zac08
Senior Member
It's 24mm f1.4. Not f1.8
So far only the 35, 50 and 85 has f1.8 versions. Oh yeah before I forget, the 105 AIS also has it in f1.8
DX or FX (Nikon)
- Thread starter Vickon
- Start date
It's 24mm f1.4. Not f1.8
So far only the 35, 50 and 85 has f1.8 versions. Oh yeah before I forget, the 105 AIS also has it in f1.8
Why so?? If you are on a progression plan, then getting FX lenses is a good way to save money in the long run.
If you buy DX lenses, the re-sale price is often pretty low and honestly pretty hard to sell off.
With a FX lens, I can be assured that the crop will give me a very good image quality as the centre preformance is always the best. The fringe or edge issues will not affect me at all. I can even buy the lower end ones and still have very good images out of it. Examples will be the 70-210 f4-5.6, while it is a full frame lens, it is very good when stopped down and used on a DX body. Can't say the same for a 55-200 (DX lens) which may be about the same price range though.
firstly if using purely FX lenses on DX, you will never be able to get UWA range.
secondly, FX lenses are more expensive and heavier.
thirdly, DX lenses are cheaper, and if bought used, when upgrading to FX, most people will not lose much money when selling them again. Buying lower end FX lenses will give issues when really moving to a FX body. Since it is lower end, it works ok on DX, but will work badly on FX. So that logic doesn't stand as well. Since when upgraded to FX body, need to get another better performing FX lens and sell the low quality FX lens and it will even a lot harder to sell a low quality FX lens than a DX lens. Seriously speaking, many DX lenses are available now at good pricing with very good edge performance.
Actually it is comparatively easier to sell lower cost DX lenses in BnS nowadays (eg. selling a Tamron 17-50/2.8 vs a Sigma 24-70/2.8 HSM). You may argue that a Nikon 24-70/2.8 is easy to sell. But think, if you are on DX moving to FX, will you sell a 24-70? No. Irregardless of DX or FX lenses, there will be lenses that will sell very well and there will be lenses that will not move. It is pretty much the same DX vs FX.
Personally, I believe in living in the present. With enough research, one can get good quality glass at good prices and good resale value, be it FX or DX lenses.
When time comes when one decides to move to FX, there might be new lenses that work better and replacement models. E.g. VR1 vs VR2. D vs G. So need to buy again anyway. And depreciation is a percentage of total value. And the lower value option will always depreciate less in absolute value compared to the pricier option.
And lets not even go into present value and future value of money.
So if you really factor it in, you do not really lose that much money if you factor it in and have a good buying strategy. FYI, I sold my 35/1.8 with almost no loss after using it for 6 months. But you really need to know how to pull that one off, which I do. And no, I did not sell it overpriced like what many people do in BnS. Sold it at fair value.
So that is why I believe what I said, to compromise and use solely FX lenses on DX bodies is illogical and a waste of money and resources. Should not even think of buying for upgrade progression. Just buy what you need in terms of shooting needs. If buy FX lenses in anticipation, might as well just bite the bullet and get the FX body right away. Will save more money that way, seeing how the thing that depreciates the fastest is the camera body itself.
Last edited:
Sorry my bad... typo... was referring to the 1.4, if you see how I quoted Kriegster's post. am using the 1.8 sigma myself that is why type too fast and caused the typo.
Last edited:
zac08
Senior Member
I will not consider UWA with DX as it's kinda of a paradox... cropping off on a lens whenyou need the wide...
Well, if you believe in your form of economics, by all means go ahead.
Personally, I won't want to spend $500 on a DX lens then lose like $150 - 200 when selling and having to spend the original $500 on a FX lens. This is just comparatively speaking on my idea.
You were lucky, wait for a while more and see how many ppl will still wanna pick up that lens. Remember the 18-200
I will not consider UWA with DX as it's kinda of a paradox... cropping off on a lens whenyou need the wide...
Well, if you believe in your form of economics, by all means go ahead.
Personally, I won't want to spend $500 on a DX lens then lose like $150 - 200 when selling and having to spend the original $500 on a FX lens. This is just comparatively speaking on my idea.
You were lucky, wait for a while more and see how many ppl will still wanna pick up that lens. Remember the 18-200
Well, like I said, it is all about buying strategy. I avoid the 18-200 like the plague.
And ask around, what is the average selling time required for a Sigma 24-70/2.8 HSM vs a Tamron 17-50/2.8. You will see what I mean.
I only very recently sold the 35/1.8. Even when I posted I sold the lens and closed the thread. I still have people calling me asking for it. It is not about luck. Planning and thought went into it.
Last edited:
zac08
Senior Member
as i said, it's a matter of time...
you're lucky to have let it off early. Certain lenses do have their value, some don't. And it's also a matter of how it's used.
Let's just see how the TS is gonna do his math and how he wants to proceed.
as i said, it's a matter of time...
you're lucky to have let it off early. Certain lenses do have their value, some don't. And it's also a matter of how it's used.
Let's just see how the TS is gonna do his math and how he wants to proceed.
It is also a matter of time for some FX lenses. Like I said, being FX or DX does not really matter or make a difference.
In the end it is all about the user base, and the new users jumping on the DSLR bandwagon.
Vickon
New Member
Holy macaroni.... he did??
Selling My D90 and D5k away is I want to upgrade to a new body which is now bugging me is a DX or FX body... :bsmilie:
What the most ppl do with CS body and what the most ppl do with FF body?
Cheers.
Selling My D90 and D5k away is I want to upgrade to a new body which is now bugging me is a DX or FX body... :bsmilie:
What the most ppl do with CS body and what the most ppl do with FF body?
Cheers.
I am not sure what people do with CS body. What is CS body BTW?
But APS-C bodies or FF bodies, people use them to shoot pictures.
Vickon
New Member
I am not sure what people do with CS body. What is CS body BTW?
But APS-C bodies or FF bodies, people use them to shoot pictures.
Hahaha sorry for my bad short typo... CS means Crop Sensor :sweatsm:.
of course both DX and FX is for shoot.... :thumbsup:
but when I read some of the outside forum, they may said like they use DX more on wildlife because of the crop factor so they can have more on focal length. And FX they said for landscape, portrait.
how about that? :think:
Cheers...
Hahaha sorry for my bad short typo... CS means Crop Sensor :sweatsm:.
of course both DX and FX is for shoot.... :thumbsup:
but when I read some of the outside forum, they may said like they use DX more on wildlife because of the crop factor so they can have more on focal length. And FX they said for landscape, portrait.
how about that? :think:
Cheers...
Think it through yourself. Does the claim make sense? What about your personal experiences?
Generally, DX and FX can take anything. When digital first started, there were no APS-C designed UWA, so ppl lamented that their UWA became cropped by the 1.5x crop factor. This situation has long since passed. The widest APS-C lens goes to 8mm (ie. 12mm). How more wide do you need? If you need high quality and large panoramic, you can also consider photo stitching.
Yes, there is some difference in dynamic range and depth of field for the same focal length lens, but have you even noticed these limitations on the two cameras that you are selling?
kriegsketten
New Member
Hahaha sorry for my bad short typo... CS means Crop Sensor :sweatsm:.
of course both DX and FX is for shoot.... :thumbsup:
but when I read some of the outside forum, they may said like they use DX more on wildlife because of the crop factor so they can have more on focal length. And FX they said for landscape, portrait.
how about that? :think:
Cheers...
Best to leave it as DX or Crop sensors (in full) or else we'll be wondering if ClubSnap has ventured into DSLRs... :bsmilie:
Again, there is no hard and fast rule regarding which to use for what photography genre... Even if you use DX for wildlife...sure, you get the extra reach... but ultimately you loose Full Frame resolution - crucial if you want to be able to print your images really big...
quizesilver
New Member
a very enlightening thread.
Hello....
But the image quality when using a FX lens on a CF body should looked better as the build of the FX lens is heavier & better ?
Hahaha sorry for my bad short typo... CS means Crop Sensor :sweatsm:.
of course both DX and FX is for shoot.... :thumbsup:
but when I read some of the outside forum, they may said like they use DX more on wildlife because of the crop factor so they can have more on focal length. And FX they said for landscape, portrait.
how about that? :think:
Cheers...
If I am rich, yeah I will go all the way FX as it's offered me a much better resolution & the difference is very obvious on any shots.
The cheaper way to go for wildlife or birdie is getting a Crop Body especially if 1 is on budget.
im one of those who bought an APS-C (DX in Nikon terms) and then upgraded to FF (FX).
I used to buy APS-C lenses, and when I upgraded to FF i had to sell away all those lenses at discounted price, losing money for that. If I can turn back time, I would NOT have bought any APS-C lens even though Im using APS-C DSLR at that time, I would buy FF lenses all the way.
However it depends on your usage also. Im not a landscape photographer, so I don need an UWA lens. Thus using FF lens on my APS-C body is fine with me.
There are alot of people who will say "buy APS-C lenses, don waste money on FF bodies". I think alot of them dont even have a FF body before, thus they wont understand the pain of selling away all APS-C lenses (and its not always easy to sell also). Basically those people are just talking about things that they never own before. :bsmilie:
So if U are getting APS-C body and u feel u will NEVER upgrade to a FF body, then by all means just buy all APS-C lenses. However if you think u will upgrade in future, u might wanna consider getting FF lenses right from the start, if u don need an UWA, or you can just get an APS-C UWA lens and the rest of the lens get FF lenses. This is so that when u finally upgrade to FF, you wont need to sell away your lenses at a loss, and then spend money buying new FF lenses.
I used to buy APS-C lenses, and when I upgraded to FF i had to sell away all those lenses at discounted price, losing money for that. If I can turn back time, I would NOT have bought any APS-C lens even though Im using APS-C DSLR at that time, I would buy FF lenses all the way.
However it depends on your usage also. Im not a landscape photographer, so I don need an UWA lens. Thus using FF lens on my APS-C body is fine with me.
There are alot of people who will say "buy APS-C lenses, don waste money on FF bodies". I think alot of them dont even have a FF body before, thus they wont understand the pain of selling away all APS-C lenses (and its not always easy to sell also). Basically those people are just talking about things that they never own before. :bsmilie:
So if U are getting APS-C body and u feel u will NEVER upgrade to a FF body, then by all means just buy all APS-C lenses. However if you think u will upgrade in future, u might wanna consider getting FF lenses right from the start, if u don need an UWA, or you can just get an APS-C UWA lens and the rest of the lens get FF lenses. This is so that when u finally upgrade to FF, you wont need to sell away your lenses at a loss, and then spend money buying new FF lenses.
Last edited:
Vickon
New Member
However it depends on your usage also. Im not a landscape photographer, so I don need an UWA lens. Thus using FF lens on my APS-C body is fine with me.
So if U are getting APS-C body and u feel u will NEVER upgrade to a FF body, then by all means just buy all APS-C lenses. However if you think u will upgrade in future, u might wanna consider getting FF lenses right from the start, if u don need an UWA, or you can just get an APS-C UWA lens and the rest of the lens get FF lenses. This is so that when u finally upgrade to FF, you wont need to sell away your lenses at a loss, and then spend money buying new FF lenses.[/QUOTE]
Hi,
Yeah I use to owned a DX body and use FX lens on it and came out IQ are good. I was planning to own a FX body that is why when I buy a lens I always priority to choose on FX lens.
I think I am going to get the D700. :angel: Now the question is High speed sync for flash. Does the body supported that?
Cheers... :bsmilie:
So if U are getting APS-C body and u feel u will NEVER upgrade to a FF body, then by all means just buy all APS-C lenses. However if you think u will upgrade in future, u might wanna consider getting FF lenses right from the start, if u don need an UWA, or you can just get an APS-C UWA lens and the rest of the lens get FF lenses. This is so that when u finally upgrade to FF, you wont need to sell away your lenses at a loss, and then spend money buying new FF lenses.[/QUOTE]
Hi,
Yeah I use to owned a DX body and use FX lens on it and came out IQ are good. I was planning to own a FX body that is why when I buy a lens I always priority to choose on FX lens.
I think I am going to get the D700. :angel: Now the question is High speed sync for flash. Does the body supported that?
Cheers... :bsmilie:
In the end it is about buying strategy. If you buy everything new locally, and sell them all after warranty is over. You will definitely lose a lot. That applies to FX lenses as well.
If you plan your purchases, you will not lose much when you sell. One example is to buy used, then you will lose very little when you sell it.
And a question for you: If you went for FF right away, and by pass any APS-C camera or lenses or equipment. Will you save even more?
Last edited:
IQ has nothing to do with build quality.
A heavier lens do not automatically mean it will give you better IQ.
Give you an example: The 35/1.8 vs 35/2.
Similar threads
