@@xupitera6580 That is an FX formatted lens, this video is only talking about DX format and there are only 4 recommended, and those are the ones above mentioned-the rest are probably shite including kit lenses.
I have zero experience with DX lenses, except the 18 55 which I used once. It felt cheaper than a Tamiya radio-controlled toy car. Looks okay only in broad daylight and shot in the shade.
The 40mm macro takes beautiful pictures. The AF is slowish, but I find it much more useful than my 35 for walk-around and travel (would argue it's also sharper). Also a LOT lighter than my 60mm micro
I just purchased a very minty used 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 VR here in Malaysia for RM1,000 which is about US$260. You mentioned that this lens is Nikon's best mid range zoom in terms of sharpness First of all it is sharp as you say but not very sharp compared to my daily grinder the nikkor 16-85mm DX f/3.5-5.6 VR. Secondly you've always question when people say a lens is sharp with "compared to what?" Well i have compared this 24-85mm vr version to the 16-85 dx vr and can conclude the below: 1. They are both as sharp as each other. There are times when the 24-85 is sharper but there are also times when the 16-85mm dx is sharper 2. When the dx lens is sharper, it is significantly sharper but when the fx lens is sharper, it is sharper but not by much 3. The fx lens wins on the aperture size across its range so a little thing to consider is that when the 24-85mm vr is sharper than the 16-85mm vr, it is sharper when its aperture is wider which the dx lens cannot be compared to 1to1 4. My comparison isn't extensive or comprehensive but what I can say now is that so far i haven't seen the 24-85mm to be significantly better than the 16-85mm vr. Don't get me wrong it is sharp. I just thought it would be miles better than the DX lens that I've been using so far In this video you mentioned there are only 4 DX lenses that are worth buying and the 16-85mm DX f3.5-5.6 VR isn't one of them. Now since the 16-85mm is as sharp as the 24-85mm maybe you could revise this DX lenses of choice list? It does cover a wider range down to 16mm which for a DX camera gives it a bit wideangle. Question now is when you shut down all DX lenses apart from the 4 you recommend, did you actually tried and tested all including the 16-85mm DX f3.5-5.6 VR?
35mm 1.8 and the 50mm are stunning lenses. for the cost, i have em both, and a 18/55mm 55/200mm The kit 18/55 is also pretty good for macro and general purpose, Boke is better on the 50mm though. I used to own some tokina lenses a 15mm and a 35/75 i think it was, No autofocus but worked well, You can also pick up Old FX Lenses which work great for video's The nikor 50mm can be got on Ebay for under £40 nowadays :)
I was actually shocked, how usable the Nikon 18-55 VRII was on a D750, when I attached it to it, and turned off DX crop mode. Most modern wide angle lenses costs a small fortune, and that little DX kit lens produced perfectly usable, vignette free images at around 20mm. Obviously if I tried to pixel peep and compare it with a 15-30 Tamron, there would be lot of differences. But no PRACTICAL differences, unless I need to make wall-sized prints... Not to mention the amazing color saturation, that it produces. For 80$ it is a pretty good makeshift wide angle lens :)
I had a 16-85, it was expensive, fell apart, but was pretty sharp. The 17-55 is what I have now, it works well but a huge tank, pretty sharp even wide open. Third part 11-16 is a great ultrawide. You mentioned, like so many people, how cropped sensors give you more reach however I could never get that to work out well in real world shooting, expecially in cloudy days. I thought I would get better reach with my D7200 using my 300 & 600 primes but needing to push my ISO to 800+, my full frame Df resolves much better wildlife images at just 16MP. Long distances also poop out the dense pixels crop sensors do to atmosphere. I gave up with the D7200 for wildlife and gave it to my daughter.
I have 2 Nikon bodies: a d610 FX body (sent away for 2 minor repairs yesterday) with 5 lenses to fit. I also have a D7000 that I bought as a 2nd body (and 2nd hand for not too many bucks). With that goes an 18-250 Sigma 'walkabout' lens. I'm looking at replacing it with a Nikkor 18-300 zoom with the same intention of using it as a basic walkabout kit.
D7100 I put lenses all the way back from 1980 only lenses I find that won't work on are the new Af-P style. Photography is just a hobby for me and DX lenses are budget friendly but I find the older glass works a lot better it's very hard to find good deals on some use glass especially here in Canada.
To your point. I often read recommendations for a Nikon af-s lens that when I try to find them they aren't even in Nikon's current line-up. Apparently there are lots of great Nikon lenses floating around out there.
I've only just watched this video but I strongly disagree. I own a D5500 and have a few DX lenses and can't praise them enough with there excellent image quality, especially the 16-85mm. Okay there not stupidly expensive or like the higher end FX lens lenses but they certainly do the job when I use them. So who ever reads this comment, be it a beginner or a professional photographer, bear in mined we all have different needs for a camera and have to start somewhere.
i have a 3300 and i can use my old f-mount lenses on it in manual mode. no autofocus for sure.no light metering but i always use my manual lenses on it.
@@IceGizz Sigma's 17-50mm f2.8 roughly translates to about 25.5-75mm which is more close to about 24-70mm FX equivalent as compared to 17-55mm which is 25.5-82.5mm. And Sigma is offering it at almost $1k less than Nikon's!!
@@sengosangma9124 I'm not talking about fov, but build and picture quality. Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 is much better than Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 in terms of build, toughness, sealing and used materials.
@@IceGizz yes built quality wise I agree. But you're paying a premium price so it better be. But on a budget Sigma gets the job done and the picture quality is pretty decent
you really really need to chill, there are many dx lenses that work just fine! and they are pretty versatile, I took my6 year old 18-200 through bitter and sweet, and some of the harshest conditions on Earth, and it held up pretty well, and produced good images. I even made prints of them, so if you're gonna whine about lenses that you didn't get satisfying results with, then by all means, stick to whatever you have. And by the way, you complain way too much :)
I do not like Nikon “G” lenses, variable maximum f/stop lenses, or DX lenses. However, the only DX lens I own is the Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5 to f/5.6 G DX lens. The lens was given to me as a gift. I planned on selling it but decided to try it first. I was so impressed with its image quality that I decided to keep it.
OMG!!!! The difference between lenses can be MASSIVE in terms of sharpness, color transmission, contrast. I went from DX lenses to vintage FX lenses (also known as “lenses”) and the difference (besides them being faster) is night and day!!
I have a D750 and 35mm 1.8 (FX) and many other FX primes. Recently got a D7200. Question is SHOULD (not Can) I use my existing 35mm on the D7200 or would the 35mm DX be a better option. The DX version has good reviews, is easily had and relatively cheap, so I don’t mind buying one if it’s a better fit.
When I bought my D90 5 years ago the 18-200 was part of the deal. 2 years ago my girlfriend offered me the 35mm. Recently I bought the 10-24 simply because I can not afford the 12-24. I can not buy used ones because lenses are fragile and I do not trust used ones.... For the moment I do not have money to change my D90 (no used one options please). I am planning to start making money out photography soon (identified an unexploited niche and managed to sell the service). I WANT TO BUY ONE LAST LENSE AND STOP - 70-200 the work horse. Am I stupid or ignorant?
it's only about the price, and someone revolting the masses who cant nor want to spend on the current nikon fx price range, there are fx affordable options out there, current and old. go out there and get what you want, too much ? eh photography.
nahh, old FX (ie just film) lenses are cheaper than most all DX lenses :) Even if someone owned only DX cameras and had 5 of em, theres not a single damn reason to buy a SINGLE DX lens........ NIkon only has 4 worth recommending , and even then only USED
Okay-I have toke time this morning to clearly listen to what you saying, and as usual you Wright! any Nikon lens DX or FX works on Nikon body in fact any other 35mm lens from other manufacture lens with an adapter work with Nikon and verse versa...If one use a DX lens on a full frame body you do get that dark circles at the far edge, easy fix-just crop it and you done. The new photograher seems to have a problem with that, they need to learn how to improvise. But the real reason i'm writing you is your clear the rumors about Nikon going out of business. Thank you for clearing that up.
one thing I disagree with you though. there are two lenses that I fully believe that nikon should make for the dx. I really wish they would make the other two thirds of the holy trinity for dx, all we get is the 17-55. I would love to see a uwa 2.8 like a 11-16, and 55-150 2.8, nikon would sell them like hotcakes considering the popularity of the d500. even Fuji makes a fast long tele for their crop sensors.
I think that if some DX lenses are missing those are wide primes... 16mmm or 13mm (24mm or 21mm equivalents). On the long end a 300mm DX VR would be nice (if it is cheaper than the FX) for birding... but I wouldn't say it is "missing".
I wonder if most people understand your point in this video? Most of this comments directed to the false hope on Nikon making more DX-crop sensor's lenses. Geez.
dude you are a genuis. i truely admire that you share the photography knowledge to all the novices like us who are trying to learn photography and that's also for free. your channel is very informative and i learned many things about the cameras , lenses and some technical stuff. NAMASTE From NEPAL. I will donate you for sure. 😊✌
Nikon makes too many lenses yet their best lenses are limited. I enjoy great lenses from different companies. I'm really enjoying Laowa lens because they're different and gives my photography a unique visual perspective. Laowa 60mm f/2.8 ultra macro 2:1 and Laowa 15mm f/4 wide angle Marco Shift lens. They're both absolutely crazy on my D500. The only non Nikon lenses that I own are Voightlander and Laowa and those are FX lenses, manual and metal no less than 9 blades to 13 blades.
Question sir please if you will I made a mistake of not paying attention and ordered the 18-400mm Tamron lens . small error my fault . And it says the lens is for crop sensor Camera gear D7100 etc . But my question is while it states that could it be used on a DX camera? please excuse my ignorance on this . TIA and always love watching and learning about stuff from you .
Am a canon shooter (rebel t2i) and was considering upgrading to either an 80d (or a new 6d mark 2) or switching to Nikon or Fuji. But your review of the Dx lenses gives me pause. I was going to look at the Nikon 16-80 and 70-200 f4. These are similar to what I currently own (15-85 and 70-200 f4 IS). My main consideration is weight. I have tried the canon 6d with the 24-105 canon which I did love and that's why I'm considering even a full frame. Your views will be really helpful
Thank you! I need lots of help but plan on watching all your videos first. I just bought the Nikon D500 and can't wait to start taking some awesome pictures with it.
Theoria Apophasis hi buddy I need help I bought a Nikon d5200 it came with a kit lens, now I'm not a pro photographer but I have a wedding coming up and I was thinking which lens would be best for that event?
As much as I try to replace the Sigma 17-50mm with the Nikon 17-55mm Nikon, I keep getting slightly better images with the Sigma, maybe that’s why Sigma haven’t updated this lens in a long time, and made a “Art” versión
I don’t know Squat Theo, aka: Angry Photographer I don’t know squat about photography. 15 years ago I purchased a Nikon D50 and never took it off “Auto”. I just purchased a D500 and still don’t know squat so I will most likely leave it on “Auto” I took your advise and purchased the following: 17 mm - 55 mm “mint $760 35mm DX (New) $196 with filter etc. I could not find a $60 lens. Used are not much less 12 mm - 24mm $416. Fish Eye I am going to skip. I don’t know squat and I don’t know why I would want to take bent pictures. I also picked up with the D500 kit the 18 mm - 300mm 6.3
Yo Ken, I'mma getting either a Metabones Speedboosters or more likely Lens Turbo II for my Nikkor 50mm f/1.2. It'll give my Fuji a full frame view plus one extra stop of light (depth of field remains etc). Bokeh might change as a result of added lens elements. Wish me luck
17-55 is a heavy monster with no vr. Need sharp images with it, get your iso higher. It will kill the sharpness. Bottom line - this lens is a headache. 12-24 can be replaced by 18-55 Kit lens, you use f8-11 anyway, same results. 10,5 is very specific lens. May be 10 worth watching photos in your life. 35mm is the only one I suggest. Fast, light, inexpensive, good bokeh. Better to spend your money on traveling with your family even within your country rather than owning bunch of lenses which you will rarely use.
Hello to all of you. I'm absolutely new in all of this and mostly interested in macro and astro photography (I know, two opposite sides). Just bought Nikon D5600 with few lenses: - Nikkor AF-P 18-55 3.5-5.6G DX VR - Nikkor AF-S 17-55 2.8G ED DX - Sigma DG Macro 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 APO - Sigma DC 55-200 4-5.6 HSM - Kelda Mirror 900 f8 Now, I am wondering, from much experienced and knowledgeable, what is a best lens for macro. I will 95% taking different mechanical watch movements and dials, same as wrist watches in whole or different miceo mechanical aspects of production. What should I use in combo with Nikon D5600? Thanks in front and do not forget, I'm beginner but also quick learner. Cheers.
@@strichtarn3228 You are right. I have more than one overlapping lens now, but I will try them all and then choose what I need and use. At the moment, trio I use the most are Nikkor 17-55 f2.8, 105 f2.8 micro and Sigma 70-200 f4-5.6DG APO macro. But, I have 11 different lens from Nikkor at the moment and couple from Tokina and Sigma. Still learning.
Hello! If the combo APS-C + Full frame lenses is so pleasant for macro and sports/wildlife, why don't Nikon invested on telephoto lenses for DX? I wonder how practical and cheaper it would be to go outdoors with a light, compact and nice made D500 with a 300mm DX. Love your videos, dude! Keep the angry mode on!
Would you recommend the 17-55mm or would I be better off dropping all the way down to the 12-24mm? Or is there a FX lens that would work better? Or third party? I'd love the Tamron 15-30mm but not filter threads.
SO for us DX users what do I do if I want an ultra wide, nikon makes a 10.5mm fisheye in dx format but what if I want more of a 15mm or 20mm...fx would have a 1.5 crop factor...are older film lenses at par for the dx or still a 1.5?
TLDR: I think Sigma engineers invented the Dehaze function on Lightroom and gave it to adobe. "For free" so that they can sell more "F-Art" lenses. My words are just crude analogies of the truth but if you are a "truth seeker" did you actually did a proper test of the "Fasted and Best rated DX lenses" "the super praised and hyped" 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens (I am well aware with your stance on sigma products in general)? I bought the D500+ on recommendation, but I also whated to see if I could use it as a low light solution, I shoot concerts so I thought the 1.8 DX zoom would be like a 24-70 2.8 on a D750 but with the advantage of a F1.8 and I dont mind the less shallower DOF just whant the most light possible hit the sensor (Tstops is at 1.8 at DXOMARK your not a fan of that site). So my conclusion is that lens does not hold a candle to any primes I own, (duh primes beat zooms debate) but I thought I could live with a loss of IQ but because a zoom could be worth it, I find that I rather zoom by walking and have a sharp prime then this milky lens, my feel of this lens is just I zoom in at 100% and the image rendition is just gone, there is nothing there to work with so I end up unable to crop any pictures. Think it could be a good video lens, on micro 4/3 with a speed-booster, and I think it has its uses. But as a Owner of the D500 I am probably going to trade it off and buy the 20mm f1.8 and the Voigtlander 58 1.4. just to see if your "really" right, sometimes you have to feel and see the crap to appreciate the other stuff.
hi! I really like photography! I am an amateur photographer, but want to become pro someday. I love to watch your videos and learn from them, you have teach me alot, currently i have a nikon d5500 (all I could afford) alot of ppl say its better to buy glass then camera bodies , in my case after watching one of your videos , im wondering on buying the NIKON 18-35mm F/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S, and later upgrade to a full frame camera. Do you think im doing a good/ smart decision? thanks alot!
I only have 1 DX and that't the Tokina 12-24 F4, second-hand but as new as possible for 200dollar . Next week I get the 24mm F2 Ais - curious what that one will do on my D700 and 300.
Well, first of all not everyone is a pro like this dude and 2nd for a starter like me i wont be paying top bill for a lens thats costs more then my whole camera so im still happy with my kitlens (18-105) and bought a 35mm 1.8 2nd hand so im good to hgo :)
Had to laugh....the digital lens con. Some manufacturers started to bring out 'digital lenses' (Large format) we tested these and there was no difference, even the dealer selling them has to agree! Similar with coated lens used as a marketing ploy!
Ken, side question: I've got an good deal on a Reflex-NIKKOR 1:8 f=500mm, serial number 513567. The guy also included a Vivitar 2X Macro Focusing Teleconverter. My question is, on digital bodies, do I need to add the 39mm filter on the back of the Reflex lens (since it is just an UV protection, right)? Also, is that lens any good or the "new" 'N' model (the one you recommend) is FAR better optically? Thanks!
it is the one with the orange stripe around it? :) ALL of these lenses ship with a set of filters but all you need is the clear one there thats basically never removed ...optically better no, just lighter in weight and focuses much closer :)
No, the orange strip one is the 'N' model (newer). Mine is the older that can only focus a little far (4 ft). My question is: do you really need the clean filter? Can you just use it without any filter?
Of course you can mount a full frame lens to a cropped sensor! Everyone knows that (one would think!) The reason I don't do so is because I don't want to carry the weight of that glass when I am only using half of the light at the end. If I want to bring full frame lenses, I would bring a full frame body along as well. Take the 70-300mm DX lens, weights only half of the equivalent FX lens and is significantly smaller. You are an idiot if you bring the FX lens along even though you technically can! And for ultra wide angle, there obviously isn't a FX alternative to a 10-20mm
I've gotten some of your recommended lenses since I came across your channel three years ago and I'm happy that what I got is absolutely incredible and I got them at a bargain on Ebay. On the Four DX lenses you recommend the only one I truly want is the DX 10.5mm fisheye. Right now the only DX lens i own is the 50mm 1.8G. Decent travel lens as a walk around but sometimes i even leave that in the bag and use the Tokina 100mm 2.8.
Question about pixel size and ISO context. When I have heard about the good low-light performance of the D500, I started to compare it with my D90. Compared they have nearly the same sensor size but different megapixels. (12 vs 20) That means the D90 have larger pixels and should have a better low-light performance. Or not? Why does the D500 have less noise at the same ISO value?
Hi Ken I basically Half gifted my old D7000 to a friend. Now I need to replace it with something Crop to use with some of the Telephoto (The 300 F4 D, the 80-200 f2.8 both I got based on your recommendation And I JUST LOVE THEM :) V. Happy camper. I did also get The 80-400 G VR 4.5 to 5.6. That you did not recommend (Against the 300F4D) but $1000 for $2,700 lens I just could not say no. And the Sigma (Sorry!) 150-600 Sport . Now two Questions To replace My D7000: 1) Nikon D7200 or the D500? Note that this will ONLY be used with above noted glass, as for anything else I will use the D4S or D810. 1) I also got the 1.4X II Teleconverter as a freebee with the 300mm :) do you think to just use that instead of "investing" $500-1.5K in a crop. I tried the TC but it Killed the lens at Low light (Slow focus, vignetting, higher ISO lower quality) , however outdoors daytime it works fine. THANK you for being you.
First THANK you for Replying. I have like 400 followers on instagram and I find it hard to find time to reply to them, can't imagine all the effort you put. Now for the Gear, It is a Good Question, In 90% of cases flat-out NO I don't need the Speed. Remaining 10% is the Annual Air Show, Formula 1 Grand Prix and for both I'll most likely want to use the D4S. I think its the Gear Geek in me seeking the a justification to get the D5 after the awesome reviews and 2 thumbs up you gave it.
Hi all I have a question which might be in the comments somewhere so forgive me. I have a D5300 as I am still a beginner. I have seen comments about the d3000 series nikon and that it does not work with auto focus on FX lenses. Is this the same for d5000 series or does it depend on whether the lens is newer or older? Kind regards Chris
So, if the 16-80mm is crap what would you recommend for a DX user (D7200) who wants to have about this range in one zoom as for traveling / hiking but having the chance to also shoot a bit in the zoom range (portraits, flowers etc.)?
I do not agree with you. The problem is not that one cannot use FX lenses on a DX body, but simply that if my reason for shooting DX over FX is size and weight, then having to buy FX lenses while a similar DX lens might have been smaller and lighter (and somewhat less expensive) is suboptimal. This is why the fuji lineup is so attractive. This is a DX system that makes sense.
Maybe for you, not for me. It is much easier to carry around whatever fuji body you want with a 23mm f2 than a nikon DX body along with a 24mm 1.8g. The problem is mostly about size rather than weight though. Size really is not a problem when you go out specifically for shooting, but it becomes one if you just want to have a competent camera to carry around while you are going through your day. Hence, I do not carry my Nikon stuff because it is cumbersome. I would carry around a fuji with a 23mm f2 or the small 18mm. When I go out specifically for shooting, then bigger lenses would not be a problem, but at least I would have the option.... which nikon does not give me.
Just to make my point a bit clearer : I want a 35mm equivalent for my D7000. That is about 24mm on DX. I could buy the 24mm 1.8g, but that lens is 919$ (CA$). Fuji offers the 23mm f2 for 549$ (CA$). That is a 379$ difference... and it would make for a much smaller package that can easily be carried around all day if I were to couple this with a used XT1, XT10, or XE2. Hence, for a about 100-200$ more than the price of a 24mm 1.8g, I can buy an equivalent lens and a competent body that would also be much smaller than my D7000 + a 24mm 1.8g. Now, say at some point I would like to have a wider prime. The widest I could go on Nikon side would be the 20mm, and that would not be that much wider than the 24. For a non-professionnal, it doesn't make much sense to own both of these lenses. Hence, should I want to go wider, the "best" way to do it would be to buy an FX body. Yet, I don't need FX, and I certainly don't need the size. The only reason I seem to "need" FX is because nikon does not offer the wide primes that would be useful on DX. They don't probably because they expected that FX cameras would get cheaper and cheaper and that enthusiasts would eventually all adopt them, so that DX would essentially disappear (except for bird shooters). Yet, FX means bigger and more expensive stuff that provides very small marginal gains overall. Moreover, despite all their calculations, it seems that a huge part of nikon's professional FX market is about about to get screwed by... Fuji and their medium format system. Now back to my 35mm equivalent problem. For 100-200$ more, I solve my lens problem and I am able to get a foot in a system that actually provides the lenses that I want, without having to pay for extra glass that my sensor does not use... All of this in a much smaller package. So, you may disagree, but it is true that nikon is not producing the lenses that DX shooters need (at least some of us who don't care about 18-to-whatever-the-fuck-zoom-for-uncle-Joe). The gap is in the wide angles, and I am pretty temped to try fuji because of that. When Nikon will have lost most of its DX shooters because they could not find the lenses they wanted... and will start to loose its professionals currently FX shooters because they will go to the now reasonably affordable medium format, what the hell will nikon do?
what do you think about the Nikon d600 or d610 for someone who hasnt got much money and wants to Start with fx cameras? is it Worth the money or should i save up more for a d750 or d810?
for what use of intent? D610 is a bit of a sleazy bummer camera unless you find one dirt cheap. The images are great and fine, but the camera is a bummer considering its going $$ rate currently
Theoria Apophasis just for personal use as a hobby. I like shooting wide and in loe light situations, so j thought it would be smarter to use a full frame body. since the d600/d610 is a "cheap" (for me it is absolutely not cheap) full frame body by Nikon, I thought it's worth considering to buy one. I really don't have much knowledge about the performances of cameras, that's why I'm asking you :)
you're misrepresenting thom hogan's view. There are some holes in the dx line up. Where's the pro grade 70-200 equivalent dx zoom? The fx 70-200 doesnt offer the same range of field of view. Wheres the light wide dx prime. 20 1.8 on dx isnt very wide
Theoria Apophasis the irony is the fuji lenses you love so much perfectly demonstrate what dx could be. Small compact primes, well built, and excellent image quality optimized for the sensor size. but i agree nikon has burdened themselves producing many unnecessary dx lenses
Fujis fast primes like 90mm , are HUGE, same as nikon Fujis wide primes like 35mm are small, same as nikon (35mm F2 D-AF) all fast glass is huge and heavy....DX is not exempt.
Hi, I'm asking as an ameteur - is 55-200mm f/4-5.6 dx for the guy who will probably never upgrade his camera to full frame? or maybe should I buy 70-200mm? or they'r both crap?..........
I'd want some kind of a tele lens, but not as my primary work tool, my main lense is 35mm 1.8 , that would be mounted on d7100 that I am going to buy, so witch inexpensive tele lense sould I buy?
