shooting in FX

[Tanya Kurnik]

I decided to shoot in FX. Undecided to get the D700 or just go with the D3 and wont have to upgrade for a few years. The cost is going to hurt and I need a lens that is not going to break my bank account. I just need a carry around lens. One I can do everyday shooting with. I don't do landscape so I don't need to much zoom. So my question is, if both these cameras came with a kit lens what would it be? I'm interested in tamron brand. Nikon is to much for me since I'm going over board with the purchase of a FX. I saw the 24-70mm for Nikon and was wondering what comes close in a generic brand? I'm having heck of a time finding one. Any wise FX users please help. Thank you

[jdepould]

I'm not 100% sure you've made the right choice, but the 24-120/4 might work for you.

Are you sure you really need full frame? I don't know what you're using now, but have you thought about just buying a better lens for your current body. Full frame bodies are much more demanding when it comes to lenses, and it's more obvious when you're using a lower-quality lens compared to DX.

[ErikUngerPhotography]

Why do you feel you need the D3?

[kirbinster]

First tell us why you have decided you need FX? What are you using now and what lenses do you have? Also keep in mind the D4 has just been announced and the price of D3's have already started to fall. The replacement for the D700 will be out later in the year, and its prices are likely to drop.

If money is an issue (it typically is) why not just invest in better glass for your existing body. There is a big difference between a Nikon 24-70 and wannabe copycat lenses.

[Tanya Kurnik]

Right now im using a Nikon D3100, 50mm and the kit lens. I want something more advanced and looking at the crop i couldn't believe the difference. I'm considering the d3 because I wont have to upgrade for awhile. D4 is to pricy and I'm not interested in it right now. I need help finding a basic lens. Looking at photos online, I can't really see much of a difference between a nikon lens and a tamron. Just the price and looking for something close to the nikkor 24-70mm or any other suggestions.

[kirbinster]

I don't mean to attack you, but it sounds like you have your mind made up and just want our approval.

I don't know what you mean when you say "looking at the crop I couldn't believe the difference". To me that does not answer the question why you need an FX body. Assuming you just want one that is fine. You cannot really compare image quality by looking at 72dpi images on your computer monitor. I had a Sigma 24-70 and replaced it with the Nikon and from experience there is a huge difference.

My 2 cents worth, if you have to go FX get a D700 and spend the savings from the D3 to get a Nikon 24-700 f/2.8 AF-S lens. Lenses retain their value, bodies drop in value quickly. In a year you can probably sell the D700 and buy a used D3 and your net cost for the D3 and lens might be only slightly more than what you would pay for the D3 today.

[mbrobich]

There is almost no difference in shooting crop or full frame these days except for low light sensitivity. The 50mm on your camera is like 75mm. They make lenses to accomodate DX now. You should have gotten a 35mm, that would be closer to 50mm in the end. I wanted 35mm, so went with the 28mm that gives 42mm. Pretty darn close. You always have to remember the 1.5 ratio when looking at lenses now. But most of the lenses out there are available for both formats. No excuse anymore, 3-5 years ago maybe, but not anymore. FX will just cost more and quite a bit heavier. Have you taken the D700 for a joy ride? If you have small hands and weak arms, you will be tired of carrying it around after 1 hour. It is almost twice as big and 3 times as heavy as your D3100, not including a grip if you choose to go that way.

[Tanya Kurnik]

Ill try to explain through writting what I mean about the crop. I'm on my phone so its hard to figure out how to send you a link of the photos I looked at of the difference between fx & dx. It seems to me you get more of the image your shooting with an fx. As if you would need a wide lens with a dx to get all of the image like a fx, if that makes sense. If I were to take a picture of the st. Louis arch with a dx standing in front of it, it might get cropped as with the fx it would all show up in the photo.

[kirbinster]

That is true, and that is what Mbrobich (above) was trying to explain to you. The field of view is different because of the 1.5x crop factor. You need a wider lens to get the same field of view on a DX camera. Thus, a 35mm lens on a DX body will give you roughly the same image as a 50mm lens gives you on an FX body. On a DX body your wide lenses may not seem wide enough, but on a DX your long lenses may not seem long enough. That 200mm lens when mounted on a DX body has the feel of a 300mm on an FX body. Bottom line, I think you just need to get yourself a wider lens, not spend mega bucks on an FX body.

[mbrobich]

This is the reason they make a 18-55 for DX versus a 28-80 which comes originally from film or FX. When you see those types of numbers on lenses, now you know why you see 2 similar lenses but with different mm ranges.

If you use a film or FX lens on a crop DX(1.5 sensor, you have to use what we call the FOOT zoom, or walk backwards or forward to make for the difference in formats. Same thing happens with prime lenses like your 50mm, you cant zoom into something, you have to walk right up to it.(hence FOOT zoom) lol