FF or DX lens

[Jynormous]

Hi everyone, thanks for all your amazing help since i have joined, great to see a fellow melbourneite loving photography as much as I.

I have finally decided to buy a new lens, and i need some help.

Currently i have a Nikon D80 (DX crop) and i want to buy something in the 20ish-60ish range (f/2.8) to use as my walk around lens.

The stand out lens here is 17-55mm f/2.8 Nikon DX lens HOWEVER with the ever pending release of new nikon bodies, should i buy a FF lens just in case i ever make the switch to a FF camera?

Currently i have a Sigma 18-200 HSM, a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and a Nikon 70-300mm VR.

Should i buy the 17-55mm DX or buy a 24-70mm f/2.8 instead?

The reason for a body upgrade sometime soon is for the video and higher ISO functionality.

Any advice?

Thanks heaps.
Jy.

[zona5101]

if you are serious about dropping 2500 on a body then make a commitment to FX glass. From this point forward all the glass will be more expensive too so it's not just the cost of the body upgrade. The selection of FX glass from the big 3 aftermarket manufacturers is pretty limited. Any DX glass you have you'd need to sell.

[inkista]

Well... unless you keep your crop body, too.

[zona5101]

Originally Posted by inkista

Well... unless you keep your crop body, too.

tru story and probably a smart play.

[jdepould]

Have you thought about the 17-35/2.8 or 16-35/4 (or even 14-24/2.8)? All FX, all let you keep the wide angle. You've a good 50 already.

[inkista]

I think it depends on HOW soon you're flipping to FX, and which DX lenses you're considering. Most lenses won't lose a lot of value on resell, so I'd say you might as well get a DX lens that's a better fit for the body you have NOW, and then flip it when the time comes to fund an FX lens purchase. Whatever you lose on the sale can be viewed as your "rental fee" for the time you had it to shoot with, and the longer you have it, the more worth it, it's going to seem.

The lenses that work as walkaround wide-to-normal widths on a crop tend to be ultrawide on full-frame and are substantially bigger, heavier, and more expensive because of it. And they'll only be useful on a full frame as an ultrawide. If that's what you want, then go for it. But something that will also function as a walkaround on FX is going to be not-wide-enough on a crop.

My personal (eccentric) tastes prompt me to say, just get the 35/1.8 and use that as a fast walkaround on DX. It'll still be useful as a wideish lens on FX, and it only costs $200. But I'm sure many would disagree, as zooms are very handy lenses to have in the bag.

[LoveDSLR]

I bought the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG (now discontinued non-HSM version for <$500) as the standard lens for my Nikon D300. It isn't as good as my Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 (for my D3) but I still love it.

Similarly, I bought the Canon 28-70 f/2.8 L for my 2001 Canon D30 (APS-C) too. Since I'm not into UWA, the focal length range works for me.

BTW, get the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 otherwise you may not like the IQ upon upgrade (IMO).