The Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens, have owned it for many many years now, been shooting it with my D500 "which I recently killed during a mishap, slipping on a some ice covered boulders this past winter trying to get closer to my subject, camera took the brunt of the force as gravity propelled my rear end to the ground, camera hit the boulder, ripped the camera mount off the camera as I was holding the lens, camera then took a swim in icy salt water, now that is how you kill a camera". I still use the lens with my D850 and recently acquired Z9 in DX mode.
Certainly sounds like a comprehensive way to wreck a camera! I'm jealous of the Z9 though. I think when they make a similar camera in a smaller body (like they did with the D500), it will be my next upgrade. Thanks for watching. 😊
I have had a Nikon 17 55 since I bought my D200 all those years ago. Superb pro lens with performance and weight to match the best of them. Full metal construction and a superb lens hood which is effective. Once Nikon lenses were made like this.
The 18-55mm AF-P DX weights only 240g (compared to this 751g!), costs a fraction of this and serves the same purpose for most shooters, AND has VR (Vibration Reduction) built-in, so that's something to definitely consider as well! Although it's a kit lens, it's very sharp and has great macro! It's downside is it's plastic build though and it's also lacking a bit on contrast and has some distortion. But these can be fixed in post. You can get these lenses for around 60$ used.
The 18~55 is made of plastic, 17~55 is a true pro grade lens made of metal and is weather sealed, hence the 750gr weight. It is a heavy lens but it balanced well when I had my D200/D300 with grip. As a carry around lens for casual shooting the 18~55 is ideal.@@Sc0pee
@n5762 Yeah, like I mentioned it's one downside is it's plastic build. The weather sealing doesn't help though, if your camera isn't weather sealed but I guess you could use a bag or cover of some sorts to "weather seal" your camera. Pretty sure they sell them somewhere but it would be a bit clunky I think.
I have the 18-140 - it's a very versatile lens, although my personal copy isn't particularly sharp at some focal lengths, compared to some of my other lenses. Great for travel though. Thanks for watching. 😊
I also have the Nikkor AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED lens and its the one I have on the camera most of the time great piece of kit.Another lens I like take with me is a Nikon Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G ED VR, I use this one for birds and animals which I dont like to disturbed and as I am disabled and have walking problems I have to use walking aids on good days, I also have a Kenco 1.4x teleplus MC4 DGX convertor which I can use on the 70-300mm. Thanks for the great review in these lenses be lucky and be safe. from Kent uk.
The 17-55 was the first nice zoom lense I ever owned, When i switched from a D7000 to a D700 i stopped using it. The D700 camera remains one of my favourite cameras, but with an already low res sensor, it was not worth ever using on crop mode (although stopped down this lens will cover the full frame) . A few years ago when everyone switched to mirrorless i picked up a D810 for cheap, and on DX crop mode you still get a 15mp image, which is plenty big enough (more resolution than FX mode on the D700 and about the same resolution as my old d7000), and I fell in love with the 17-55mm again. I have better lenses now, but theres something about this one that makes like it and continue to use it. I think it's nostalgia from the first nice zoom lens that i ever had.
Great stuff! But I must comment on one of your choices. Instead of a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 I would strongly recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC. Not only does it add vibration control, it’s faster focusing, just as sharp and half the price of the Nikkor.
A good video for us DX shooters, thanks Robert. The 17-55mm f2.8 will definitely be one to look out for. I already have the 55-200mm 1:4-5:6 II ED which I think is a great lens for the money, ok so it has a plastic mount but I've not had any issues. I'm also considering the recent Nikon AF-P DX 10-20mm 4:4-5:6 G lens - a wide angle for landscapes, very similar to the Tokina but £260 new and gets good reviews.
Cheers Andrew. I have the 10-20 - not a bad lens at all, but I prefer the Tokina, especially with that 2.8 aperture. Not tried the 55-200, might have to look out for that one. I have the 18-140 and like to use that as a light weight travel lens. Cheers for for watching. 😊
I can vouch for the Tokina 11-16. I bought it many years ago when I bought my first DSLR, a Nikon D5100. Part of the decision to go for the Tokina was that it will cover a full frame sensor at 16mm and I was sure that I would eventually go that way. If anyone is considering this lens, the mark 1 requires a screw drive in your body. The mark two has its own focus motor and improved coatings. I went for the mark 2. Manual focussing wouldn't be a problem 95% of the time, but the f2.8 did make it a useful lens indoors where autofocus was handy. I did go full frame eventually and it did indeed provide me with a 15,5mm-16mm f2,8 zoom 'prime'!
I love my 70-300 lens. Bird photography now makes sense, when I can finally get some distance between me and my easily startled subjects. I'm planning on getting a 35mm F/1.8, finally trying out prime lens might be fun.
For me (as the budget minded photo hobbyist) it's the kit lens : 18-55mm VR II and 55-200mm VR II. It's really-really sharp, light and focus real quick (not to mention again.. cheap). Along with super affordable 50mm f1.4 afd, you got a really killer combo lens for 99% of photo scenario. With good high ISO performance of current camera (+VR lens), low light isn't much of an issue anymore. For bokehlicious portrait, 50mm f1.4D (which eqv. 75mm in 35mm focal length) come in handy.
Thanks for this video. I'm late to the Nikon game but on the flip side, Nikon's dslr gear is super affordable now. I've aquired the D300s and your video has been a great help for DX lenses. Your photographs are fantastic btw.
That's great. If you're thinking of picking up any of these lenses, just double check their compatibility with the D300s. I think most should work fine, but the 70-300 might be an exception. Thanks for watching. 😊
I haven't tried the 16-80, but I might look out for a good used one. I'd love to get a shot of the aurora - still waiting for that one! Thanks for watching. 😊
I like the 16-80 F2,8 - F4. Not the cheapest DX Lens but really good! And the 10-20mm AF-P Wide Angle is a no brainer for it´s price, which also applies to the 35mm F1.8 of course.
The 16-80 has a great range for its size - an awesome travel lens. I prefer the Tokina to the Nikon 10-20, but as you say, it's a good lens for the money. The 35mm I would pay more for and still be happy! Thanks for watching. 😊
Thanks Robert I have just upgraded from my D3200 to a D7500 and bought a new 18-140 Nikkor that I have used successfully for a Matric dance shoot and a groom shoot where my son got married. I will probably go for the AF-P 70-300 ED VR now.
I'm sure you'll find the D7500 a big improvement Michael. The 18-140 is a great all round lens - really good for travel since it's so small and light but covers a big focal range. The 70-300 is really good too - great for bird photography. Thanks for watching. 😊
After watching a ton of "Best lens for a Nikon " I purchased a 17-55mm 2.8 and WOW what a fine lens it is !😁 and only $327. from Japan in two days... no Duty.
Some great lenses to be had for DX Nikon cameras with autofocus motors, one of which is the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. No VR, which I never found to be a problem at these focal lengths. This lens is less than half the cost of the Nikon equivalent, lighter and more compact. Sharp throughout the focal range, even wide open.
Many thanks for this video! I have a classic 12-24mm wide angle: unfiotunately my Nikon D7200 went to camera heaven, and I am now using it on my full-frame Nikon D750.. so far, so good, it gives me an 18-35mm perspective!
Ended up with the Sigma 50-150 F2.8 DC and a tele-converter - of course the tele-converter said Nikon fit, but that was camera NOT the lenses. the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 and the 50-150 F2.8 are both sharper than my Nikon DX lenses both marvellous.
I recently brought the 17-55 f2.8 off the back of this video. First impressions are really good. I'm not sure I would have been aware of this lens if I hadn't of watched this video, so thanks 🙂
I just bought the 35mm f/1.8G (used) for 80 euros and I'm already loving it! This is a great time to buy quality "vintage" stuff now that people sell their old gear while upgrading to mirrorles cameras.
The 17-55 f2.8 and 35mm 1.8 dx are the only two nikon dx lenses I consider for my D500. Otherwise I use my fullframe lenses ( and yes I shoot fullframe also). I even use the Nikon 14-24 on my D500 and yes it is not the most widest on dx (21mm fullframe equivalent) but there are in my opinion not many other good options for wideangle. Used the Tokina 11-16 but the Nikon 14-24 smokes it in the IQ, AF consistency and edge to edge to sharpness department.
That's true, FX lenses are the best for both FX and DX cameras. As for wide angle I use Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 EX DC OS lens on my D500, it's initially built for crop cameras and gives the wonderful picture.
With all my respect to Robert, yet the best lenses for my D500 are ones of 'golden trinity' , especially 70-200 reaching real 300 mm focus and wonderful 24-70. Those lenses are the best ones in respect of both autofocusing and picture quality. DX camera is using the best central part of FX lense, and this provides the best picture possible.
Great choice of lenses. As a DX user myself, I liked my Sigma 17-70 until last month when it decided to let me down after I hiked for ages to get a shot. "No lens attached" error lol. Upon getting home a tiny screw fell out the lens... that's never a good thing. In your video, the Tokina seemed very sharp. Same for the Nikor 35mm but you can expect that from a prime. Great location for your shots.
Yeah, defo not a good sign when a screw falls out! Maybe a camera shop could fix it if it's not too serious? The Tokina is great in the sharpness department - just got to watch out for that chromatic aberration! Can't really fault the 35mm though. Thanks for watching. 😊
Hi Robert -- You've offered some interesting DX lens choices here. As an engineer and former professional photographer, I suspect I've seen just about every photography trend and fashion around. Sadly, media buzz and internet folklore seem to drive much of this nonsense. If photo gadgets are considered rare, unique, esoteric or hyper-expensive, they must be good, right? Like many aspects of living in post-truth America, these widely circulated photo fictions are often based upon promotion, popularity, and mystique rather than hard facts and the performance reality of using the product or technique. Case in point, I'm wondering about your recommendation of the obsolete Nikkor AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED at 3.6" length & 26.6 oz weight at $1,497 new (about $300 mint used) --- versus the equally optically superior, smaller and very affordable Nikkor AF-P DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR at 2.5" length & 7.3 oz weight at $250 new. Your recommended lens with a fixed f/2.8 aperture may offer a very slight fraction-of-a-stop low-light advantage. However, the size, weight and cost of this beasty lens does in no way produce better images (see the widely available performance specs on these two lenses). Besides, most all Nikon lens aberrations can be automatically corrected in camera, if not through post processing. It's very fashionable these days to bash kit lenses as inadequate pieces of junk. However, many knowledgeable pros are aware of the superior performance of the AF-P DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR --- with its VR stabilization, instantaneous pulse focus motor, ultra small and lightweight profile, and its remarkable optical performance. It focuses so close you probably won't need a macro lens. It even provides instant manual-focus override. No other mini-zoom even comes close. Choosing this lens should be a no-brainer. Frankly, carrying this tiny kit lens along with the equally superior and small kit Nikkor AF-S DX 55-200mm F4-5.6G ED VR at $250 is probably all the lenses the vast majority of serious DX hobbyists or pros will ever actually need. Just a thought. Dr. A
Thanks for the input. As I said in the video, this is just my opinion, and a few of my favourite lenses. I also didn't necessarily base everything on optical quality alone - I like the build quality of the 17-55 for example. Not sure if you're suggesting that I am bashing kit lenses, but to be clear, I'm definitely not. I use the 24-70 F4 Z lens a lot, although I actually prefer the 24-200 for its versatility. I'm sure the 18-55 can be a very good lens, but I haven't personally tried it. Thanks for watching. 😊
Great video Robert. Looks like a great range of lenses. I really like that 17-55mm, the images with it were beautiful. Also really liked the 70-300mm. I use a Sony 70-300, it's one of my favorite lenses to use for landscape photography and looks like this Nikon 70-300 does a great job as well. Lovely location and some really great images throughout this video! Hope you are doing well and keeping safe mate!
Cheers Paul. There are definitely better lenses than the Nikon 70-300 DX. But when you consider the price and how light and compact it is, you realise you get a lot of bang for your buck. Thanks for watching mate. 😊
Fantastic - I think a DSLR can offer quite a lot more than a phone camera. Being able to swap between some of these great lenses is just one of those benefits. Thanks for watching and have fun. 😊
If you want to go that "swiss army knife" route today you should probably go with the Nikon 18-300mm VR f/3.5-6.3 DX AF-S G ED which is (from what I read) pretty much the same but with longer focal length (and is newer!). It's even 15g lighter than the 18-200mm (550g vs 565g)! Both are pretty heavy. It's too bad that it doesn't have the new AF-P motor which can't be beat both in focusing speed and silence! Comparing to these the video's AF-P 70-300mm is optically far superior (especially at the longer end!), as well as lighter. It's actually stupidly sharp and has a nice contrast and color reproduction for something that cheap! Neither of these offer good low light capabilities either, for that the 35mm 1.8G is pretty nice... Don't get me wrong these Nikon zoom lenses are nice and I have used one as well but there's always trade offs with these "super zooms" so you can't get everything with them...
I bought the 35mm F1.9 used because it was very cheep. I did not shoot with it for age's when I finally put it on my camera it amazed me how sharp it is. It's on my camera more than any other lens now.
I just got the Nikkor DX 35mm f 1.8g, and it's definitely an amazingly fun and flexible lens, and great value for money. My other lens for my D3200 is a SIGMA 18-200MM F/3.5-6.3 DC MACRO OS HSM. Amazing travel lens because you can do so much with it. Only downside is that it's a bit slow.
@@Robert-Bishop The real issue is that it's such a flexible lens that I've held off on buying more specialised lenses for years because it's such a generalist. So I've missed out on what you can achive with a more specialised lens with a bigger apeture.
a superb lens is the Nikkor 40mm F2.8 Micro AFS DX....Is a real 1 to 1 macro on top of being a super shar equivalent of 60mm crop factor. And is not too expensive I bought mine on eBay for $119 in mint conditions.
With the exception of the 17-55mm I own all the lenses you mentioned and some more. The 18-200mm is a nice all around lens and my favorite for travel. Also the 12-24mm f4 is the one I use for landscapes. Finally the tamron 18-400 is the next best option instead of the 18-200.
Thanks for the tips, definitely a few I need to check out there. If you get chance to pick up a 17-55, I definitely recommend it. Though as I said in the video - it's very heavy! Thanks for watching. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop I know that the 17-55mm is considered the best dx lens out there but it’s also pricey or at least it used to be. I think I’m done with dx lenses. The next purchase in the future is going to be a mirrorless full frame camera. 😀
I shoot on a Nikon D800E. It's... flat out... amazing. And with a wide variety of DC and DG lenses (as well as DX) ... I'm good to go. I love my Sigma 35mm 1.4 full frame lens.
Nice. I like a 35mm on crop sensor cameras. Close to the nifty fifty field of view and great for almost all kinds of photography. Thanks for watching. 😊
Hey, fantastic review, I personally use my kit 18-140mm DX VR Nikkor and I have captured some amazing shots on it which I have even been able to print VERY big. I also use a 50mm f1.8 by Nikon but I get so much chromatic aberration in that one. I am wondering if the 35mm f.18 would have the same issue?
Thanks Sebastian. I like the 18-140 too. It's perhaps not the sharpest lens, but it's very light and has a great zoom range. I can't say I've noticed too much of a problem with chromatic aberration when using the 35mm. I usually just get rid of it in Lightroom though, if I do get some.
My Mum had a D610 and a D80... She sold them both even though I told her I wanted a camera. I've been using my phones camera for years to do interesting nature photographs. I live in a rugged and beautiful coastal area here. So last week I decided to buy my own DSLR. I ordered a D3000 with a DX 18-105mm lens for super cheap. Hoping it is in ok shape when I get it tomorrow. The person selling it was not a photographer so hopefully not too high shutter number.
tengo la Nikon D3200 que venia con los lentes 18-55 5.6 y 55-200 5.6, hace poco me compre el 35mm estoy esperando que me lleguen, todo los he comprado de segunda mano, me gustaría tener el 70-300, esta en mis planes comprarlo próximamente, tambien espero comprarme una Nikon nueva de paquete algún día 🤩. saludos desde venezuela
Thank you for this video. I did quite some research and your picks seem to be very good. The only lens I would change would be the Nikon 17-55 2.8 to a Sigma 17-50 2.8 VR, as a lighter pick with similar performance. Really helpful video, thank you!
you can pick up a good condition D7200 ( scores higher on DXo than the newer D7500 - just a tad) and the two sigma lenses, under £1000 for all three , if you want a longer lens the F2.8 50-150 plus a teleconverter and you are still as fast as a Nikon F4 300mm
Nice honest review and I'm so glad two of my lenses get a mention, I love my D7200 and the Tokina is a perfect partner especial low light when I'm shooting the Milky way etc. Have to give a mention to the SIGMA 17-70mm F2.8 Macro great lens for little money on the secondhand market.............stumbled across your channel and liked/subs.
Thank you. Yes, the Tokina makes a great option for astro - something I want to do more of. Good to know about the Sigma 17-70 - it's one I haven't used. Cheers. 😊
Thank you. That particular one is a travel tripod because I didn't want to carry a lot of weight. It's a Vanguard Veo 2 265CB. About £130 here in the UK. Thanks for watching. 😊
I used the 16-85 and 70-300 dx af-p for landscapes and the 50mm 1.8 fx as a portrait lens. For the price they are very good but not the best. I eventually traded them in for a Z7 last year mostly because I rarely shoot in 3:2 format and usually end up cropping a fair bit, especially when you include perspective correction, horizon straightening etc..
@@Robert-Bishop Yeah agreed, some of the Z9 tech trickling down into a pro DX body would be nice for wildlife/action shooters. A 30-40mp d7200/d7500 replacement could be nice too although I doubt we will see that any time soon.
Nothing stopping you using FX lenses on. D500. An FX 300mm f4 with 1.4 TC. Is great for wildlife with a ~650mm equivalent. The Tokina 100mm f2.8 is also very good. The Nikon 200-500 is exceptional. Bargains can be had for FX lenses as well as DX. The AF-D range of yesteryear offer great glass at reasonable prices but can’t be used on el cheapo DX bodies. The FX lenses will also be used in the future if you get an FX body. DX lenses can be used on DX bodies, stopped down to avoid vignetting. FX lenses are generally better built with metal mounts. I bought the FX 70-300mm VR G for the same price as the DX version. Check out the Angry Photographer for any lenses, see his RUclips videos.
Absolutely Geoffrey, plenty of great FX lenses that work brilliantly on DX bodies. I may well do a video on this topic at some point. Thanks for watching.
It's one I'm yet to try. The zoom range sounds great, but I do expect that to come with compromises when it comes to image quality. If I manage to get hold of one, I'll make a video on it. Thanks for watching. 😊
An excellent video. I have a D80 and a D610. I use the 610 most of the time. The 35mm (FX) is my go to lens. I echo everything you say about the 35mm. FX or DX, it really is quality prime lens. My very first full frame lens was 16-35mm. It was expensive, (as are FX lenses) but it is an unbelievably sharp lens, worth every penny. (For best results, i have to use a tripod, but well worth it) But before i could afford that, i used the DX, 18-55 kit lens. It is a cheap, plastic lens, but produces first class results on my D610. Anyway, really interesting video. (PS, I always use a tripod for best results. Nothing worse than coming back from a shoot with unsharp photos, even slightly blurred images. No amount sharpening in lightrom will correct that. I never use the sharpening tool, if its not sharp, it never will be sharp)
Thanks Mike. These days I only use a tripod when I can't get the shutter speed fast enough to account for camera shake. VR and IBIS helps a lot with that now, too. You're right though, if you do get any motion blur, there's usually not much you can do. Although, having said that, AI is getting better all the time, and at some point I think we will have tools that can't consistently and accurately fix blur in post processing. Thanks for watching. 😃
I just bought a lot of dx lenses on ebay 😀. I didn't know what I was getting into with the crop but I'm still thankful for the new gear. What cameras should I be looking at for a great but not exceptionally pricey shooting experience and quality shots? I shoot a lot of sky and landscapes, unique architecture and the like so I'd like to get a full frame to be able to grow and upgrade as I'm able to. Prefer not to have something heavy or overly bulky. I would greatly appreciate your input if you have any. Thanks for the content!
Hi Lauren, if you want to stick with a DSLR, the D750 would be a good full frame option. It has a crop mode, so you could use your DX lenses until you get some FX ones and you'll probably find a very reasonable used price. Mirrorless options are more pricey but a bit more future proof. I think the Z5 is the cheapest FF option from Nikon right now. You'd also need an FTZ adaptor to use the F Mount lenses. Thanks for watching. 😊
I loved the 17-55mm DX Nikkor on the D2x. But because when they get more serious about photography most people move up to full frame cameras. Therefor i wouldn't buy a DX lens today.
Thanks for the input Roy. I ended up going full frame too, but I do know professionals who use DX. The cost benefits for beginners are really what make the lenses attractive though. Thanks for watching. 😊
That Tokina 11-16mm is super sharp with large aperture. That is why I still keep it in my bag. Though I love my Nikon 12-24mm more because it is a little sharper and longer. The 35mm dx is great lens too, but I think I got no improvement from my 18-55mm kit lens other than the large aperture.
I own it and it's a very versatile lens. The range is really useful, particularly for travel photography. It does lose a bit of sharpness at certain focal lengths and in the corners though.
thanks for the info, Rob. I'm looking for a wide-angle lens like the Tokina lens{not seen that lens} or the Nikkor 10-20 ? I bought the 16-80 AF S ED 2.8-4 LENS ? Seems to be pretty good but not getting great reviews.? great photos and tech detail .cheers
Thanks. I have the 10-20 as well. Although it's fine, I was always a little underwhelmed with it and much preferred the Tokina when I got that. There's also an updated mark II version of the Tokina lens now. Haven't tried the 16-80. How do you find the photos it produces?
@@Robert-Bishop HI Rob yes it seems pretty sharp and the colours come out better than the 18-55 kit lens . I am on the coast so it's good for getting a wide-ish angle seascape and the 80mm is about right for getting into shots. [I am learning] I will have a look at the mark II cheers BTW.See you had a heads up from greys of Westminster
Thanks Jack. I've no idea whether these lenses would work on a m43 camera, but maybe there's an adaptor that would let you do it. Thanks for watching. 😊
Thanks. I was using a polariser to remove the glare from the rocks and leaves. It also reduces the amount of light coming into the camera by about a stop, so in low light, such as woodland, that's usually enough for a short long-exposure. 😊
Thanks for the info 😊, but i have a question if u don't mind, would it lower the quality or affect me while shooting videos on my Z5 ? I usually shoot at 1080p/60 so i need a wide angle lens but can't afford the 24-70 fx.
You can put a DX lens on the Z5, and it will automatically put the camera into DX mode. I believe you should still be able to film up to 4k. Generally DX lenses aren't quite as high quality as FX lenses and the Z line lenses in particular are much better. Having said that, I don't think you're going to see a massive difference. I'd say go for it. 😊
I think the best kit lens is the Nikkor 18-105 (because it is very cheap), its image is super sharp, the quality is equal to that of the 16-85 but it is much cheaper because it has a plastic bayonet. And the 18-105 already provides a pretty good zoom range.
Thanks for sharing your experience with great comments on these lenses....on my D500 I use the Tokina 12-24mm lens ....it is so well built & has great results....also I use the Nikon 50mm lens & the Tamron 28-300mm lens for various compositions... cheers from Australia 😀
Nice video. The 17-55 is the second hand bargain of the century. £1600 new, £300 used! I shoot full frame at the moment but I've kept my 17-55 on the shelf in case I get a dx body in the future.
I see B&H and Adorama have them new at $1500 US and I can't find any used ones in excellent shape for less than $800 used. Doesn't seem like a bargain to me. I personally am happy with my 16-85 being as I only shoot landscapes.
@@SubiTrekker ah yes that's not as much of a saving in the US, in the UK they seem much cheaper. There is a company called mpb in the uk that seems to always have lots but looking now I see the price has increased a bit, maybe because the lens has been discontinued now.
I have a handfull of dx lenses on my D500 such as the 17-55mm f2.8. But most lenses I use on my D500 are FX lenses. Esspecially in the wide angle department most dx lenses are not great. Lots of problems with image quality, AF accuracy, lack of corner sharpness etc.. My longer lenses like 70-200mm, 300mm primes and the 200-500mm work flawless on the D500.
I haven't tried that particular combo Owen, but generally I've had good results using the FTZ adaptor. My guess would be that it works great with the Z50. 😊
The 17-55 DX is a jewel and a tank. I use it all the time. The 35mm 1.8 is really low cost, and I never use it in the end. The 70-300mm VR is nice, but the VR is fragile.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Julien. Surprised you didn't use the 35mm, it's definitely one of my most used DX lenses. You have to go with what works for you though. Thanks for watching. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop I don't like the render of this lens. For portraits I use the 50mm 1.4 AFD, which is amazing, or the 105mm 2.8 Macro VR, which is totally underrated for this usage.
Just noticed you also reviewed the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 , was thinking of getting it for landscape photography and some astro for my D3400, do you think it'd be good for that? Seems you reviewed the older version instead of the newer II version, the II version seems to go for £180 used
I have the original version, yeah. From what I gather, the main difference are that the updated version has an internal focusing motor and better lens coatings. The latter would certainly be an improvement i think, as flaring and aberration issues are one of the few downsides with the original. Definitely appropriate for landscape and astro. 😊
Its great when using tripod, I returned tokina 11-20 because its sometimes hard to capture sharp photo in hand on my d3200. I plan to buy prime 35mm for travelling
You're awfully brave to change lenses that close to the water. I'd probably do it to - but the difference is I'd be cursing a blue streak as I picked my lens out of the water.
@@Robert-Bishop yes i will, i only have Nikon d5200 though right now, really bad autofocus in photos, but worst when shooting videos with any lens.. totally useless. We only had d500 here in India, there is a d500s varient also?
no D500s model, he meant D500’s (plural). at this point it’s rare to find D500 new, so is much cheaper used. or try the Zfc with FTZ2 lens adapter if needed
Yes, I always capture in RAW and edit my shots Martin. For me, it's a vital part of the process and can make a big difference to the final image. An edit doesn't always have to take a long time though. There's an 'auto' button in Adobe Lightroom which can make a big difference to your images in just one click, and you can always experiment with presets, that again, will significantly alter your photo in just a single click. The more you use the software, the better you become and you can start making more advanced edits if necessary. Thanks for watching. 😊
I use the nikkor 20mm f/1.8G on my D800 for wide shots. I rarely use the 24-140 f/4 lens For everything else I use the 17-55 DX on my D7200 and have the 35 Dx also I bought the 70-300 FX lens to go with the D800 but use it on the D7200 for extra reach I sold the 55-200DX version which I regret. To be honest I think the D7200 gives sharper results because it has no low pass filter and is probibley the best crop sensor camera ever made? Love your choice 📷👍 Ps I also have the sigma 10-20 mm dc lens 😂
I've never used the D7200, but everyone I know who has, say nothing but good things about it. I'd have to go with the D500 as best crop sensor camera, but I guess I'm biased! Some great lenses you've mentioned there. I've yet to try the Sigma 10-20, would be interesting to see how that compares to the Nikon 10-20. Thanks for watching. 😊
I just bought an 2d hand occasion d3500 with a 18-55 kit lens. But need a replacement because it’s came scratched. Should I bought the same or the 18-105mm lens? Already ordered the 35mm prime lens. I want to have a somewhat versatile lenses
It really depends on your personal preferences and the kinds of things you enjoy photographing. Generally the 18-105 will give you more options with its extra reach. 😊
I'm surprise the venerable Sigma 17 to 50 OS HSM or th 18 to 35 1.8 isn't on this list considering both outperformed the Nikon version in a DXO mark on top of vibration compensation features for the 17 to 50,or the constant brighter aperture of the 18 to 35 1.8, not to mention the dirt cheap price for the 17 to 50 OS you can get it used these days. Sure the Nikon's build is way better, since it is built like a tank, but were talking about "best Nikon DX" lenses here. Once would assume were talking about performance.
I think "best" can mean different things to different people - as I said in the video, this is just my opinion and a list of my personal favourites. I haven't had chance to use the Sigma 17-50 yet, but I have heard good things. Perhaps when I get to try some other lenses out, I'll do a revised version of the video. Thanks for watching. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop I have a couple DX bodies, and purchased the D5600 for a very versatile setup(light weight, articulated screen, face detace in live view), and got very luck to get the Tamron 18 to 400 for a very good price. This lens is tack sharp for a super zoom. It's larger and heavier than most super zooms, but I also have the Sigma 18 to 250 which is also tack sharp, but much lighter in weight, so I guess I have both situations covered.
Hi! 10-24 is a magnificent lens. In fact, I’ve sold Tokina 11-16 to get the 10-24. Never regretted. I have along the 10-24 the Sigma 8-16 for an extra wide (although no filter mount). I would add to gems of lenses for DX: Tokina 50-135 2.8 (best 3D effect), the Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS (very similar to any 70-200 f4) and the Sigma 50-100 1.8 (insane clarity). Although is for FX, Nikon 24-120 f4 is a superb lens to continue the 10-24 focal range.
I've been wondering why there seems to some good prices out there right about now. I do like the tried and true, so just may have to look in to it further! Thanks for the update on what is happening! How's Otis? A handful yet? lol Take good care now...Bruce and Otis (the original...lol)
Cheers Bruce. Otis is great. He gets a little bit giddy from time to time, but 15 mins with one of his toys and he's usually back asleep! And yes, some superb crop sensor lenses out there, definitely worth considering. Thanks for watching. 😊
Yeah, all of these lenses will work on the D7500 and D500. Lens choice is personal preference and dependent on what you are photographing. For example, if you want to capture really wide vistas, the Tokina might be best, but for wildlife, the Nikon 70-300 DX would be best. The best all rounder here is the 17-55, so that might be the best choice if you're not sure.
Cheers Paul. Yeah, the Z lineup is my primary setup, but if I'm going out with the D500, these are defo my go to lenses. And then the Signs 150-600 for birds. Cheers for watching. 😊
I have like you a d7500 and a d500 with a lot of dx lens which i plan to keep they do the job grand also just got a z6 with a24-200 lens can i use a dx lens in dx mode with this camera i have the ftz adapter.
Sounds like we have very similar setups Andrew. You can put the DX lenses onto the Z bodies with the adaptor and they will auto focus if they are AF-S or AF-P. The camera will automatically set itself to crop mode.
I honestly dont think its fair to say that the full frame equivalent to the 17-55 is the 24-70 2.8. Since 17-55 f2.8, is equivalent to 26-84 f4.3. The 24-85 f3.5-4.5 is way closer. Its build cheaper but it results in the same image and is significantly lighter and cheaper. So its not fair to say at all that apsc lenses are lighter or cheaper in general. The sigma 18-35 f1.8 is about equivalent to a 24-70 f2.8. And it costs the same as a 24-70 f2.8.
@@matskay1971 t-stop is gonne vary a little, but thats the case with all lenses. The total amount of captured light and the look of the image including bokeh is the same. IDK if the bokeh of one or the other is smoother but that preference anyway.
I don't generally like using DX lenses on full frame bodies, but it works perfectly well on my Z7 with the FTZ adaptor. Thing is, you can get the same quality from Z lenses and they're much lighter!
@@Robert-Bishop I haven't upgraded yet from my old D5200 and have a Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 and a 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens. I mainly shoot vacation/travel photos along with family stuff. What camera do you think I should get that will last me for years without having to upgrade? I am looking at the z6ii...your thoughts on body and lens I should buy? Thanks
Great lens choices! I have the exact lenses you mentioned except the nikon 17-55 I use the sigma 17-50 f2.8 instead it is cheaper, lighter and has image stabilisation which is good for videos. I am currently looking for a portrait lens and can't decide between the 50mm f1.8g and the 85mm f1.8g which one would you recommend?
Last year I bought a used d7500 with a 300mm f4 pf lens. I thought this was the best "bargain" to get into wildlife photography. I'm really impressed with that combination so far. I also use a d5600 with 10-24 f4 & 18-55 kit lens for a light weight hiking setup.
Sounds like a great combo Matt. I have the 300mm too, I haven't tried it on full frame yet but love it on my D500. Have you used the 300mm on the D5600?
I haven't. The D7500 has a better auto focus system than the D5600 & is still pretty lightweight so I just left it on that camera. The d500 is definitely a better camera but I picked the D7500 because it was more affordable & felt better in my hands.
Great video, but isn't using a DX lens on an FX body (as explained around 3:50) pretty much pointless? You said that it increases the focal length to something closer to a 24-70. Isn't it the other way around with the focal length actually decreasing? Since the projected image is smaller and you're not using the entire sensor you'd have to crop the image to something similar to whatever physical foca length you took the shot at. So you're just losing quality. Or am I mistaken?
You're not mistaken, but I wasn't suggesting to use a DX lens on an FX body. I was just saying that the 17-55 on a crop sensor body has a roughly equivalent field of view to that of a 24-70 on a full frame body. Great name by the way. 😁
@@Robert-Bishop Aah, ok. Thank you for clarifying. So 17mm (or any other focal length) with a DX lens on a DX body are equivalent to 17mm with an FX lens on an FX body in terms of optical zoom, but the fov will be smaller with the DX setup, by the same factor the percieved focal length of an FX lens on a DX body would increase? That might explain why my father gets a slightly better viewing angle with his 24-70 on his Z5, compared to my 17-55.
@@helgeschneider4417 Yes, the focal length is always the same, regardless of the sensor size. It just seems like you're closer to your subject with a crop sensor because a smaller sensor will be sampling a smaller area of the projected image (like when you crop in to an image using computer software).
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
The Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens, have owned it for many many years now, been shooting it with my D500 "which I recently killed during a mishap, slipping on a some ice covered boulders this past winter trying to get closer to my subject, camera took the brunt of the force as gravity propelled my rear end to the ground, camera hit the boulder, ripped the camera mount off the camera as I was holding the lens, camera then took a swim in icy salt water, now that is how you kill a camera".
I still use the lens with my D850 and recently acquired Z9 in DX mode.
Certainly sounds like a comprehensive way to wreck a camera! I'm jealous of the Z9 though. I think when they make a similar camera in a smaller body (like they did with the D500), it will be my next upgrade. Thanks for watching. 😊
I have had a Nikon 17 55 since I bought my D200 all those years ago. Superb pro lens with performance and weight to match the best of them. Full metal construction and a superb lens hood which is effective. Once Nikon lenses were made like this.
Can't disagree. Although I do like the weight of my Z lenses! 😁
@@Robert-Bishop Most of My Z lenses are at least as heavy as their old AFS G/F equivalents...
The 18-55mm AF-P DX weights only 240g (compared to this 751g!), costs a fraction of this and serves the same purpose for most shooters, AND has VR (Vibration Reduction) built-in, so that's something to definitely consider as well! Although it's a kit lens, it's very sharp and has great macro! It's downside is it's plastic build though and it's also lacking a bit on contrast and has some distortion. But these can be fixed in post. You can get these lenses for around 60$ used.
The 18~55 is made of plastic, 17~55 is a true pro grade lens made of metal and is weather sealed, hence the 750gr weight. It is a heavy lens but it balanced well when I had my D200/D300 with grip. As a carry around lens for casual shooting the 18~55 is ideal.@@Sc0pee
@n5762 Yeah, like I mentioned it's one downside is it's plastic build. The weather sealing doesn't help though, if your camera isn't weather sealed but I guess you could use a bag or cover of some sorts to "weather seal" your camera. Pretty sure they sell them somewhere but it would be a bit clunky I think.
2024 and I still have my D500 even though I have mirrorless. My fav DX lens is the 18-140. My copy is sharp and the lens is so light. I love it
I have the 18-140 - it's a very versatile lens, although my personal copy isn't particularly sharp at some focal lengths, compared to some of my other lenses. Great for travel though. Thanks for watching. 😊
I also have the Nikkor AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED lens and its the one I have on the camera most of the time great piece of kit.Another lens I like take with me is a Nikon Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G ED VR, I use this one for birds and animals which I dont like to disturbed and as I am disabled and have walking problems I have to use walking aids on good days, I also have a Kenco 1.4x teleplus MC4 DGX convertor which I can use on the 70-300mm. Thanks for the great review in these lenses be lucky and be safe. from Kent uk.
Thanks Bob, I didn't know about the Kenco teleconverter, so might have to check that out. Thanks for watching. 😊
The 17-55 was the first nice zoom lense I ever owned, When i switched from a D7000 to a D700 i stopped using it. The D700 camera remains one of my favourite cameras, but with an already low res sensor, it was not worth ever using on crop mode (although stopped down this lens will cover the full frame) . A few years ago when everyone switched to mirrorless i picked up a D810 for cheap, and on DX crop mode you still get a 15mp image, which is plenty big enough (more resolution than FX mode on the D700 and about the same resolution as my old d7000), and I fell in love with the 17-55mm again. I have better lenses now, but theres something about this one that makes like it and continue to use it. I think it's nostalgia from the first nice zoom lens that i ever had.
Great stuff! But I must comment on one of your choices. Instead of a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 I would strongly recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC. Not only does it add vibration control, it’s faster focusing, just as sharp and half the price of the Nikkor.
Sounds good Alex, I'll have to check it out. Thanks for watching. 😊
better yet buy the non VC, its dirt cheap with the same optic quality and learning to stabilize your hand isnt that hard
A good video for us DX shooters, thanks Robert. The 17-55mm f2.8 will definitely be one to look out for. I already have the 55-200mm 1:4-5:6 II ED which I think is a great lens for the money, ok so it has a plastic mount but I've not had any issues. I'm also considering the recent Nikon AF-P DX 10-20mm 4:4-5:6 G lens - a wide angle for landscapes, very similar to the Tokina but £260 new and gets good reviews.
Cheers Andrew. I have the 10-20 - not a bad lens at all, but I prefer the Tokina, especially with that 2.8 aperture. Not tried the 55-200, might have to look out for that one. I have the 18-140 and like to use that as a light weight travel lens. Cheers for for watching. 😊
I can vouch for the Tokina 11-16. I bought it many years ago when I bought my first DSLR, a Nikon D5100. Part of the decision to go for the Tokina was that it will cover a full frame sensor at 16mm and I was sure that I would eventually go that way. If anyone is considering this lens, the mark 1 requires a screw drive in your body. The mark two has its own focus motor and improved coatings. I went for the mark 2. Manual focussing wouldn't be a problem 95% of the time, but the f2.8 did make it a useful lens indoors where autofocus was handy. I did go full frame eventually and it did indeed provide me with a 15,5mm-16mm f2,8 zoom 'prime'!
I love my 70-300 lens. Bird photography now makes sense, when I can finally get some distance between me and my easily startled subjects. I'm planning on getting a 35mm F/1.8, finally trying out prime lens might be fun.
Yes, I find the 70-300 a great compromise between weight and reach. I can't recommend the 35mm enough - an absolute bargain! Thanks for watching. 😊
The 35mm 1.8 is the only lens I've bought for my d3500 which came with 18-55 and 70-300 kit lenses. It's a nice lens at a great price.
For me (as the budget minded photo hobbyist) it's the kit lens : 18-55mm VR II and 55-200mm VR II. It's really-really sharp, light and focus real quick (not to mention again.. cheap). Along with super affordable 50mm f1.4 afd, you got a really killer combo lens for 99% of photo scenario. With good high ISO performance of current camera (+VR lens), low light isn't much of an issue anymore. For bokehlicious portrait, 50mm f1.4D (which eqv. 75mm in 35mm focal length) come in handy.
Thanks for sharing - sounds like a good setup. 😊
Thanks for this video. I'm late to the Nikon game but on the flip side, Nikon's dslr gear is super affordable now. I've aquired the D300s and your video has been a great help for DX lenses. Your photographs are fantastic btw.
That's great. If you're thinking of picking up any of these lenses, just double check their compatibility with the D300s. I think most should work fine, but the 70-300 might be an exception. Thanks for watching. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop thanks
One of my all time favorite for my D500 is the Nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4, and for Aurora photography, the 17-55 Kit lens.
I haven't tried the 16-80, but I might look out for a good used one. I'd love to get a shot of the aurora - still waiting for that one! Thanks for watching. 😊
I like the 16-80 F2,8 - F4. Not the cheapest DX Lens but really good! And the 10-20mm AF-P Wide Angle is a no brainer for it´s price, which also applies to the 35mm F1.8 of course.
The 16-80 has a great range for its size - an awesome travel lens. I prefer the Tokina to the Nikon 10-20, but as you say, it's a good lens for the money. The 35mm I would pay more for and still be happy! Thanks for watching. 😊
Thanks Robert I have just upgraded from my D3200 to a D7500 and bought a new 18-140 Nikkor that I have used successfully for a Matric dance shoot and a groom shoot where my son got married. I will probably go for the AF-P 70-300 ED VR now.
I'm sure you'll find the D7500 a big improvement Michael. The 18-140 is a great all round lens - really good for travel since it's so small and light but covers a big focal range. The 70-300 is really good too - great for bird photography. Thanks for watching. 😊
After watching a ton of "Best lens for a Nikon " I purchased a 17-55mm 2.8 and WOW what a fine lens it is !😁 and only $327. from Japan in two days... no Duty.
Sounds like a bargain Robert - I'm sure it will serve you very well. Thanks for watching. 😊
I still have my 17-55 f2.8 from when I did professional work 10 years ago. It still works like a beast.
Glad to hear it, I reckon it'll still be serving you well in another 10. Thanks for watching. 😊
Some great lenses to be had for DX Nikon cameras with autofocus motors, one of which is the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. No VR, which I never found to be a problem at these focal lengths. This lens is less than half the cost of the Nikon equivalent, lighter and more compact. Sharp throughout the focal range, even wide open.
Many thanks for this video! I have a classic 12-24mm wide angle: unfiotunately my Nikon D7200 went to camera heaven, and I am now using it on my full-frame Nikon D750..
so far, so good, it gives me an 18-35mm perspective!
Thanks. I was planning on doing a video on FF lenses to use with DX bodies, so this is one to consider. 😊
You get good D7500s and D500s for sale.
GOOD CALL! Thanks for the tip..@@michaelwestdyk1742
Just grabbed a 40mm 2.8 nikkor, for my d7500 and I'm loving it !
That's a macro I haven't tried yet, I will have to check it out. Thanks for watching. 😊
For event photography I use my Nikon d500, Nikkor 17-55 and Sigma 18-35, images super sharp no problem at all.
Glad to hear it. The 18-35 is one I need to try out. Thanks for watching. 😊
Ended up with the Sigma 50-150 F2.8 DC and a tele-converter - of course the tele-converter said Nikon fit, but that was camera NOT the lenses. the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 and the 50-150 F2.8 are both sharper than my Nikon DX lenses both marvellous.
I recently brought the 17-55 f2.8 off the back of this video. First impressions are really good. I'm not sure I would have been aware of this lens if I hadn't of watched this video, so thanks 🙂
Ah, great! Maybe I should be getting commission from Nikon! 😁 It's a great lens though - have fun with it. 😊
I just bought the 35mm f/1.8G (used) for 80 euros and I'm already loving it! This is a great time to buy quality "vintage" stuff now that people sell their old gear while upgrading to mirrorles cameras.
Yeah, I think you're right, lots of good deals out there at the moment. Sounds like you got a bargain! 😊
The 17-55 f2.8 and 35mm 1.8 dx are the only two nikon dx lenses I consider for my D500. Otherwise I use my fullframe lenses ( and yes I shoot fullframe also). I even use the Nikon 14-24 on my D500 and yes it is not the most widest on dx (21mm fullframe equivalent) but there are in my opinion not many other good options for wideangle. Used the Tokina 11-16 but the Nikon 14-24 smokes it in the IQ, AF consistency and edge to edge to sharpness department.
That's true, FX lenses are the best for both FX and DX cameras. As for wide angle I use Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 EX DC OS lens on my D500, it's initially built for crop cameras and gives the wonderful picture.
With all my respect to Robert, yet the best lenses for my D500 are ones of 'golden trinity' , especially 70-200 reaching real 300 mm focus and wonderful 24-70. Those lenses are the best ones in respect of both autofocusing and picture quality. DX camera is using the best central part of FX lense, and this provides the best picture possible.
I agree Pavel, and had this video been about FX lenses, I would have definitely included them. Thanks for watching. 😊
Great choice of lenses. As a DX user myself, I liked my Sigma 17-70 until last month when it decided to let me down after I hiked for ages to get a shot. "No lens attached" error lol. Upon getting home a tiny screw fell out the lens... that's never a good thing. In your video, the Tokina seemed very sharp. Same for the Nikor 35mm but you can expect that from a prime. Great location for your shots.
Yeah, defo not a good sign when a screw falls out! Maybe a camera shop could fix it if it's not too serious? The Tokina is great in the sharpness department - just got to watch out for that chromatic aberration! Can't really fault the 35mm though. Thanks for watching. 😊
Hi Robert -- You've offered some interesting DX lens choices here. As an engineer and former professional photographer, I suspect I've seen just about every photography trend and fashion around. Sadly, media buzz and internet folklore seem to drive much of this nonsense. If photo gadgets are considered rare, unique, esoteric or hyper-expensive, they must be good, right? Like many aspects of living in post-truth America, these widely circulated photo fictions are often based upon promotion, popularity, and mystique rather than hard facts and the performance reality of using the product or technique.
Case in point, I'm wondering about your recommendation of the obsolete Nikkor AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED at 3.6" length & 26.6 oz weight at $1,497 new (about $300 mint used) --- versus the equally optically superior, smaller and very affordable Nikkor AF-P DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR at 2.5" length & 7.3 oz weight at $250 new.
Your recommended lens with a fixed f/2.8 aperture may offer a very slight fraction-of-a-stop low-light advantage. However, the size, weight and cost of this beasty lens does in no way produce better images (see the widely available performance specs on these two lenses). Besides, most all Nikon lens aberrations can be automatically corrected in camera, if not through post processing.
It's very fashionable these days to bash kit lenses as inadequate pieces of junk. However, many knowledgeable pros are aware of the superior performance of the AF-P DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR --- with its VR stabilization, instantaneous pulse focus motor, ultra small and lightweight profile, and its remarkable optical performance. It focuses so close you probably won't need a macro lens. It even provides instant manual-focus override. No other mini-zoom even comes close. Choosing this lens should be a no-brainer.
Frankly, carrying this tiny kit lens along with the equally superior and small kit Nikkor AF-S DX 55-200mm F4-5.6G ED VR at $250 is probably all the lenses the vast majority of serious DX hobbyists or pros will ever actually need. Just a thought. Dr. A
Thanks for the input. As I said in the video, this is just my opinion, and a few of my favourite lenses. I also didn't necessarily base everything on optical quality alone - I like the build quality of the 17-55 for example. Not sure if you're suggesting that I am bashing kit lenses, but to be clear, I'm definitely not. I use the 24-70 F4 Z lens a lot, although I actually prefer the 24-200 for its versatility. I'm sure the 18-55 can be a very good lens, but I haven't personally tried it. Thanks for watching. 😊
Great video Robert. Looks like a great range of lenses. I really like that 17-55mm, the images with it were beautiful. Also really liked the 70-300mm. I use a Sony 70-300, it's one of my favorite lenses to use for landscape photography and looks like this Nikon 70-300 does a great job as well. Lovely location and some really great images throughout this video! Hope you are doing well and keeping safe mate!
Cheers Paul. There are definitely better lenses than the Nikon 70-300 DX. But when you consider the price and how light and compact it is, you realise you get a lot of bang for your buck. Thanks for watching mate. 😊
Hi Robert, very helpful video as I have just bought a secondhand D3300 to learn photography. Thanks for the lens suggestions.
Fantastic - I think a DSLR can offer quite a lot more than a phone camera. Being able to swap between some of these great lenses is just one of those benefits. Thanks for watching and have fun. 😊
My favorite Nikon DX lens is the 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VR II. It takes great pictures indoors and out, and may be the only DX lens you will ever need.
It's one I haven't tried, but sounds really appealing. Will have to get hold of one and try it out. 😊
If you want to go that "swiss army knife" route today you should probably go with the Nikon 18-300mm VR
f/3.5-6.3 DX AF-S G ED which is (from what I read) pretty much the same but with longer focal length (and is newer!). It's even 15g lighter than the 18-200mm (550g vs 565g)! Both are pretty heavy. It's too bad that it doesn't have the new AF-P motor which can't be beat both in focusing speed and silence! Comparing to these the video's AF-P 70-300mm is optically far superior (especially at the longer end!), as well as lighter. It's actually stupidly sharp and has a nice contrast and color reproduction for something that cheap! Neither of these offer good low light capabilities either, for that the 35mm 1.8G is pretty nice... Don't get me wrong these Nikon zoom lenses are nice and I have used one as well but there's always trade offs with these "super zooms" so you can't get everything with them...
I bought the 35mm F1.9 used because it was very cheep. I did not shoot with it for age's when I finally put it on my camera it amazed me how sharp it is. It's on my camera more than any other lens now.
Sounds like you got a bargain Albert. Definitely one of Nikon's best. Thanks for watching. 😊
I just got the Nikkor DX 35mm f 1.8g, and it's definitely an amazingly fun and flexible lens, and great value for money.
My other lens for my D3200 is a SIGMA 18-200MM F/3.5-6.3 DC MACRO OS HSM. Amazing travel lens because you can do so much with it. Only downside is that it's a bit slow.
The Sigma 18-200 sounds great, thanks for sharing. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop The real issue is that it's such a flexible lens that I've held off on buying more specialised lenses for years because it's such a generalist. So I've missed out on what you can achive with a more specialised lens with a bigger apeture.
@@nralbers Not a bad problem to have! 😁
a superb lens is the Nikkor 40mm F2.8 Micro AFS DX....Is a real 1 to 1 macro on top of being a super shar equivalent of 60mm crop factor. And is not too expensive I bought mine on eBay for $119 in mint conditions.
Great recommendation, it's definitely one I need to try out. I have heard good things before though. Thanks for watching. 😊
Thanks so much, I am using 3 of these on my D3400. As I look forward to upgrades, this really helps. I am hoping to lock in on a D7500.
The D7500 is a great camera - I kind of wish I didn't seem mine. Thanks for watching. 😊
With the exception of the 17-55mm I own all the lenses you mentioned and some more. The 18-200mm is a nice all around lens and my favorite for travel. Also the 12-24mm f4 is the one I use for landscapes. Finally the tamron 18-400 is the next best option instead of the 18-200.
Thanks for the tips, definitely a few I need to check out there. If you get chance to pick up a 17-55, I definitely recommend it. Though as I said in the video - it's very heavy! Thanks for watching. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop I know that the 17-55mm is considered the best dx lens out there but it’s also pricey or at least it used to be. I think I’m done with dx lenses. The next purchase in the future is going to be a mirrorless full frame camera. 😀
Tamron 18-400 image quality is average at 18mm (3.5), only "ok" at 400mm.
10-24,16-85, 35, 50, 85, 70-300
This has me ready for dang near everything!
A great collection José! Thanks for watching. 😊
I shoot on a Nikon D800E. It's... flat out... amazing.
And with a wide variety of DC and DG lenses (as well as DX) ... I'm good to go.
I love my Sigma 35mm 1.4 full frame lens.
Nice. I like a 35mm on crop sensor cameras. Close to the nifty fifty field of view and great for almost all kinds of photography. Thanks for watching. 😊
Hey, fantastic review, I personally use my kit 18-140mm DX VR Nikkor and I have captured some amazing shots on it which I have even been able to print VERY big. I also use a 50mm f1.8 by Nikon but I get so much chromatic aberration in that one. I am wondering if the 35mm f.18 would have the same issue?
Thanks Sebastian. I like the 18-140 too. It's perhaps not the sharpest lens, but it's very light and has a great zoom range. I can't say I've noticed too much of a problem with chromatic aberration when using the 35mm. I usually just get rid of it in Lightroom though, if I do get some.
DX 35 f/1.8 and DX 70-300 VR On Nikon Z50 via FTZ II mount. Great combo.
Good to know, thanks. 😊
My Mum had a D610 and a D80... She sold them both even though I told her I wanted a camera. I've been using my phones camera for years to do interesting nature photographs. I live in a rugged and beautiful coastal area here. So last week I decided to buy my own DSLR. I ordered a D3000 with a DX 18-105mm lens for super cheap. Hoping it is in ok shape when I get it tomorrow. The person selling it was not a photographer so hopefully not too high shutter number.
That's great Brendan - the 18-105 will be great for a wide range of photography genres. Thanks for watching and have fun. 😊
tengo la Nikon D3200 que venia con los lentes 18-55 5.6 y 55-200 5.6, hace poco me compre el 35mm estoy esperando que me lleguen, todo los he comprado de segunda mano, me gustaría tener el 70-300, esta en mis planes comprarlo próximamente, tambien espero comprarme una Nikon nueva de paquete algún día 🤩. saludos desde venezuela
Nikon 24-85mm ED is my go to lens and the 50mm AFS-G is my prime lens of choice
Good choices Andrew - the 24-85 is FX though, right?
YES it is @@Robert-Bishop
Thank you for this video. I did quite some research and your picks seem to be very good. The only lens I would change would be the Nikon 17-55 2.8 to a Sigma 17-50 2.8 VR, as a lighter pick with similar performance.
Really helpful video, thank you!
Thanks - yeah I hear good things about the Sigma. Going to have to try it! Thanks for watching. 😊
Even though the sigma is lighter, the lens makes a rattling noise quite often when focusing!
you can pick up a good condition D7200 ( scores higher on DXo than the newer D7500 - just a tad) and the two sigma lenses, under £1000 for all three , if you want a longer lens the F2.8 50-150 plus a teleconverter and you are still as fast as a Nikon F4 300mm
You've inspired me to dust off my old D3000 and give it a new life with some fresh lenses. Thanks for the clear explanations!
That's great - some real bargains out there. Have fun. 😊
Nice honest review and I'm so glad two of my lenses get a mention, I love my D7200 and the Tokina is a perfect partner especial low light when I'm shooting the Milky way etc. Have to give a mention to the SIGMA 17-70mm F2.8 Macro great lens for little money on the secondhand market.............stumbled across your channel and liked/subs.
Thank you. Yes, the Tokina makes a great option for astro - something I want to do more of. Good to know about the Sigma 17-70 - it's one I haven't used. Cheers. 😊
Jolly good.
Well done, and thank you.
Thanks - cheers for watching. 😊
Wow.. Its very helpful video.. Thank you.. Which tripod you are using and whats the price?
Thank you. That particular one is a travel tripod because I didn't want to carry a lot of weight. It's a Vanguard Veo 2 265CB. About £130 here in the UK. Thanks for watching. 😊
I used the 16-85 and 70-300 dx af-p for landscapes and the 50mm 1.8 fx as a portrait lens. For the price they are very good but not the best. I eventually traded them in for a Z7 last year mostly because I rarely shoot in 3:2 format and usually end up cropping a fair bit, especially when you include perspective correction, horizon straightening etc..
Thanks Jasper. I got a Z7 for landscapes too. I still love DX for wildlife though. I'd love a crop sensor version of the Z9! Thanks for watching. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop Yeah agreed, some of the Z9 tech trickling down into a pro DX body would be nice for wildlife/action shooters. A 30-40mp d7200/d7500 replacement could be nice too although I doubt we will see that any time soon.
One recommendation I could make, is instead of the 70-300 DX, get the FX version for nearly the same price, and it’s built better.
Thanks, I haven't tried it, but sounds good. 👍
How do you fit the Fx lens to a Dx camera. I have a D7500 which gives very impessive results with a 18-140 DX Nikkor.
Does it work in the same way, or is there a difference in the image quality?
Please add to your kit Sigma art 18-35 f/ 1.8. You will be surprised by its quality and sharpness :). All the best!
It's one that I've always wanted to try out. The 1.8 aperture is certainly impressive. Thanks for watching. 😊
Nothing stopping you using FX lenses on. D500. An FX 300mm f4 with 1.4 TC. Is great for wildlife with a ~650mm equivalent. The Tokina 100mm f2.8 is also very good. The Nikon 200-500 is exceptional.
Bargains can be had for FX lenses as well as DX. The AF-D range of yesteryear offer great glass at reasonable prices but can’t be used on el cheapo DX bodies. The FX lenses will also be used in the future if you get an FX body. DX lenses can be used on DX bodies, stopped down to avoid vignetting. FX lenses are generally better built with metal mounts.
I bought the FX 70-300mm VR G for the same price as the DX version.
Check out the Angry Photographer for any lenses, see his RUclips videos.
Absolutely Geoffrey, plenty of great FX lenses that work brilliantly on DX bodies. I may well do a video on this topic at some point. Thanks for watching.
@agrafkaagrafka1542 Not yet - I've got a list as long as my arm! It's on there though, so I'll get to it eventually. Thanks for the interest. 😊
Nice list! Thanks for being thorough. What's your opinion on the Nikon 18-300 3.5-6.3 G ED? Would really like to know 🙏
It's one I'm yet to try. The zoom range sounds great, but I do expect that to come with compromises when it comes to image quality. If I manage to get hold of one, I'll make a video on it. Thanks for watching. 😊
I really really really hope they will come with a mirrorless d500 soon! With ibis of course!
Me too. The Z8 rumours are interesting - like the Z9 but without the grip.
An excellent video. I have a D80 and a D610. I use the 610 most of the time. The 35mm (FX) is my go to lens. I echo everything you say about the 35mm. FX or DX, it really is quality prime lens. My very first full frame lens was 16-35mm. It was expensive, (as are FX lenses) but it is an unbelievably sharp lens, worth every penny. (For best results, i have to use a tripod, but well worth it) But before i could afford that, i used the DX, 18-55 kit lens. It is a cheap, plastic lens, but produces first class results on my D610.
Anyway, really interesting video. (PS, I always use a tripod for best results. Nothing worse than coming back from a shoot with unsharp photos, even slightly blurred images. No amount sharpening in lightrom will correct that. I never use the sharpening tool, if its not sharp, it never will be sharp)
Thanks Mike. These days I only use a tripod when I can't get the shutter speed fast enough to account for camera shake. VR and IBIS helps a lot with that now, too. You're right though, if you do get any motion blur, there's usually not much you can do. Although, having said that, AI is getting better all the time, and at some point I think we will have tools that can't consistently and accurately fix blur in post processing. Thanks for watching. 😃
well done, mate
Many thanks. 😊
I just bought a lot of dx lenses on ebay 😀. I didn't know what I was getting into with the crop but I'm still thankful for the new gear. What cameras should I be looking at for a great but not exceptionally pricey shooting experience and quality shots? I shoot a lot of sky and landscapes, unique architecture and the like so I'd like to get a full frame to be able to grow and upgrade as I'm able to. Prefer not to have something heavy or overly bulky. I would greatly appreciate your input if you have any. Thanks for the content!
Hi Lauren, if you want to stick with a DSLR, the D750 would be a good full frame option. It has a crop mode, so you could use your DX lenses until you get some FX ones and you'll probably find a very reasonable used price. Mirrorless options are more pricey but a bit more future proof. I think the Z5 is the cheapest FF option from Nikon right now. You'd also need an FTZ adaptor to use the F Mount lenses. Thanks for watching. 😊
I loved the 17-55mm DX Nikkor on the D2x.
But because when they get more serious about photography most people move up to full frame cameras.
Therefor i wouldn't buy a DX lens today.
Thanks for the input Roy. I ended up going full frame too, but I do know professionals who use DX. The cost benefits for beginners are really what make the lenses attractive though. Thanks for watching. 😊
That Tokina 11-16mm is super sharp with large aperture. That is why I still keep it in my bag. Though I love my Nikon 12-24mm more because it is a little sharper and longer.
The 35mm dx is great lens too, but I think I got no improvement from my 18-55mm kit lens other than the large aperture.
Yeah, I love that Tokina - not perfect, but very underrated. Interesting - I haven't tried the kit lens, but it sounds great! Thanks for watching. 😊
Hi Bro, nice video! i want ask for the Nikkor 18-140mm G ED VR? What do you think?
I own it and it's a very versatile lens. The range is really useful, particularly for travel photography. It does lose a bit of sharpness at certain focal lengths and in the corners though.
thanks for the info, Rob. I'm looking for a wide-angle lens like the Tokina lens{not seen that lens} or the Nikkor 10-20 ? I bought the 16-80 AF S ED 2.8-4 LENS ? Seems to be pretty good but not getting great reviews.? great photos and tech detail .cheers
Thanks. I have the 10-20 as well. Although it's fine, I was always a little underwhelmed with it and much preferred the Tokina when I got that. There's also an updated mark II version of the Tokina lens now. Haven't tried the 16-80. How do you find the photos it produces?
@@Robert-Bishop HI Rob yes it seems pretty sharp and the colours come out better than the 18-55 kit lens . I am on the coast so it's good for getting a wide-ish angle seascape and the 80mm is about right for getting into shots. [I am learning] I will have a look at the mark II cheers BTW.See you had a heads up from greys of Westminster
sorry don't laugh I got mixed up on the greys vid
@@daveyboy6210 😊
Thanks a really enjoyable video. I would like to see all the lenses on a Lumix M2/3 body.
Thanks Jack. I've no idea whether these lenses would work on a m43 camera, but maybe there's an adaptor that would let you do it. Thanks for watching. 😊
Hi, great video! Question: why use a Polariser instead of ND filter?
Thanks. I was using a polariser to remove the glare from the rocks and leaves. It also reduces the amount of light coming into the camera by about a stop, so in low light, such as woodland, that's usually enough for a short long-exposure. 😊
I am happy with Nikon 105 MM macro...
I would like to try it at some point and compare to my Sigma 105. Thanks for sharing. 😊
Very good video my friend. Thank you!!!!!👍👍👍
Cheers! Thanks for watching. 😊
Thanks for the info 😊, but i have a question if u don't mind, would it lower the quality or affect me while shooting videos on my Z5 ?
I usually shoot at 1080p/60 so i need a wide angle lens but can't afford the 24-70 fx.
You can put a DX lens on the Z5, and it will automatically put the camera into DX mode. I believe you should still be able to film up to 4k. Generally DX lenses aren't quite as high quality as FX lenses and the Z line lenses in particular are much better. Having said that, I don't think you're going to see a massive difference. I'd say go for it. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop
Thanx a lot 🙃
I think the best kit lens is the Nikkor 18-105 (because it is very cheap), its image is super sharp, the quality is equal to that of the 16-85 but it is much cheaper because it has a plastic bayonet. And the 18-105 already provides a pretty good zoom range.
Yes, good call, certainly a very versatile lens. Thanks for watching. 😊
I have the 18-140 Nikkor. Very good results for portraits and events. (Matric dance shoot and a wedding) It does good golden hour photography as well.
I think you left one excellent DX lense out - Nikon 16-80mm 3.5 ed
I've yet to try that one, thanks for the recommendation. 😊
Thanks for sharing your experience with great comments on these lenses....on my D500 I use the Tokina 12-24mm lens ....it is so well built & has great results....also I use the Nikon 50mm lens & the Tamron 28-300mm lens for various compositions... cheers from Australia 😀
Thanks Robert, I haven't used the 12-24, so I'll keep an eye out for that. Thanks for watching. 😊
Nice video. The 17-55 is the second hand bargain of the century. £1600 new, £300 used! I shoot full frame at the moment but I've kept my 17-55 on the shelf in case I get a dx body in the future.
Absolutely. I didn't realise it cost that much new to be honest. Wow! Thanks for watching. 😊
I see B&H and Adorama have them new at $1500 US and I can't find any used ones in excellent shape for less than $800 used. Doesn't seem like a bargain to me. I personally am happy with my 16-85 being as I only shoot landscapes.
@@SubiTrekker ah yes that's not as much of a saving in the US, in the UK they seem much cheaper. There is a company called mpb in the uk that seems to always have lots but looking now I see the price has increased a bit, maybe because the lens has been discontinued now.
I have a handfull of dx lenses on my D500 such as the 17-55mm f2.8. But most lenses I use on my D500 are FX lenses. Esspecially in the wide angle department most dx lenses are not great. Lots of problems with image quality, AF accuracy, lack of corner sharpness etc.. My longer lenses like 70-200mm, 300mm primes and the 200-500mm work flawless on the D500.
Yeah, agreed the FX lenses are generally superior. Thanks for watching.
Very interesting video.
I've 35mm, very funny lens, and 70-300, but I used it very few.
Greetings from Italy. 😊
Thanks - both great lenses, but I guess the 35 is more usable for everyday situations. Thanks for watching. 😊
i think sigma 18-35 mm f1.8 will give the sharpest result, who is agree ?
thanks for this video, you are the best.
Thank you Hasan. That's a lens I haven't tried but would really like to. Thanks for watching. 😊
How do you feel about using the 35mm with an ftz on a Z50?
I haven't tried that particular combo Owen, but generally I've had good results using the FTZ adaptor. My guess would be that it works great with the Z50. 😊
The 17-55 DX is a jewel and a tank. I use it all the time. The 35mm 1.8 is really low cost, and I never use it in the end. The 70-300mm VR is nice, but the VR is fragile.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Julien. Surprised you didn't use the 35mm, it's definitely one of my most used DX lenses. You have to go with what works for you though. Thanks for watching. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop I don't like the render of this lens. For portraits I use the 50mm 1.4 AFD, which is amazing, or the 105mm 2.8 Macro VR, which is totally underrated for this usage.
Just noticed you also reviewed the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 , was thinking of getting it for landscape photography and some astro for my D3400, do you think it'd be good for that?
Seems you reviewed the older version instead of the newer II version, the II version seems to go for £180 used
I have the original version, yeah. From what I gather, the main difference are that the updated version has an internal focusing motor and better lens coatings. The latter would certainly be an improvement i think, as flaring and aberration issues are one of the few downsides with the original. Definitely appropriate for landscape and astro. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop Went with the even newer 2019 version (ATX-I CF) for £219 off wexphotography!
Its great when using tripod, I returned tokina 11-20 because its sometimes hard to capture sharp photo in hand on my d3200. I plan to buy prime 35mm for travelling
You're awfully brave to change lenses that close to the water. I'd probably do it to - but the difference is I'd be cursing a blue streak as I picked my lens out of the water.
Haha, I try to be careful, but it's bound to happen one day David. Thanks for watching. 😊
I like this video…it’s informative and not AI!
Thanks a lot for watching. 😊
I wanted to buy nikon d500 when it launched in India, but it was very costly then and it's costly now too.
Here in the UK, used D500s are about half the cost of new ones. Worth a look at eBay etc.
@@Robert-Bishop yes i will, i only have Nikon d5200 though right now, really bad autofocus in photos, but worst when shooting videos with any lens.. totally useless.
We only had d500 here in India, there is a d500s varient also?
no D500s model, he meant D500’s (plural). at this point it’s rare to find D500 new, so is much cheaper used. or try the Zfc with FTZ2 lens adapter if needed
@@ameywadadekar Sorry - I missed this reply, but Damon basically summed it up in his response. I hope you manage to find a used D500. 🙂
There is d7500 which has same sensor
Is that DX 17-55 the same as the macro version ?
I'm not sure which macro lens you mean, Steve. Is that a Nikon one?
@@Robert-Bishop apparently I was wrong it was a macro lens piece that slips on top the 17-55 that’s why it was only 118
Hi did you edit any of the photos in the video or was they jpeg. I find editing time consuming and I find it hard.
Yes, I always capture in RAW and edit my shots Martin. For me, it's a vital part of the process and can make a big difference to the final image. An edit doesn't always have to take a long time though. There's an 'auto' button in Adobe Lightroom which can make a big difference to your images in just one click, and you can always experiment with presets, that again, will significantly alter your photo in just a single click. The more you use the software, the better you become and you can start making more advanced edits if necessary. Thanks for watching. 😊
I use the nikkor 20mm f/1.8G on my D800 for wide shots. I rarely use the 24-140 f/4 lens
For everything else I use the 17-55 DX on my D7200 and have the 35 Dx also
I bought the 70-300 FX lens to go with the D800 but use it on the D7200 for extra reach
I sold the 55-200DX version which I regret. To be honest I think the D7200 gives sharper results because it has no low pass filter and is probibley the best crop sensor camera ever made?
Love your choice 📷👍
Ps I also have the sigma 10-20 mm dc lens 😂
I've never used the D7200, but everyone I know who has, say nothing but good things about it. I'd have to go with the D500 as best crop sensor camera, but I guess I'm biased! Some great lenses you've mentioned there. I've yet to try the Sigma 10-20, would be interesting to see how that compares to the Nikon 10-20. Thanks for watching. 😊
I just bought an 2d hand occasion d3500 with a 18-55 kit lens. But need a replacement because it’s came scratched. Should I bought the same or the 18-105mm lens? Already ordered the 35mm prime lens. I want to have a somewhat versatile lenses
It really depends on your personal preferences and the kinds of things you enjoy photographing. Generally the 18-105 will give you more options with its extra reach. 😊
I'm surprise the venerable Sigma 17 to 50 OS HSM or th 18 to 35 1.8 isn't on this list considering both outperformed the Nikon version in a DXO mark on top of vibration compensation features for the 17 to 50,or the constant brighter aperture of the 18 to 35 1.8, not to mention the dirt cheap price for the 17 to 50 OS you can get it used these days. Sure the Nikon's build is way better, since it is built like a tank, but were talking about "best Nikon DX" lenses here. Once would assume were talking about performance.
I think "best" can mean different things to different people - as I said in the video, this is just my opinion and a list of my personal favourites. I haven't had chance to use the Sigma 17-50 yet, but I have heard good things. Perhaps when I get to try some other lenses out, I'll do a revised version of the video. Thanks for watching. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop I have a couple DX bodies, and purchased the D5600 for a very versatile setup(light weight, articulated screen, face detace in live view), and got very luck to get the Tamron 18 to 400 for a very good price. This lens is tack sharp for a super zoom. It's larger and heavier than most super zooms, but I also have the Sigma 18 to 250 which is also tack sharp, but much lighter in weight, so I guess I have both situations covered.
Will the tokina 11-16 af works with Nikon z50 (on your z7 - dx mode) with the ftz adapter
Yeah, you can, but the autofocus won't work with the FTZ adaptor - so manual focus only.
The only DX Nikkor I have is the 10-24. All other lenses are FX Nikkor. And I have the D500.
Thanks. What do you think of the 10-24? I found it okay - but not as good as other wide angles.
Hi! 10-24 is a magnificent lens. In fact, I’ve sold Tokina 11-16 to get the 10-24. Never regretted. I have along the 10-24 the Sigma 8-16 for an extra wide (although no filter mount). I would add to gems of lenses for DX: Tokina 50-135 2.8 (best 3D effect), the Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS (very similar to any 70-200 f4) and the Sigma 50-100 1.8 (insane clarity). Although is for FX, Nikon 24-120 f4 is a superb lens to continue the 10-24 focal range.
Do I need to use filters, I do work out wirh pics in Lighteoom?
I've been wondering why there seems to some good prices out there right about now. I do like the tried and true, so just may have to look in to it further! Thanks for the update on what is happening! How's Otis? A handful yet? lol Take good care now...Bruce and Otis (the original...lol)
Cheers Bruce. Otis is great. He gets a little bit giddy from time to time, but 15 mins with one of his toys and he's usually back asleep! And yes, some superb crop sensor lenses out there, definitely worth considering. Thanks for watching. 😊
Do all of those lenses go with Nikon d7500 or d500? Which one lens is good for those camera? please guide
Yeah, all of these lenses will work on the D7500 and D500. Lens choice is personal preference and dependent on what you are photographing. For example, if you want to capture really wide vistas, the Tokina might be best, but for wildlife, the Nikon 70-300 DX would be best. The best all rounder here is the 17-55, so that might be the best choice if you're not sure.
@@Robert-Bishop mainly for wildlife.. though I'm using 70-300mm lens. Anyway, I'm Supriti.Thanks for replying..cheers from India.☺️
@@utopiadystopia87 No problem Supriti. I also use a Sigma 150-600mm, which is great for a bit of extra reach! 😊
@@Robert-Bishop Is Sigma 150-600 as good as nikon 200-500?
Nice range of lenses to have in the bag. Don’t think you will be ever caught out.
Cheers Paul. Yeah, the Z lineup is my primary setup, but if I'm going out with the D500, these are defo my go to lenses. And then the Signs 150-600 for birds. Cheers for watching. 😊
I have like you a d7500 and a d500 with a lot of dx lens which i plan to keep they do the job grand also just got a z6 with a24-200 lens can i use a dx lens in dx mode with this camera i have the ftz adapter.
Sounds like we have very similar setups Andrew. You can put the DX lenses onto the Z bodies with the adaptor and they will auto focus if they are AF-S or AF-P. The camera will automatically set itself to crop mode.
@@Robert-Bishop Thank you
Would the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS be a good choice? at least as an upgrade from my AF-P 18-55mm dx?
I haven't used it, I'm afraid, so not sure. I'll look out for one to try in a future video. Thanks for watching. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop Just bought one, it's absolutely brilliant, got it used for £115 online.
Compared it to my old lens and it's quite a bit sharper
@@striderwhiston9897 Great, sounds like a bargain. I just say, I've always been very pleased with Sigma lenses.
AF-P 70-300 E VR is my preference over the DX version on my D500
Thanks. What do you prefer? Is it handling, or more image quality?
@@Robert-Bishop Primary is image quality and build quality is excellent with metal mounting ring.
I honestly dont think its fair to say that the full frame equivalent to the 17-55 is the 24-70 2.8. Since 17-55 f2.8, is equivalent to 26-84 f4.3. The 24-85 f3.5-4.5 is way closer. Its build cheaper but it results in the same image and is significantly lighter and cheaper. So its not fair to say at all that apsc lenses are lighter or cheaper in general.
The sigma 18-35 f1.8 is about equivalent to a 24-70 f2.8. And it costs the same as a 24-70 f2.8.
Do you mean the bokeh quality or light transmission (T-stop) ability or both ?
@@matskay1971 t-stop is gonne vary a little, but thats the case with all lenses. The total amount of captured light and the look of the image including bokeh is the same. IDK if the bokeh of one or the other is smoother but that preference anyway.
What are your thoughts on using the DX17-55mm on a Z6ii or any other Nikon Z?
I don't generally like using DX lenses on full frame bodies, but it works perfectly well on my Z7 with the FTZ adaptor. Thing is, you can get the same quality from Z lenses and they're much lighter!
@@Robert-Bishop I haven't upgraded yet from my old D5200 and have a Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 and a 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens. I mainly shoot vacation/travel photos along with family stuff. What camera do you think I should get that will last me for years without having to upgrade? I am looking at the z6ii...your thoughts on body and lens I should buy? Thanks
Can other f- stops be used while using the 35mm 1.8g DX lens?
Yes, absolutely. Its range is f/1.8 to f/22.
Great lens choices! I have the exact lenses you mentioned except the nikon 17-55 I use the sigma 17-50 f2.8 instead it is cheaper, lighter and has image stabilisation which is good for videos.
I am currently looking for a portrait lens and can't decide between the 50mm f1.8g and the 85mm f1.8g which one would you recommend?
Thanks Ibrahim. I will keep an eye out for a Sigma 17-50 as I'd like to try it. I personally prefer an 85mm for portraits. Thanks for watching. 😊
@@Robert-Bishop Thanks Robert I was leaning towards it as well 😄
Last year I bought a used d7500 with a 300mm f4 pf lens. I thought this was the best "bargain" to get into wildlife photography. I'm really impressed with that combination so far. I also use a d5600 with 10-24 f4 & 18-55 kit lens for a light weight hiking setup.
Sounds like a great combo Matt. I have the 300mm too, I haven't tried it on full frame yet but love it on my D500. Have you used the 300mm on the D5600?
I haven't. The D7500 has a better auto focus system than the D5600 & is still pretty lightweight so I just left it on that camera. The d500 is definitely a better camera but I picked the D7500 because it was more affordable & felt better in my hands.
@@mattfroeming640 Sorry Matt, I thought you had said D750. Yeah, the D7500 is great - I do miss the one I had sometimes. 😊
Wish I could put more than one thumb up...
That's very kind Alan, thanks for watching. 😊
Great video, but isn't using a DX lens on an FX body (as explained around 3:50) pretty much pointless? You said that it increases the focal length to something closer to a 24-70. Isn't it the other way around with the focal length actually decreasing? Since the projected image is smaller and you're not using the entire sensor you'd have to crop the image to something similar to whatever physical foca length you took the shot at. So you're just losing quality. Or am I mistaken?
You're not mistaken, but I wasn't suggesting to use a DX lens on an FX body. I was just saying that the 17-55 on a crop sensor body has a roughly equivalent field of view to that of a 24-70 on a full frame body. Great name by the way. 😁
@@Robert-Bishop Aah, ok. Thank you for clarifying. So 17mm (or any other focal length) with a DX lens on a DX body are equivalent to 17mm with an FX lens on an FX body in terms of optical zoom, but the fov will be smaller with the DX setup, by the same factor the percieved focal length of an FX lens on a DX body would increase?
That might explain why my father gets a slightly better viewing angle with his 24-70 on his Z5, compared to my 17-55.
@@helgeschneider4417 Yes, the focal length is always the same, regardless of the sensor size. It just seems like you're closer to your subject with a crop sensor because a smaller sensor will be sampling a smaller area of the projected image (like when you crop in to an image using computer software).