Buying Options with different lenses DX going to FX

[StandingBear1983]

Hi Everybody,

What would you guys do if you had these options, now i have the D5100 & 35mm 1.8G & 50mm 1.8G, and i want to move up to the D600\D800 in September\the end of this year, here are my options that i thought about :

A. Buy now the 18-105 DX kit lens & the 55-300 DX kit lens, in the end of the year get the D600\D800 and use the 50mm on it until i can buy in a year or so get the 28-300 Zoom FX lens, and if i want zoom i could use the D5100 with the DX kit lenses until then.

B. Buy now the 18-105, in the end of the year get the D600\D800 and use the 50mm on it until i can buy in a year or so get the 28-300 FX lens, and if i want zoom i could use the D5100 with the DX kit lens until then.

C. Buy now the 28-300 FX zoom lens use it on my D5100 now, in the end of the year get the D600\D800.

If you had these options, what option seems most logical to you? - Thanks in advance.

 

[Mach0]

If you really have your heart set on the 28-300, get it.

 

[kundalini]

The 28-300mm is a consumer grade lens and would be a last choice for Me to mount on a semi-pro body. With any lens that covers such a wide focal range, you'll have to decide which has priority, convenience or quality. Here's the verdict from photozone.de

Anyone considering a super zoom should be aware of the fact that any such lens is full of compromises to achieve the huge focal range. This is, unfortunately, especially true for the Nikon AF-S 28-300 VR.

Distortion is very pronounced at almost any focal length, vignetting is somewhat on the high side, too, which is also true for CAs. Sharpness in the image center is good, but not great, especially towards the long end, and border and corners can be very soft at many focal length and aperture settings. So, optically, the lens does not really convince.

Mechanically however, there's not much to complain about. The build quality is ok and in line with other consumer grade Nikkor lenses. VR II works as promised and AF, although a bit slow, works almost silently.

So, in the end its a matter of balancing whether the convenience factor of such a lens outweighs its shortcomings. For many it might, but anyone shooting both sensor sizes will probably be better off with the 18-200 VR II on his or her DX camera.

So then there is Option D.......
Wait and keep saving your pennies.

 

[jake337]

You already have the 35 & 50 f1.8G's, Why would you want to spend money on overlapping focal lengths.

I'd say keep on your primes and go with a 85 f1.8G and keep going up in focal lengths 135, 180, 300.....

 

[StandingBear1983]

Good ideas guys, well yea i didn't expect much from the 28-300 and i thought about what your saying, i could save for one of the holy trinity, and hold with the 50 prime when i get an FX body, it won't be the 24-70 range because i have the 50 which i like and one can back up or go a few more steps with legs , I actually can see myself with primes, it doesn't really bother me that i can't zoom, relatively speaking i can get a simple zoom dx kit lens anyhow, because were talking peanuts compared to the amount of cash of the FX lenses, so i could experiance zoom lenses if i really like too on my DX...but i can really see myself in the future going for primes on FX bodies, they have a kind of magic to them, i can't really explain it .

Anyhow, i have at least a year to decide on one of the 'holy trinity' if i REALLY want them in the end...if so it will be the wide angle one (14-24?), or the 70-200.

For now, I'm going on a trip, so 300$ on the 18-105 won't hold me back to much (specially when i pay in 12 installments lol), and i can use that and the 35mm for general purpose travel lenses, then I'll buy the D600 in 6 months, and use my 50mm on it, then I'll start saving for some serious glass (be it the wide or long holy trinity 2.8 lenses or other quality primes) and forget about bodies for a long time .

 

[Derrel]

I think the lens testing fanatics at Photozone.de oftentimes tend to get too focused on test charts, and forget about blatantly obvious solutions to imaginary problems. They seem to forget about things like software correction for lens distortion, and software correction for chromatic aberration, which Nikon Capture software has had for something like six years now. Maybe they're Canon shooters??? "Distortion" is a noticeable problem with the 28-300 VF when photographing test grids....it makes the grids bow or bend a little bit, and we all know how disastrous a bowed or bent grid is when taking photos in the real world!!! [ "Sarcasm?", as Sheldon Cooper might ask.]

Check out this gallery of high-resolution landscape images shot with the Nikkor 28-300 VR on the D3s....the $1,000 "consumer" (??? "consumer"? really???) zoom lens. California's Eastern Sierra, 04 and 05 October 2010

The problem with the people at Photozone.de, in my opinion, is that their tests are very strong on numbers, but they seem to forget that Nikon pioneered lens distortion correction and chromatic aberration removal in its software well before other camera makers did. And they seem to forget that Nikon pioneered in-CAMERA removal of chromatic aberration on JPEG images, long before any other camera maker offered that. This is a design choice that Nikon, and Panasonic, have decided to go with: accept some flaws that can easily be corrected in SOFTWARE!! We are not shooting on film any more. For people who want to shoot real-world pictures, more important test parameters are totally ignored at Photozone.de--things like focusing speed, handling, balance on a particular class of camera (ie heavy pro and semi-pro bodies in the 3.5 pound class vs D3100s with no grip and tiny, and ultra light-weight), flare resistance, and so on. They do a LOT of lens testing, and I think, often get wayyyyyyyy too hung up on "numbers", when the real issue is photgraphic RESULTS outside of the lab. PICTURES, not NUMBERS.

Here's another GREAT resource for a prospective D800 buyer. Photographer Ming Thein's summary of lens performance of many Nikkors on his D800: And the Nikon D800 autofocus saga continues (with some comments on specific lens performance)

"AFS 28-300/3.5-5.6 G VR II: Sharp everywhere if you close down the aperture one stop. Microcontrast not great, but serviceable. Overall global contrast is good. Color a bit odd. Good to very good performer. No AF issues, probably covered by depth of field and small apertures."

Okay...here's his summary of the D800 and the expensive 85/1.4 AF-S G: "AFS 85/1.4 G: Inconsistent. Wide open displays LCA and LoCA at edges. Nowhere near as good as it was on the D700/ D3/ D3s. Stopped down to f2.8, it improves, but only to about the same level as the 70-200/2.8 II wide open. Note T stop is pretty high for this lens though – probably 2/3 stop more than the 70-200/2.8 II, and half a stop more than the 85/1.8 G for the same aperture. Good to very good stopped down. Honestly, I’m not liking this lens very much anymore."

So...on the D3s, the 28-300VR shots Ken shows look fantastic!!! On the D800, Ming says the 28-300 VR is pretty good. My feeling: the D600 will use the now-older,yet still good, 24MP sensor of the D3x, but with newer electronics. I think that would make the 28-300VR probably perform better, visually, on a D600 than the D800. Anyway...I don;t consider a $1,000 lens to be a "consumer" grade zoom lens these days. No way.

 

[StandingBear1983]

Thanks for your extensive input Derrel, i will check those links carefully.

logically it will save me a lot of cash if i have the 50mm and the 28-300, after that, who knows...but i think I'll be pretty covered for all kinds of shooting...of course its not the holy trinity quality, but anyway i can't see myself investing that kind of money without professionally working with it, then its a different matter and you need 'the best' all the time, in all situations...maybe in the future who knows.

 

[Derrel]

One respected source of Nikon lens reviews is Bjorn Rorslett, the Norwegian nature photographer and well-known Nikon EXPERT (all caps!). Bjorn, and other experienced shooters, have long noted that "some lenses" perform well on "some cameras", and less-well on other cameras. The lens/sensor/microlens/anit-aliasing filter combination determines just how well a particular good sample of a lens will perform, and NOT all cameras are equally good performers. Or, maybe it is the lenses that are not all equally good???

As far as the overall quality of the 28-300VR versus the perfect, optimal prime lens for each and every shooting situation. Lemme see: 28,35,45,50,60,85,105,135,180,200,300...that's ELEVEN well-known Nikkor prime lens lengths enclosed with the barrel of a single, basically, $1,000 lens (at its time of introduction). That's a lot of flexibility. Surely that's worth something.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Thanks for your extensive input Derrel, i will check those links carefully.

logically it will save me a lot of cash if i have the 50mm and the 28-300, after that, who knows...but i think I'll be pretty covered for all kinds of shooting...of course its not the holy trinity quality, but anyway i can't see myself investing that kind of money without professionally working with it, then its a different matter and you need 'the best' all the time, in all situations...maybe in the future who knows.

I don't know if you have considered this.. but here goes.. If I went FX this is the route I would go anyway.

Keep your 50mm 1.8G. Get a 16-35 F4 and a 70-300mm VR. With this you have all your bases covered with higher IQ than the 28-300 VR will produce.

 

[Derrel]

Thanks for your extensive input Derrel, i will check those links carefully.

logically it will save me a lot of cash if i have the 50mm and the 28-300, after that, who knows...but i think I'll be pretty covered for all kinds of shooting...of course its not the holy trinity quality, but anyway i can't see myself investing that kind of money without professionally working with it, then its a different matter and you need 'the best' all the time, in all situations...maybe in the future who knows.

I don't know if you have considered this.. but here goes.. If I went FX this is the route I would go anyway.

Keep your 50mm 1.8G. Get a 16-35 F4 and a 70-300mm VR. With this you have all your bases covered with higher IQ than the 28-300 VR will produce.

Dumb idea Josh...everybody knows he needs to spend $7,000 on three Trinity-class Nikkor zooms in order to get what he needs, quality-wise... [Sheldon Cooper...]

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Thanks for your extensive input Derrel, i will check those links carefully.

logically it will save me a lot of cash if i have the 50mm and the 28-300, after that, who knows...but i think I'll be pretty covered for all kinds of shooting...of course its not the holy trinity quality, but anyway i can't see myself investing that kind of money without professionally working with it, then its a different matter and you need 'the best' all the time, in all situations...maybe in the future who knows.

I don't know if you have considered this.. but here goes.. If I went FX this is the route I would go anyway.

Keep your 50mm 1.8G. Get a 16-35 F4 and a 70-300mm VR. With this you have all your bases covered with higher IQ than the 28-300 VR will produce.

Dumb idea Josh...everybody knows he needs to spend $7,000 on three Trinity-class Nikkor zooms in order to get what he needs, quality-wise... [Sheldon Cooper...]

I have to agree Derrel, it would seem on this forum sometimes according to certain members you need to buy the holy trinity to make good photographs. I'd personally prefer to use consumer zooms and buy amazing prime lenses for when I need that extra slice of quality and wide open performance.

I.e.. I'd buy those two consumer lenses and then spend the money I saved on a beautiful Sigma 85 1.4 for portrait work if I went FF. But maybe that's just me and my weirdo self. By the same token though, I still would love to eventually own a 70-200 VR2 and plan too one fine day.

 

[StandingBear1983]

I think i got it down folks, i will get the 28-300 then i'll have a general 'good' but not "THE BEST" (i'm sure it can be super capable after i saw a few samples), after that i'll just save for HQ primes. but until i save the cash i'll always have my 50 & my 28-300 so i won't be limited at all. - thats a good idea no?

 

[Patrice]

Anyhow, i have at least a year to decide on one of the 'holy trinity' if i REALLY want them in the end...if so it will be the wide angle one (14-24?), or the 70-200.

Not a rant, more of a call for reflection.

The trio of Nikon top tier zooms has long been referred to as the 'Nikon Trinity'. These are conglomerations of bits of glass, metal and plastic. When did they become holy? How about we start showing a bit of sensitivity and respect for the millions of folks on this planet for which the pair of words 'holy trinity' signifies something much more important in their lives than camera gear. Take a cue from Derrel, in his post above he uses the term 'trinity class', that's nice, we all understand what he refers to and it's not likely to offend the sensitivities of people more religious than we are.

Pat

 

[StandingBear1983]

Anyhow, i have at least a year to decide on one of the 'holy trinity' if i REALLY want them in the end...if so it will be the wide angle one (14-24?), or the 70-200.

Not a rant, more of a call for reflection.

The trio of Nikon top tier zooms has long been referred to as the 'Nikon Trinity'. These are conglomerations of bits of glass, metal and plastic. When did they become holy? How about we start showing a bit of sensitivity and respect for the millions of folks on this planet for which the pair of words 'holy trinity' signifies something much more important in their lives than camera gear. Take a cue from Derrel, in his post above he uses the term 'trinity class', that's nice, we all understand what he refers to and it's not likely to offend the sensitivities of people more religious than we are.

Pat

Hey Pat take it easy man, don't chop my head off , i was regarding to it like that just to emphasize 'the top of the line' lenses. its not healthy to get mad about little things like these, save it for the real problems in life .

 

[StandingBear1983]

Pat, i was just thinking a loud, maybe the 28-300 & the 50mm will be enough for me for a lifetime, who knows...I was just throwing ideas in the air here.