New 'daily use' lens needed. Suggestions?

[reg]

Howzzat?

Because if you put it on a crop body, it's gonna be cropped no matter what the lens is.

 

[tirediron]

Because if you put it on a crop body, it's gonna be cropped no matter what the lens is.

Yes, but the focal lengths of DX lenses are equivalents are they not? That is to say that a 17mm DX lens gives you a FoV approximating that of a 17mm non-DX lens on an FX body.

 

[reg]

Nope.

 

[tirediron]

Nope.

An enlightening reply; perhaps you could elaborate on that?

 

[reg]

Nope as in nope to the only question you posed - whether or not a DX only lens 17mm = 17mm on 35mm film or fill frame.

That is to say, that ANY 17mm on a crop body is still gonna come out to 20 something-mm to lower 30mm in field of view, depending on the camera body. The "problem", depending on what FOV you're trying to achieve, really, is in the sensor. That's how P&S's have lenses that only stick out 5 or 6mm from the actual camera.

 

[tirediron]

Well, don't I feel like a right prat. Now that I've actually read all of the relevant webpage on Nikon's 'site, it's clear, Reg, you are indeed correct, and thank-you. I can't believe that I have been mistaken about this for so long! To explain wherein my error originated, this is the line which I read from Nikon's website some time ago which made me think the way I did:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Field of View (FOV)
Due to the fact that Nikon Digital SLR and Nikon film SLR cameras are using different size sensors the lens FOV for any given lens is different on each camera.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Historically, Nikon have always specified the FOV for 135 Nikkor lenses when used on 135 format cameras, this will continue. However, as DX Nikkor lenses are specifically designed for Nikon DX Format cameras, Nikon will now state the DX Format FOV for these lenses.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Without thinking, I interpreted "FoV" as Focal Length. Had I read a little further, I would have found: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

For example:
- The AF 24mm F2.8D Nikkor has a quoted FOV of 84º (on a 135 film SLR camera)
- The 12-24mm DX Nikkor has a quoted FOV of 61º (at 24mm on a DX format camera)

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Learn something new everyday!
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Bevel Heaven]

17-55 f2.8 gets my vote

 

[tirediron]

The 17-55 f2.8 will be my second purchase.

 

[djacobox372]

Hmmm... at $250 - 425 I don't think these two are likely to be in the build-quality range I am looking for.

Hmmm... I recommend judging lenses by performance and not price. Not ALL 1st party lenses are better then their 3rd party equivalent (some are worse), but they are ALL more expensive, many MUCH MUCH more.

Of course in this case the nikkor does have a better "feel" and build quality, but the picture quality is a toss up IMO--having used both and compared. Considering the 3x price difference (6 x in the case of the 24-60), the sigma is a tempting alternative.

 

[tirediron]

Hmmm... I recommend judging lenses by performance and not price. Not ALL 1st party lenses are better then their 3rd party equivalent (some are worse), but they are ALL more expensive, many MUCH MUCH more.

Of course in this case the nikkor does have a better "feel" and build quality, but the picture quality is a toss up IMO--having used both and compared. Considering the 3x price difference (6 x in the case of the 24-60), the sigma is a tempting alternative.

Good points, however I'm looking at these as a LONG-term purchase, so build quality is very important. I don't buy any means discount 3rd party gear, but I also don't want something that's only going to last a couple of years.

 

[reg]

Fact: I have a, oh probably 24(?) year old Sigma lens that still works.

 

[tirediron]

I looked at the Sigma 24-70 2.8 yesterday; a nice lens, but it didn't have the same smooth, solid feel as the Nikon.