Nikon 18-35mm AF-S G (D600) vs. Nikon 12-24mm F4 AF-S DX (D7100)

[george_paulides]

<p>I have a Nikon D200/Fuji S5 Pro and recently purchased a D600. I have been using a Nikon 12-24mm F4 AF-S DX for many years with the D200/Fuji S5 Pro and love the results.<br>

Now that I have D600 I have been thinking about the new 18-35mm AF-G lens, which by some accounts seems to be a good performer.<br>

I have a few of DX lens which I will probably hold onto (12-24mm & 16-85mm VR) and some FX lens - 28mm F1.8G (new), 50mm F1.4G, 85mm F1.8G, 24-85mm VR (new), 70-300mm VR.<br>

Eventually I may replace the D200 with a D7100 (?). So my question is, save a bit more and buy a D7100 eventually and use my existing DX and FX fixed lens (including the 12-24mm AF-S) or buy the new 18-35mm AF-S G for the D600?<br>

For landscapes I tend to shot F8 and above with the 12-24mm. Would there be a inherit advantage in buying the 18-35mm for the D600 vs. 12-24mm for the D7100 considering the sensor count is similar?<br>

The D200 is out dated and not worth much at all - great for my son to learn photography on. I plan on holding onto the Fuji S5 until it dies because I like the colour rendition and the amount for DR it can pull out.<br>

Interested in opinions? Thanks.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The D7100 and the 18-35 G are too new for anybody to have enough experience with those lens/camera combinations to tell you much about them. How much ultrawide do you shoot? Is it enough to go for a new lens when you're already covered down to 24mm on FX and planning on buying a D7100 anyway?</p>

[NetR]

The 12-24 will cover FX from around 18mm on, according to Thom Hogan - have a go. You may need ot trick the D600 into not switching to DX mode. If this works for you for wide angles on FX, you won't need to buy a new lens at all, as you have an enviable set of quality lenses already.

[eric_arnold]

<p>you have an FX camera already. you dont have a d7100 yet. therefore i would get a dedicated w/a for the FX camera.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Now that you have an FX camera you need to consider if you even need a DX body. FX excells at superwide to medium telephoto for landscapes/architecture and DX excells at supertelephoto for sports/wildlife.</p>

<p>Even if you decide to continue with DX for the telephoto/supertelephoto range I'd consider making the D600 your wideangle body. So, I would go with one of the tried and true elite lenses like the 14-24/2.8 or the 17-35/2.8 and help fund the purchase by selling the 12-24 DX and 16-85 DX.</p>

<p>Although you are shooting at f8 and smaller for landscapes the best lenses (usually the fastest) still perform better at these apertures taking distortion, contrast, flare control, colour rendition and even resolution into account. </p>

<p>It is hard to put this into words until you see it yourself but given a DX camera with the same number of pixels as an FX body, the FX body pixels, of the same subject framing, just look better and work better.</p>

<p>Judging by the good images in your portfolio you will enjoy what the D600 will bring.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>It is hard to put this into words until you see it yourself but given a DX camera with the same number of pixels as an FX body, the FX body pixels, of the same subject framing, just look better and work better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He probably shooting ISO200 at f8/11, at the middle range of the zoom, and on a tripod. You want some blind tests? I'm highly doubting the difference is obvious, unless he's printing huge...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>When I first went to "full-frame" I was amazed by the depth and clarity of the larger sensor pictures. Now several years later, I look back at the contemporary images from both the "crop" and the "full-frame" and -- well, the differences are not nearly so great as I used to think, despite a substantial bump up in pixels in that specific case. Now I have both formats -- same generation-- and I don't think for a minute that anyone could pick out which was which in a truly double-blind choice. The human eye is swayed by our psychological expectations, as has been proved over and over again.</p>

<p>When you compare the <em>same generation</em> (this is important; of course, more usually beats less, otherwise), you will usually get more 'quality' out of a telephoto on a 'crop' body than you will on an equivalent actual crop of the 'full-frame' image. Naturally, this is very much dependent on exactly which cameras and sensors are being compared; there is not a completely "universal" truth in this case.</p>

[george_paulides]

<p>Thanks to all for the good advice. I will look at selling the 12-24mm and go with the new 18-35mm. It make sense for WA use to go with the D600 and for reach look at the D200.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have seen the new 18-35mm AF-S but have never used it, so I won't comment on that. However, I don't like the wide end of the 12-24mm/f4 DX AF-S on the D7100. See my image sample here: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bTT6">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bTT6</a></p>