FX Primes on DX bodies

niemeyjt

So far just going through the initial setup to get everything dialed the way I like it. Only took about 50 frames, and the detail is amazingly great. I started out with my 28mm f/1.8, will swap on my 35 next, and then some zooms. The focus is spot-on, no AF fine tune needed for the 28. So far, only shot in Manual, but the AF is super fast, even in low light, and great frame coverage. The body feels significantly lighter than the D7000. I want to test the buffer write speed out to various SD cards, to see if the Expeed 4 can push the bus a bit harder. I'll update here when I do.

Not wishing to hijack the D7200 thread, I wanted to pick out a comment on there and broaden that discussion.

I want a D750 + various primes - however a quick pricing of the wish list and analysis of my bank account says it can't happen just yet!

So, as I have a D40 with a pre-VR zoom, my thinking turned to the D7200 as an alternative, particularly as there is a good deal on in UK at present, and using the zoom off the D40 to begin with. My thinking is that I could add new lenses as funding allowed. So far, so good.

However, my thinking is to buy new FX lenses at the outset - starting with 35mm 1.8 and 100mm micro - rather than DX to be "D750 ready". Seeing Ironheart's post on the other thread, it seems I am not alone in doing this.

So, how do people find this? Are the FX lenses corrected for FF and thus distort on DX - or is simply a case that they cast a larger image inside the camera and the correction is perfect? Other thoughts - I appreciate the weight and price tag will be bigger - and I am thinking that whatever I buy will be a long term investment (now I am reassured about composite lifetimes ).

NSXTypeR

Optics are optics, as long as they were made right the first time, you won't have any problems moving your FX lenses from DX to FX.

If it worked on your D40, it'll work on any current camera body. Oh, and I'm glad to see another D40 user here, I started off on one of those bodies too.

It's that simple.

tcole1983

FX lenses still work beautifully on DX...you won't have a problem. They actually in some cases are sharper or have less vignetting because they are only taking advantage of a smaller area of the glass...basically the center portion of the lens elements.

JonMcGuffin

Well, it's frankly a worthwhile conversation to entertain not moving to FX at all. However considering you're coming all the way from a D40 that tells me you don't upgrade often which means a higher cost now is spread out more evenly across the entire time. On that note spring for the $$ now and enjoy the FX product for the next 6-8 years easily.

DX is no slouch and size and weight (and price) favor the format. Consider this excellent all around DX setup:

D7200 Body
Tokina 11-20mm 2.8
Sigma 18-35mm 1.8
Nikon 50mm 1.8G
Nikon 70-200mm F4G
Nikon 85mm 1.8G
Tokina 100mm 2.8 Micro

Of course this all has a ton to do with what you're actually looking to shoot, but I though it would be fun to kind of map out a "complete" DX solution. Also note, all but the first two lenses above are FX lenses to help future proof your investment but note the Tokina 11-20 and Sigma 18-35 are really very high quality wide optics.

Also remember that all of this has generally good resale value which means you don't necessarily have to make all the right decisions now.

Good luck!
Jon

WestEndFoto

Well, it's frankly a worthwhile conversation to entertain not moving to FX at all. However considering you're coming all the way from a D40 that tells me you don't upgrade often which means a higher cost now is spread out more evenly across the entire time. On that note spring for the $$ now and enjoy the FX product for the next 6-8 years easily.

DX is no slouch and size and weight (and price) favor the format. Consider this excellent all around DX setup:

D7200 Body
Tokina 11-20mm 2.8
Sigma 18-35mm 1.8
Nikon 50mm 1.8G
Nikon 70-200mm F4G
Nikon 85mm 1.8G
Tokina 100mm 2.8 Micro

Of course this all has a ton to do with what you're actually looking to shoot, but I though it would be fun to kind of map out a "complete" DX solution. Also note, all but the first two lenses above are FX lenses to help future proof your investment but note the Tokina 11-20 and Sigma 18-35 are really very high quality wide optics.

Also remember that all of this has generally good resale value which means you don't necessarily have to make all the right decisions now.

Good luck!
Jon

That is a big gap between DX 35 and the FX 50, which will be 75 on DX. I might recommend adding an FX 35.

Ironheart

The DX 35 is equiv to a FX 50, it's just optimized for DX format (Size, weight, cost). At $200 the best value DX lens you can have, I would buy it first. The $600 FX 35 could be a future investment. Regardless, as @WestEndFoto says the gap between 35-50 (50-75 equiv) is pretty important. This happens to be what we call the "normal range"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/
If you consider that adding an FX body in the the future to your system rather than as a replacement, it frees you up to consider both sides of the aisle :-) many folks here think about using FX for wide, and ultra wide as these are excellent lenses, and DX for telephoto and super tele as you get the 1.5x advantage and higher resolution. This leaves the normal range as the crossover. For FX this would be the 24-70 zoom (or equiv primes 35, 50, 58, 85). For DX this would be the 18-55, or 17-55. The 18-55 costs $100 and weighs 265 g/9.4 oz. The 17-55 costs $1500 and weighs 755 g/26.6 oz. The just announced 16-80 DX is in the middle at $1000 and 16.93 oz (480 g). As you can imagine, the image quality goes up with cost and weight, but not linearly; the 18-55 is pretty good for what it is. There are other, wider range zooms, but the quality suffers on both ends of the zoom.

spraynpray

You know what? Here's an option; you upgrade your gear so infrequently you don't need to take advantage of buying FX lenses now as almost all FX lenses will be upgraded before your next cycle so would be obsolete.

sevencrossing

If you are on a tight budget stick to dx cameras and lenses

WestEndFoto

You know what? Here's an option; you upgrade your gear so infrequently you don't need to take advantage of buying FX lenses now as almost all FX lenses will be upgraded before your next cycle so would be obsolete.

Are you kidding Spraynpray?

KnockKnock

I'll entertain the original post with regards to FX primes - I too am thinking about the someday future FX. I think you have a good plan.

I'd probably get the 28mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8. I find I don't shoot much at 35mm on DX. That'd give the 35mm equivalent of a 42mm lens for general purpose and ~135mm for telephoto.

Keep your kit lens in the bag since it's so light, and it'll cover you when you need true wide angle or the middle ranges.

Then when you jump to whatever FX camera is right, you can pickup a cheap 35 or 50mm lens.

KnockKnock

I kind of get our moderator's opinion. The 105mm f/2.8 is awesome, but not exactly a modern design and in 5 years will probably be updated.

spraynpray

No I'm not kidding. Why spend lots on FX lenses to have them depreciate for six years. The D7200 and the lenses that are around for it from Nikon and the third parties will blow him away and depreciate less. When he is looking to buy FX in six years who knows what the options will be? F mounts may even be a thing of the past - I doubt that, but for sure there may be other bodies with other lens fittings that he wants to buy instead. If we were talking 2 year cycle, I'd say yes, get FX lenses.

snakebunk

I would probably stick to fx lenses, but if there is a dx lense you really like, why not buy it? You can sell lenses, you can use dx lenses in crop mode on a future fx camera and you may keep the D7200 as a backup. I say go for the best lenses, the ones you need the most, but favor fx.

Perhaps more important than fx or dx is to make some kind of plan so you don't end up with a lot of overlapping lenses.

PB_PM

No I'm not kidding. Why spend lots on FX lenses to have them depreciate for six years.

Why worry about depreciation? Do you buy lenses simply because they have dollar value that you can recoup later? Lenses are for shooting with, and enjoying. You get your money's worth by using them, they are not an financial investment, at least not one that any financial adviser on earth would tell you to put your money into.

proudgeek

I see nothing wrong with the OP's plan. For several years I owned a D90 and an 18-200, with plans to "upgrade" to FX at some point. So over a 5-year period I accumulated several FX lenses, including the 105 macro, a used 17-35, and 300 f/2.8 and a few others. When I purchased a D800 a couple of years ago I was all set.

WestEndFoto

No I'm not kidding. Why spend lots on FX lenses to have them depreciate for six years. The D7200 and the lenses that are around for it from Nikon and the third parties will blow him away and depreciate less. When he is looking to but FX in six years who knows what the options will be? F mounts may even be a thing of the past - I doubt that, but for sure there may be other bodies with other lens fittings that he wants to buy instead. If we were talking 2 year cycle, I'd say yes, get FX lenses.

FX lenses don't depreciate much, especially the good ones.

Look at the lenses in my signature. I paid a pretty penny for each of them brand new in the last two years and some have been in production for 20-30 years. I might have saved 20% getting them second hand on Adorama or B&H, if that. Lenses are not like cameras, which in my mind are disposable. Unlike cameras (and maybe cheap lenses), lenses hold there value well.

And lenses made for the D7200 from Nikon and third parties will depreciate less? I don't get that. Historically third party lenses and cheaper consumer lenses such as superzooms have depreciated more.

Unless you think Nikon is not going to be around in 5 or 6 years.

I think that you should buy the lenses that suit the application. Then find the best camera that you can afford to bolt onto those lenses, be it DX or FX. I would suggest buying some 1.8 FX primes. If you take good care of them, you will get 80% of your money back if you want to sell them 5 years from now. Then buy a D7200 or even a second hand D7100 and you will have a fantastic system. Just be mindful that a 50mm FX lens on a DX camera is the same as a 75mm FX lens on an FX camera.

PB_PM

FX lenses don't depreciate much, especially the good ones.

Somewhat debatable. There are some truly good lenses made for FX cameras that are not worth as much on the used market anymore. Partly due to time since release, and also availability. Also it somewhat depends on two things, 1. Whether or not the lens is the latest and greatest, and 2. Does the lens have good a reputation with the "show pros" on youtube etc. Perceived value is often more important than the actual quality of the product.

Even pro glass drops in value once a replacement comes out. Example, before Nikon refreshed the "D" series F1.4 and F2.8 primes, they were the bees knees, the must haves etc. G models started to drop 4-5 years ago, and all you had to do was watch those prices fall (on used market).

Non-AI, AI and AI-S lenses kind of fall into the vintage/classic space, so they are in a different category. Don't confuse new sale value for resale value, which is what most people consider the investment part of a lens now days.

WestEndFoto

I don't disagree with any of your above points, so I don't think that we are vary far apart. When I say "don't depreciate", I am wrong of course, but what I really mean is "not much and certainly much less than cameras". The only real debate is the quantum. My argument about resale value is based on what I see on B&H, Adorama and Ebay. I have often thought about getting something used, but for a 20% discount on a clean product, I may as well buy new. So I am not confusing new vs resale.

Not that it matters much but to set the record straight - while I was originally a salesman in my early 20s, I have been an accountant for the last 20 years.

PB_PM

I don't disagree with any of your above points, so I don't think that we are vary far apart. When I say "don't depreciate", I am wrong of course, but what I really mean is "not much and certainly much less than cameras".

Totally agree.

Sorry, I was thinking of someone else, not even someone here.

WestEndFoto

Not a big deal.

JonMcGuffin

It sounds as if budget is probably a big consideration of the OP. It also sounds like the D40 has been a good camera for him for many years. We don't know what he shoots or what he needs but the more I look at it, I honestly think the DX system will suit and serve him far better than FX.

As we've covered pretty well over in the FX vs DX image quality thread, modern DX cams such as the D7200 frankly have closed the gap so much against FX the only real photographic advantages are small with noise performance between 3200 and 12,800 being the lone def advantage. There are also benefits to the smaller and more limber DX setup that captures better DOF at similar apertures. FX glass can always be used on DX but not really the other way around.

I can't recommend enough the OP stick with a D7200 and deploy his current lenses with it and add as suggested above. For starters the Sigma 18-35 1.8 is absolutely fantastic and will easily produce images as good as any FX body and lense between 26-55mm 2.8. There are good options all around. Forget resell value, the dude holds gear forever and even if he didn't, no matter what he buys he can always resell it for 70-80% of what he bought it for (give or take).

Take the plunge on DX and don't look back as from that point forwards your pictures will certainly be limited by factors other than the camera body. If budget isn't a concern nor weight, go ahead ad go FX

Ironheart

"FX glass can always be used on DX but not really the other way around."
I agree 110% with what you say! except for this. The D8x0 makes a great 15mp DX camera. All of your DX lenses will work great in DX mode"

JonMcGuffin

"FX glass can always be used on DX but not really the other way around."
I agree 110% with what you say! except for this. The D8x0 makes a great 15mp DX camera. All of your DX lenses will work great in DX mode"

Ok, you're right. In that case it's true but I suppose that makes an even larger claim for the OP to invest in DX system.

Ironheart

That's what I'm sayin! >-

spraynpray

We don't all have to agree in a discussion of course - that's fine - but nobody seems to have given any thought to my point that the next camera the op buys may not even use F mount lenses except maybe via an adaptor. So as I said, why buy FX lenses at this time when the future of the F mount lenses is uncertain? We are talking about 6 years at a time when mirrorless FX and DX are getting very close.

snakebunk

We don't all have to agree in a discussion of course - that's fine - but nobody seems to have given any thought to my point that the next camera the op buys may not even use F mount lenses except maybe via an adaptor. So as I said, why by FX lenses at this time when the future of the F mount lenses is uncertain?

1. Because the F mount may be around for a long time, even if nothing is certain.
2. Because many of the best lenses are FX regardless of what camera you have.