DX Camera - DX or FX Glass?

I'm just getting restarted with photography, but jumped back in with the D5300. I know that I'll start replacing the kit lenses with better glass as funds become available. My question then is this... I'm pretty sure the 5300 will end up becoming my second body that is either the backup body or used by my wife. I'm not certain what I may end up with as a primary body.

Given that, and assuming only AF-S lenses since the 5300 lacks the AF servo, would it be advisable to concentrate on FX lenses so that I can take that investment forward if I do end up going the 610 route, or am I missing a trade-off where I am better served sticking to DX lenses?

The thread on picking 4 lenses for the next 10 years has just got me thinking...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If the road to FX is the fork you're taking, then I'd go with FX glass whenever possible.

Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Zoom Lens for Nikon 583306 B&HHere is my take on it. If you are going to keep it and even if your wife is going to use it why not buy a DX lens for it. I have a Sigma 17-50 that I really like and a Tokin 11-16 and both are great lens's. When you need wide or ultra wide then I say for sure get the DX lens for it which is what I have. You could only rent for just a few times until it wasn't feasible to do so. Lets say you buy one and keep it 2-3 years and then sell if for 2/3 of what you paid for it. The math doesn't add up to me even at half resale value. If you look around you can buy used.

Now I shoot a lot of outdoors stuff mainly wildlife so maybe I look at it different but I don't ever plan to go to FX either. DX cameras are great cameras and why not have a lens that actually gives you the most out of it.

My first DSLR was my D90. Since I had lenses from my 35mm camera, I opted to buy the body only. Eventually the first lens I bought for it is my Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 (FX). It is terrific and works on both my D90 and D610. Tamron now makes a 24-70mm f/2.8 (FX) with their version of the vibration reduction, and it tests very well for sharpness. There's nothing wrong starting out using 3rd party lenses as there are many excellent ones from which to choose. Just offering a different perspective.

I have a DX D300 camera and nearly all FX glass..16-35mmF4...28-70mmF2.8...80-200mmF2.8..300mmF4..50mmF1.8...28-85mmF3.4/4.5..And a few others...

I also have the D300 with mostly FX glass. They work great, and when I eventually get a FX body to go with my D300, I won't have to go buy all new glass. Though adding to my collection of lenses will be ongoing, whenever I start having some extra money to buy more camera gear.

What do you like to shoot? If you like higher ISO capabilities, wider angles and OoF elements than move towards Fx. If you want more reach, stick with Dx.

Rick M said:

What do you like to shoot? If you like higher ISO capabilities, wider angles and OoF elements than move towards Fx. If you want more reach, stick with Dx.

Click to expand...

Or get the best of both by having both.

Personally, I'd stick with the D5300, but that's me. If you still decide on going FX, stick with Nikon lenses and the "G" FX series. That way you can use the lenses with full AF,etc, on both the DX and FX bodies.

RocketCowboy said:

Given that, and assuming only AF-S lenses since the 5300 lacks the AF servo, would it be advisable to concentrate on FX lenses so that I can take that investment forward if I do end up going the 610 route, or am I missing a trade-off where I am better served sticking to DX lenses?

Click to expand...

Charlie - what is your budget looking like within the next two years?

For now, I would suggest any of the f1.8G FX primes (28, 35, 50, and 85). They are more reasonably priced compared to the f2.8 zoom lenses. Not a big investment to get you started in the FX line and their demand is still pretty good for potential "used" lens buyers.

However, once you start using primes, you will tend to dislike your kit lenses after that and the journey towards f2.8 or maybe f4 zooms continues.

Having just taken that fork in the road and bought a D610 after shooting with a D5100 for the past few years I now find myself wishing I had bought FX glass. BUT in hindsight I'm not sure I would have done so even if I had had the foresight to know I would go FX this year. Now I only had three DX lenses, AF-S 55-300 DX VR Zoom Lense AF-S 18-55 DX VR Kit lens both of which I bought with the camera as a set and then I added the less expensive AF-S 35mm DX f/1.8G Prime Lens.

With the prime I probably would have been further ahead to get the less expensive 50mm FX prime - but that would be 75mm on the DX which is a little long. The alternative would have been a 20mm or 24mm prime. That might be a good option for you if you were looking for a prime portrait for the D5300 which will serve you well later as an FX lens.

I guess it depends a lot on budget. IF buying only FX lenses means you'll only have one lens for a few years, then maybe not. If cost is no object then get FX and don't look back. (If cost where no object you probably would have gone FX already with the body eh?)

Keep in mind that the DX lens is not completely useless on a FX camera. My D610 has a DX setting which will auto-crop to the DX sensor size. OR you just do that manually in the software - and depending on the crop may be further ahead to do it yourself. The degree of vignetting varies with settings. I've used my 35mm DX prime on my D610 and am OK with the results. Not getting the full FX benefit but still a very nice image which at the end of the day is what we are all about anyway eh?

I also had a couple of old FX lenses from my film days. Sometimes I wonder whether I'd get better images from my Nikkor AF-S DX 55-300 with VR than my old Sigma AF 100-300 without VR (sigma calls is OS I believe). Smaller image but maybe sharper? And if shooting a moving subject like a bird in flight I have not been successful with my Siggy - should try my DX zoom - maybe? FX zooms are a lot more expensive I've learned. Almost all FX lenses are much more - the lovely 50mm prime the exception to the rule. You can also go cheap and use old film glass, some of which is great. I'm finding my AF-S 28-80 film kit lens can take good images.

In the meantime enjoy that D5300. When I was going through the "what next" internal debate I was looking at upgrading my D5100 to either the D5300 (nice extra's like WiFi and I sure miss my swivel screen) or the D7000/7100, or go FX with a used (or old stock) D700, D610 or totally break the bank and go for the D800. In the end the D610 won but the D5300 was a serious contender - great camera - enjoy it to the fullest, and if that means getting some affordable Dx lenses do it.

IMHO

I would go for FX primes only. If you practice a bit with manual focusing and you get proficient then you can always go for the "D" lenses. I have a 50mm F1.8 AF, which is MF on my D3300, but that does not deter me, as manual focus is quite fast, once you get a hang of it (the range finder helps a lot).

Once you get an FX body, then there are a lot of older MF AIS lenses which have excellent optics, but are relatively inexpensive as every one wants AF.

Fortkentdad said:

Having just taken that fork in the road and bought a D610 after shooting with a D5100 for the past few years I now find myself wishing I had bought FX glass. BUT in hindsight I'm not sure I would have done so even if I had had the foresight to know I would go FX this year. Now I only had three DX lenses, AF-S 55-300 DX VR Zoom Lense AF-S 18-55 DX VR Kit lens both of which I bought with the camera as a set and then I added the less expensive AF-S 35mm DX f/1.8G Prime Lens.

With the prime I probably would have been further ahead to get the less expensive 50mm FX prime - but that would be 75mm on the DX which is a little long. The alternative would have been a 20mm or 24mm prime. That might be a good option for you if you were looking for a prime portrait for the D5300 which will serve you well later as an FX lens.

I guess it depends a lot on budget. IF buying only FX lenses means you'll only have one lens for a few years, then maybe not. If cost is no object then get FX and don't look back. (If cost where no object you probably would have gone FX already with the body eh?)

Keep in mind that the DX lens is not completely useless on a FX camera. My D610 has a DX setting which will auto-crop to the DX sensor size. OR you just do that manually in the software - and depending on the crop may be further ahead to do it yourself. The degree of vignetting varies with settings. I've used my 35mm DX prime on my D610 and am OK with the results. Not getting the full FX benefit but still a very nice image which at the end of the day is what we are all about anyway eh?

I also had a couple of old FX lenses from my film days. Sometimes I wonder whether I'd get better images from my Nikkor AF-S DX 55-300 with VR than my old Sigma AF 100-300 without VR (sigma calls is OS I believe). Smaller image but maybe sharper? And if shooting a moving subject like a bird in flight I have not been successful with my Siggy - should try my DX zoom - maybe? FX zooms are a lot more expensive I've learned. Almost all FX lenses are much more - the lovely 50mm prime the exception to the rule. You can also go cheap and use old film glass, some of which is great. I'm finding my AF-S 28-80 film kit lens can take good images.

In the meantime enjoy that D5300. When I was going through the "what next" internal debate I was looking at upgrading my D5100 to either the D5300 (nice extra's like WiFi and I sure miss my swivel screen) or the D7000/7100, or go FX with a used (or old stock) D700, D610 or totally break the bank and go for the D800. In the end the D610 won but the D5300 was a serious contender - great camera - enjoy it to the fullest, and if that means getting some affordable Dx lenses do it.

IMHO

Click to expand...

Thanks for your post I have learned a lot from it.

I was going to respond with the multi-quote so I could get everyone in a single large response, but then came to realize that wasn't going to be very practical because of all the replies.

iamntxhunter said:

Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Zoom Lens for Nikon 583306 B&HHere is my take on it. If you are going to keep it and even if your wife is going to use it why not buy a DX lens for it. I have a Sigma 17-50 that I really like and a Tokin 11-16 and both are great lens's. When you need wide or ultra wide then I say for sure get the DX lens for it which is what I have. You could only rent for just a few times until it wasn't feasible to do so. Lets say you buy one and keep it 2-3 years and then sell if for 2/3 of what you paid for it. The math doesn't add up to me even at half resale value. If you look around you can buy used.

Click to expand...

That is certainly an option ... going 3rd party lenses rather than spending Nikkor money on lenses. But I guess that's the debate I'm having with myself ... if I made the move to FX, the kit lenses are probably fine for what my wife wants to do with photography right now. Actually, one of the all day lenses like the 18-300 would probably suit her current needs and be good. So the question I'm having with myself is ... where am I going with this?

iamntxhunter said:

Now I shoot a lot of outdoors stuff mainly wildlife so maybe I look at it different but I don't ever plan to go to FX either. DX cameras are great cameras and why not have a lens that actually gives you the most out of it.

Click to expand...

Most of my interests our outdoors, either architecture or landscapes. I was wondering around downtown Little Rock today after work with just my 35mm prime lens ... wishing I had something wider. So am I wrong in thinking that the crop sensor in the DX is going to limit my wide angle options versus the FX, or that the low light capabilities of the FX will be a benefit to me in the end ... or am I just letting the marketing hype get to me and kick my rationalization mode into overdrive as is usually the case?

hark said:

Tamron now makes a 24-70mm f/2.8 (FX) with their version of the vibration reduction, and it tests very well for sharpness.

Click to expand...

Either the Tamron or Sigma 24-70mm sounds like it could be a good replacement for the kit 18-55mm, assuming I can find something for the very wide angle side of that to get wider than 24mm or even 18mm in the same lens.

Rick M said:

What do you like to shoot? If you like higher ISO capabilities, wider angles and OoF elements than move towards Fx. If you want more reach, stick with Dx.

Click to expand...

Why is DX better for more reach? Just from the price perspective ... the cost of DX glass > 300mm versus FX glass in the same size?

RocketCowboy said:

Why is DX better for more reach? ...........

Click to expand...

DX bodies have more pixels than an FX body in DX mode.

TedG954 said:

Personally, I'd stick with the D5300, but that's me. If you still decide on going FX, stick with Nikon lenses and the "G" FX series. That way you can use the lenses with full AF,etc, on both the DX and FX bodies.

Click to expand...

I do think the D5300 is the right camera for me for awhile still while I learn more of the basics. Most of the reasons why I was thinking I made the wrong choice was the emotional response to some of the 5300s features not working as I'd expected (the GPS part of pretty useless, and I'm not taking advantage of the Wifi capability at all), plus thinking I really needed the AF servo in the camera body to position myself to be able to leverage FX glass. Having had some time to just speak the debate out loud, I don't think I'm hindering myself by not having a 7100 today ... and so when the time comes to add a new camera body I may have something more later/greater that I can jump on if it fits.

But yeah, since none of my old 35mm film glass is worth anything on my DSLR, I can't see doing anything other than AF-S "G" series lenses, which why I'm wanting to validate whether I lose anything with a DX body and FX (or just non-DX) glass.

gqtuazon said:

Charlie - what is your budget looking like within the next two years?

For now, I would suggest any of the f1.8G FX primes (28, 35, 50, and 85). They are more reasonably priced compared to the f2.8 zoom lenses. Not a big investment to get you started in the FX line and their demand is still pretty good for potential "used" lens buyers.

However, once you start using primes, you will tend to dislike your kit lenses after that and the journey towards f2.8 or maybe f4 zooms continues.

Click to expand...

That is the magic question. The budget is certainly not endless, else I would have just jumped in with a D800 to start, but I do like the idea of getting a couple primes. I have the f1.8G 35mm prime in DX already, and based on that could see the 28mm being a good next step. Comparing the sharpness and clarity of the 35mm prime to the 18-55 at approx the same focal length, and I'm anticipating that I'll want to sharpen up the kit lenses with something too. I don't see replacing the 55-300 anytime soon just due to cost, but for the wider stuff that I find myself drawn to ... I think it makes sense.

Fortkentdad said:

In the meantime enjoy that D5300. When I was going through the "what next" internal debate I was looking at upgrading my D5100 to either the D5300 (nice extra's like WiFi and I sure miss my swivel screen) or the D7000/7100, or go FX with a used (or old stock) D700, D610 or totally break the bank and go for the D800. In the end the D610 won but the D5300 was a serious contender - great camera - enjoy it to the fullest, and if that means getting some affordable Dx lenses do it.

Click to expand...

Most of this response really resonates with me. We've got the same DX lenses today, except that I also have the 50mm DX macro. Likewise, I'm thinking the 35mm prime is just a little long since it works out to be what, 52mm on the crop sensor? I'm thinking something like a 20 or 24mm prime would really be ideal for what I'm trying to do.

When I debate whether the D5300 was the right camera to start with, it's the 7100 and 610 that I go back and forth with, so I think I'm there having the same discussion you had ... but with much less experience to back up my debates either way. So I know my "wants" are emotional and not something tangible at the moment.

Where I'm at right now is to stick with the D5300, so that I can burn up the shutter actuations on that camera and learn the basics there, before opening up to a higher end body down the road. So maybe the used or 3rd party glass is the right way for me to go, so that I can leave myself the flexibility of FX glass, without the upfront costs when the future is so unknown.

The one thing I do know, in addition to the shutter snapping and experimentation that I've been doing on my own, getting into some kind of structured training/class is in my near term horizon.