Quote:
Originally Posted by badpickev
sort of; of all my gear, i only have 2 DX lenses. These are the 18-50 f2.8 and the 18-125. all of my bodies are dx bodies. thus the 18-50 is really the dx version of my 28-75. so if i go to film or FF i am still set. remember to always think about the FOV of your lenses when on a dx camera.
|
right , but how do you calculate the FOV is it just the mulitplier of 1.5 or is there more ?
[Qoute]
ahh so then the 28-105 and sigma 28-200 would be 2 i sell of, if i were in your shoes. if you like a lens, keep it.
[/quote}
the sigma 28-105 is a different lens than the sigma 28-200 , both have there plus and min
left is the 28-200 dc macro right is the 28-105 UC III
Quote:
for me no, they all are DX cameras. the S3 and S5 are the famed fuji SR sensor with 2 extra stops of highlight dr
yes i have a sigma 70-300 and the vr one. i have tested a lot of 70-300 lenses. the vr is tops followed by the nikon D version then the sigma APO. these are the top 3. so replacing your G version with the VR would be a step up and works with all your cameras.
|
Yeah but 95 % of my images barely go beyond 70mm (aka 105mm ff) so i use tele not that much to make it worth to buy the vr version also
Quote:
that really is the issue. the 12-24 is a FF lens. so if i go film i have 12mm on dx is like 18mm. the 18-50 is 2.8 as is the 28-75. while most folks will say the dupe, one is FF and the other is DX. both lenses are f2.8, i would not sell them to replace with something other than a f2.8 lens. I am looking at getting the sigma 24-70 f2.8 to replace the 28-75. i also am looking at getting the 70-200vr, this will over lap my 120-300 f2.8 but the vr makes it a much more useful lens. my stable hands, i hand hold my bigma at 500mm
if you think about my advise: i kept the ff glass separate from your dx glass. i did this because in the next few years i am betting most of us will have moved to ff digital because the costs will have come way down.
so back to you, the 16-85vr is the dx version of the 24-120vr. so most folks will jump all over it. but here is my case for the 24-120vr. on a dx camera its fov is like a 36-180mm with vr added it makes for a compelling rang. and i remember when 35mm was wide angle. a lot of landscape photogs i know shoot most of their landscapes with a 35mm lens.
so i think upgrading your 70-300 to the vr version is a good move, from there a hard think about the 24-120 vr and then for wildlife the 80-400 or one of the sigmas. and you will have vr lenses from 18-400. the huge over lap of the 70-300 and the 80-400 is the weight. once you heft the 80-400 you will understand that you will not want to use it everyday.
|
It changes to know that there is light sensative glass .. to get a tad better you have to invest more.
Yeah i have heard about the 24-12 vr and perhaps go for that if i can get my hands on it for a reasonable price ( even the previous year i didn't won the lottery)
happy new year and happy shooting