <em>is</em> better - of a lens to justify the difference, I think). <br /><br />Or, seriously consider whether a shorter prime really makes sense if FX is coming to you any time soon. A 24-70/2.8 may be a lot more useful to you. On the other hand, the DX 35/1.8 is not at all expensive, and if you totally wash you hands of DX, just sell it along with the D3200 when the time comes.</p>

Ah thanks. Yous have been a great help. I'll save my money for the moment. I might possibly go for another fx lens so I

have more to play with whilst I save!

 

Gareth.

<p>a 35/1.8 is only $200. i would actually get that now as IMO 50mm is a bit long for indoor shots on DX and a tad short for portraits. doesnt make a whole lot of sense to buy a FF 35mm lens before you have a body to use it on.</p>

<p>Unless you have a really specific reason to go full frame, why not stick with DX. Right now, you're kind of at the bottom in the lineup of models. The DX line is not going away anytime soon. You can bump up to the 5100, the 5200, the 7000, the 7100 and even older models like the D300, which is still a very good camera.</p>

<p>I have both the 50mm f 1.8 D lens and the 35mm f1.8 DX lens. When I am shooting with my D 300s, a DX body, I use my 35mm f 1.8 lens in that I think it outperforms my 50mm f1.8 D lens. Its AF is certainly faster. When I shoot with my FX bodies I use my 50mm f 1.8 D lens. As long as you have the DX body I would keep the 35mm f 1.8 DX lens and use it. When you get a FX body then decide if you need another FX lens. Joe Smith </p>

<p>Frankly, you're not making a lot of sense. You're fretting over the cheapest lenses, and yet already considering to get a FX body to replace an as-good-as-brand new D3200? FX bodies cost a lot (and will continue to do so for a while), and if you're only going to stick cheap lenses on that FX body, it's not really going to be worth the extra money you'll spend on it. Consider why you would want a FX camera (tip: it is not the holy grail of photography, nor a requirement to be serious about photography).<br>

Don't go too cheap on lenses - for example instead of that 50 f/1.8D, it would have been worth it spending a bit more for the 50 f/1.8G - you get AF on the D3200, plus it is a much much improved lens over the older D version. Lenses keep value, bodies do not. A good lens enables more creative options than a higher-end body does. So, instead of restricting yourself now to a not overly useful not overly great 50mm f/1.8D in order to get a D600 or something later, consider getting seriously nice lenses first. And then the FX body may or may not come some day. But at least in the meanwhile, you'll have a useful kit, capable of good results.</p>

<p>Sorry to sound harsh, but you're restricting yourself in ways that aren't necessary, by ruling out all DX lenses and anything with variable aperture, honestly. Especially when you're on a budget. It just really makes no sense. If your budget is really limited today, the best value for money might well be the 18-55VR and 18-105VR kitlenses. Don't rule these out because it does not have glamourous specifications - both are a surprisingly good lenses for the money. The next best bargain Nikon has is that 35mm f/1.8DX - lots better than the more expensive FX 35mm f/2D, and it'll keep its value. You can easily sell these lenses without loosing a lot of money if you ever go to FX.<br>

So, reconsider your priorities a bit, because you might be cutting yourself short for little reason.</p>

<p>If you're happy with manual focus - and the fact that you got a 50mm f/1.8 D suggests that you might be - then I'd suggest considering the Samyang 35mm f/1.4. It's quite big and not <i>that</i> cheap, but it's appreciably cheaper than the autofocus equivalents of that lens from Nikon and Sigma, and is quite well-regarded. It covers FX if you go that way in the future, and is faster than the DX lens you're considering.<br />

<br />

But Wouter makes a good point - depending on your reasons for wanting full frame. (For all we know you're within a whisker of being able to afford a D4 for the 600mm f/4 you haven't told us about, and you're trying not to blow the budget on lenses in the mean time...) In the meantime, autofocus is awfully nice to have. Unless you're already planning more expenditure, buy for the camera you've got.</p>

<p>If a $200 lens is going to be a burden on the budget, I don't think I'd be thinking about FX cameras at all. You can get very good performance out of current DX models while staying in the realm of cheaper DX lenses. But since the question is about transitioning to FX, what I'd do is, buy the 35mm f/1.8 now and sell it if you go from DX to FX. If you buy the lens new now, you'll only lose about $40 when you resell it, and for that money you get to have the lens you want for the foreseeable future. If you buy the lens used, you can probably work it out so that you don't lose any money on it.</p>

<p>If you are considering going used or new for a full frame then money is an issue. I suggest that the D3200 you have is an extremely nice camera and you are within a hair of becoming a gear-head. The D3200 is a vastly better camera for many if not most uses than the ones I paid $5000 for a few years ago and sometimes still use. <br>

FX is over-rated. You should only spend what it costs for FX and the lenses it requires if you can write a 100 word explanation of why your DX can't do what you need to do;) </p>

<p>Just out of curiosity, why are you averse to using good quality zooms? For the majority of uses they will perform every bit as well as primes. Please explain what these zooms are lacking that you need. Perhaps you find the photography in National Geographic wanting somehow? Most of the shots you see in it are shot with zooms as are all but a few photojournalism shots. In fact. Unless you go over 200mm you would be hard pressed to find a photojournalist using primes for their stock and trade.<br>

Please don't become a gear-head unless you like gadgets more than you like photography. If I were you I would get a nice zoom such as the 16-85 and go out and take pictures. Then I would save up $2000.00. I would keep $1000.00 in my camera fund so I could buy a D7100 should my self-esteem require it. I would spend the other $1000.00 on workshops and seminars. If you would do that I am pretty sure you will be a far better photographer and a lot happier with your equipment. And then in a year or two, when you can explain to us why you need to upgrade.....upgrade.</p>

 

Thanks everyone. I think I was just having a bit of a gear head moment. I had an sony a200 for 4years+ and when it broke

I switched to nikon because of sonys unique hotshoe. I was just trying to avoid a situation where I bought a new camera

and had to buy new lenses as well (due to frame size). I will probably stick with my d3200 until it gives in, I just really

loved the 50mm i bought and was wanting the most from it. I didnt go for the more expensive 50mm lens because I never

use af and from reading an article comparing the 2, I liked the look of the lens I got, though i could see it wasnt the best in

certain aspects.

 

And i dont like variable zoom lenses because of the me part. I fumble and Im slow with them but with a prime I feel im

better and more efficient at focusing. Id love variables zooms if i didntbget into bad habits with them.

 

Thanks Again. All of your wisdom has highlighted to me just how much of an amatuer I am haha.

<p>By variable zooms, do you mean all zooms, or zooms with variable maximum apertures. (In the normal usage, you'd call a zoom that's f/3.5-5.6 "variable aperture" but you wouldn't use the word variable for one that's f/2.8, f/4, etc., throughout the zoom range.) If it's just variable aperture ones you don't like, I sympathize with that and would suggest looking at the 17-50mm f/2.8 zooms from Sigma and Tamron, which are quite good and not crazy expensive.</p>

<p>If you like primes, the 35mm 1.8G is a good one. I used to use it and a kit zoom on DX for everyday use, and the 50mm 1.8G for portraits. Now it's FX, the 50mm, 85mm 1.8G and the Tamron 28-75 2.8.</p>

Sorry for being confusing. Ive never used a fixed aperture zoom lens, only ones with variable apertures. I know zoom

lenses with fixed apertures are of a higher quality, so maybes i should not rule them out completely, but with zoom lenses

with variable apertures that ive used, Ive never liked or felt comfortable using them. I like to move around but I felt I got

lazy with the ability to change focal length.

<p>Zoom lenses aren't meant to spare you from moving around. Exactly the opposite! They're meant to <em>allow</em> you to move around, so that you can get the perspective you want. Perspective is a function of where you're standing, relative to your subject. Only moving your body can change the perspective. <em>Then</em> you choose a focal length that allows you to compose/frame your shot the way you like, given the distance at which you're working. A zoom lens, if it's up to your quality standards, allows you to change focal lengths without having to swap lenses. The old "zoom with your feet" mantra is very misleading.</p>

<p>I don't know if this is off-topic, but I was considering the 35mm f1.4 Sigma, but then read about some compatibility issues with old Sigma lenses. Is this worth worrying about? Or do I buy the 28 f1.8g?<br>

I have an aversion to the 24-70 due to it's size and my love for shallow DOF. Is that unfounded?<br>

BTW, when are Nikon bringing out the 24-70 f1.2 with edge to edge sharpness the size of my current 50mm 1.4?</p>

<p>The new Sigma 35/1.4 works just fine on current Nikon bodies. More to the point, though, they'll soon be shipping a USB docking port that will allow you to updated the lens firmware without having to ship the lens back to the factory for re-chipping. They're going to be doing that for all of the new series lenses. Which is great!<br /><br />That new 35/1.4, by the way, is a beauty. </p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2344388">Matt Laur</a> wrote: "The old "zoom with your feet" mantra is very misleading."<br /><br />Thanks for your arguments! I always felt the same.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2344388">Matt Laur</a> wrote: "The old "zoom with your feet" mantra is very misleading."<br /><br />Thanks for your arguments! I always felt the same.</p>

<p>Albin: I really like your Africa stuff. Beautiful.</p>