Part II: Nikon wasting time & resources on a BS retro camera

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
John Tangney
Senior MemberPosts: 1,377
Like?
Re: Seems clear to me.
In reply to yray, 10 months ago

You say "rather spend on an FX 24-120/4 than on DX 16-85/4". However, that is a very apples to oranges comparison! the 16-85 on DX gives roughly the same coverage as the 24-120, when the 24-120 is on an FX body, on a DX body, the 24-120 gives roughly a 36-180 coverage, no where near wide enough for what the 16-85 is used for!

I totally agree that once you get into telephoto range, then you may as well buy an FX lens, as a true 300 mm telephoto designed just for DX would not be mush smaller than one designed for FX.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
D610New
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow