Changing to FX from DX - Help finding lenses

[Yamba6]

I used the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for awhile moving from D90 to D600 with it. Great lens and currently for sale ;-)

Great lens for the price. Really. I upgraded to the 24-70 for the wider end and VC. I also have the Tamron 70-200 non-vc and get great results with it. Plenty sharp for me and picked it up for ~$550. Little slow to focus and no VC but I get by lol.

The 35mm 1.8 will work in Crop mode. The D600 will recognize it and start acting like a crop sensor cmaera.
So effictively it will be the 50mm you already have. Dump the 35mm and reinvest it.

How much are you selling for?
I am a little disappointed now. This change over is going to get pricey but I guess that's the choice I need to take to get better.
Not trying to solicit my business but this is where I am currently on my work. www.danddphotos.com

(if mods have a problem with me linking that I will gladly remove)

So my understanding now is I need a $400 35mm if I want prime? haha


As for the 70-200 tamron, I am considering that but thinking I should just stay with the 70-300 till I have enough for the Nikon 70-200 as I know its just that much sharper and nicer of a lens. (could be wrong) How slow is the actual focus? I hear about it but never sure who knows enough about photography.

 

[MOREGONE]

Yeah the 70-300 will serve you well for awhile. I would prioritize the standard range zoom and something wider since mentioned wanting a wide lens. I am still using my Tokina 12-24 f4 which is a DX lens with my D600. It works as full frame from 18-24. A FX wide angle will be my next lens. Thinking Tokina 16-28, Nikon 16-35 or maybe the upcoming Tamron 15-35 to round out my Tamron holy trinity.

Going FX is costly. No doubting that. But a few high ISO pics and you will love it! I know I did.

Asking $210, but open to offers. 200 locally is Good!

 

[Yamba6]

Yeah the 70-300 will serve you well for awhile. I would prioritize the standard range zoom and something wider since mentioned wanting a wide lens. I am still using my Tokina 12-24 f4 which is a DX lens with my D600. It works as full frame from 18-24. A FX wide angle will be my next lens. Thinking Tokina 16-28, Nikon 16-35 or maybe the upcoming Tamron 15-35 to round out my Tamron holy trinity.

Going FX is costly. No doubting that. But a few high ISO pics and you will love it! I know I did.

Asking $210, but open to offers. 200 locally is Good!

Thank you for the help and to everyone helping me out there. I am just learning the FX part of things. So you recommend the 28-75 2.8 then at that price? (or should I hold off for something better) I was looking into the tokina but noticed you cant use filters on that lens as I'd like to get something to protect the glass on my newer lenses.
I'll have to look into the 15-35mm, what f/ is that?

 

[greybeard]

From what I know, all your lenses with the exception of the 18-105 will cover FX, even the 35mm, ( have one) seems to do pretty good with a little pp. I think I'd just get a 24-85 kit lens that comes with the d600. From what I've read, it looks pretty descent.

 

[Yamba6]

From what I know, all your lenses with the exception of the 18-105 will cover FX, even the 35mm, ( have one) seems to do pretty good with a little pp. I think I'd just get a 24-85 kit lens that comes with the d600. From what I've read, it looks pretty descent.

I'm going with the D610 (I know they are practically the same) but also able to get a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8... why get a kit lens which from my understand would have less quality and less low lighting quality? The lens will be $200 for me which is probably the cost extra or more for the kit lens to be added to the bill.

 

[Ido]

Nikon has a new 20mm f/1.8 lens for under $800. If you want an ultra-wide lens and can't afford that, and you're fine with using manual focus only, get the Samyang 14mm f/2.8.

 

[astroNikon]

You seem to be confusing yourself.
You really don't want DX lenses (a few work but you have to be careful).

18mm is a great Ultra Wide Angle, with affordable options.
14mm Nikon-wise is ultra expensive. 3rd parties offer good solution

From what I know, all your lenses with the exception of the 18-105 will cover FX, even the 35mm, ( have one) seems to do pretty good with a little pp. I think I'd just get a 24-85 kit lens that comes with the d600. From what I've read, it looks pretty descent.

I'm going with the D610 (I know they are practically the same) but also able to get a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8... why get a kit lens which from my understand would have less quality and less low lighting quality? The lens will be $200 for me which is probably the cost extra or more for the kit lens to be added to the bill.

The problem is your requirements are:

• FX
• you don't want to spend much
• you want fast / professional glass - minimum f/2.8
• all AF

Ive been there, done that. and my above lens strategy fit's that bill exactly except UWA which I'm fine not being at f/2.8. My list though is all Nikon. I worried about the colors and quality so I just stuck with Nikon. Tamron, Tokina, Sigma all have alternatives.

In the end, you will need money. Buy used so that if you "strategy" changes you won't be out too much.
Originally I had a good strategy but had to change a few things when I did move to FX.

 

[Yamba6]

Nikon has a new 20mm f/1.8 lens for under $800. If you want an ultra-wide lens and can't afford that, and you're fine with using manual focus only, get the Samyang 14mm f/2.8.

I was looking into the Tokina 16-24mm I believe it is, only issue I have is the lack of filter threads. So no filters can ever be used on that lens.

 

[Yamba6]

You seem to be confusing yourself.
You really don't want DX lenses (a few work but you have to be careful).

18mm is a great Ultra Wide Angle, with affordable options.
14mm Nikon-wise is ultra expensive. 3rd parties offer good solution

From what I know, all your lenses with the exception of the 18-105 will cover FX, even the 35mm, ( have one) seems to do pretty good with a little pp. I think I'd just get a 24-85 kit lens that comes with the d600. From what I've read, it looks pretty descent.

I'm going with the D610 (I know they are practically the same) but also able to get a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8... why get a kit lens which from my understand would have less quality and less low lighting quality? The lens will be $200 for me which is probably the cost extra or more for the kit lens to be added to the bill.

The problem is your requirements are:

• FX
• you don't want to spend much
• you want fast / professional glass - minimum f/2.8
• all AF

Ive been there, done that. and my above lens strategy fit's that bill exactly except UWA which I'm fine not being at f/2.8. My list though is all Nikon. I worried about the colors and quality so I just stuck with Nikon. Tamron, Tokina, Sigma all have alternatives.

In the end, you will need money. Buy used so that if you "strategy" changes you won't be out too much.
Originally I had a good strategy but had to change a few things when I did move to FX.

Thank you. I know not to expect things to be cheap. By cheap I mean most inexpensive good quality lens I can get my hands on that are not a waste of money. (I'm not trying to get f/4-5.6 lenses as I feel I run into low level light problems with those) My problem and situation I have yet to deal with is what the d610 is capable of doing at low level lighting with a f/4 lens and the iso turned up. When I have my d90 with 400iso, I get upset at the grainy photos it ends up taking. Yes its not horrid, but it just seems to kill that nice quality photo. I want to get away from that as much as possible.

 

[astroNikon]

You seem to be confusing yourself.
You really don't want DX lenses (a few work but you have to be careful).

18mm is a great Ultra Wide Angle, with affordable options.
14mm Nikon-wise is ultra expensive. 3rd parties offer good solution

From what I know, all your lenses with the exception of the 18-105 will cover FX, even the 35mm, ( have one) seems to do pretty good with a little pp. I think I'd just get a 24-85 kit lens that comes with the d600. From what I've read, it looks pretty descent.

I'm going with the D610 (I know they are practically the same) but also able to get a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8... why get a kit lens which from my understand would have less quality and less low lighting quality? The lens will be $200 for me which is probably the cost extra or more for the kit lens to be added to the bill.

The problem is your requirements are:

• FX
• you don't want to spend much
• you want fast / professional glass - minimum f/2.8
• all AF

Ive been there, done that. and my above lens strategy fit's that bill exactly except UWA which I'm fine not being at f/2.8. My list though is all Nikon. I worried about the colors and quality so I just stuck with Nikon. Tamron, Tokina, Sigma all have alternatives.

In the end, you will need money. Buy used so that if you "strategy" changes you won't be out too much.
Originally I had a good strategy but had to change a few things when I did move to FX.

Thank you. I know not to expect things to be cheap. By cheap I mean most inexpensive good quality lens I can get my hands on that are not a waste of money. (I'm not trying to get f/4-5.6 lenses as I feel I run into low level light problems with those) My problem and situation I have yet to deal with is what the d610 is capable of doing at low level lighting with a f/4 lens and the iso turned up. When I have my d90 with 400iso, I get upset at the grainy photos it ends up taking. Yes its not horrid, but it just seems to kill that nice quality photo. I want to get away from that as much as possible.

I totally understand.
I do *alot* of low light stuff
My d7000 is good up to iso1600
here are the ISO rankings calculations numbers ==> dxoMark Nikon ISO numbers | Photography Forum
d600 = 2980
d7000 = 1167
d90 = 977
the d600 is just bored at iso400 .. think more lke iso6400
==> Question to those who moved from crop sensor to full frame camera-low light Perf | Photography Forum

 

[Yamba6]

You seem to be confusing yourself.
You really don't want DX lenses (a few work but you have to be careful).

18mm is a great Ultra Wide Angle, with affordable options.
14mm Nikon-wise is ultra expensive. 3rd parties offer good solution

From what I know, all your lenses with the exception of the 18-105 will cover FX, even the 35mm, ( have one) seems to do pretty good with a little pp. I think I'd just get a 24-85 kit lens that comes with the d600. From what I've read, it looks pretty descent.

I'm going with the D610 (I know they are practically the same) but also able to get a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8... why get a kit lens which from my understand would have less quality and less low lighting quality? The lens will be $200 for me which is probably the cost extra or more for the kit lens to be added to the bill.

The problem is your requirements are:

• FX
• you don't want to spend much
• you want fast / professional glass - minimum f/2.8
• all AF

Ive been there, done that. and my above lens strategy fit's that bill exactly except UWA which I'm fine not being at f/2.8. My list though is all Nikon. I worried about the colors and quality so I just stuck with Nikon. Tamron, Tokina, Sigma all have alternatives.

In the end, you will need money. Buy used so that if you "strategy" changes you won't be out too much.
Originally I had a good strategy but had to change a few things when I did move to FX.

Thank you. I know not to expect things to be cheap. By cheap I mean most inexpensive good quality lens I can get my hands on that are not a waste of money. (I'm not trying to get f/4-5.6 lenses as I feel I run into low level light problems with those) My problem and situation I have yet to deal with is what the d610 is capable of doing at low level lighting with a f/4 lens and the iso turned up. When I have my d90 with 400iso, I get upset at the grainy photos it ends up taking. Yes its not horrid, but it just seems to kill that nice quality photo. I want to get away from that as much as possible.

I totally understand.
I do *alot* of low light stuff
My d7000 is good up to iso1600
here are the ISO rankings calculations numbers ==> dxoMark Nikon ISO numbers | Photography Forum
d600 = 2980
d7000 = 1167
d90 = 977
the d600 is just bored at iso400 .. think more lke iso6400
==> Question to those who moved from crop sensor to full frame camera-low light Perf | Photography Forum

I think anything will be better than the 4 year old d90 I have with lots and lots of shots on the shutter. (not sure the shot count but I know I take a lot or did when I was learning to use it)