Get DX lenses or non-DX for DSLRs?

[leo_djiwatampu]

<p>After reading <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-

msg?msg_id=00EDeQ&tag=200512081112">this thread</a>, which discussed

whether Nikon Full Frame DSLR will eventually be made, should I get

DX lenses or the non DX lenses? (Due to vignetting issue if DX

lenses are used on full frame)

</p>

 

<p>I don't have any DSLR camera at the moment and pretty much open

to any brand. My aim is prosumer camera such as D200. I plan to

use it for weddings. Can't afford a D2X (yet).</p>

 

<p>Based on my experience with films, I need these lenses:

<br/>Portrait lense (85-90mm), normal lens (50mm), wide (either 24

and 35mm combo, or just 28mm), and eventually fisheye or super wide

(16-20mm)</p>

 

<p>I do like primes, but changing lenses can be a hassle and may

lose good moments (unless in the future I can afford more camera and

have different lens on different camera, and, yes, I do know I need

a backup camera/equipment). So if there are good or even top of the

line fast zooms, I'll consider them. I believe in spending good

lenses (although expensive) is worth down the line and is a good

investment.</p>

 

<p>Could you please give me some suggestions?<p>

 

<p>BTW, the reason I pick Nikon is that a camera store guy told me

that Nikon has the best TTL flash metering. I get OK result from my

current manual Minolta flash/camera set but not satisfied. Minolta

DSLR have the built-in anti-shake tech, which is nice but not sure

if I need it. Not sure if I need Nikon VR lenses also. Another

camera store guy told me that Canon have better color rendition than

Nikon. However, my problem is usually with getting a good exposure

ratio of background and subject using flash. If I use my light

meter, I may lose moments.</p>

 

<p>Thanks,

<br/>Leo</p>

[aaron_ng]

With the D200, equivalent 35mm focal length will be multipled by 1.5x. So you'll need 60mm for portrait, 35mm for normal lens, 16 or 24mm (to achieve 24 and 35mm) as well as a superwide of 10mm!

[ShunCheung]

To me, it doesn't make sense to buy lenses that don't fit your current needs.

 

Nikon will probably introduce some full-frame DSLRs some time in the future. The question is when, what price and whether you'll need it.

[bdpics]

Personally, I think DX lenses are a rip-off, and I intend to buy as few of them as I can--with the notable exception of a super-wide zoom like the Nikkor 12-24, Sigma 10-20, etc. for use with the current cropped-sensor DSLRs.

 

I still have one foot in the film world, and thus I can't use the DX lenses on my film bodies (well, you can, but with very mixed results....).

 

In general, I prefer to have good to great glass with maximum compatibility for the long haul, so I don't buy DX lenses (except super-wide zoom), nor "G" lenses with no aperture ring. I think the overall quality of the DX lenses is fair-average at best, and I predict within 5-7 years or so they'll be more or less obsolete when Nikon adopts full frame DSLR's.

[leslie_cheung]

I don't like dx lenses either but if I was wealthy or if my photography was my main source of income then I would agree with Shun: Get what you need now. My guess is the nikon FF will be out late 2006 or spring '07.

[lex_jenkins]

I keep flip-flopping on this issue.

 

On the one hand, I still use film about half the time. So I like having lenses that can be used on my film Nikons and D2H.

 

On the other hand, every time I think about selling off my 18-70/3.5-4.5DX kit zoom, which I bought more or less on a whim, I drag it out, use it for a day, and realize it's actually a pretty good lens for the money and I'd have to spend a helluva lot more to get a little better quality in a faster zoom.

 

I figure that as long as I own my D2H - which will probably be until it croaks and parts are unavailable (I don't replace gear very often) - a DX lens will remain useful.

 

If you're in the habit of using equipment for many years and if you don't see an APS sized sensor as inherently inferior to a 24x36 sensor (which, when you think about it, is a "crop" compared with, oh, say, 645, 6x6 or larger formats), then, sure, you might find the DX lenses satisfactory. They're certainly a good buy compared with the roughly equivalent lenses designed for 35mm film, such as the 17-35/2.8, which costs at least a couple hundred more than the 17-55/2.8 DX.

 

Nikon flash better than Canon? Yeh, I think so. That was a major factor in my decision to stick with Nikon when I got a dSLR. The combo of the D2H and SB-800 hasn't disappointed me yet, and the wireless capability is cool. (For now at least I can rent additional SB-800 units cheaply enough that I don't need to buy others for wireless operation.)

 

Better color rendition? I don't see how anybody can make such a definitive statement. Even various Canon dSLRs don't create identical looking images. Photos from the 20D and 5D aren't identical. However Canon dSLRs do have a certain characteristic that is subject to generalization: It's smooth with somewhat less fine detail. That's just about perfect for wedding photography and most people photography. Nikons seem to produce better detail but at the cost of a sometimes grittier or noisier image. Being a longtime b&w shooter and lifetime fan of Tri-X, this suits me fine. Take a close look at the sample images on dpreview.com, in which reviews feature comparable images to facilitate fair evaluations. Decide based on which types of image characteristics you prefer. But keep in mind that in prints up to the native resolution of a particular camera (not using any sort of interpolation), you probably won't see any significant differences. IOW, an 8x10 from a D70s is probably going to be practically indistinguishable from an 8x10 made with a 20D. The more hype I read and the more example images I see the more I'm persuaded that most of the differences claimed to be inherent to a particular camera are in reality the product of biases in photo editing.

[leslie_cheung]

Here's my pragmatic way looking it:

 

If you need wide, get a 12-24mm dx (or some off brand aps). Everything else get FF lenses (you'll just get extra reach on dx sensor). You can always use the 12-14mm on FF at ~17-24mm range of the zoom. That's a safe bet when the nikon FF come out.

[ShunCheung]

Look at the prices for Canon's 1Ds II and 5D. Even though Nikon released a FF DSLR tomorrow, it doesn't mean that a lot of us would rush out and get one immediately. Not everybody can afford a $3000 prosumer body or a $7000 pro body.

 

DX is applicable only to wide angles, including zooms that reach the wide range. Most people won't need more than 1 to 2 DX lenses anyway, perhaps the most useful one being the 12-24mm/f4 DX. If you want to play it safe, buy no more than just that one or opt for the Sigma 12-24 full frame lens. Everything else can cover a FF image circle.

[gaius1]

I would suggest the Nikkor 17-35/2.8 AF-S to cover your wide-to-normal range, which is equivalent to 24-50mm approximately (this is an excellent lens generally reckoned to be superior to most primes in the same range) and the Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8 for portraits, equivalent to 90mm on a 135-format body (very sharp).

[leslie_cheung]

>>>Not everybody can afford a $3000 prosumer body or a $7000 pro body.<<<

 

My hunch is that many many many long time diehard user will drop 3k on a

d200 like FF nikon even if they can't really afford it. There is a market and nikon will make a FF. They did so well with the d70 that they set the d200 price low imo and let's hope they do the same with the FF d200 since the d200 is doing so well.

[schleprock21]

I would get the 12-24 DX lens and the 28-70 2.8. This gives you effectively 18-95mm of reach with only two very high quality lenses.

 

You would be able to sell the DX lens without losing too much once the FF sensors are released. By that time Nikon will have a really good superwide 2.8 lens (Hoping).

[leo_djiwatampu]

<p>I appreciate all your inputs.</p>

 

<p>Well first of all, I'm not wealthy. :) But probably I can owe my credit card for some investments which of course will yield a return.</p>

 

<p>You are right, if the FF comes out, I probably can't afford it right away. I just felt that if I buy DX lens, it might be obsolete in the near future. However, if it won't be obsolete in 5-7 years like some of you predicted, then I guess I will get a pretty good use of it. When I say obsolete, it is when Nikon FF DSLRs price comes down to $2000 or below.</p>

 

<p>As for image results from Canon vs. Nikon. Well, I'm a sucker for sharp and detailed images. So I guess, I'll stick with Nikon. If I want a soft/smooth edges, I can always do it in Photoshop. On the other hand, if the images were originally smooth, will it yield good result if sharpened later on Photoshop?</p>

 

<p>I also like sharp lenses. However, if I have to spend a lot more for just slightly better quality, I'll just get the less expensive one. On the other hand, if I can get a much better quality lens for slightly more $$$, I'll get the more expensive one.</p>

 

<p>Are the Sigmas as sharp as the Nikkors?</p>

 

<p>Is this the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=277227&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation">12-24 DX</a> lenses some of you mentioned?</p>

 

<p>Are these the lenses that Guy suggest:

<br/><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=186250&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation">17-35/2.8 AF-S</a>

 

<br/><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=66987&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation">Micro Nikkor 60/2.8</a>

</p>

 

<p>Is this the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=169589&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation">28-70/2.8</a> that Kevin meant?

 

 

<p>So for future reference and also curiosity, what are the prime or zoom lenses you recommend for the focal length I mentioned above. Well, let me repeat it so you don't have to scroll up.

<br/>Portrait lense (85-90mm, or maybe above 90mm?), normal lens (50mm, or slightly above), wide (either 24 and 35mm combo, or just 28mm), and fisheye or super wide (16-20mm).</p>

[leo_djiwatampu]

I should make it clear that my last question is for FF cameras.

[gaius1]

Yup, those are the ones I meant.