what are equivalent dx lenses for fx focal lengths

[HypnoToad]

for people with full frame (fx) cams, nikon make 3 nice f2.8 lenses:

14-24mm, 24-70mm and a 70-200mm lens

now are there crop sensor dx equivalents of these?

I'm aware of the 18-55mm dx lens, and also the 55-200mm lens, and I imagine these would give similar equivalent focal lengths, but is there a dx version of the 14-24mm lens? if so, what is it and is it reasonably priced?

 

[alexisonfire]

for people with full frame (fx) cams, nikon make 3 nice f2.8 lenses:

14-24mm, 24-70mm and a 70-200mm lens

now are there crop sensor dx equivalents of these?

I'm aware of the 18-55mm dx lens, and also the 55-200mm lens, and I imagine these would give similar equivalent focal lengths, but is there a dx version of the 14-24mm lens? if so, what is it and is it reasonably priced?

All of those lenses will work fine on DX, but if you meant specifically focal range equivalents then you would be looking at:

Nikon af-s 10-24mm f/3.5-f/4.5 - £600~
Nikon af-s 17-55mm f/2.8 - £900~
Sigma hsm 50-150mm f/2.8 - £500~

 

[DoubleCheese]

Nikon 12-24 f4 DX ~ £800 and the ones above come to mind. There are some very good third party ones to consider as well from Tokina and Sigma.

Tokina 11-16mm, f2.8 and 12-24mm f4 ~ £500
Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 ~ £450 or £400 for the normal f4-5.6 (I have this and it is excellent!)

 

[DJ_Switch]

All the UWA's mentioned so far are not the equivilant of the 14-24mm. As far as I'm aware only the new Sigma 8-16mm is the dx equivilant of what the 14-24mm produces on a full frame camera. The rest are ultra wide but not to the same degree.

 

[bigredshark]

Well the crop factor is 1.5 so it's not too hard to work out.

You'd be fairly insane to buy any of them except the 10-24 at the moment. Personally I think Nikon's commitment to pro-sumer/professional DX bodies is pretty shaky. The D300s is a good body but it's nowhere near a match for the D700 and there's no longer a pro DX body at all.

There's also the fact the 17-55 (which I own) is a bit variable, good examples are nice but it's not the sharpest lens Nikon have ever made by any stretch.

Also, the telephoto range doesn't usually have a DX equivalent as they don't need it in the same way.

 

[HypnoToad]

All of those lenses will work fine on DX, but if you meant specifically focal range equivalents then you would be looking at:

Nikon af-s 10-24mm f/3.5-f/4.5 - £600~
Nikon af-s 17-55mm f/2.8 - £900~
Sigma hsm 50-150mm f/2.8 - £500~

thanks, the Nikon af-s 10-24mm f/3.5-f/4.5 looks like a nice lens, it's af-s too which means it should autofocus with a d60 shouldn't it?

Nikon 12-24 f4 DX ~ £800 and the ones above come to mind. There are some very good third party ones to consider as well from Tokina and Sigma.

Tokina 11-16mm, f2.8 and 12-24mm f4 ~ £500
Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 ~ £450 or £400 for the normal f4-5.6 (I have this and it is excellent!)

the Tokina 11-16mm, f2.8 seems like another nice lens looking at a few reviews, most f2.8 zoom lenses i have seen are £1000+! am i right in saying i'll have to manually focus with my d60?

All the UWA's mentioned so far are not the equivilant of the 14-24mm. As far as I'm aware only the new Sigma 8-16mm is the dx equivilant of what the 14-24mm produces on a full frame camera. The rest are ultra wide but not to the same degree.

i'll add the Sigma 8-16mm to the shortlist, that's the widest i've seen yet.

Well the crop factor is 1.5 so it's not too hard to work out.

You'd be fairly insane to buy any of them except the 10-24 at the moment. Personally I think Nikon's commitment to pro-sumer/professional DX bodies is pretty shaky. The D300s is a good body but it's nowhere near a match for the D700 and there's no longer a pro DX body at all.

There's also the fact the 17-55 (which I own) is a bit variable, good examples are nice but it's not the sharpest lens Nikon have ever made by any stretch.

Also, the telephoto range doesn't usually have a DX equivalent as they don't need it in the same way.

well right now i already have a 18-55mm lens and also a 55-200mm lens, so i quite like the idea of having a dx equivalent of nikons 'big 3'. i know it won't be as good, but it's a lot easier to carry around!

i must admit these wide angle lenses are a little more expensive than I expected, the 55-200mm and 18-55mm i already have were less than £200 each, admittedly they are plastic and have a relatively high f, and i was hoping that nikon would made a cheap and cheerful wide angle which was less than £200!

 

[Mud]

Personally I think Nikon's commitment to pro-sumer/professional DX bodies is pretty shaky. The D300s is a good body but it's nowhere near a match for the D700 and there's no longer a pro DX body at all.

What are you basing this on? What does the D300s lack that the D700 has? You could even argue it the other way, the D300s is the one with the 100% viewfinder. I doubt prosumer DX is going anywhere, DX is where Nikon make most of their money and there're plenty of D300 owners with the 18-200(/etc) making it an established chunk of the market.

Your comments regarding the 17-55/2.8 don't match mine, I found it to be ridiculously sharp - I only got rid of it because the rendering was a little flat.

 

[bigredshark]

well right now i already have a 18-55mm lens and also a 55-200mm lens, so i quite like the idea of having a dx equivalent of nikons 'big 3'. i know it won't be as good, but it's a lot easier to carry around!

They won't be easier to carry round mind, the 17-55 is a beast of a thing. It's rather heavy and much the same size as the 24-70.

Just keep in mind that if you bought the 10-24 and 17-55 then you'd have spent best part of £2k on glass which wouldn't be any use if you upgraded to FX in a year or two (and given Nikon's current treatment of DX that should be a concern).

I'd also somewhat caution against some of that glass on a D60, partly from a handling point of view - the 17-55 would dwarf a D60 and I can't imagine it being nice to handle, it balances all right with a D200 but it's still apparent it's a big heavy lens.

I'd say your best immediate bet would actually be the fast primes Nikon make (the 35mm and 50mm AF-S versions are both excellent and great value).

 

[bigredshark]

What are you basing this on? What does the D300s lack that the D700 has? You could even argue it the other way, the D300s is the one with the 100% viewfinder. I doubt prosumer DX is going anywhere, DX is where Nikon make most of their money and there're plenty of D300 owners with the 18-200(/etc) making it an established chunk of the market.

Your comments regarding the 17-55/2.8 are a little strange, I found it to be ridiculously sharp - I only got rid of it because the rendering was a little flat.

Having shot with both I find the D700 a far superior body in almost all respects, it's a small D3 to all intensive purposes if you don't need the sports credentials of the pro body.

Better IQ (yes, to an extent you can't compare DX to FX in this respect but the results came out better for me), AF seemed better (partly related to the sensor layout and may vary depending what your shooting), low light performance is much better (again, yes it's DX vs FX so a little unfair but still). The viewfinder on the D300 may be 100% but it's also far smaller. It's no 7D equivalent in my view.

I wouldn't call a D300 + 18-200 prosumer myself, that's consumer with too much money territory. Prosumers are shooting with the fast zooms (like the 17-55). Yes, the DX line is going to be around for a while at the consumer and mid range level (d90 ish) but it's seemingly being neglected at higher levels, the D300s isn't as good as the D700 and there's no DX pro body at all - to me, investing serious cash in the DX format now seems a risky proposition.

The 17-55 is good, but it's definately less sharp (even in good examples) than the 14-24, the new 16-35, the old 17-35 or the 24-70 FX lenses. It's not actually much sharper than good examples of the 18-55 (which is great consider it's a kit lens).

 

[Mud]

Having shot with both I find the D700 a far superior body in almost all respects, it's a small D3 to all intensive purposes if you don't need the sports credentials of the pro body.

Better IQ (yes, to an extent you can't compare DX to FX in this respect but the results came out better for me), AF seemed better (partly related to the sensor layout and may vary depending what your shooting), low light performance is much better (again, yes it's DX vs FX so a little unfair but still). The viewfinder on the D300 may be 100% but it's also far smaller. It's no 7D equivalent in my view.

I wouldn't call a D300 + 18-200 prosumer myself, that's consumer with too much money territory. Prosumers are shooting with the fast zooms (like the 17-55). Yes, the DX line is going to be around for a while at the consumer and mid range level (d90 ish) but it's seemingly being neglected at higher levels, the D300s isn't as good as the D700 and there's no DX pro body at all - to me, investing serious cash in the DX format now seems a risky proposition.

The 17-55 is good, but it's definately less sharp (even in good examples) than the 14-24, the new 16-35, the old 17-35 or the 24-70 FX lenses. It's not actually much sharper than good examples of the 18-55 (which is great consider it's a kit lens).

I agree on all of that (and I own a D300s and D700), but think a lot of your bias towards the D700 is the FX sensor (by you own admission I think given all those provisos in brackets!). On paper they're very similar. I'm considering selling the D300s as I only use it with the 10.5mm fisheye and 70-200VR1.

I also hate the 18-200, and only used 'prosumer' since that seems to be the nomenclature for those whom the D300 is aimed at.

The 17-55 is marginally less sharp than the 14-24 and 24-70 for sure, but it really is marginal. I'm not so sure about the 17-35 (reduced sharpness due to significant CA) though the 16-35 does seem good (though overpriced). Yep, the 18-55 is pretty great.

 

[robertgilbert86]

...i was hoping that nikon would made a cheap and cheerful wide angle which was less than £200!

Good luck with that!

My first wide angle was the Sigma 10-20mm which I bough used in 2007 for £230. It's HSM so will work with Nikon entry level cameras. They'll prob cost more used now but it's well worth keeping an eye on the second hand market (even the members market here).

A couple of months ago I bought a toy lens for £200; the Samyang 8mm f3.5 fisheye; from the auction site. The quality is actually really good and manual focus is fine. It won't meter on anything less than a D200/300 so may not be much use to you, but at least it meets the budget!

 

[bigredshark]

I agree on all of that (and I own a D300s and D700), but think a lot of your bias towards the D700 is the FX sensor (by you own admission I think given all those provisos in brackets!). On paper they're very similar. I'm considering selling the D300s as I only use it with the 10.5mm fisheye and 70-200VR1.

I also hate the 18-200, and only used 'prosumer' since that seems to be the nomenclature for those whom the D300 is aimed at.

The 17-55 is marginally less sharp than the 14-24 and 24-70 for sure, but it really is marginal. I'm not so sure about the 17-35 (reduced sharpness due to significant CA) though the 16-35 does seem good (though overpriced). Yep, the 18-55 is pretty great.

True, I'm going on quality of end results overall and for me the D700 produces much better end results. It also costs a fair bit more of course but the point I was reaching for is that it currently looks like investing in DX lenses now (specifically expensive DX lenses) is going to end in some pain down the line. Investing in decent FX lenses that will work now and in the future makes more sense.

 

[D.P.]

For DX the 70-200 2.8 still makes the most sense. Yes, there is some wasted glass but you get a 300mm effective 2.8 lens. Buying a 300 2.8 Prime for FX will set you back a small 2nd hand car.

 

[bigredshark]

For DX the 70-200 2.8 still makes the most sense. Yes, there is some wasted glass but you get a 300mm effective 2.8 lens. Buying a 300 2.8 Prime for FX will set you back a small 2nd hand car.

However the 300mm f4 AF-S is a functional enough lens, it's still not cheap but at £1k or so it's cheap for a serious Nikon telephoto.

 

[DoubleCheese]

Apologies for continuing the thread hijack but are you both splitting hairs over these two camera's and the lenses and being overly critical? Are the differences blatantly obvious or only to the most picky pro eyes?

 

[Mud]

Apologies for continuing the thread hijack but are you both splitting hairs over these two camera's and the lenses and being overly critical? Are the differences blatantly obvious or only to the most picky pro eyes?

You could argue either way, the D90 and 17-55/2.8 was mostly as good as my D700 with a prime...but my so far limited experience of having a full-frame sensor is images just look more '3D' and the high ISO performance is mind-blowing. I don't think you need to have 'pro eyes' to see the difference (even at low ISOs), but you might need the nomenclature to articulate why one image looks better than another.

That said, I don't FX 'pop' works as a general rule, using FX lenses on DX bodies can get you insane performance across the full frame (which you often don't get with FX lenses on FX bodies)...the 70-200/2.8 VR1 on my D90 and D300s took some pictures that I couldn't imagine being any better.

Hopefully this FX/DX tangent is helping the OP in some way..sorry if not.

 

[bigredshark]

Apologies for continuing the thread hijack but are you both splitting hairs over these two camera's and the lenses and being overly critical? Are the differences blatantly obvious or only to the most picky pro eyes?

To an extent, I was trying to articulate the point that, in my view, you don't want to spend serious money on DX only lenses today, if you're buying high end lenses then chances are you'll be buying a high end body before too long and in my view the high end DX bodies are either missing in action or not as good as the FX alternative.

Both the D300s and the D700 are good bodies, no doubt, I think the D700 produces better results for my uses (and not everybody is the same, if you're constantly shooting at the long end of your zooms then a DX body makes more sense). End of the day, if I had to choose between the two the D700 wins every time.

 

[Irish_Tom]

To an extent, I was trying to articulate the point that, in my view, you don't want to spend serious money on DX only lenses today, if you're buying high end lenses then chances are you'll be buying a high end body before too long and in my view the high end DX bodies are either missing in action or not as good as the FX alternative.

This is the situation I'm currently in, ignoring the fact that all my savings are going towards a car and not towards glass at the moment. I don't want to spend money on good DX glass because I want to go FF in the future but I can't afford the FX glass that I really want.

I'm going to have to wait a few years before it's a real possibility.

 

[At The Gates]

The Nikon 17-55 was always (and still is) hilariously over priced, to the point of being insulting. The only time i'd choose that Nikon over say a Tamron 17-50 is if you wanted to use it as a weapon.

The Tokina f/2.8 (excellent lens - won't AF on your D60 though) and Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 already mentioned in this thread are about the best value UWA lenses you can get.

 

[HypnoToad]

yep the f2.8 17-55 is pricey and heavy, i'm more than happy with the smaller lighter 18-55 kit lens, even if it's not as fast. i don't think i'll ever go for fx, i'm quite liking a small and light setup now, even if the image quality is comprimised.

the Samyang 8mm f3.5 fisheye sounds pretty interesting tho, are there any reviews of it and also how long did it take to arrive from the far east?