joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

As sensors improve the smaller formats will proliferate. DX has a bright future.

jimpitt

It's the 3.5 - 5.6 "G"
Thanks for your comment.

amehta Loc: Boston

I would unload that. I wonder who decided to package it with the D80. It was the "Nikon kit" lens for the D700, a FX body.

If you are basically starting over, then the question is what "main" lens you want, and what will complement it. What quality level are you aiming for, and what sort of budget?

jimpitt

Bram BOY:
The Nikon School was very valuable ancillary knowledge back in my early photography days when I also had college credit courses in photography. Sure, it is intended primarily for amateurs. I think that is where we all first started. ~~~ Jim.

jimpitt

Hello Anand:
I really was not ready to "start over." My first DLSR was a D 50, then traded to a D 80 which "failed past repair" last month. So getting a new D 5300 earlier this month precipitated some new thoughts/ ideas. The "kit" was from Houston Camera Exchange, a very large retail/ wholesale outlet with every camera brand. I consigned virtually all of my slide cameras (2 FTN's, a Nikonos, and a Leica 4) and lenses in 2008 for my first DSLR. I have a Leica-C Lux 3, 12.5 pix "shirtpocket" that I take to dinner parties. For road racing, sailing, ocean cruises, fishing, hunting, and vacations in general, I like something more serious; however maybe the FX is more than I need. My major issue at this point is deciding whether my 2 FX lenses are wasted on a DX body. Your comments are very kind thanks.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

FX lenses are never "wasted".

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Dump the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6.

amehta Loc: Boston

The issue isn't that the FX lenses are wasted, but in the case of the 24-120mm, it doesn't really meet the purpose of a "general purpose lens". The 70-300mm is probably worth keeping. And since it's the older, unimpressive 24-120mm, I think you are "starting over" in a sense, because you would no longer have a "primary" lens.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

DX lenses cover a smaller image circle than an FX lens. Many FX lenses are targeted towards professionals, and are generally built to higher standards - dust and moisture sealing, less plastic, more resistant to damage from impact, etc. Also, they tend to be faster - better autofocus motors and larger maximum apertures. In the case of zooms, the maximum aperture does not change when you zoom. All of this adds up to a bigger heavier, better made lens - and more expensive.

Most lenses have better performance near the optical axis than the edges and corners. When you use an FX lens on a DX camera, you are only using the center of the image, which is generally sharper. Using DX lenses on DX cameras often has the same loss of image quality as you can get with an FX lens on a FX camera.

If you never intend to get an FX camera, then get a DX wide angle zoom and save some $$$. Though you can get a Sigma or Tokina ultrawide and still get a decent lens for less than a Nikon.

steveg48

An FX lens will work very well on a DX camera. However the 1.5 crop factor must be applied. If the resulting field of view/equivalent focal length is acceptable then you will get better performance than with a DX lens.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I haven't read all the replies, but take a look at the Nikon Lens Simulator - very good. They re-did the site.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

Great answer and suggestions.

PHW Loc: Madison, WI

DX is for less than full frame cameras. FX is for full frame. You better get with a good informative salesman and ask questions then get some experience hands on. Most people will never know the difference between the quality unless they see a blow up. 98% of all pictures today are taken with a cell phone camera. Satisfied with that?

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Simply put, the FX lens and DX lenses are compatible to a point. (meaning both will fit and work on both cameras with 1 major difference). An FX lens projects a 50% larger area at the sensor (the difference in size of the larger FX camera sensor to the smaller DX sensor). An FX lens on a DX camera will provide a larger acceptance of image to the area and the smaller DX sensor will crop out the extra 1/3 of the image around the edges. Similar to shooting an FX camera in DX (cropped mode). The DX lens on an FX camera will only provide image data to the center 2/3 of the sensor leaving the rest unexposed. Many of the FX cameras will have a DX or Cropped Mode which will have the camera automatically change the view to represent this area for correct view finder aiming. In FX on a DX camera, the view finder may or may not show the entire view if the lens ( I can't remember on this) but if so just remember to keep your aim in the center 2/3rds of the view. Many photographers that are planning on getting an FX camera will purchase ONLY FX lenses so that all are easily compatible with the more expensive (some say better) camera. Both lens formats have some very good lenses and some so / so lenses, although FX tends to have more "pro quality" lenses.

jgitomer Loc: Skippack Pennsylvania

Three things to consider:

First, lenses are forever, but bodies are not. Your own experience with digital bodies bears this out.

Second, at some point in the future the price differential between DX and FX bodies will be reduced to the point where it makes no sense to buy a new DX body -- unless you have a substantial investment in DX lenses.

Third, unless you are a working pro you don't NEED "Holy Trinity" f/2.8 fixed aperture professional zoom lenses. (Sure, if you can afford them they are nice to have, but want and need are not the same.)

I truly believe that it makes more sense to buy FX lenses, but then I must admit to being biased.

Jerry