D5200 to D800

munna1 · Mar 12, 2016

Hi all,

First time poster here long time reader. I brought my first DSLR 3 years ago a D5200 and have reached a point where I know exactly the type of photography I want to continue to peruse. I am not currently a pro but I do plan on trying to sell images soon.

I like to take vivid landscape photos, and find myself mainly shooting wide, at dawn, and dusk. Ninety percent of the time I use a tripod and the lowest ISO setting. More then half of my images involve blending exposures, and a high amount of post processing using Luminosity masks, Nik filters etc. I like to do my best to produce what I saw but sometimes I like to enhance while trying to keep it real. I have attached a couple of images as examples.

Just wondering how much more I would gain in regards to colour, dynamic range and photo quality for the type of photography I do. I have looked at the d7200 etc but I don't really see much of a leap forward in quality as it uses a similar sensor to my 5200.

I like to print large and plan to sell large prints of my landscapes so the 36mp sensor is an obvious advantage, also been able to bracket more then 3 exposures at a time would be a big help too.

Cost is the obvious factor here plus I currently have a nice collection of filters and lenses. After reading other posts it seems like I may not gain much using these lenses on a D800? Lenses are very expensive on a full frame but when funds permit id certainly upgrade my glass. In the interim the old DX glass would have to do. Would I gain anything at all with this glass on the D800 vs the D5200?

lenses include

sigma 17-50 2.8
sigma 10-20 4/5.8
nikon 35 1.8
nikon 50-300
I use the 2 sigma lenses 90 percent of the time.

Also what are the other advantages/disadvantages can I expect when upgrading.

thanks

BirgerH · Mar 13, 2016

munna1 said:
Hi all,

First time poster here long time reader. I brought my first DSLR 3 years ago a D5200 and have reached a point where I know exactly the type of photography I want to continue to peruse. I am not currently a pro but I do plan on trying to sell images soon.

I like to take vivid landscape photos, and find myself mainly shooting wide, at dawn, and dusk. Ninety percent of the time I use a tripod and the lowest ISO setting. More then half of my images involve blending exposures, and a high amount of post processing using Luminosity masks, Nik filters etc. I like to do my best to produce what I saw but sometimes I like to enhance while trying to keep it real. I have attached a couple of images as examples.

Just wondering how much more I would gain in regards to colour, dynamic range and photo quality for the type of photography I do. I have looked at the d7200 etc but I don't really see much of a leap forward in quality as it uses a similar sensor to my 5200.

I like to print large and plan to sell large prints of my landscapes so the 36mp sensor is an obvious advantage, also been able to bracket more then 3 exposures at a time would be a big help too.

Cost is the obvious factor here plus I currently have a nice collection of filters and lenses. After reading other posts it seems like I may not gain much using these lenses on a D800? Lenses are very expensive on a full frame but when funds permit id certainly upgrade my glass. In the interim the old DX glass would have to do. Would I gain anything at all with this glass on the D800 vs the D5200?

lenses include

sigma 17-50 2.8
sigma 10-20 4/5.8
nikon 35 1.8
nikon 50-300
I use the 2 sigma lenses 90 percent of the time.

Also what are the other advantages/disadvantages can I expect when upgrading.

thanks

No - not when using the D800 as a DX-camera - look:

Then look what happens, when we put in the D800 as an FX:

No way around using FX glass, I'm sorry

You could go for some older MF lenses - they are to be found sometimes very cheap on the used market - and AF is not the critical issue for a landscaper - not for me, anyway.

For a landscape photographer - specifically for wide landscapes - I can't find disadvantages to the FX - but you really don't need 36Mpix - the D750 or D610 will do perfect as so.

The charts are thanks to Bill Claff: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

BirgerH.

munna1 · Mar 13, 2016

Thanks BirgerH

The links to the pics appear to be broken but I see your point nothing to be gained using the dx glass.

Was wondering if perhaps I buy some FX glass first, but I have issues with this. One is that I have no built in focus meter on the 5200, so I would have to MF all of the time. I can do this but its a bit of a pain. Two would be and am I right in thinking? That I cant get and equivalent of a 10 - 20 using wide angle FX lenses on a DX body because of the crop factor. In saying this I guess it would still work as a mid wide and not a ultra wide? Can you guys recommend me some reasonable FX glass (bang for buck)

I thought I would gain a lot if I plan to print big with 36mp (d800) vs 24 (d610)? But perhaps better glass would make a bigger difference then the MP?

Cheers

shnitz · Mar 13, 2016

munna1 said:
Thanks BirgerH

The links to the pics appear to be broken but I see your point nothing to be gained using the dx glass.

Was wondering if perhaps I buy some FX glass first, but I have issues with this. One is that I have no built in focus meter on the 5200, so I would have to MF all of the time. I can do this but its a bit of a pain. Two would be and am I right in thinking? That I cant get and equivalent of a 10 - 20 using wide angle FX lenses on a DX body because of the crop factor. In saying this I guess it would still work as a mid wide and not a ultra wide? Can you guys recommend me some reasonable FX glass (bang for buck)

I thought I would gain a lot if I plan to print big with 36mp (d800) vs 24 (d610)? But perhaps better glass would make a bigger difference then the MP?

Cheers

The 14-24mm and 16-35mm on D800 are both essentially as wide as your Sigma 10-20mm on D5200, since your 10-20mm is equivalent to 15-30mm for a full frame setup. Replace the 17-50mm with something like the Nikon 24-120mm. Trying to buy a D800 to use exclusively DX glass is pointless. You'd have to replace every single one of your lenses. If you aren't ready to drop $8,000 to upgrade to full-frame, then don't waste your time. The D5200 can do what you need. If you really want, just stitch photos together, as a panorama tripod head is cheaper than re-investing into full frame.

Also, you don't understand autofocus systems. AF-S lenses will all autofocus on your camera, whether they are "FX" or "DX" designed. So, you could easily purchase the 16-35mm and get autofocus on your camera. But that brings up ANOTHER point. Why are you autofocusing for infinite depth of field images? You should be using the hyperfocal distance calculators to choose focus, so autofocus shouldn't matter (even though you'd still get it with any AF-S lenses.

Really, that's one of my frustrations with the D5x00 and D3x00 camera bodies. Everyone talks themselves into "needing" a better camera, so they justify it to themselves and others by touting the built-in focus motor of higher-end bodies. Let me be clear. The overwhelming majority of lustworthy lenses, of professionally used lenses are ALL lenses that would focus on your camera. Go to the FX forum and look at which lenses are being used and recommended. Far and away, they will be AF-S lenses. Today, if given the option, I don't know of many photographers that need a built-in motor, and I'd wager that many would be willing to give it up to save weight, reduce price, etc.

munna1 · Mar 13, 2016

shnitz said:
munna1 said:

Thanks BirgerH

The links to the pics appear to be broken but I see your point nothing to be gained using the dx glass.

Was wondering if perhaps I buy some FX glass first, but I have issues with this. One is that I have no built in focus meter on the 5200, so I would have to MF all of the time. I can do this but its a bit of a pain. Two would be and am I right in thinking? That I cant get and equivalent of a 10 - 20 using wide angle FX lenses on a DX body because of the crop factor. In saying this I guess it would still work as a mid wide and not a ultra wide? Can you guys recommend me some reasonable FX glass (bang for buck)

I thought I would gain a lot if I plan to print big with 36mp (d800) vs 24 (d610)? But perhaps better glass would make a bigger difference then the MP?

Cheers

Click to expand...

The 14-24mm and 16-35mm on D800 are both essentially as wide as your Sigma 10-20mm on D5200, since your 10-20mm is equivalent to 15-30mm for a full frame setup. Replace the 17-50mm with something like the Nikon 24-120mm. Trying to buy a D800 to use exclusively DX glass is pointless. You'd have to replace every single one of your lenses. If you aren't ready to drop $8,000 to upgrade to full-frame, then don't waste your time. The D5200 can do what you need. If you really want, just stitch photos together, as a panorama tripod head is cheaper than re-investing into full frame.

Also, you don't understand autofocus systems. AF-S lenses will all autofocus on your camera, whether they are "FX" or "DX" designed. So, you could easily purchase the 16-35mm and get autofocus on your camera. But that brings up ANOTHER point. Why are you autofocusing for infinite depth of field images? You should be using the hyperfocal distance calculators to choose focus, so autofocus shouldn't matter (even though you'd still get it with any AF-S lenses.

Really, that's one of my frustrations with the D5x00 and D3x00 camera bodies. Everyone talks themselves into "needing" a better camera, so they justify it to themselves and others by touting the built-in focus motor of higher-end bodies. Let me be clear. The overwhelming majority of lustworthy lenses, of professionally used lenses are ALL lenses that would focus on your camera. Go to the FX forum and look at which lenses are being used and recommended. Far and away, they will be AF-S lenses. Today, if given the option, I don't know of many photographers that need a built-in motor, and I'd wager that many would be willing to give it up to save weight, reduce price, etc.

Thanks Shnitz,

Understand what you are saying in the first paragraph, but stitching the pics together while shooting HDR and blending is not possible in many situations, and very difficult in others. Plus its not only the width of the shot but the different perspectives of wide angle lenses. Using a longer lens and stitching results in an image with less depth. Sometimes this can be a good thing, most often in my case not.

I have an understanding know after using this http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/ on how an FX lens would work on DX in regards to focal length. Yes, I use manual focus a lot but don't tend to use hyperfocal distance calculators very often. With the ever changing light at sunrise and sunset I still find myself moving around a lot changing comp.

So mucking around with HF distance calculators would often have me missing shots. I do however have a pretty good feel on where to focus and at what aperture. Sometimes Im sure I could have possibly used a different aperture and and had less diffraction. But again with ever changing light I may have missed the shot.

I have not looked into FX lenses as of yet and not sure if I understand what you are saying. But are you saying that most good quality FX lenses have a built in focus motor anyway? and therefore AF will work fine on my DX?

Cheers

bluestarc2k · Mar 13, 2016

I might be wrong here, but I've been told some DX lenses are too deep for a FX camera and may damage the camera. Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

munna1 · Mar 14, 2016

bluestarc2k said:
I might be wrong here, but I've been told some DX lenses are too deep for a FX camera and may damage the camera. Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

mosswings · Mar 14, 2016

munna1 said:
bluestarc2k said:

I might be wrong here, but I've been told some DX lenses are too deep for a FX camera and may damage the camera. Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

BirgerH · Mar 14, 2016

munna1 said:
Thanks BirgerH

The links to the pics appear to be broken but I see your point nothing to be gained using the dx glass.

Not when I'm trying.

You come to the site of the charts - then you have to put in the cameras, you want to compare

munna1 said:
Was wondering if perhaps I buy some FX glass first, but I have issues with this. One is that I have no built in focus meter on the 5200, so I would have to MF all of the time. I can do this but its a bit of a pain. Two would be and am I right in thinking? That I cant get and equivalent of a 10 - 20 using wide angle FX lenses on a DX body because of the crop factor. In saying this I guess it would still work as a mid wide and not a ultra wide? Can you guys recommend me some reasonable FX glass (bang for buck)

I thought I would gain a lot if I plan to print big with 36mp (d800) vs 24 (d610)? But perhaps better glass would make a bigger difference then the MP?

Cheers

BirgerH.

patriot07 · Mar 14, 2016

shnitz said:
munna1 said:

Thanks BirgerH

The links to the pics appear to be broken but I see your point nothing to be gained using the dx glass.

Was wondering if perhaps I buy some FX glass first, but I have issues with this. One is that I have no built in focus meter on the 5200, so I would have to MF all of the time. I can do this but its a bit of a pain. Two would be and am I right in thinking? That I cant get and equivalent of a 10 - 20 using wide angle FX lenses on a DX body because of the crop factor. In saying this I guess it would still work as a mid wide and not a ultra wide? Can you guys recommend me some reasonable FX glass (bang for buck)

I thought I would gain a lot if I plan to print big with 36mp (d800) vs 24 (d610)? But perhaps better glass would make a bigger difference then the MP?

Cheers

Click to expand...

The 14-24mm and 16-35mm on D800 are both essentially as wide as your Sigma 10-20mm on D5200, since your 10-20mm is equivalent to 15-30mm for a full frame setup. Replace the 17-50mm with something like the Nikon 24-120mm. Trying to buy a D800 to use exclusively DX glass is pointless. You'd have to replace every single one of your lenses. If you aren't ready to drop $8,000 to upgrade to full-frame, then don't waste your time. The D5200 can do what you need. If you really want, just stitch photos together, as a panorama tripod head is cheaper than re-investing into full frame.

Also, you don't understand autofocus systems. AF-S lenses will all autofocus on your camera, whether they are "FX" or "DX" designed. So, you could easily purchase the 16-35mm and get autofocus on your camera. But that brings up ANOTHER point. Why are you autofocusing for infinite depth of field images? You should be using the hyperfocal distance calculators to choose focus, so autofocus shouldn't matter (even though you'd still get it with any AF-S lenses.

Really, that's one of my frustrations with the D5x00 and D3x00 camera bodies. Everyone talks themselves into "needing" a better camera, so they justify it to themselves and others by touting the built-in focus motor of higher-end bodies. Let me be clear. The overwhelming majority of lustworthy lenses, of professionally used lenses are ALL lenses that would focus on your camera. Go to the FX forum and look at which lenses are being used and recommended. Far and away, they will be AF-S lenses. Today, if given the option, I don't know of many photographers that need a built-in motor, and I'd wager that many would be willing to give it up to save weight, reduce price, etc.

Yes, but the focus motor opens up a ton of options. I'm looking at the 80-200 f2.8 that I can get for about $650 used. A 70-200 f2.8 for $2k+ isn't an option at all for me, so having a focus motor in my D7100 is the only reason an f2.8 tele is something I can consider.

whimsicalmike · Mar 14, 2016

shnitz said:
Let me be clear. The overwhelming majority of lustworthy lenses, of professionally used lenses are ALL lenses that would focus on your camera.

Many people may not agree with that

Unless you have the funds to upgrade to the newest many legacy lenses are still in bags.

Then there are some that have never been updated. 105 and 135 F2 DC. All the old D primes Many thousands of those still in regular use and a lot cheaper than the latest.

Can build up a nice kit of glass at a reasonable price if the body has the motor

munna1 · Mar 14, 2016

mosswings said:
munna1 said:

bluestarc2k said:

I might be wrong here, but I've been told some DX lenses are too deep for a FX camera and may damage the camera. Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

shnitz · Mar 14, 2016

munna1 said:
Thanks Shnitz,

Understand what you are saying in the first paragraph, but stitching the pics together while shooting HDR and blending is not possible in many situations, and very difficult in others. Plus its not only the width of the shot but the different perspectives of wide angle lenses. Using a longer lens and stitching results in an image with less depth. Sometimes this can be a good thing, most often in my case not.

I have an understanding know after using this http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/ on how an FX lens would work on DX in regards to focal length. Yes, I use manual focus a lot but don't tend to use hyperfocal distance calculators very often. With the ever changing light at sunrise and sunset I still find myself moving around a lot changing comp.

So mucking around with HF distance calculators would often have me missing shots. I do however have a pretty good feel on where to focus and at what aperture. Sometimes Im sure I could have possibly used a different aperture and and had less diffraction. But again with ever changing light I may have missed the shot.

I have not looked into FX lenses as of yet and not sure if I understand what you are saying. But are you saying that most good quality FX lenses have a built in focus motor anyway? and therefore AF will work fine on my DX?

Cheers

OK, if you can't stitch, and you want to "correctly" upgrade to full frame, then 100% of your lenses need to be replaced, simple as that. They all only cover a DX sensor, and there is no point in upgrading to full frame just to use a 10-20mm, 17-50mm, 35mm, and 55-200mm, as you'll just LOSE resolution. In DX mode, you'll only be using ~40% of the D800's sensor with those lenses, so all of those image quality increases that you paid for just flew out the window, since you're not normalizing the readings to the size of the sensor. The proof was shown to you in graphs above.

And you are correct in your last sentence, so let me state it again, as you have: Most quality full frame lenses are AF-S, so they have a built-in focus motor. They will all focus fine on your camera. Again, go look at the recommended lenses various websites. 16-35mm, 14-24mm, 24-70mm, 24-120mm, 70-200mm f/2.8, etc. etc. etc. etc. All of the lenses are AF-S.

shnitz · Mar 14, 2016

munna1 said:
bluestarc2k said:

I might be wrong here, but I've been told some DX lenses are too deep for a FX camera and may damage the camera. Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

shnitz · Mar 14, 2016

patriot07 said:
shnitz said:

munna1 said:

Thanks BirgerH

The links to the pics appear to be broken but I see your point nothing to be gained using the dx glass.

Was wondering if perhaps I buy some FX glass first, but I have issues with this. One is that I have no built in focus meter on the 5200, so I would have to MF all of the time. I can do this but its a bit of a pain. Two would be and am I right in thinking? That I cant get and equivalent of a 10 - 20 using wide angle FX lenses on a DX body because of the crop factor. In saying this I guess it would still work as a mid wide and not a ultra wide? Can you guys recommend me some reasonable FX glass (bang for buck)

I thought I would gain a lot if I plan to print big with 36mp (d800) vs 24 (d610)? But perhaps better glass would make a bigger difference then the MP?

Cheers

Click to expand...

The 14-24mm and 16-35mm on D800 are both essentially as wide as your Sigma 10-20mm on D5200, since your 10-20mm is equivalent to 15-30mm for a full frame setup. Replace the 17-50mm with something like the Nikon 24-120mm. Trying to buy a D800 to use exclusively DX glass is pointless. You'd have to replace every single one of your lenses. If you aren't ready to drop $8,000 to upgrade to full-frame, then don't waste your time. The D5200 can do what you need. If you really want, just stitch photos together, as a panorama tripod head is cheaper than re-investing into full frame.

Also, you don't understand autofocus systems. AF-S lenses will all autofocus on your camera, whether they are "FX" or "DX" designed. So, you could easily purchase the 16-35mm and get autofocus on your camera. But that brings up ANOTHER point. Why are you autofocusing for infinite depth of field images? You should be using the hyperfocal distance calculators to choose focus, so autofocus shouldn't matter (even though you'd still get it with any AF-S lenses.

Really, that's one of my frustrations with the D5x00 and D3x00 camera bodies. Everyone talks themselves into "needing" a better camera, so they justify it to themselves and others by touting the built-in focus motor of higher-end bodies. Let me be clear. The overwhelming majority of lustworthy lenses, of professionally used lenses are ALL lenses that would focus on your camera. Go to the FX forum and look at which lenses are being used and recommended. Far and away, they will be AF-S lenses. Today, if given the option, I don't know of many photographers that need a built-in motor, and I'd wager that many would be willing to give it up to save weight, reduce price, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the focus motor opens up a ton of options. I'm looking at the 80-200 f2.8 that I can get for about $650 used. A 70-200 f2.8 for $2k+ isn't an option at all for me, so having a focus motor in my D7100 is the only reason an f2.8 tele is something I can consider.

So why is the 80-200mm okay to buy used, but the 70-200mm has to be purchased at full retail? You could buy a used 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII as well, and still pay more, but the difference is much smaller. Also, the lens brand new is "only" $1,900 inside of the United States right now because of Nikon's discounts, so someone's ripping you off if you're getting charged over $2,000 today.

The 80-200mm f/2.8 doesn't have image stabilization, has no weather sealing, doesn't have quite the image quality (the optic design is oh, about 30 years old, before they started taking sensors into account for lens design), has noisy and slower focus, etc. You could also consider the Tamron or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 on sale for not too much more, and gain a lot; both have ultrasonic motors for focus. And since you have a DX camera, you could ALSO consider the first-gen 70-200mm f/2.8 which works 100% fine on DX cameras. No one is CHOOSING the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D over AF-S lenses, they're SETTLING for it.

shnitz · Mar 14, 2016

whimsicalmike said:
shnitz said:

Let me be clear. The overwhelming majority of lustworthy lenses, of professionally used lenses are ALL lenses that would focus on your camera.

Click to expand...

Many people may not agree with that

Unless you have the funds to upgrade to the newest many legacy lenses are still in bags.

Then there are some that have never been updated. 105 and 135 F2 DC. All the old D primes Many thousands of those still in regular use and a lot cheaper than the latest.

Can build up a nice kit of glass at a reasonable price if the body has the motor

Well, the overwhelming majority do agree. Go to any wedding, sports event, place where photojournalists congregate, etc and you'll find AF-S lenses are what make up most people's kits. Especially since the AF-S versions have enough improved image quality and features that even without AF-S they'd still be worth picking up. Examples are the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, the wide angle zooms that I've already mentioned, all of the midrange zooms, most every telephoto lens (except for the 3 I mention below), etc.

The 105mm DC, 135mm DC, and 180mm are essentially the exceptions to the rule. For various reasons, Nikon has never saw fit to upgrade those lenses. Those are, however, in the overwhelming minority. For every one of those lenses purchased, I'd bet that there are over 20 copies of the 70-200mm f/2.8.

toomanycanons · Mar 14, 2016

You'll gain some cropability but don't expect to be blown away by "better" dynamic range or IQ. Your D5200 is better than you think and can do exactly what you want it to. You started off shooting with DSLRs with a great camera.

patriot07 · Mar 14, 2016

shnitz said:
patriot07 said:

shnitz said:

munna1 said:

Thanks BirgerH

The links to the pics appear to be broken but I see your point nothing to be gained using the dx glass.

Was wondering if perhaps I buy some FX glass first, but I have issues with this. One is that I have no built in focus meter on the 5200, so I would have to MF all of the time. I can do this but its a bit of a pain. Two would be and am I right in thinking? That I cant get and equivalent of a 10 - 20 using wide angle FX lenses on a DX body because of the crop factor. In saying this I guess it would still work as a mid wide and not a ultra wide? Can you guys recommend me some reasonable FX glass (bang for buck)

I thought I would gain a lot if I plan to print big with 36mp (d800) vs 24 (d610)? But perhaps better glass would make a bigger difference then the MP?

Cheers

Click to expand...

The 14-24mm and 16-35mm on D800 are both essentially as wide as your Sigma 10-20mm on D5200, since your 10-20mm is equivalent to 15-30mm for a full frame setup. Replace the 17-50mm with something like the Nikon 24-120mm. Trying to buy a D800 to use exclusively DX glass is pointless. You'd have to replace every single one of your lenses. If you aren't ready to drop $8,000 to upgrade to full-frame, then don't waste your time. The D5200 can do what you need. If you really want, just stitch photos together, as a panorama tripod head is cheaper than re-investing into full frame.

Also, you don't understand autofocus systems. AF-S lenses will all autofocus on your camera, whether they are "FX" or "DX" designed. So, you could easily purchase the 16-35mm and get autofocus on your camera. But that brings up ANOTHER point. Why are you autofocusing for infinite depth of field images? You should be using the hyperfocal distance calculators to choose focus, so autofocus shouldn't matter (even though you'd still get it with any AF-S lenses.

Really, that's one of my frustrations with the D5x00 and D3x00 camera bodies. Everyone talks themselves into "needing" a better camera, so they justify it to themselves and others by touting the built-in focus motor of higher-end bodies. Let me be clear. The overwhelming majority of lustworthy lenses, of professionally used lenses are ALL lenses that would focus on your camera. Go to the FX forum and look at which lenses are being used and recommended. Far and away, they will be AF-S lenses. Today, if given the option, I don't know of many photographers that need a built-in motor, and I'd wager that many would be willing to give it up to save weight, reduce price, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the focus motor opens up a ton of options. I'm looking at the 80-200 f2.8 that I can get for about $650 used. A 70-200 f2.8 for $2k+ isn't an option at all for me, so having a focus motor in my D7100 is the only reason an f2.8 tele is something I can consider.

Click to expand...

So why is the 80-200mm okay to buy used, but the 70-200mm has to be purchased at full retail? You could buy a used 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII as well, and still pay more, but the difference is much smaller. Also, the lens brand new is "only" $1,900 inside of the United States right now because of Nikon's discounts, so someone's ripping you off if you're getting charged over $2,000 today.

The 80-200mm f/2.8 doesn't have image stabilization, has no weather sealing, doesn't have quite the image quality (the optic design is oh, about 30 years old, before they started taking sensors into account for lens design), has noisy and slower focus, etc. You could also consider the Tamron or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 on sale for not too much more, and gain a lot; both have ultrasonic motors for focus. And since you have a DX camera, you could ALSO consider the first-gen 70-200mm f/2.8 which works 100% fine on DX cameras. No one is CHOOSING the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D over AF-S lenses, they're SETTLING for it.

Of course I'm settling for it. But my point is that the AF-S lens isn't even an option. Even used, it's well over double the price. No way I'm spending $1,000+ on any lens. And I don't buy off-brand. I want guaranteed compatibility. And there are already known issues with Sigma and my D7100.

ETA: Let me explain this a different way - if you want the ultimate in image quality, get the D800 with a 70-200 f2.8 VRII, and the focus motor in the D800 is irrelevant. In reality, almost everybody is on a budget, and being able to buy cheap, older glass because you have a focus motor is a meaningful advantage for people like me who are on a really tight budget.

bluestarc2k · Mar 14, 2016

Thanks mosswings, the reason I mentioned it is that I was looking at the D750 in a camera store and wanted to try my kit lens on it and the staff said it might damage the camera and wouldn't let me try my lens on it.

mosswings · Mar 14, 2016

munna1 said:
mosswings said:

munna1 said:

bluestarc2k said:

I might be wrong here, but I've been told some DX lenses are too deep for a FX camera and may damage the camera. Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

D5200 to D800

Member

Veteran Member

Attachments

Member

Well-known member

Member

Senior Member

Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts