DX vs FX lens

[martinmixon]

Hello,

I recently bought a Nikon D3200 with an 18-55 mm kit lens. I want to expand my lens collection. I plan on purchasing an FX camera in the future (3-4 years) and was wondering if I should begin investing in FX lenses now or keep buying DX lens and switch to FX when I get a new camera?

Also, what 2 lenses would you recommend for my next purchases? (Especially a lens for street photography and a US to Europe trip.)

Thanks for the help!

[pnodrog]

You should consider buying a lens that extends at least to 200mm but preferably 300mm (70-200, 70-300 or 28-300) and unless you are particularly price conscious buy an FX lens. As the ISO performance of cameras improves the extra expense of purchasing a f2.8 lens is harder to justify unless you have a passionate or professional interest in sport or birds in flight etc.

A wide angle say 12-24mm lens would be worth considering for architecture, interior shots or landscape shot where you particularly want to take a near object such as a flower and show it's extended surroundings. However apart from the occasions when I am particularly emphasis a close object I find most of my landscape photography is taken in the 28-50mm range on a FX camera and your 18-55mm lens already covers this range.

There is no absolute answer to your question and a lot will depend on your interests, budget and what weight penalty you are prepared to put up with.

[Polar01]

Welcome to CIC, it would be helpful if you were to go back into setting and record your real name that you want to be know by as well as where you are located (city/state/country) all work so if we were to guide you somewhere it would at least be close. As for lens choice I would try to figure out what it is that you want to shoot, as you recently bought the D3200 you may only think you know. I would wait until you have pushed yourself, that camera, and lens to the max before getting new lens that may not fit your style. Notice that I said pushed yourself first, unless you know what you and the tools can do you can not make a decision on what new tools to get.
If you make the decision to purchase new lens than FF ones would be the way I would go, usually a better build quality, with the excepting of ultra wide angle than DX lens would be best. Remember the Nikkor 14-24mm which cost close to $2,200.00 when used on a DX is equal to 21-36mm, the Nikkor DX 10-24mm cost approx. $1,000.00 is 15-36mm FF you get and extra 6mm of width if you use the DX lens over the FF lens. Now you may not want to use ultra wides, but get to know your camera and tools first before spending money on a tool that you really do not need.

Cheers: Allan

[inkista]

I recently bought a Nikon D3200 with an 18-55 mm kit lens. I want to expand my lens collection.

Um. Just me, but fight this feeling. If this is your first dSLR, adding more lenses can make learning technique a little harder, unless you know exactly what lens you want and why. Start simple, start small. The 18-55 is actually a perfectly good lens for a LOT of different tasks, and while it's a limited lens, it's not going to turn your pictures butt-ugly all on its lonesome. Stop it down to f/8, put it on a tripod, and very interesting things can happen.

You're gonna get hit by the gear lust soon enough. Better to wait to blow the money when you actually know what you want and why.

I plan on purchasing an FX camera in the future (3-4 years) and was wondering if I should begin investing in FX lenses now or keep buying DX lens and switch to FX when I get a new camera?

This is up to you, your budget, and what/how you shoot. Most people will tell you to stick with FX lenses, but what you have to realize is that each lens changes its usage and character when you move from DX to FX. Sometimes a lens works great on both cameras, while fulfilling completely different roles (e.g., a 17-35/2.8 could be a good walkaround on DX and a superb ultrawide on FX; a 50mm/1.8 lens can be a great portrait lens on crop, and a normal prime on FX). But no lens is going to give you the same scene coverage in both formats.

While you could stick to FX glass, rather than waiting to swap out your DX glass when you make the switch (if you make the switch) 3-4 years is a long long time to have to make do with an almost-what-you need lens for the sake of a camera you haven't gotten yet. And a lot of FX lenses are bigger and heavier than their DX counterparts.

Also, what 2 lenses would you recommend for my next purchases? (Especially a lens for street photography and a US to Europe trip.)...

What's your budget? How/what do you like to shoot?

My definition of street photography may not be yours. I like street photography where the street is as much the subject as a person. Widish-to-normal and a relatively small/fast/discreet prime would be my choice. Other folks think of street shooting as paparazzi-behavior or street portraits where headshots of people are more the main subject, rather than a person in a setting. Different lenses are required for both.

In terms of travel photography, again, what do you plan to shoot? Cityscapes with a tripod? Handheld? Inside museums? Landscapes outside? Travel companion candids? Frankly, I'd say your 18-55 is actually a great candidate for most tourist-type travel snapshots--it's a good focal length range, small, light, and cheap (which means having it lost/broken/stolen during travel is not a heartbreaker), stabilized and pretty versatile. Only lacking on low-light capability. I'd throw in the AF-S 35/1.8 for the low light (and low cost), but it's a DX lens, and it may not be wide enough for shooting cityscapes (if you were a Canon shooter, I'd probably recommend the EF-S 24/2.8 STM pancake, but there's no Nikon equivalent). Not sure I'd want a telephoto zoom for European travel. But that's me. You're not me.

Just remember that on a messageboard, a lot of folks are more liable to tell you what lenses they want than the ones you may need. Keep in mind your budget, what you want to shoot, and how you want to shoot, and then try to translate those to lens features.

[lukaswerth]

Martin,

it would be helpful to know whether you are particularly interested in some areas/topics of photography: people, street, nature, architecture, wildlife... I could say more than about focal length, speed, zoom or prime...

On a general consideration, and keeping price as well as FX format in mind, I would go for the 50mm 1.8G. I think it is the cheapest prime in the Nikon line, and of absolute professional quality. A real workhorse which on your camera makes a very good portrait lens.
The f/1.8 series of Nikon is very good anyway: the 85mm, the 28mm, and there is a new 20mm about which, however, I don't know very much.
If you don't mind lenses which need to be focused manually, have a look, for instance, at Samyang: the 14mm is very wide and very sharp, as much as the famed Nikon 14-24 zoom. It has, however, particularly on FX, a whopping, moustache-like distortion for which you would need a preset for ACR to correct it.
I also have a Zeiss 18mm which I got at a very fair price from Ebay: this lens is somewhat of a sleeper. It is considered not that sharp, but it gives me lots of keepers on my d800e, and works excellently in back-lit situations.

As for zooms and tele-lenses, perhaps tell what are your interests...

Lukas

[William W]

. . . I recently bought a Nikon D3200 with an 18-55 mm kit lens. I want to expand my lens collection.

‘Recent purchase’ – I understand, but what is your number of flying hours behind a camera? And doing what precisely with it?

*

I plan on purchasing an FX camera in the future (3-4 years)

That’s a plan only. Long time three years. Four years is longer. A lot can happen.

But the main question is – WHY are you planning to buy an FX camera?

*

. . . and was wondering if I should begin investing in FX lenses now or keep buying DX lens and switch to FX when I get a new camera?

If I had substantial and logical reasons for buying an FX camera, I would only buy FX lenses now.

Actually I did: when I bought my First Digital Camera, an EOS 20D, I did have such reasons and apart from the 18 to 55 kit lens that I bought with that 20D (for about $40.00) I have never bought an EF-S or other brand 'crop only' lens since.

But I would also need a substantial and logical reason to be putting off the purchase of an FX camera for so long, and I cannot think of such a reason, what is your reason?

*

Also, what 2 lenses would you recommend for my next purchases? (Especially a lens for street photography and a US to Europe trip.)

Without considering your answers to the above questions: none at all.

WW

[Manfred M]

Martin - my first digital camera was a Nikon D90 with the very same kit lens that you have. I had decades of film DSLR experience, but wasn't quite sure about how a crop-factor camera would perform and decided that I would spend a few months learning digital before I even considered another lens.

As others have suggested, the type of photography that you are going to do will dictate the direction you will want to take. Firgure out where you are going photographically, before you consider buying another lens.

As an aside; I knew very quickly that I would be moving to full-frame within 1 - 2 years and I bought FX lenses after buying 3 DX ones.

[JR1]

Too many replies to read but

1. You didn't say what you can afford without a price no one can offer an accurate reply.

2. Why if you will be getting an FX in the future would you even consider crop lenses.

I shoot D7000/D7100/D810/D4s I have never ever bought a crop sensor lens, why would one.

[Black Pearl]

I shoot D7000/D7100/D810/D4s I have never ever bought a crop sensor lens, why would one.

Because I bought a couple of mine before Nikon made a FX camera and they are still doing the job perfectly?

Because you can get some very high quality super-wides for DX that cost wise make more sense than their (often not as wide) FX brothers.

Because there is nothing wrong in building a DX system - not everyone wants, needs or would even benefit from a switch to FX.

I could go on......

[inkista]

... I have never ever bought a crop sensor lens, why would one.

If you need an ultrawide for environmental portraiture or landscape shooting.

There are no full-frame lenses that can go ultrawide on a crop body for the same price as the crop ultrawide zooms. And most of the full-frame lenses that can go ultrawide on a crop don't go as wide as the crop ultrawides do. And when the whole point of an ultrawide is to go super-wide, that kind of defeats the purpose. The Nikkor 10-24, Tokina 11-16/2.8, and Canon EF-S 10-22 are all sub-$1000 lenses. The Nikkor 14-24/2.8 (FX ultrawide) is a $2000 lens, and only goes to 14, the equivalence (on crop) of a 21mm lens, not a 15mm lens. And at the wide end, those extra 1 or 2 mm make a HUGE difference in the resulting field of view.

Not everybody biases towards shooting long, and sometimes it's good to have smaller, lighter kit that's got a newer optical design.

[xpatUSA]

I shoot D7000/D7100/D810/D4s I have never ever bought a crop sensor lens, why would one?

Delivered with a slight head-wobble, perhaps?

As has been said already, weight and price are considerations.

And then there's all those wasted photons as the bigger image circle lights up parts of the camera that were never intended to be lit

Not to mention the issue that non-crop lenses don't have to be as 'good' as crop lenses, so why would one lose quality on a crop-sensor camera by putting non-crop lenses on it

[Ndukes]

Hi Martin. I would strongly recommend two FX zoom lenses neither of which you will find excessively heavy with your D3200 nor too pricey, the Nikkor 70-300 VR and 24-85 VR. This combination will represent a useful two lens kit when (or if) you get your full frame DSLR and in the meantime your 18-55 will cover the wide end for you. The Nikkor 28-300 would I'm sure be tempting to cover the zoom range in a single lens but it would be quite heavy in your D3200 and, on full frame, sharpness can be an issue for a lens at its price. Hope this helps.

[JR1]

Because I bought a couple of mine before Nikon made a FX camera and they are still doing the job perfectly?

Because you can get some very high quality super-wides for DX that cost wise make more sense than their (often not as wide) FX brothers.

Because there is nothing wrong in building a DX system - not everyone wants, needs or would even benefit from a switch to FX.

I could go on......

Quite right, I SHOULD have been clearer

Why would anyone buying a new camera for the first time by crop sensor lenses, as they may one day go FF

[pnodrog]

Delivered with a slight head-wobble, perhaps?

As has been said already, weight and price are considerations.

And then there's all those wasted photons as the bigger image circle lights up parts of the camera that were never intended to be lit

Not to mention the issue that non-crop lenses don't have to be as 'good' as crop lenses, so why would one lose quality on a crop-sensor camera by putting non-crop lenses on it

Ted it must be a constant worry to you as well as it is to me that someone will build a lens so fast that it will suck all the photons out of the universe and trigger a black hole.....

[JR1]

Hello,

I recently bought a Nikon D3200 with an 18-55 mm kit lens. I want to expand my lens collection. I plan on purchasing an FX camera in the future (3-4 years) and was wondering if I should begin investing in FX lenses now or keep buying DX lens and switch to FX when I get a new camera?

Also, what 2 lenses would you recommend for my next purchases? (Especially a lens for street photography and a US to Europe trip.)

Thanks for the help!

1. I have FX and DX cameras but never fell for the DX con, always bought FX so as not to buy twice.

2. Cant advise on lenses as you have to say whet you can afford and shoot

[xpatUSA]

I have FX and DX cameras but never fell for the DX con . . .

Jeremy, I have both FF and APS-C lenses for my 1.7 crop Sigma DSLRs.

Since I am thinking of thinning out the collection a bit, could you explain exactly what "the DX con" is?

[Glenn NK]

A few comments after reading all the posts:

1) (As usual), Kathy Li's post is one the OP should read over carefully and heed - very practical and well thought out advice.

2) FF and APS-C (FX and DX in Nikon terminology) are both valid formats - they are different and serve different purposes/uses. The results achieved with the the same lens on the different bodies is quite different ("usage and character"). If FX is the holy grail so to speak, then why aren't we all using medium or large format bodies?

Glenn

[george013]

If FX is the holy grail so to speak, then why aren't we all using medium or large format bodies?
Glenn

Money,size, weight. And I don't believe in a holy grail.
George

[Brev00]

You just bought a D3200 but know you want to go full frame in a few years? You are putting the cart before the horse. The first step is to shoot with your D3200. A lot. Then determine the next lens you wish to purchase to extend your photography to areas you cannot reach with the kit lens. Then, you will be at the point where you can start weighing your options. You may want a telephoto as your next lens. Then, you can examine the available choices. Getting an fx type might make a lot of sense. But, if you want a 55-300 and can get one pretty cheap, you might get your money's worth in three years of constant, enjoyable use. Who knows? Right now, I would suggest staying in the moment with your current gear. Decide on your next lens and weigh all of the pluses and minuses. Three or four years is a very long time in photography. You may decide you like dx, go full frame, move to mirrorless, or buy some as of now unknown tech. One step at a time.

[TheBigE]

Throwing in my two cents, from a relative beginner.

Shoot with what you have now and figure out what you are missing. given you impending trip to Europe perhaps there is an argument for a Zoom lens. You are beginning down a long road with many paths, and at this point it is hard to say which path you will take and therefore the equipment you need. Get some time behind the glass, maybe take an online course that encourages you to go out and shot, shot, and shot. Then you will see quickly what areas you need to focus for a lens. I would not worry about the Fx vs DX part at this moment, many things (as others have eluded to) will change between now and 3 years.

I would recommend a good tripod as your first investment, this will work regardless of Fx vs DX and will be with you throughout your time in Photography. I am so glad that I purchased mine as one of the first items after my D5300.

Just my thoughts, hope it helps. Good Luck.