Upgrading to the full monty.. Lens discussion

[austriker]

So I am upgrading to the big stage.. full frame!

Quite exciting, and of course (like all things photo) super expensive. Thus I turn for some advice on fx lenses. I have worked a ton with dx lenses but the fx lens waters look a bit murky.

A little on me: I shoot a lot of different things (portrait, photoj/life photos, sports, landscapes/nature) and havent found a niche yet. I like to think Im an advance hobbyist as its not a career for me. I love my tokina 11-16 wide angle and plan on testing it on the D700 I am acquiring (heard you can shoot at 15-16mm with it) and am keeping my 80-200 f/2.8 telephoto. Also I plan on keeping my trusty d300 as a backup, with the dx crop for sports stuff.

Thus after culling through reviews and online info I have come up with these thoughts:

Lens desired to complement the quiver:
50mm f/1.4G (older one)
and a wide angle lens possibly to replace the tokina.. was thinking about the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D as it looks like its around $1000 used.

eventually I would like to get the all around solid 24-70 f/2.8.

The cash I have to work with is about $1000 or so unless I sell the tokina wide angle which would give me more funds. So that very much limits me. Although are there any good third party lenses like the tokina which impressed me? What other lenses should I consider? Should I keep the tokina just for 15-16mm?

Thanks. sorry for being all over the place

 

[MLeeK]

I'd look at the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8VC lens. It's still a little above your budget, but a month or two of saving should easily get you there.

 

[Derrel]

I'd look at the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8VC lens. It's still a little above your budget, but a month or two of saving should easily get you there.

YES, a solid 3rd party lens suggestion. Have you considered the Nikon 24-85 AF-S VR, the new zoom that Nikon has been pairing with the D600??? In the USA, that lens is being sold for $100 off list when bought with a qualifying Nikon d-slr body. Sure, it's not an f/2.8 lens, but it is relatively small,light weight, and has good range. You are going to have significantly better High ISO performance than with a DX camera, so the loss of aperture speed is not "that" major a concern.

 

[austriker]

I'd look at the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8VC lens. It's still a little above your budget, but a month or two of saving should easily get you there.

YES, a solid 3rd party lens suggestion. Have you considered the Nikon 24-85 AF-S VR, the new zoom that Nikon has been pairing with the D600??? In the USA, that lens is being sold for $100 off list when bought with a qualifying Nikon d-slr body. Sure, it's not an f/2.8 lens, but it is relatively small,light weight, and has good range. You are going to have significantly better High ISO performance than with a DX camera, so the loss of aperture speed is not "that" major a concern.

thanks you guys, that lens looks great- plenty of good reviews on amazon. And no I have not considered the 24-85, so thanks for bringing it up! Now I guess I need to decide if I should go with a 2.8 'walk around' lens or just rock the higher ISO.. and then what to do about a wide angle..

thanks for the tips!

 

[21limited]

There are reasons for going to 2.8, one being better auto-focus efficiency. Cranking up the ISO doesn't increase the amount of light the auto-focus system has to work with. I bought an f4 lens as my main telehoto. There have been a few time I had trouble focusing when f.2.8 would have gotten it done. All I could say was oh darn? Nothing you can do at that point. Now Pentax, the manufacturer of my gear is rating all their auto-focus stuff on lenses with an Aperture of 2.8 or better. Now I'm thinking of adding a 200 2.8 and a 77 1.9 to compliment my 90 2.8 and 35 2.4 and 50 1.7 for use in low light. I just can't find a 2.8 standard zoom with good edge to edge sharpness. Starting over, I wouldn't buy another lens over 2.8.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Top shelf glass FTW

 

[austriker]

Top shelf glass FTW

I would agree but not everyone has fat pocket books or does photo 24/7, thus my desire to seek out what might be a solid lens at my budget level

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Top shelf glass FTW

I would agree but not everyone has fat pocket books or does photo 24/7, thus my desire to seek out what might be a solid lens at my budget level

Lenses are priced proportionally like cars or jewelry, from entry level to high performance

and from older models lacking a bit of performance compared to the newer models in the same grouping too

 

[Derrel]

The D600 has an AF system that's vastly more-capable than most cameras; with an f/1.8 lens, it can focus in light at EV -3. So, I really do not think this camera is going to "need" an f/2.8 lens for decent AF; the D2x was/is the same way....it EASILY locks AF indoors in craptastic light with the old, POS AF 35-70 f/3.3~4.5 zoom lens.

 

[austriker]

The D600 has an AF system that's....

True, but what about the D700? :mrgreen: Sorry I guess I wasnt super clear I bought the 'older' full frame
Either way Im sure your advice holds true.. thanks!

 

[MLeeK]

I am intending to add the tamron 24-70 f/2.8 after reading voraciously on it. I will use it professionally and heavily.
I would love to have the canon version, but after reading the reviews and tests on it? It's not worth the high price tag in comparison. No one is going to put my images under a microscope to tell the difference and that's what would be required.

I don't think that anyone ever will say "Look, that was OBVIOUSLY not taken with top shelf glass..." and when put under scrutiny? Probably not going to happen either.

Now if I had deep pockets? Hell, yes I'd buy the canon version! However it's silly for me to dump an extra grand on the name tag when no one will ever be able to discern the difference.

 

[Patrice]

I have a D700 and have since taken all my old AF-D lenses back out of the cupboard. On a budget does not mean low end when you think about slightly older lenses. An older 20mm 2.8 AFD is a very nice wide angle for a D700. If that is beyond your budget then a 24 mm 2.8 AFD might meet your needs. A 50mm 1.8 AFD makes a great walk around lens for FX and is cheap as chips. Your 80-200 covers the short to medium telephoto range.

 

[austriker]

Update:

After getting the glorious D700 on wednesday I have tested the tokina 11-16 and think it works yes, but would be better to sell it and put the funds towards an actual FX wide angle (really only 16mm is useful and ive heard there are minor technical issues with it on a FX.. to be expected as its a dx lens)

Thus I am on the search for a wide angle. I am thinking with going with the 24-85 AF-S VR because I cant really afford a midrange 2.8 and dont really need one (I dont shoot pro (yet) or weddings (yet) or anything). I am getting a 50mm f/1.4 tomorrow (the older one, D? G? cant remember)

So my quiver will look like this:
D700
50mm f/1.4
80-200 f/2.8

Then... wide angle?
Maybe a 20mm 2.8 prime?


Oh and full frame is amazing. dont why I didnt do it earlier (actually I do, money..). Its like taking the training wheels off

EDIT: I Found the Nikon 20-35mm which looks pretty rocking. Although for some reason I cant wrap my head around converting what the FX focal length would look like in DX format.. I have been stuck in the DX work forever thats just how my mind thinks. Would 20mm be similar to 11mm of my tokina?? The crop is 1.5 so 20/1.5=13, did I do that right?