Lense advice

[Tom Williams]

I will be taking a cruise on the Danube in the new year and need some lense advice. I have a Nikon D300 camera and the following lenses; Nikon 35mm 1.8, Tamron 90 mm 2.8 and a Nikon 18-200 mm.
I suspect there will be a lot of opportunities for architectural type photos and streetscapes. Of the lenses I have, which ones should I take and do you have any suggestions for ones I might purchase?
Thanks for the insight.
Tom

[RichardTaylor]

I would go with the 18-200 (mainly for its versatility) and the 35 F1.8 (for those hand held low light shots).

If You are going to buy an extra lens I would be looking at a ultrawide wide zoom (12-24?) for those "tight" urban shots.

[3bayjunkie]

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

I would go with the 18-200 (mainly for its versatility) and the 35 F1.8 (for those hand held low light shots).

If You are going to buy an extra lens I would be looking at a ultrawide wide zoom (12-24?) for those "tight" urban shots.

the ultra wide angle lens is good advise, however I would like to interject that you make sure you get a DX wide angle lens.

A 12-24mm AF lens is only going to give you an 18mm equivalent viewing angle on a crop sensor. So it would be of no great advantage.

[RichardTaylor]

That's a lot better then the (27mm) equivalent with the 18-200.

See this.
Canon USA Consumer Products - EF Lenses 101 - Focal Length Comparison

[3bayjunkie]

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

That's a lot better then the (27mm) equivalent with the 18-200.

See this.
Canon USA Consumer Products - EF Lenses 101 - Focal Length Comparison

the 18-200 is a dx lens and he has a Nikon not a Canon. Nikon is 1.5x where canon is 1.6x crop

[RichardTaylor]

It doesn't matter - the principal is the same.
I sometimes shoot with a 12-24 on a 1.6 crop camera (it can make a big difference).

See the example pics (fat view) in this thread for some comparisons..

Landscapes at 12mm vs 18mm: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

[3bayjunkie]

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

It doesn't matter - the principal is the same.
I sometimes shoot with a 12-24 on a 1.6 crop camera (it cane make a big difference).

See the example pics (fat view) in this thread for some comparisons..

Landscapes at 12mm vs 18mm: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Yeah i can do the math in my head. I was mainly noting the 18-200mm is a dx lens. so on a crop body it is still 18-200mm.

[Bruce A]

Originally Posted by 3bayjunkie

Yeah i can do the math in my head. I was mainly noting the 18-200mm is a dx lens. so on a crop body it is still 18-200mm.

Focal Length: 18 - 200 mm is similar to a 28 - 300 mm lens on a 35 mm camera.

The DX tag means it will only work on a Digital camera. Even though it might be designed for a cropped sensor it may be used on a full frame but will suffer edge darkness.

[inkista]

Uh... the 12-24G is a DX lens.

It's the 14-24 that's FX.

And whether the lens is DX or FX doesn't necessarily matter on a DX body. There's no huge disadvantage (other than cost) to using FX glass on a DX body, the way there is on using a DX lens on an FX body (vignetting, as Bruce pointed out being the reason). Focal lengths don't change with the DX/FX designation; only the fields of view, and the size of the image circle the lens projects.

Granted, a DX lens is probably going to be smaller, cheaper, and wider than an FX-capable lens, but there's no reason you couldn't, say, go for the best of the best, and grab a 14-24; or the cheaper Sigma 12-24 if you were planning on picking up a D700 (or successor) in the near future, to use as an ultrawide on both bodies.

[3bayjunkie]

Originally Posted by inkista

Uh... the 12-24G is a DX lens.

It's the 14-24 that's FX.

And whether the lens is DX or FX doesn't necessarily matter on a DX body. There's no huge disadvantage (other than cost) to using FX glass on a DX body, the way there is on using a DX lens on an FX body (vignetting, as Bruce pointed out being the reason). Focal lengths don't change with the DX/FX designation; only the fields of view, and the size of the image circle the lens projects.

Granted, a DX lens is probably going to be smaller, cheaper, and wider than an FX-capable lens, but there's no reason you couldn't, say, go for the best of the best, and grab a 14-24; or the cheaper Sigma 12-24 if you were planning on picking up a D700 (or successor) in the near future, to use as an ultrawide on both bodies.

My mistake. I was under the impression that a DX lens was enginered to give the full field of view as what was noted on the lens. This would make sense, being that the DX cameras are cropped. Wouldn't it also make sense that the DX lens was cropped to fit. That is kind of dissapointing to find out