Filling the DX gap between 24mm and 80mm

[doug andrews]

<p>I recently posted a question about upgrading my D200 to an FX body. Given my particular circumstances, the consensus was to stick with a DX body which I'm happy to do. However there is a focal length range that I really would also like to upgrade. I am a landscape shooter 95% of the time. For the UWA end I have the Tokina 12-24mm lens and for longer reach I have the Nikkor 80-200mm , both of which I'm content to keep. Its the range from 24-80mm that needs upgrading. For the longest time I was using an old Sigma 28-105mm lens that I permanently borrowed from my wife's setup when she went to a digital P&S camera. It was never as good an overall performer as my other lenses and that small gap from 24mm to 28mm and the big overlap from 80-105mm always bothered me. Most if not all mid range DX zoom lenses seem to start at 16 or 17mm. But I already have the 16-24mm range covered with the Tokina lens. Ideally what I want is a zoom lens in the 24mm-80mm range. There are quite a few FX zoom lenses that would fit that range. Am I missing some long term wisdom in going forward with the new FX Nikkor 24-85mm VR AF-S lens for example considering that when I upgrade my DSLR, it'll almost certainly be another DX body (if/when the D400 ever appears)??</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p> I haven't seen the 24-85 VR. Is it 2.8? If so, that may be your answer.<br />Otherwise, the obvious choice would be the Nikon 24-70 2.8.<br />Personally, I have the Tokina 12-24 4.0, the Sigma 24-70 2.8 and the Tamron 70-200 2.8, all on a D200. I'm very happy, but the long-term plan is to replace all of them with the Nikon equivalents when I can justify the cost.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>You might take a look at this.</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/284402-REG/Tamron_AF09NII_700_28_75mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html</p>

<p> </p>

[lisa_b4]

<p>One of my favorite lenses, and I think one of Nikon's best bang-for-the-buck lenses ever, is the 35-70 AF-D 2.8 It is razor sharp, built like a tank, and it's an FX lens--so it works equally well on FX or DX should you decide to go to FX at some point. I got mine used in mint condition for $250. Seeing as you have 12-24 covered already, the 35-70 would fill in the rest of the 24-80 range for you. The 35-70 is not AFS so it does focus a little slower, but, every time I use mine I'm blown away by the quality images it produces. You can see some reviews of this great lens <a href="http://www.tangentphoto.com/reviews/lenses/nikon35-70mmf2.8Dlensreview.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=112">here</a>.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the tamron 28-75 works very well with the tokina 12-24.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>+1 for the Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8. It's about the smallest and lightest mid-range f/2.8 zoom going, not to mention being very affordable. I'm still amazed at how well it performs, even after about 18 months of near-daily use now. I thought that using it on a D800 might show up some IQ shortcomings, but not so!</p>

[heimbrandt]

<p>I have a Nikkor 10-24 and a Nikkor 55-300. I have also thought about what to use in between. (To be honest I do have both a Nikkor 18-55 that came with the D80 and an 18-105 that came with the D7000.) If I would not have gotten the 18-105 with the camera, I would probably have gotten the 16-85 and never looked back. I have only seen positive reviews on the 16-85. Why not consider it as your in-between-zoom (or as a single lens pick for those days you do not want to carry a camera bag? Those days, I value the 18-105. Adding a 16-86 to your setup does not create that much overlap.</p>

<p>I decided to get a prime and got the Nikkor 40/2.8. Albeit not as fast as the 35/1.8, it compensates by beeing a macro lens and is therefore more versatile (to me). Could that be an option for you or must it be a zoom lens covering every possible focal lenght?</p>

[lisa_b4]

<p>I should add that Ken Rockwell also has a good review of the 35-70 2.8, but Photo.net filters prevented me from providing a link to his review......</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>There is no reason for you to have a hard and fast line that the lens must start at 24mm. I don't understand why having overlap is bad, and people plan around it as if their gear will melt if they just happen to have two lenses that overlap a tiny bit. Focal lengths are not like pokemon cards here, if you get a good lens that just happens to have overlap, you're not losing anything. For example, the Nikon 16-85mm is about the same price as the 24-85mm, and the 16-85mm is actually smaller. So why would it bug you to just happen to have two lenses that cover the same focal length? Especially if you're a landscape shooter, because you'll be stopped down anyway, so the smaller aperture is a bonus for you, because it means less weight in the bag than if it were constant.</p>

[Sycamoe]

<p>I am often amazed at the quality of the pics from my 16-85. Dollar for dollar it might be the best lens I have.</p>

[nigel fraustbyte]

<p>I recently purchased a Nikon 16-85 VR Lens and am Very pleased with the results</p>

[doug andrews]

<p>While I appreciate all the lens suggestions, that is not the question I asked. I'm curious as to whether getting an FX lens to fill that mid range focal length gap would be wise considering I currently use a D200, will most likely be upgrading with another DX body, and wish to continuing using my 12-24mm DX lens to cover the wide angle shots?? I'm not looking for a one lens solution, but something to accompany my 12-24mm lens. As I mentioned I really want to avoid focal length overlap and gaps at the wide end. I have no rational reason for this, its just a personal quirk. Currently that leaves me with looking at only FX lenses to go from 24mm to 80mm. Given that, is mixing DX and FX lenses in a lineup an unwise way to go forward or should I sell off every lens I have and rebuild my lineup with all DX??</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Lisa B, <strong><em>"Seeing as you have 12-24 covered already, the 35-70 would fill in the rest of the 24-80 range for you".</em></strong><em> .........</em>I gotta say you've completely lost me there!!</p>

<p>Doug. Personally, I'd go for an older 24-85mm f2.8/4 with 1:2 Macro. There's nothing inherently wrong with using FX lenses on a DX body, other than the heavier weight. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>A "standard zoom" on DX that starts at 24mm (about 36mm "equivalent" field of view) would drive me crazy with lens changes. I'd get a 16/17/18 - 50/55/70/85 or whatever and be happy for the overlap. For me... I have the Tok 11-16, Nikkor 18-70 and 70-300 and if I had a 12-24 on the wide end instead would LIKE the overlap.</p>

<p>Taking candid family shots or something where you need to frame quickly would suck if you couldn't go truly "wide" without changing lenses.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>is mixing DX and FX lenses in a lineup an unwise way to go forward or should I sell off every lens I have and rebuild my lineup with all DX??</p>

</blockquote>

<p>no. there is no inherent limitation on using FF lenses on DX, other than the fact you have to account for the 1.5x crop. the only real downside to the aforementioned 28-75 on DX was that it didn't cover the wide end by itself. paired with the tokina 12-24, that is no longer an issue. in real-world usage, it's sharp, contrasty, lightweight and compact, and produces pretty good bokeh, esp. at the long end. i hadn't known that it held up on a d800, so that is a pleasant surprise. compared to the 35-70, they both have around the same IQ, with the 35-70 maybe being a little less distortion-prone and having a better build. the thing about the 35-70 is that it is a push-pull (vertical) zoom, which may or may not be to your liking. also, it would leave a gap between 24 and 35 which IMO is fairly important, especially on DX. the gap between 24 and 28 is not as critical IMO.</p>

[hiro]

<p>Hey Doug.</p>

<p>I don't think you need to re-equip your whole line up. Overlap while on a literal level is inefficient, is not a bad thing. My shooting style is slow and deliberate and I really have no need for a mid range zoom. I have a 35mm 1.8 in between my 12-24 and 80-200. </p>

<p>I think if I did I'd get the Sigma 17-50 because I have found the 17-24 end much more used/useful than the 50-80. </p>

<p>If not both the new 24-85(never tried) and Tamron 28-75(loved on FX) seem like good options.</p>

[stefan_g]

<p>I'm not sure I understand the rationale for the 'no gaps/no overlaps' approach. If you often use a certain focal length, then you want some range around it without being forced to change lenses right in the middle of it. If on the other hand you don't use a length all that often, then a gap right there in your lens assortment doesn't matter.<br /> E.g., if you really need the 'not so wide' (on DX) range around 24mm, then you want some overlap there, and you decide beforehand whether to bring/mount your 12-24 or your 20-35. But if you rarely find yourself at the 24mm end of your 12-24 zoom, you might as well skip a few mm (and zoom with your feet, or crop, if need be), and have the next zoom start at 28 or 35, or skip the mid-range altogether.</p>

<p>Regarding build quality, distortion, zoom range etc.: some people are elated that previous generation solid construction low distortion f/2.8 zooms are available used in the $300 range (e.g. the 35-70/2.8 mentioned above), while others don't mind spending a bit more and getting a less heavy and bulky more modern lens that covers a wider zoom range, but with more wobble, more distortion and a smaller initial opening. It's really up to you to decide, but you should be aware that both options are available (in addition to the current generation f/2.8 zooms, which are in a completely different price range).</p>

<p>And the FX versus DX lens argument I have only heard the other way around. Are you worried about having too much money locked up in FX lenses, or the extra weight you carry around for a larger image circle that you don't use? You are carrying the 80-200/2.8 around after all.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I have to ditto the comment Harry made about the 16-85. It is a fantastic lens whose only problem is that it is DX. If you are going to stay with DX it is an obvious choice.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

[richard_barron]

I am very pleased with the DX 35mm f/1.8 in this role...

 

http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2012/09/17/the-new-normal/

[doug andrews]

<p>Stefan - As I said, I have no rationale for the no gaps/no overlap approach. Its just a personal quirk of mine. Yeah dumb I know but that' just me. I'm primarily a landscape shooter. So I basically never shoot on the fly. Changing lens is never an issue with me. A max aperture of f2.8 is nice but I'm always stopped down to F8 or f11 so fast glass isn't a must. Thus my comment about not needing a one lens solution. I don't have a particular focal length that I favor. I like shooting everything from ultra wide to short telephoto. When I was using the 12-24mm and my old 28-105mm, I frequently wanted those missing 4mm. Yes, I zoomed with my feet, but sometimes bodies of water and/or cliffs make that impossible. Yes, weight is a concern as I'm frequently hiking to locations in the field to shoot. So I only carry my 80-200mm lens if I plan on doing some wildlife photography. Like you, I've only heard the FX versus DX argument the other way around, thus my primary question. The consensus seems to be it should not be a concern.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm curious as to whether getting an FX lens to fill that mid range focal length gap would be wise considering I currently use a D200, will most likely be upgrading with another DX body<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My vote would be to stay with DX lenses for your zooms. There really is a size difference. I'm in the same position as you (now shooting with a D300).<br>

<br>

The 35-70 f/2.8 is terrific. It's also heavy. Mine stays in the lens cabinet.<br>

<br>

In your gap area, the 18-70 DX kit lens is cheap and has served me well. The 17-55 Kit lens is quite light weight. There's distortion, but now days it's easy to eliminate with software.</p>

[andylynn]

Do you plan to buy an FX camera any time soon? If you do, a 24-85 or 28-75 lens is probably better than a 16-85. I have

both the Tamron 28-75 and the newest Nikon 24-85, and they're both excellent. You can't really do any better without

spending more than twice as much.