full frame on a budget

[kwanhan]

hi all,

I know the words full frame and budget don't really go together and that threads like this may cause me to get seriously flamed by seniors one way or another

...but anyway, wanted to get some advice on upgrading to full frame.

currently i'm using a d300 and the only 2 lenses i own are a tamron 17-50 and a AI-D 50mm 1.4

at the end of this year I intend to get a sb700 and a 85 1.8.

probably when i have the money next year then a second hand d700, a battery grip and a tamron 28-75.

I'm a hobbyist, don't do any paid assignments, but I have need to shoot indoors and low light quite frequently. (and may not be able to use flash)

Personally I like to shoot human subjects as well, a bit of portraiture.


Do you guys feel that I should get a 35 f2 and a 50 1.8 as well?

Thinking in terms of focal length coverage and low light capability since there's the 28-75 already.


For all the seniors who rely heavily on a mid-range zoom, how often do you bother to switch to primes?

Or its mostly a 24-70 glued to the camera?


Budget wise its not that I must get all these by a certain time, but slow acquisition over time. (but as you can tell, i'm choosing to go on a tighter budget)

So feel free to let me know any alternatives or upgrade plans I might consider.

 

[yu jianzhi]

D700 Replacement is coming up so .. you can expect alot of people selling D700 s in the next few months lol (Maybe only )

personal opinion is
you can reuse the 17-50 on your D700 and skip the 28-75 save some money for 80-200 2.8 for you tele range ?

50 1.8D is more affordable then the 35 F2 and The 50 1.8D on your D300 is around 75 mm portrait maybe ?



you should check out this site

www.lenshero.com

 

[kwanhan]

D700 Replacement is coming up so .. you can expect alot of people selling D700 s in the next few months lol (Maybe only )

personal opinion is
you can reuse the 17-50 on your D700 and skip the 28-75 save some money for 80-200 2.8 for you tele range ?

50 1.8D is more affordable then the 35 F2 and The 50 1.8D on your D300 is around 75 mm portrait maybe ?



you should check out this site

www.lenshero.com

in the long run i wouldn't want to be using a crops lens like the tamron 17-50.

a teleportrait prime like the 8-200 2.8 is in the distant future... maybe by then i might want a 70-200 LOL.

all lens suggestions are to be considered on future FF use

 

[yu jianzhi]

in the long run i wouldn't want to be using a crops lens like the tamron 17-50.

a teleportrait prime like the 8-200 2.8 is in the distant future... maybe by then i might want a 70-200 LOL.

all lens suggestions are to be considered on future FF use

kk lol i though you got the Full frame 17-50 lol my bad lol

28-75 is ok but you might want to have a wide angle too for maybe landscape or group shots?

 

[kwanhan]

hmmmm yeah actually having a wide end is important to me.

not sure how tight 28mm would be... but it's going to be tighter than 17mm on a 1.5x crop right? (which works out to be 25.5?)

having 17mm on crop is about right for my purposes at the moment.

unless i consider the sigma 24-70 but it seems to be less favoured than the tamron.

 

[yu jianzhi]

not sure about that yet

FX Dream team by Ken Rockwell http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/fx-dream-team.html

lol something might help you i think

 

[regnad999]

You can keep your 50mm. Sell your 17-50 and get a tamron 28-75. Wide end can get a 20mm 2.8. Get a 80-200, 70-300 or 70-210 for the longer end. Lots of budget lens for FF too.

 

[tehzeh]

hi all,
I know the words full frame and budget don't really go together and that threads like this may cause me to get seriously flamed by seniors one way or another
...but anyway, wanted to get some advice on upgrading to full frame.
currently i'm using a d300 and the only 2 lenses i own are a tamron 17-50 and a AI-D 50mm 1.4
at the end of this year I intend to get a sb700 and a 85 1.8.
probably when i have the money next year then a second hand d700, a battery grip and a tamron 28-75.
I'm a hobbyist, don't do any paid assignments, but I have need to shoot indoors and low light quite frequently. (and may not be able to use flash)
Personally I like to shoot human subjects as well, a bit of portraiture.
Do you guys feel that I should get a 35 f2 and a 50 1.8 as well?
Thinking in terms of focal length coverage and low light capability since there's the 28-75 already.
For all the seniors who rely heavily on a mid-range zoom, how often do you bother to switch to primes?
Or its mostly a 24-70 glued to the camera?
Budget wise its not that I must get all these by a certain time, but slow acquisition over time. (but as you can tell, i'm choosing to go on a tighter budget)
So feel free to let me know any alternatives or upgrade plans I might consider.

1) AI-D 50mm f1.4 or AF-D?

2) Why a battery grip?

3) If you were talking about AF-D 50mm 1.4, why do you still consider the 1.8?

If you are not a pro and you have the time to let your subjects wait for you to change lens, then forget the zoom.

I see that you personally own the 17-50. I think that the f2.8 isn't really that "capable" of shooting in low light. If you aren't a pro, and may not be able to use flash, then I think it's better to go with primes.

I do not have any f2.8 mid range zoom. If I were to get a zoom, it would be because of convenience e.g. if I am going on a holiday. Other than that, the faster primes such as (50mm f1.4/2) inspire me more than the f2.8 (that's excluding the telephoto f2.8 and the ultrawide f2.8).

But if you were to go with the prime lens set up without the zoom, you might lose out on the wide end so you might want to reconsider the 35mm. Some may find it just nice, some may prefer 24mm.

IMHO.

 

[kwanhan]

You can keep your 50mm. Sell your 17-50 and get a tamron 28-75. Wide end can get a 20mm 2.8. Get a 80-200, 70-300 or 70-210 for the longer end. Lots of budget lens for FF too.

how much is a 2nd hand 20 2.8?

Also heard that 80-200 can consider one of the later versions.

initially was thinking of the nikon 24-85 2.8-4 for my main mid range zoom... i appreciate that its versatile range, and the fact that it goes to 2.8 on the wide end. I was testing a 2nd hand copy the other day and the sharpness wide open was pretty bad.

another alternative i guess would be the 24-85 3.5-4.5 ... some loss of light but sharpness was good.

I guess I have been spoilt by the sharpness of the tamron 17-50 :bsmilie:

 

[kwanhan]

1) AI-D 50mm f1.4 or AF-D?

2) Why a battery grip?

3) If you were talking about AF-D 50mm 1.4, why do you still consider the 1.8?

If you are not a pro and you have the time to let your subjects wait for you to change lens, then forget the zoom.

I see that you personally own the 17-50. I think that the f2.8 isn't really that "capable" of shooting in low light. If you aren't a pro, and may not be able to use flash, then I think it's better to go with primes.

I do not have any f2.8 mid range zoom. If I were to get a zoom, it would be because of convenience e.g. if I am going on a holiday. Other than that, the faster primes such as (50mm f1.4/2) inspire me more than the f2.8 (that's excluding the telephoto f2.8 and the ultrawide f2.8).

But if you were to go with the prime lens set up without the zoom, you might lose out on the wide end so you might want to reconsider the 35mm. Some may find it just nice, some may prefer 24mm.

IMHO.

It's an AI-D for when I have all the time in the world to do some leisure shooting. I like the feel of an MF lens.

Battery grip because I shoot a lot in portrait orientation, disproportionately a lot... personal preference

Actually I would be glad to skip the budget mid-range zoom and save up for something better in the long run.

But... I often need to do some free coverage and post facebook kind of shots for church related youth activities (which I could possibly use my current tamron in DX mode since its for FB upload)

I will consider the 24mm too I guess... thanks for the reminder about that



other seniors what do you think?

is it possible to skip the budget mid-range zoom first? how has it been for your own experience?

i know the answer will ultimately lie with me whether i'm comfortable with my lens selections

 

[spree86]

kk lol i though you got the Full frame 17-50 lol my bad lol

28-75 is ok but you might want to have a wide angle too for maybe landscape or group shots?

Which full frame 17-50 are you talking about?

 

[Ben Ang]

how much is a 2nd hand 20 2.8?

Also heard that 80-200 can consider one of the later versions.

I guess I have been spoilt by the sharpness of the tamron 17-50 :bsmilie:

a) about 6-700 for AF version
b) the AF-S 80-200 is a fantastic lens if you don't need vr
c) the tamron 17-50 isnt all that sharp next to primes =P

my suggestion is if your only motive for shifting the ff is low light shooting, then don't shift to ff. use the $ you save to get fast primes like the 35 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8. a d700 and a 24-70 2.8 would allow you to shoot in as dark an environment as a d300 and 35 1.8, assuming a 1 stop difference in high iso noise performance. or move up to the d400 when it comes out. the d7k sensor is also pretty good.

If you re shooting static objects or stuff on stage, basically not running around after the subject, i d recommend a monopod just to stabilise yr self and maybe a fast manual lens like the 135 f2. that combi on a d200 served me v wel for low light shooting.

as for a mid range zoom, my kit now is a 17-35, 50, 80-200, 100, 135, 200. only the 2 zooms are AF. i don't NEED a mid ranged zoom, but would be nice to have one. haha. BUT, i would get it cos of convenience and will go for a slow 28-70 3.5-4.5 rather than a fast lens. then i might fill the gap in my primes with an 85 1.4 ais. but my shooting style is to use a bunch of primes so you ll have to see if that works for you.

 

[kwanhan]

a) about 6-700 for AF version
b) the AF-S 80-200 is a fantastic lens if you don't need vr
c) the tamron 17-50 isnt all that sharp next to primes =P

my suggestion is if your only motive for shifting the ff is low light shooting, then don't shift to ff. use the $ you save to get fast primes like the 35 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8. a d700 and a 24-70 2.8 would allow you to shoot in as dark an environment as a d300 and 35 1.8, assuming a 1 stop difference in high iso noise performance. or move up to the d400 when it comes out. the d7k sensor is also pretty good.

yeap you're spot on in that one of the more dominant reasons for my FF shift is low light performance, of course the typical reasons apply as well... DOF etc.

I guess I'm not confident enough to cover the things that I need to cover using primes only.

Also for indoor shooting a 35 and 50 may not be wide enough. I really do need to go from wide to medium quite frequently and quickly.

 

[Cowseye]

I'm also very curious which 17-50mm is FX lens. FX on budget? Use these:
- 12-24 sigma / tokina 11-16 @ 16 / samyang 14mm MF lens
- Tamron 28-75mm
- sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 (Macro or OS version up to you)

 

[Kit-Kat-Lover]

yeap you're spot on in that one of the more dominant reasons for my FF shift is low light performance, of course the typical reasons apply as well... DOF etc.

I guess I'm not confident enough to cover the things that I need to cover using primes only.

Also for indoor shooting a 35 and 50 may not be wide enough. I really do need to go from wide to medium quite frequently and quickly.

Low light or dof is more important ? Since u indicate the word budget and must have the convienient of zoom, my advise;

If low light more important, then a d7000 should do the trick, though is not comparable to ff. Able to use existing zoom len and get a additional 35 prime should be within ur budget. Imho this is a smarter choice since u got a budget.

If dof and low light is both important, look no further than ff. I advise u to use prime 35 f2, ur existing 50 f1.4, and a afs 24-85 f3.5/4.5 zoom. The high iso performance of ff can compensate for the slow speed zoom. If time permit then u use ur prime. In future then get prime 85. This setup would be enough for ur requirement with minimun budget and best low light shooting.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

One of the nice things about an FX camera is the bigger viewfinder. To some, that alone is worth the difference in price compared with a DX cam.

Not sure what your budget is like, or how wide you really need to go.
I think 35mm is pretty wide for an FX cam. Probably if you're ok with 28-75/2.8 Tammy, that's also a good zoom to pair with. About the same angles of view as D300 + 17-50

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

kk lol i though you got the Full frame 17-50 lol my bad lol

28-75 is ok but you might want to have a wide angle too for maybe landscape or group shots?

Which full frame 17-50 are you talking about?

I'm curious too...
Is there a 17-50/2.8 which is suitable for FX?

 

[nickzkcin]

for the 80-200, i haven't tried the AF-S version, but I own the AF-D one. It is a fantastic set of glass, and reviews online claim it has better performance(and price!) compared to the AF-S version. Its also still in production whereas the AF-S version has been discontinued.

re: the budget setup though, even though my 24-70 is glued onto my camera 24/7(haha numbers match up), I find myself taking shots around the 24-35 range a lot. I swap out for my 85 1.8 for portraits and it works fine. I would keep the 50, get a 35 and 85, but that's my style of shooting. The 24-70 is on because I'm young and don't mind the weight, plus I'm too lazy to swap lenses all the time. Find your own style and see what fits you

oh and you don't need a battery grip unless you absolutely need the fps. just carry around a second battery in your bag if you find yourself low on battery a lot.

 

[kentwong81]

You can get a 2nd hand D700 at a cheap price $2500 right now if you can't wait to move into FX. Sell off your current camera and lenses.
Since you like to shoot human subjects/portraiture, you can consider get a 85mm f1.8 or a wider lens 50mm f1.4/f1.8. It should suffice your needs within tight budget. Coupled with good photoshop skills, you can produce nice photos at ease with this setup.
Battery grip is a surplus if you have tight budget, especially for hobby.

 

[Ben Ang]

for the 80-200, i haven't tried the AF-S version, but I own the AF-D one. It is a fantastic set of glass, and reviews online claim it has better performance(and price!) compared to the AF-S version. Its also still in production whereas the AF-S version has been discontinued.

oh and you don't need a battery grip unless you absolutely need the fps. just carry around a second battery in your bag if you find yourself low on battery a lot.

the reviews must be lying =P haha. I ve used the 1 touch, 2 touch and AF-S(current) versions of the 80-200 and the AF-S beats the other 2 hands down. seriously. resolution and contrast wide open is really good on the long end, and holds up very well even with the TC 14E. AF speed is FAST huge diff compared to the AF-D. i got rid of the 2 touch cos i thought it was convenient and good for events, but IQ wouldnt stand up against my primes. the AF-S version does a v good job, but its quite the beast to lug around =\ never have any worries shooting with it though.

Not to say the AF-D version is lousy.. its certainly faster to focus than the 1 touch, and offers v nice IQ at f4. but it does lag behind the AF-S

If you can live with 9-shot bursts, you can use flash bracketing and bracketing burst to get 8fps without the battery grip. you ll just be limited to 9 frames per burst.