Same or Different?

[Gdad]

I'm guessing he bought (or is planning to) a D700, and those lenses are made for the DX (APS-C) size sensor. They will still work on the D700, but only at 5mp.

Right- IQ was great but they will not work on a full frame camera.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I'm guessing he bought (or is planning to) a D700, and those lenses are made for the DX (APS-C) size sensor. They will still work on the D700, but only at 5mp.

Right- IQ was great but they will not work on a full frame camera.

Does Nikon make a 17-55 2.8 that will work on the full frame cameras? I'm shocked that as expensive as that lens is that it won't work on the D700. That sucks...

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

OMG....ITA with absolutely everything you said, DisneySuiteFreak. I have the 70-300VR, NOT the 18-200, and have wondered if it would be redundant to get the 18-200 replacing the 18-135.

So far I am really liking this lens. I can handhold a lot more in low light. I'll post some photos later in another thread. I've been meaning to and just get busy with life...

 

[Gdad]

Does Nikon make a 17-55 2.8 that will work on the full frame cameras? I'm shocked that as expensive as that lens is that it won't work on the D700. That sucks...

Their two new FX lenses are the 12-24 and the 24-70- both are quite a bit more expensive than the 17-55.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Does Nikon make a 17-55 2.8 that will work on the full frame cameras? I'm shocked that as expensive as that lens is that it won't work on the D700. That sucks...

Working on FF cameras isn't a function of cost; it's a function of design. Because a DX camera has a smaller sensor, you can use a lens that has a smaller image circle. That decreases both size and weight. A 17-55 f/2.8 lens FX lens would be much larger and even more expensive.

 

[Quicklabs]

I bought the D80 a few months ago when my Olympus died suddenly before a once-in-a lifetime agility event. So I had to get something I could learn quickly and the D300 seemed too intimidating at the time. Had I not been in such a hurry, I'm sure that I would have gotten the D300.
I'm happy with my lenses. I was thinking about the Tokina 11-16, but I think maybe the 18-200 will still do the trick on the wide angles. I do want a Macro, though and I have the Sigma 150 2.8 on my list.
I also think that if I had a re-do, I'd have gotten the 50 mm 1.4 instead of the 1.8.

 

[jann1033]

better. i bought a rebel xt, wish i had bought the 30d at the time although now with the 40d probably like the speed better wouldn't want to upgrade from a 30d.

lens wise, i like my tokina fisheye ie it's a great lens, sharp etc but wish i had bought a low light zoom ( ie 17-40) or a better macro with the money since i would use either more. i wish i had just skipped the phoenix macro as it's just to soft and annoys me even though it's 1/3 the price of the canon ..it's one of those lenses reviewed as "good for the money " i now have convinced myself to just avoid cause my eye doesn't see the money just the softness every time i use it should have saved myself the $60 i spent on the kit lens that never leaves my stay at home in the closet bag.

 

[jann1033]

Very happy with my 30D - but I am ready to upgrade it. Waiting to see if Canon does indeed introduce/announce some new camera bodies in a few months.

what features are you hoping for jen?

 

[handicap18]

Does Nikon make a 17-55 2.8 that will work on the full frame cameras? I'm shocked that as expensive as that lens is that it won't work on the D700. That sucks...

It will work. The D3 and the D700 will accept DX lenses, but instead of at 12MP it is 5MP.

Nikon does have a 17-35mm f/2.8, but that is also pretty expensive.

There are 2 12-24mm lenses one is DX and one is not.

There are older 20-35mm f/2.8's that can be found used for about $700.

Sigma makes a 20-40mm f/2.8 about the same price as Nikon's 20-35mm.

17mm on a FF body is very wide (see 10-12mm for a crop body). So you can get way easily with a 24-70mm f/2.8. A standard walk-around lens on a film body was 28-70 or in that area (I think I had a 28-90 for one camera and a 35-70 on an older one).

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

It will work. The D3 and the D700 will accept DX lenses, but instead of at 12MP it is 5MP.

Thanks for the lens info! I was wondering if you know why the D700 will change it from 12MP to 5MP? Is it because the actual usable size of the photo is smaller?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Thanks for the lens info! I was wondering if you know why the D700 will change it from 12MP to 5MP? Is it because the actual usable size of the photo is smaller?

Yes. A DX lens is smaller and makes a smaller image circle compared with an FX lens. That's because the DX sensors are smaller. A full frame sensor is about 860 sq mm. A DX sensor is about 370 sq mm. The 370 sq mm portion in the middle of the D700 sensor contains about 5MP (12 MP * 370 / 860).

 

[Groucho]

I'm not surprised at all with the responses here - they've been nearly all DSLR owners and virtually nobody would change what they did. Like I always say, it's tough to find an unhappy DSLR owner!

The only camera I've regretted was my Minolta Z5 5mp 12x zoom PnS... it was very fast and good in many ways, but the noise levels were unacceptable and I was extremely happy to be able to get a DSLR with lens for only $367 after rebate less than a year later (and sell the Minolta for a decent amount, bringing the price down further.) In retrospect, I could have held on to my original Fuji 2800 6x zoom for a little longer before making the DSLR jump.

On my third DSLR, I wouldn't change a thing... I may actually send my K20D in for service in the next couple months; I recently noticed that the AF is slightly off, adjusting it in the custom menu suddenly made my Tamron 28-75mm a much more pleasing lens to use (it's fine with the tweak, but it might be nice to have it properly calibrated while it's under warranty), plus I may have the sensor checked, a few of my extreme-ISO shots with expanded DR from Disney showed odd noise in the bottom; of course, with the DR on, you're looking at something like 12,800 ISO in the shadows, but again, might be nice to have it 100% checked. But really these are minor issues, if all my equipment got destroyed somehow, I would definitely buy the same camera today, no question whatsoever. Heck, the weathersealing alone has come in amazingly handy, I've been surprised how many times I've found myself taking photos in the rain lately. (Some of that is upstate NY weather for you...)

The lens question is a good one. I have one or two used lenses that I regret, but nothing that I really detest. It's nearly confirmed that we'll see a FF Pentax next year but I really don't have FF lust at this point; I love the size and weight of the K20D, and the 50-135mm is a great lens, giving the equivalent of the usual larger and much heavier 70-200mm lenses for FF bodies (and it's far cheaper, if you compare OEM lenses, and right now, I want the weathersealing enough to not seriously consider the Sigma/Tamron.)

I really don't use my Zenitar 16mm fisheye very much any more, but don't regret buying it. My Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm F2.8-F4 will probably be going on eBay soon, it's a very desirable heavy metal MF lens but the focus is just too sensitive for my tastes; fortunately I can probably sell it for more than I paid for it. I don't really use my older "basic" 18-55mm or 50-200mm lenses but they're nice to have around, my wife uses them on the K100D often. The Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 will be going up for sale as soon as I get around to buying the Pentax 16-50mm F2.8 - I wasn't really happy with the Tamron on the K20D but things are much better after adjusting the focus. Regardless, I still want to be able to go wider, and want the weathersealing, too.

Now, my best lens buy lately has to be the Lester A Dine 105mm F2.8 1:1 macro... since I bought it less than a year ago, it's become even more legendary and the costs have gone up about 2.5x what I paid for mine! It's really a stunner, and I couldn't justify paying what it goes for now so I'm glad I got in when I did! It will not be going up for sale in the foreseeable future.