Quantcast

FX vs. DX lens choice

Polandspring88

Superman
Mar 31, 2004
3,066
7
Broomfield, CO
So I am realizing the limitations of the kit lens that came with my camera (D50 w/ 18-55) and am ready to take the leap to better, faster lenses. However, it seems as if the selection of Nikon DX specific lenses is quite limited in terms of fast, high quality glass. Most seem to have variable aperatures and are not built as sturdy as the FX designed lenses. What does everyone else shoot? FX lenses on DX bodies? DX lenses on DX bodies?

I can see myself going FX a few years down the road and am debating whether it would be worth it to invest in DX equipment now. Am I limiting myself too much by buying FX lenses now and throwing them on my D50?
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
I don't buy DX lenses, even though primary body is a DX sensor (D300). I often rent FX bodies for work - having to skip using certain lenses would suck, not to mention my desire to buy an FX body at some point. Besides, the only area where DX lenses have any legitimacy is on the wide end, and DX sensors tend to look like ass with a wide FOV anyway. If it matters that much to you, get a cheaper ultrawide (like the Tokina 11-16), then load up on FX kit.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,092
1,132
NC
I have FX lenses where I wanted that particular lens, and DX lenses where I wanted another particular lens.

Lenses hold their resale value pretty well and most DX lenses are on the cheaper end of the spectrum, so the investment isn't that big. My opinion: buy what you need to shoot with now. I probably wouldn't buy a $2500 "pro" DX lens because the investment goes up substantially, but such an animal does not exist in any event.

If you have a FX body or plan on moving to an FX body in the immediate future, maybe it makes sense to only buy FX lenses. But often DX lenses fill a nice little price:performance gap (see: 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5) or a unique focal length (see: 35mm f/1.8) or an eminently useful consumer lens that is sometimes very convenient (see: 16-85mm VR or 18-200mm VR) so I think writing them off because at some point a few years down the line you might think about going FX is silly. They'll sell for a good price and you'll have gotten a few years of use out of a lens you couldn't get, or would have paid a lot more for, on FX.
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Yeah it depends on what you're looking for, as in a good "kit" FX lens there really isn't one. It also depends on how much you're willing to spend, pretty much anything FX and constant apeture is going to be at least $1k. I have no desire to go FX (unless I win the lottery), so using DX lenses on the wide end is not a big deal to me. A good FX combo might be the new 16-35 and the 24-120 all constant f/4.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
How about non-Noink lenses? Constant AP is relatively easy to come by on 3rd party lenses, and often several hundred less than Noink or Canon. I've been quite happy with my Tamron 17-50 2.8 so far, and it was about half as expensive as the comparable Canon (although the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 also has IS).