Two-Part Lens Question

[Quince]

Hi there:

This is my first post here, and I'd like to ask some lens questions. I currently 2 p and s dig cameras, a Panasonic (that I like) and a Canon (that I don't). I'm planning to move up to a dSLR within the year.

1. Do I understand correctly that if I have several lenses for a dSLR with a less-than-full-size sensor, I wouldn't be able to use any of them with a full-frame dSLR? Maybe that doesn't matter, because I'd want to keep the first camera?

2. I've been thinking all along about a Nikon D90, but the more I read, the more I think I should also consider a Sony Alpha. My question is, with a Sony Alpha are there a reasonable number of lenses available that are comparable in quality and price to the lenses available for Nikon and Canon (the question is for less-than-full-frame AND full-frame lenses)?

If not, how can Sony possibly compete with the Big 2? I wouldn't be looking for anything exotic, just a Macro, a portrait with good bokeh, and a zoom telephoto for wildlife <400mm. I wouldn't be willing to spend more than $2000 for any one lens (ever).

Thanks very much,
Cynthia

[firebox40dash5]

Originally Posted by Quince

Hi there:

This is my first post here, and I'd like to ask some lens questions. I currently 2 p and s dig cameras, a Panasonic (that I like) and a Canon (that I don't). I'm planning to move up to a dSLR within the year.

1. Do I understand correctly that if I have several lenses for a dSLR with a less-than-full-size sensor, I wouldn't be able to use any of them with a full-frame dSLR? Maybe that doesn't matter, because I'd want to keep the first camera?

If they are designed for a crop-sensor DSLR, then yes, they will have limitations if you try to use them on a full-frame, and be mostly useless on a film body. However, there is very little NEED for a full-frame DSLR, especially for someone just shopping for their first camera. You can also minimize this by buying as few crop-frame lenses as possible- you can use a full-frame version of most lenses on a crop-frame just fine, other than a normal zoom or a wide-angle. Getting ~18mm on your zoom lens and <14mm on a wide-angle pretty much rules out most full-frame lenses.

2. I've been thinking all along about a Nikon D90, but the more I read, the more I think I should also consider a Sony Alpha. My question is, with a Sony Alpha are there a reasonable number of lenses available that are comparable in quality and price to the lenses available for Nikon and Canon (the question is for less-than-full-frame AND full-frame lenses)? If you want to stick to camera-brand lenses, I think Sony loses to Nikon & Canon, even with the ability to use Minolta lenses. Of course, you can buy 3rd party lenses, like Sigma, and get nearly anything your heart desires. I personally prefer camera-brand lenses, and it's hard to beat the wide variety that Nikon has.

If not, how can Sony possibly compete with the Big 2? I wouldn't be looking for anything exotic, just a Macro, a portrait with good bokeh, and a zoom telephoto for wildlife <400mm. I wouldn't be willing to spend more than $2000 for any one lens (ever). You say that now, but wait until you want that 70-200mm f/2.8 or fast telephoto prime lens...

Thanks very much,
Cynthia

I wouldn't worry too much about crop vs. full-frame at this point, especially given your lens price limit,unless you plan on shooting film. If you're not willing to spend $2k on quality glass, you definitely shouldn't want to spend >$2k on a full-frame camera body.

My wife and I do a lot of shooting of a wide variety of subjects, and have yet to find a limitation of the D90 that just swapping to an FX body would solve.

[sk66]

Honestly, with the price penalty for going full frame, I wouldn't recommend it unless you need it.
Sony, quality is good and there are adequate lenses available, but the selection is more limited and also has less third party support (i.e. sigma lenses). The lenses there are seem to be more expensive for their level of quality. Probably the cheapest entry into FF, otherwise skip it.

[TerryMC]

You can buy one or two APS-C (cropped) lenses such as an Ultra-Wide Angle (10-20mm). The rest can be full frame models (24-70mm, 70-200/300mm).

Nikon full frame (FX) bodies accept DX (cropped) lenses.

Visit sites such as Vistek Camera Lenses Sony DSLR Lenses Full Frame Fixed Focal Length Lenses Standard Lenses to map out your potential purchases.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Quince

1. Do I understand correctly that if I have several lenses for a dSLR with a less-than-full-size sensor, I wouldn't be able to use any of them with a full-frame dSLR? Maybe that doesn't matter, because I'd want to keep the first camera?

You have it partially correct. If you go Nikon, you can still use the DX (crop-designed) lenses on an FX (full-frame) body, but you will get vignetting, because the image circle of the lens won't be large enough to cover the sensor. So you can still use them, they're just not ideal. And yes, you might want to keep the first camera, or you can always sell the crop lenses when you go to full-frame to finance a few more FX lens purchases.

Sony's DT lenses cannot be used on full-frame.

2.... with a Sony Alpha are there a reasonable number of lenses available that are comparable in quality and price to the lenses available for Nikon and Canon (the question is for less-than-full-frame AND full-frame lenses)?

Comparable in quality, absolutely. Some of the ZA Zeiss lenses surpass. But in terms of price and selection, no. Sony hasn't caught up to the big two on the lens front in terms of selection or volume of sales.

If not, how can Sony possibly compete with the Big 2?

By making the sensors. Nikon's sensors come from Sony. And Sony has the lowest-cost full-frame camera on the market. And lens-wise, they've got all the basics covered. It's the more exotic and mid-grade glass that isn't there. If you're willing to spend up to $2k per lens, the ZA choices will stand scrutiny against the best Canon and Nikon have to offer. The problem is, between the consumer glass and the ZAs, there are fewer choices, so if you were stuck at the $600-per-lens budget level, you'd be a bit more crunched, as you may be forced to spend $1k+ to get a higher-speced lens, when you may have been willing to go for a lower-speced one.

I wouldn't be looking for anything exotic, just a Macro, a portrait with good bokeh, and a zoom telephoto for wildlife <400mm. I wouldn't be willing to spend more than $2000 for any one lens (ever).

For that, you're good to go with any make. But just one lens example.

Say you want to shoot a stage performance without a flash. You need a long fast prime for this. A 135/2 is ideal and a killer portrait lens.

• Nikon offers you the amazing AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D. B&H's price is $1300.
• Sony's got the killer 135mm f/1.8 Zeiss lens. For $1500.
• And Canon's third in the holy-trinity-of-portrait primes, the EF 135mm f/2L USM for $1000.

You'll get the fastest and probably most contrasty lens in the Sony lineup, but it's going to cost you $200-$500 more. (perspective: $500 is the price of an entry-level dSLR body). And the margin of difference between the image quality of these three lenses is subtle. All three lenses rock. Very very hard.

[TerryMC]

Originally Posted by inkista

You have it partially correct. If you go Nikon, you can still use the DX (crop-designed) lenses on an FX (full-frame) body, but you will get vignetting,

when shooting in FX format. Otherwise 100% compatible without vignetting in reduced MP DX format.

All Nikon FX DSLR have triple formats (FX/DX/5:4).