Buying Lenses from a value point of view

[StandingBear1983]

I have a D5100 with a 35mm 1.8G and i plan to go FX someday, and heard rumors that a "cheap FX body" will come out with the D400, always had this question, should i save as much money as i can for "the best" lenses i can afford (24-70/70-200 2.8), or invest in lesser lenses like for example most of the kit lenses if i'm only going to sell them in a later stage to be able to upgrade to the higher level FX lenses...I mean, what is the logic in that?, might as well save money slower and buy 1 lense every 3 years (for example) then buy a lot of DX kit lenses...its better when one buys something and its very good and you won't need to sell it only to be able to buy something that you should have bought from the first place but you didn't...what do you think?.

 

[Overread]

I think the argument depends a lot on personal variables. Here are some points to consider which would influence which approach would be best for you:

1) Format - you're shifting between the crop and the fullframe formats. My view is that when one wants to or intends to shoot with a different format size (be that crop sensor, fullframe/35mm, medium format, large format) then its best to make the first early investment in a camera capable of that format. There's little point in trying to build a lens collection for a different format size and then getting the camera to suit as you'll likely find that you've got to make changes then again to the lenses to suit the format once you start actually using it (due to the differences in angles of view)

2) Time and money. Generally speaking its best to always get the best you can justify and financially afford. However its also important to consider time. If its going to take you many years to afford a new lens that you desire you might find yourself missing a lot of shots because you don't have that lens.
At that point I would certainly consider a cheaper lens which can perform a similar function, even if the technical quality is lesser. Yes you pay more in the long term, yes it takes a little loner to save, but it also means that through the long period of saving you are able to shoot the subjects and style that you want to shoot.

As a (slightly extreme) example - if you wanted a 400mm f2.8 lens rating in the £/$1000s ; but you know it will take 5 or more years to save for it; then getting a cheaper lens (Eg sigma 120-400mm) in the short term means that you've got that range to work with during those years of saving.

This is the biggest variable area and the answer for each person will differ on their own personal situation - the answer might also change through time as earnings or demands on their money shift or even their own desires photographically change.

 

[analog.universe]

Every lens I buy, I buy with the expectation that I'll be shooting with it for decades. The glass is the bottom line in image quality, no matter what body you've got.

The only DX lens I own is an ultra wide angle because there are no FX lenses at that focal length.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon's DX line has a number of compromises in it, but the FX lens lineup is much fuller, wider, and frankly, better. The old expression, "Buy once, buy right," holds a lot of truth; a 24-70mm f/2.8 professional-quality lens will easily last 15 to 25 years in amateur use. I do not think the same thing would hold true of say, an 18-55 kit zoom. If you buy USED lenses, buying,using, and then selling is not much of a loss, and in the case of better-grade lenses, there can actually be an increase in value at the time of resale, so...

 

[StandingBear1983]

Overread - Thank you for the informative answer, you have good points there. I thought about it long and hard, and i think i came to the conclusion that i should go for a good normal quality DX lens for sports/wildlife (lets say the 55-300mm) and then if i move up to FX I'll have my 50mm 1.8G Prime to start with (and maybe get the new 28mm 1.8G someday), anyway, i love primes, much more then zooms, if i can walk to the picture i will.

DX lenses gives you more reach with the crop...i'm thinking of using mostly primes if i advance to FX, and get a DX zoom lens for sports and wildlife and for all the rest an FX body and primes (when the time comes that i can afford a FX body). anyway, that is my plan.

if I'll advance in photography and start working as a pro earning money from it, i will invest in all the 2.8G lenses, but if i won't, i don't think its worth the big investment.

Derrel - hi, thanks for your answer, yes I agree, if you can justify putting down that kind of cash, as i said to overhead, i can justify it only if i will work as a pro, in the meantime, i will go for DX zoom range and FX wide and normal range with the 50mm 1.8G i already own and maybe in the future the new 28mm prime 1.8G.

That is the most logical steps to take for me right now...

 

[Derrel]

DX lenses do NOT give "more reach with the crop", if you mean in comparison to FX lenses of the same focal length. A DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 AF-S G lens gives the SAME,EXACT focal length as the full-frame 35mm f/2 AF-D lens.

A 12-24mm DX lens at 24mm gives the same,exact focal length and the 24mm setting of the 24-70 FX zoom, or the 24mm f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor prime.

I would say this" buy whatever lenses your taste,desires,and budget allow, at any given point in time.And always consider used lenses from reputable retailers that offer a return option.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Lenses, you get what you pay for...... and your images reflect their "value"