# What lenses would you use for an Nikon FX camera?



## timbearden

This might be already in a forum, but I don't want to sift through right now.  I am considering going to FX and trying to decide which lenses I would need.  I need something similar to my 18-200 mm DX lens.  I would like to hear input to what lenses you use and also for any wedding photographers what would you also use?  

Also just to make sure, I need something that is not DX, and not going to be cropped while using something like the D3 or D700.


----------



## tirediron

You're going to need to spread this over three lenses. My suggestions would be:

17-35/f2.8

24-70/f2.8

80-200/f2.8

Altogether about $5000 worth of glass if bought new, but there's no point in putting second rate or consumer-grade glass on a high-end body.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

14-24 f/2.8

27-70 f/2.8

70-200 f/2.8VR

85mm f/1.8

if you need a cheap midrange, then the 24-120VR. I have an unusually good sample that's awesome on film, and I bet it's ok on the 12MP FX sensor, it's just sloooooow.


----------



## Garbz

28 is wide enough for me personally.
28-70 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8 
400 f/4 to include with other speciality primes (105mm MicroNikkor f/2.8, 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.2 etc)

Very similar to earlier posts with the key that both are much older lenses and are easily found on the second hand market, the only thing you are missing is the VR


----------



## Triehard

All you really need is the 70-200 VR 2.8
and perhaps no make that sure 17-55 nikon 2.8


----------



## Steph

Triehard said:


> ...and perhaps to make that sure 17-55 nikon 2.8


 
Isn't that a DX lens?


----------



## Triehard

Quiet possible would that be an issue?


----------



## tirediron

Triehard said:


> Quiet possible would that be an issue?


 
It most certainly is a DX lens.



			
				The OP said:
			
		

> I need something that is not DX, and not going to be cropped while using something like the D3 or D700.


 
Apparently it is for him.


----------



## Mav

18-35 f/3.5-4.5 ($300ish used)
28-105 f/3.5-4.5 ($150ish used)
70-300VR ($400 used, $500 new)
50mm f/1.4 ($225 used, $300 new)
35-70 f/2.8 ($400 used, f/2.8 on a budget, Nikon's old f/2.8 pro mid-zoom)

For an 18-200VR equivalent, sadly Nikon doesn't have one.  They discontinued all of their cheap good film camera lenses by the end of 2006, probably to force people into needlessly buying professional f/2.8 zooms which are about all they have left.  The old 28-200G might be worth trying to find, and it works pretty well.  Or Tamron has a 28-300mm VC (VR) lens which from the looks of things appears to be half-decent.  I just picked up a 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 for my F100 and it works great.  Very sharp even wide open, the 1:2 macro feature is quite handy, and I like the range both on film and on DX too.  I've heard from a lot of different sources that the 24-120VR is one of Nikon's softer lenses, but might be worth a shot for normal use.  Just try it out first and make sure you can return it if you're not happy.  This is one of the few film mid-zooms that Nikon actually still makes.  It's sad this is all they've got to kit with the D700.

For weddings, obviously go for the nicer f/2.8 stuff that's already been mentioned.


----------



## Steph

Triehard said:


> Quiet possible would that be an issue?


 
Yes. The image circle would not cover the full frame sensor...


----------



## royalWITHcheese2

Sw1tchFX said:


> 14-24 f/2.8
> 
> 27-70 f/2.8
> 
> 70-200 f/2.8VR
> 
> 85mm f/1.8



That's what I would choose too. But probably not the 85mm, maybe a bigger telephoto.


----------



## Mav

My personal setup for my F100 at the moment:

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX, at 15-16mm.  It covers FX/film there, and it's an f/2.8!
Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 1:2 Macro.  Great little lens (equiv to 18-70DX)
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D, which is now "normal" on FX/film.  I love using this on both film as a normal, and on DX as a short tele.
Nikkor 70-300VR.  Haven't shot with this yet on the F100, but I plan to.

I'm pondering trading my 17-55DX for a 24-70 f/2.8 so that I can make dual use of it.  24mm is generally wide enough for me indoors, and a bit of extra reach (on DX) would be nice.  The 17-55 only works from 24mm onwards which is the same, but only 55mm at the long end isn't all that useful on FX/film.  Might as well just use the 50mm f/1.4 and move forward and back as needed.


----------



## Helen B

These are the lenses I use the most with my D3:

16 mm f/3.5 AI-S fisheye (possibly the best of the bunch of 16 mm fisheye Nikkors)
50 mm f/1.4 AF
60 mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor
85 mm f/1.4 AF
17-35 mm f/2.8

The 50 gets the most use, by far, followed by the 85. I got the D3 for its low light capability for documentary work, and those two lenses make the most of it.

Best,
Helen


----------



## TamiyaGuy

I'd agree with Sw1tchFX if you have a BIG budget, and Mav if you have a smaller budget. While there isn't a Nikon FX-sized superzoom avaliable, there are some Tamron lenses that are film-combatible and the equivalent of the 18-200 (28-300mm). However, these lenses are designed for cheap bodies, and, IMO, don't deserve to be used on a body like a D700 or D3. You would be much better off buying 3 or 4 lenses that cover those kinds of ranges.

Oh, and don't forget a 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 (maybe the 85mm f/1.8). Fantastic little portrait lens.


----------



## timbearden

Seems I'll be getting a 50mm f/1.4 or 1.8.  I have lenses to cover 18-300, I just need something like the 50 mm.....Now I just got to find a place that has it for a decent price.


----------



## delizo23

all you really need is the 12-300mm, f1.4
its a really good lens and very versatile, fast, and great build.
i keep it on my camera all of the time. i've never taken it off


----------

