Nikon Full Frame lenses vs. DX lenses

[colin_mangan]

<p>Slowly building a wedding photography rig (just bought a d300 and a 50mm 1.8 lens) and i am going to buy the 17-55 2.8 next. However, should I buy the Full frame version or DX version of the lens. Are things going to be moving to full frame in the future (I know the D700 already exists). Do you think that full frame will become mainstream again?</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>There is no full-frame version of the 17-55/2.8. It is a DX lens. The full-frame equivalent would be the 24-70/2.8.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Colin, I would not put big money in any DX lens if you are planning to stay in the business for the long haul. You will want/need an FX body if for no other reason that better high-ISO performance. If you are set on the 17-55 DX lens, look of a good deal on a used sample, they are for-sale everywhere.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>since you just bought a D300 you're in the DX world for the time being, and the 17-55/2.8 is probably the right choice for now. but since FX is already on your radar, it might be wise to keep compatibility with the FX sensor in mind as you make future purchases.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>I dislike small senor cams except for vacation and hikes and quick pics. My D700 is one of the better cameras I ever purchased. The portrait focal lengths like 85/105 work as they do on film. Wide lenses are not cropped down.<br>

You can use DX lens on FX , but only the center 24x16 mm of the field shows. There is a black border or a frame line depending on how the camera is set. The pics are not bad, but it is a waste. They will not be as good as the a D300 pic.<br>

If you consider ever going FX, do not invest in expensive DX lenses like the 17/55 and 70/200 2.8. While not called DX, the 70/200 really is best used DX.</p>

<p>There is no FX 17/55 2.8. There is a 17/35 and 35/70 both discontinued and are fine lenses. They cover FX. I am using a 80/200 4.0 AiS while I wait a redesigned FX 70/200. A multitude of prime lenses exist that will not be obsolete in a FX upgrade.</p>

[hamish_gray]

<blockquote>

<p>While not called DX, the 70/200 really is best used DX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not sure what you mean here Ronald, but the 70/200 2.8 is certainly not a DX lens.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[duncan_m1]

<p>I'd go with Dan's suggestion and pick up a used 17-55mm at a decent price. When you upgrade to an FX system you can easily sell the 17-55mm again.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p>While not called DX, the 70/200 really is best used DX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not true at all I've used a couple of them them extensively on various D3 and D700 series bodies without problems .</p>

<p>It is true that at the wide end the 17-55mm f/2.8 will not cover the FX (24x36mm format, but if it behaves anything like other DX zooms some where around 24 or 28mm it will start to cover the full 24x36mm format.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are things going to be moving to full frame in the future (I know the D700 already exists).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon currently has three FX format cameras in the market: the D3, the D700 and the D3x but has no plans to discontinue DX format cameras through at least the end of 2010. I've seen their official projections or "roadmap" as some people call it. I suspect new DX format cameras will be around for quite a bit after that as well.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Buy the 17-55. Make money with it. Get a 24-70 for your D700 or whatever when you buy that and sell the old stuff.</p>

<p>You'll be fine.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>IMHO you are best off if you get the lens that does the job for the format you currently have. I don't think a 24-70mm will work as well in DX for weddings as a 17-55mm would. I think you will find the 17-35 lacking at the long end for DX. I don't think the 17-35 will work as well for weddings as the 24-70mm as you will need a lens change or second body for normal to short tele like a 35-70mm. I don't shoot weddings but from all that I have read people use a 17-55 and 70-200 in DX or a 24-70 and tele zoom for FX. I have upgraded from a D200 to a D700 and have changed out some of my film Nikkors that worked well in DX field of view for better a fit with FX. You have picked your format. Get a good setup and get the business going. Invest in equipment like format change when the need occurs.</p>

[john_vo4]

<p>No real expert advice on this, just a general idea: Unless you're on the cusp of buying another body (like under a year), buy lenses for the camera you have, not the camera you want.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>Corners are very soft at 150 mm and up and does not get better on stopping down. This is well reported on the internet and some have posted pictures as examples. Since FX was a long way away when this lens was introduced, I call it a DX lens. Now if you shoot centered subjects on the long end and expect a blurred background, you will never see it. If you do landscapes at 200. it will be obvious.</p>

<p>I don`t have one myself, but many reputable people have come to that conclusion.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think the 24-70/2.8 would work well on either DX or FX. You can complement your setup with e.g. a 12-24/4 for the wide end. IMO a 24-70 range is well suited for event photography on either format. And you get to keep it for use with any future FX camera that you may buy.</p>

 

[rossb]

<p>Nobody knows what Nikon will do about sensor sizes in the future. All you can do is guess. However you just spent a big chunk of money on the D300 so I would think it warrants a wide angle lens of excellent quality. So I think you should buy the 17-55mm f2.8 (new or used). The camera and lens are good for many years of shooting. </p>

[davidgarth]

<p>I don't want to start a "full frame vs cropped sensor" debate. They both have their place. The D300 and the 17-55 will yield excellent, professional quality wedding pictures in the hands of a competent photographer. I laugh when I read stuff like "I dislike small sensor cams except for vacation and hikes and quick pics." My D300 pictures have been published in National Geographic Traveler and National Geographic Adventure and lots of other places without any complaints about quality. Lots of "reduced sensor" images are used in all kinds of professional situations. For God's sake, I shot weddings for years with ISO 160 medium format negative film, and got good results, and now people say they can't do it with ISO 1600?</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<blockquote>

<p>"I dislike small senor cams except for vacation and hikes and quick pics."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I would agree with you, but would also add wildlife and other long focal length shooting. Indeed, those make up most of my photography which is why I am staying with DX until I see a good reason to change.</p>