Accepting DX Format: Interested in Input

[PaulWog]

I've decided to embrace the DX format on a reasonable budget. My former philosophy was flawed for someone on a budget; I can't purely buy FX-only lenses, and expect zero hiccups in my photography while I wait to afford an FX body. The idea will be to keep my DX lenses even if I switch to FX in the next couple years, and use the D5200 as a backup.

What I own is listed in my signature below. I will be purchasing:
1) The Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-f5.6. I chose this lens because after lots of research, it performs extremely well at 10mm, and at a $500 price-point it's $270 cheaper than a Nikkor 10-24mm.
2) With the $270 I'll have saved, I will purchase a Nikkor 35mm 1.8G DX lens again (I say "again" because I sold my old one due to focus issues, and I further justified it because I didn't like the bokeh).

This will give me a lineup of a 10-20, 35, 50, 85, 70-300.

I made a thread asking about wide angle lenses, and I looked into every single one of them (I really appreciate all the advice, this forum and all of you are absolutely invaluable). So my main question is: Do you think I should really take another look at any different lens(es)?

 

[KmH]

Yes. The Nikon Budget FX zoom lenses.

This lens also has a 1:2 macro capability from 35 mm to 85 mm - Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens
I bought a well cared for used one on amazon.com for $335.

You can find good used copies of the previous generation push-pull to zoom version of this lens for about $350 - Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
I bought a well cared for push-pull from a private seller for $320.

 

[71M]

This will give me a lineup of a 10-20, 35, 50, 85, 70-300.

I made a thread asking about wide angle lenses, and I looked into every single one of them (I really appreciate all the advice, this forum and all of you are absolutely invaluable). So my main question is: Do you think I should really take another look at any different lens(es)?

With Nikon and on a tight budget, no. 10-20 on a half-frame is a great range of wide-angle FLs too, general purpose.

 

[JohnS.]

I have a Tokina 11-16 and love it. I thought about the Sigma 10-20 but wanted the f/2.8 (that's probably what it ultimately comes down to). I've read both are great lenses but the Tokina is sharper, has a little less distortion, and less light fall off at the corners. Again, this is only what I've read.

 

[Derrel]

With the 10-20mm zoom, then Nikon's 35-,50-,85-mm f/1.8 G-series trio,and also the 70-300 VR and a D5200, you ought to have a pretty good kit for most subjects. I do not think you'll really need anything else for a while. Thats a two-zoom, three-prime lens kit that covers a lot of range, missing only the 20mm to 35mm gap, which many people are not all that enthusiastic about.

 

[jaomul]

As said above you don't "need" anymore lenses for the moment. I have a thing for convenience thought and always try to have a kit lens. I recently bought an 18-105mm, a focal length that would do 80+% of my shots. It's great for the Times I'm out in good light and don't need to carry anything else. I bought it in perfect condition for 135 Euro ( about 175 dollars) and I an very happy to have it

 

[hamlet]

I've decided to embrace the DX format on a reasonable budget. My former philosophy was flawed for someone on a budget; I can't purely buy FX-only lenses, and expect zero hiccups in my photography while I wait to afford an FX body. The idea will be to keep my DX lenses even if I switch to FX in the next couple years, and use the D5200 as a backup.

What I own is listed in my signature below. I will be purchasing:
1) The Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-f5.6. I chose this lens because after lots of research, it performs extremely well at 10mm, and at a $500 price-point it's $270 cheaper than a Nikkor 10-24mm.
2) With the $270 I'll have saved, I will purchase a Nikkor 35mm 1.8G DX lens again (I say "again" because I sold my old one due to focus issues, and I further justified it because I didn't like the bokeh).

This will give me a lineup of a 10-20, 35, 50, 85, 70-300.

I made a thread asking about wide angle lenses, and I looked into every single one of them (I really appreciate all the advice, this forum and all of you are absolutely invaluable). So my main question is: Do you think I should really take another look at any different lens(es)?

Why not invest in the tamron 150-600mm instead of the 70-300mm?

 

[jaomul]

Why not invest in the tamron 150-600mm instead of the 70-300mm?[/QUOTE]


I'm not always sure are you serious or just playing

 

[astroNikon]

For being on a Budget that looks like a good line up to me.


Keith mentions the older FX zoom lenses. For AutoFocus those do require a screwdrive which the 5200 lacks. Only on d7000 and above (d90, etc) have screw drive. I went that route with my d7000 with older FX lenses then made the jump to FX when I was looking at UWA lenses - one Nikon UWA which cost as much as the d600 refub I got back then.

 

[hamlet]

I'm not always sure are you serious or just playing

Why whatever do you mean? The moment he buy's that 70-300, he's gonna be back at the camera store to get something with even more reach. Why not cut the middle man and go for it now?

 

[jaomul]

I'm not always sure are you serious or just playing

Why whatever do you mean? The moment he buy's that 70-300, he's gonna be back at the camera store to get something with even more reach. Why not cut the middle man and go for it now?

Not everyone's needs or buys for gear acquisition. Some enjoy taking photographs

 

[Vince.1551]

Why whatever do you mean? The moment he buy's that 70-300, he's gonna be back at the camera store to get something with even more reach. Why not cut the middle man and go for it now?

Why not get a 1000mm plus a 2x teleconverter?

 

[Vince.1551]

With the 10-20mm zoom, then Nikon's 35-,50-,85-mm f/1.8 G-series trio,and also the 70-300 VR and a D5200, you ought to have a pretty good kit for most subjects. I do not think you'll really need anything else for a while. Thats a two-zoom, three-prime lens kit that covers a lot of range, missing only the 20mm to 35mm gap, which many people are not all that enthusiastic about.

Agree with Derrel. The only other lens you might want to consider is a dedicated macro lens if you are keen in taking some macro shots.

 

[hamlet]

I'm not always sure are you serious or just playing

Why whatever do you mean? The moment he buy's that 70-300, he's gonna be back at the camera store to get something with even more reach. Why not cut the middle man and go for it now?

Not everyone's needs or buys for gear acquisition. Some enjoy taking photographs

Those are the people that have the means to achieve their goals.

 

[71M]

Why not invest in the tamron 150-600mm instead of the 70-300mm?

That's why I say 'Nikon', Heaven forbid, an OP is shooting 'film' and using manual focus ; the Zeiss Mutar T/C is very good, (irrelevant aside: M42 Kiron multiplier, certain PK Vivitar matched ones). 150-300 becomes ~400 but slow. I don't know if the Mutar was made for F mount anyway - or if it was compatible with certain Nikon DSLR metering.