Ugh, FX has reawakened lens lust all over again...

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Jonathan F/2, Aug 19, 2008.

  1. I thought I was done buying lenses. I had the best DX glass and didn't even think I needed FX. But they had to release a killer high ISO camera that shoots fast...

    Now that I have an FX camera, I'm back to re-shuffling my lens collection to accommodate the shift. What sucks is that I'm having to carefully craft my lenses to work in both DX and FX formats. I bet Nikon planned this all along! Having to think in FX and DX is a headache. Anybody in the transition right now? We should have a support group!
     
  2. I'm considering a D700. I have 12-24, 17-35, 17-55, 24-120, 70-200, 80-400 and fixed: 24, 28, 50, 300. I would like a 24-70, but will probably be better able to afford a beast to go with my 17-35.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2008
  3. avyoung

    avyoung

    Dec 17, 2007
    Canada
  4. I feel his pain! There are several reasons why I want to keep my D2X as opposed to getting a D700. It's not so easy nowadays, since different cameras represent differences in image quality. I really like certain aspects of my D2X over the D3/D300. Both mechanical and sensor-wise.

    I'm actually trying to purge all my DX glass, but in a way that my FX lenses are still useful on DX. It's very difficult!

     
  5. pforsell

    pforsell

    Jan 15, 2008
    I never believed in DX and thus only had two Tokina wide angle DX lenses. I sold those and am ready for FX. The camera has to wait a couple of months but the decision was made long ago.
     
  6. Well I needed DX for work, so it wasn't something I could avoid. Oh well!
     
  7. Same here never invested any real money in DX lenses, sigma 30/1,4 is the only DX lens iv purchased. Wich i sold long before i got a D3.

    I never saw any real advantages of the DX lenses, and Nikon never really got into the game with pro DX lenses.

    I still use my D2X, but i would never mount a 17-55/2,8 DX on it in favour of the 24-70 (or the 28-70)

    I would get rid of all the DX glass and be done with it.
     
  8. husawis

    husawis Guest

    We bought several DX lenses because we wanted to stay with Nikon and it "appeared" that DX lenses were performing better on the D1x and D2x. Remember that Nikon kept sending mixed signals for the FX product line. We continued to use them for a while after the D300 came out, using the no DX lenses with our older Nikons that we used on the F6 and older 35mm bodies. We sold all of our DX lenses and now use only the D3 and ocassionally a D70.

    While Nikon did try to lessen the lens pain by offering the DX or FX option on the D3, we were never convinced that DX mode and DX lenses offered amy advantage to our clients or our way of shooting.

    There are still some folks who are unclear as to what a non-DX lens is and how to tell them apart from DX lenses. This I suspect will cause no end of grief when the DX lens prices begin to really tumble. You can already see the post on many forums asking, "How do I make sure I am not getting a DX lens?" That being said I believe there are photographers who will swear by the DX lens on FF bodies, we know some who do. In the end to each his/her own.
     
  9. I never invested a penny in DX lenses.
    I am happy with my D2x, but I feel that FF is inevitably somewhere in my future - and always has been, even before Nikon announced their FX bodies.
     
  10. Doug

    Doug

    Jan 17, 2006
    East TN
    What's DX?


    Just kidding, I do like the 17-55, but again, I let mine go recently. but down to 1 DX format camera, it made sense to go FF lenses or FX as you wish. The 12-24 also is a stellar performer, and if you have a cropped camera, it is your best true wide angle beyond the 17-35. That said, for most work, the 17-35 was always adequite for me.
     
  11. PeteZ28

    PeteZ28

    Oct 5, 2007
    Newtown, PA
    The writing has been on the wall with the DX/FX format for years. As such, I made a point never to purchase a DX only lens. There is really only a few "really good" DX lenses out there anyway that have no equivalant in an FX format.
     
  12. just sold of my dx lenses.. keeping the d300 for my long lens usage..but for the modeling shoots the d700 will be the workhorse... even picked up a
    28mm 1.4 for my lowlight ambient in the city model shoots.. I am one happy camper...:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
     
  13. Jim_C

    Jim_C

    75
    Aug 17, 2008
    Seattle, WA
    The death of DX is overstated.

    http://www.bythom.com/d3ord300.htm

    There's really nothing particularly special about full frame. (OK - so we have a bunch of lenses designed for that size, but it is the size of a piece of film; film that most of us are no longer using.)

    If sensor size was of primary importance, we'd all be shooting Hasselblad bodies, but we aren't.

    What you need is a system built around the right compromises.

    My DX body fits my current needs just fine. Looking at the D300, if that trajectory continues, my next body might be a DX body too, if it has the right performance and size/ergonomics at the right price.

    Nikon isn't going to stop making DX bodies. The cost incentive to do so is just to great. So the real question is, will Nikon be making a DX body in the future that I want, or just crippled entry-level bodies? Nobody knows the answer to that question. My guess is that we'll see D80/90 and D300 class DX bodies for some time to come.
     
  14. I only ever had a 18-200 kit lens that came with my D300.

    i concentrated on the "best" glass I could from the start, believeing that this was the best course of action no matter what.

    So, went from D300 to D3, but both are keepers! I use the D3 as primary and D300 as backup when I think the light will be abit tricky. Both operate very similarly and thus are easy to use together.

    I aslo bought a minty D2x though. I personally vastly prefer the "pro" bodies build and feel. And the D2x is almost magical when in right conditions!

    So, glass, well have NO DX glass now. Am very satisified with what I have (although really want a 14-24) and it performs so well on any of the bodies.
     
  15. Well Jim, it looks like FX will be the way to go at least for the pro market. Handling telephotos is soo much easier with FX. Wide is wide again. And the high ISO noise can't be beat with FX, I find the DX crop overrated. I'd much rather use a 1.4 tc to compensate. Those things are enough for me to go completely FX with my lenses!
     
  16. Very interesting discussion.
    Personally I believe that DSLR's will slowly migrate to FX - it has begun. Some may hang onto DX, but I believe that this will be a minority.
    DSLR's went DX for cost reasons. It allowed for the digital revolution to happen with serious amateurs and pros. Now that FX sensors are economically viable, I believ that the last page is being turned.

    That will leave us with:
    - small sensors for P&S and other low end consumer applications
    - FX in DSLR's - both for advanced amateur models as well as Pro models. The MP war is close to being pointless at this time. Top models will have better characteristics in noise and DR and will have Pro bodies (proofed, focus speed, physical strength).
    - For the very high end applications (fashion, product), there will be the MF sensors with lots of MP's

    But, when read carefully, this is just where film was before digital happened. So, perhaps we can now state that the digital revolution is nearing its end. Technical advances on all fronts will continue to happen - and they will continue to amaze us.

    As always, just my 2 cents...
     
  17. Jim_C

    Jim_C

    75
    Aug 17, 2008
    Seattle, WA
    Economically viable, but only affordable for some definitions of affordable. A $3k body is still pretty expensive for most advanced amateurs.

    The fact that there isn't a D300-priced FX body is telling. At this time it isn't viable and/or profitable for Nikon to do so. As prices for FX sensors come down, that will change. But one can also expect the price for DX sensors to come down at the same time.

    And that is really the crux of my argument. By all accounts, the D300 is a pretty amazing camera. Not up to D3/D700 levels, but it holds its own. (Especially as compared to the D200 and D2x which came before it.)

    I think we'll continue to see innovation in DX sensors.

    In any case, I'm not wed to DX or FX (except by the realities of the size of my wallet :) ). If an FX body ends up being the right choice for me in the future, that's where I'll head, economics willing.
     
  18. Jim_C

    Jim_C

    75
    Aug 17, 2008
    Seattle, WA
    Suppose the clock is ticking, and DX does in fact have 5 years left.

    A lot of images can be made in 5 years. 5 years is a long time to compromise with a lens in the wrong range for the body you want to make images with today.

    If an FX lens meets your needs (and budget), then great, buy one, make great images, and sleep easy at night knowing you are somehow future-proof.

    But if a DX lens is a better choice for *today*, I think that's the right purchase to make, rather than living with a compromise for what might be.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.