18-35mm FX or 12-24mm DX

[doug andrews]

<p>Let me provide some background info before I ask my question. I'm a landscape photographer. When I was shooting with my N80 my wide angle lens was the Nikkor 18-35mm. When I upgraded to the D200, I purchased the Tokina 12-24mm lens to replace the 18-35mm. The 12-24mm lens is the only DX lens I own. My D200 is pretty dated technology as far as DSLRs go and I'm considering replacing it with the D600. I still own the 18-35mm lens; however, there is one particular glaring issue with it that will probably be magnified with the D600. The corners of the 18-35mm lens are quite soft when used at 18mm. The Tokina 12-24mm is better in the corners at the wide end than the 18-35mm. Given this (or perhaps others reasons I'm missing) do you think it would be better to use the DX mode on the D600 when I want to shoot a scene that requires a wide angle of view and use the 12-24mm lens, or remain in FX mode and go back to using the 18-35mm lens. I haven't kept up with all the new lenses that have been released since I got my D200 (2006) so perhaps there is another lens choice available instead of these two wide angle lenses I currently have.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>The corners on the Nikon 18-35 get much sharper when you stop down. Can you check your Tokina 12-24 on your N80? The Nikon 12-24DX covers FX from 18-24 although the corners are pretty soft at 18. I've never really compared my 18-35 and 12-24DX on my D3 because I want the full 18-35 range. Usually I don't have very interesting stuff<br /> in the extreme corners anyway so it hasn't bothered me.</p>

<p>Today Nikon makes the 14-24 f2.8, 16-35 f4, and the older 17-35 f2.8. The 14-24 is amazing across the board but can't take filters. The 16-35 is good but out of stock everywhere and the 17-35 is still good but showing its age in the corners as well.</p>

<p>There's also nothing wrong with the D7000 and sticking with DX.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>It doesn't make sense to regularly use a DX lens on an FX body.</p>

<p>Are the corners soft even when stopped down?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm a landscape photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since you are mainly a landscape photographer, it make absolutely no sense to get an expensive FX-format D600 and use it a lot in the DX crop mode. If you intend to use DX, spend less money on a D5100 or D7000. If you don't need high-end AF and frame rate, even the D5100 can work quite well, although it cannot AF with the older Tokina 12-24 that has no AF motor.</p>

<p>If you go for the D600, I would think carefully which wide angle you want. I have Nikon's 17-35mm/f2.8 and 14-24mm/f2.8. The 17-35 is weak into the corners and the 14-24 is very big and cannot take filters (please don't tell me about that silly Lee filter set that way oversized and way overpriced). You might give the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR a try; I don't have that lens and I understand that it has its share of limitations as well. My favorite landscape lens is now the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E, but that is not cheap and it is a fixed 24mm.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>...and one down-side of landscape images in DX mode. You will be trying to get a wide area into a smaller portion of the sensor (if you decide on the D600 body) making for a squeezed effect. For a single bird, and getting closer for one example, the DX crop with a FX sensor works OK. If you stay with a DX body (i.e., the D5100) -- Sigma has a AF 10-20mm lens you might want to check out as well.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Sigma also has a 12-24mm<strong> FX</strong> lens with good reviews and has been fairly recently released as a MK II version.</p>

<p>Obviously not quite up to 14-24mm Nikon's IQ standard, but MUCH cheaper!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>do you think it would be better to use the DX mode on the D600 when I want to shoot a scene that requires a wide angle of view</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Moving to FX does entail getting a FX-specific wide angle lens. if that's too costly, i'd consider getting a <strong>d7000</strong> or even <strong>d3200</strong> (if you want more resolution). the truth of the matter is, unless you're printing really big, DX is just as good a format for landscape shooters, plus DX UWAs tend to be less expensive, and you already have one of the best lenses available. You actually get more DoF with DX, which gives you a one-stop advantage, which is useful in macro and landscape shooting. For landscape, typically, you're stopping down and using a tripod, so the low-light abilities of FF sensors are somewhat moot. I've printed 16x20 with images shot with a tokina 12-24 and DX body, and they look great. That lens is really great stopped down to f/8-11, so i'd advise you that if it isn't broke, don't fix it. you could end up paying a whole lot more for essentially the same level of performance.</p>

<p>That said, a d200 is somewhat antiquated and though they're still good for studio and base-ISO shooting, i can see the need to upgrade the body for more modern features and newer technology. The question is, does it make more sense for you to migrate to FX or stay with DX? For the price of a d600, you could get a d7000 and a <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/625-sigma816f4556dx">sigma 8-16</a> to complement the 12-24 (or another really awesome lens). You'd save even more with a d3200, which has more than double the resolution of a d200. OTOH, moving to FX likely means plunking down a fair sum of cash for a dedicated FX UWA.</p>

<p>if i was looking at FX UWA lenses right now, my top two choices would likely be <strong>nikon 14-24</strong> (if you dont mind not using filters) and <strong>nikon 16-35 VR</strong> (if you want to use filters). just below that would be the <strong>tokina 16-28</strong>, which has a much better price/performance ratio than either nikon (although it also doesnt take filters). i wouldnt recommend the 17-35 for your uses; its softer in the corners on FX than any of the above-mentioned lenses. It's also not much wider than the 18-35, and stopped down, the advantages of the wider aperture will be negligible. All of those lenses will set you back around another grand, or more, on top of the body upgrade cost. There are a couple of affordable sleeper gems in the used market like the <strong>sigma 15-30</strong> and the <strong>tamron 17-35</strong>, but the tamron has the same disadvantages as the nikon 17-35, plus it's not a constant 2.8 all the way through, if that matters, which it might not for a landscape shooter.</p>

<p>Only you can assess what your most pressing needs are, but before upgrading, i'd ask myself, what do i want to do that my D200 can't do presently? if budget is not an issue, moving to FX might make sense. But if it comes down to using an inferior lens on an expensive body, i'd maybe rethink my priorities IIWY.</p>

[doug andrews]

<p>Thanks for all the great responses so far. I really want to avoid having to purchase both a new DSLR and new UWA lens to go with it. Seems I should reconsider sticking with DX format. </p>

[danc]

<p>You know, Doug, after reading some of the very thoughtful comments posted here, my feeling is also to stick with the DX format. I really enjoy the 12-24/4 lens and the extra reach that DX gives with telephoto lenses. I'm hoping for a new Nikor 300/4 that I'll be able to afford.</p>

[danc]

<p>You know, Doug, after reading some of the very thoughtful comments posted here, my feeling is also to stick with the DX format. I really enjoy the 12-24/4 lens and the extra reach that DX gives with telephoto lenses. I'm hoping for a new Nikor 300/4 that I'll be able to afford.</p>