Marino

I and buying the Nikon D750, I have the D5300, with nikon lenses 18-55 kit lense, Nikon 35 mm 1.8 dx, and Nikon 55 - 300 mm dx. My question is if I should keep the 35mm and the 55-300 to used with my new camera, or should I sell the D5300 and all the lenses. I am very interested in improving IQ. Should I use only FX lenses. Please any light on this is welcome.

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

Using DX lenses on an FX camera you do not gain anything. Usually an FX camera defaults to DX when a DX lens is attached so you are right back were you started, i.e., DX. You are not taking advantage of the larger FX sensor that you paid for.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Just replied to a similar post, so it's a hot topic right now. DX glass does not cover an FX size sensor, so you will see a black vignette around the image extending to the borders. You can put the D750 in DX mode and your DX glass will work just fine filling the frame, but IQ may suffer. The D750 in DX mode is using 10.2mp (3936 x 2624) of the 24.3mp (6016 x 4016) available, where the D5300 uses all of the 24.2mp (6000 x 4000) with DX lenses.

I started with a D7200 (which I still have) and bought a few DX lenses, then started buying FX lenses knowing I would eventually upgrade. Recommend you look at the trinity of 12 (or 14) -24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, 1.4x tele-converter, along with 35mm and 50mm primes. If you are going to shoot wildlife then add the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

👍👍 Completely agree. Sell everything and start with one good FX lens and then add to your inventory as you need/can afford it. Congrats on a great camera.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You should sell all three lenses and buy replacements. Using a DX lens on a 24MP D750 essentially "throws away" nearly 60% of the image data. Instead of a 24MP FX camera, with DX lenses it will be a 10MP DX camera. Sort of defeats the whole purpose of buying a full frame camera.

It will be a WHOLE LOT more expensive, but FX lenses are what's needed with FX cameras.

The D750 with 24-150mm is a pretty good deal, costing $500 add'l for the lens when it's bought in kit with the camera. Bought separately, the 24-120mm normally costs about $1100. This lens will take the place of your 18-55mm DX. You'll probably get between $50 and $110 selling your 18-55mm, depending upon condition and which version it is.

The AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 isn't too expensive, at $200. It takes the place of your 35mm f/1.8 DX. You can probably get about $90 to $120 selling the 35mm lens, depending upon condition.

The best way to get approx. 55-300mm equivalent "reach" on a full frame camera is a Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6, currently on sale for around $1250. A reasonable alternative that's a little longer is the Tamron 150-600mm "G2" which is selling for about $1300 right now. Both those lenses are considerably bigger and heavier than your 55-300mm. Some alternative for full frame that's closer to the same size and weight, but doesn't have quite as much reach, are the Tamron and Sigma 100-400mm lenses, each of which sells for around $700. I recommend the Tamron because it can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring (sold separately, $129). The Sigma doesn't have that option. You can probably get about $175 to $200 for your 55-300mm lens.

So you're looking at net cost for lenses of at least $1100, in addition to the cost of the camera, if you opt for one of the 100-400mm lenses without a tripod ring. Or, for the longer telephotos, you're looking at around $1600, in addition to the cost of the camera.

The 150-600mm or 200-500mm are also about triple the weight and double the size of your 55-300mm. The 24-150mm is also about triple the weight and at twice the size of your 18-55mm.

The 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/1.8 are fairly similar in size and weight.

You'll see better image quality with the 24MP full frame camera... in prints bigger than 13x19mm. For prints smaller than that or images shared online, don't expect to see much difference from what you can do with your 24MP D5300. The other advantage of the full frame camera is that it will probably be usable at higher ISOs, with less digital noise in images. The full frame camera's low light autofocus capabilities might be more of a limitation than image noise at high ISOs. Full frame also has ability to render shallower depth of field effects, but fairly large aperture lenses are needed for that. The 50mm f/1.8 will have some potential, but the other lenses aren't particularly "fast". (Note: Depth of field doesn't actually change with different sensor size... it's only effected by aperture, focal length and relative distances. But when you go from DX to FX, in order to frame a subject the same way you either need to move closer or use a longer focal length, giving the impression of shallower DoF.)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Remember that you don’t have to use zooms. You can have lighter weight, a faster lens and lower price (but with less versatility) with primes. Take a look at the 35 f1.8, 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8 as a start - you can buy all three for less than the cost of a high quality zoom.

Marino

Thank you so much for your detailed explanations. I agree

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Why would you ask the UHH members such a question? Are you not capable of making this decision by yourself?! I'm not trying to be a wiseass here but this is a decision you should be making yourself. First, why would you spend the money for a full frame camera then use crop lenses on it? Use full frame lenses on your full frame camera and keep the D5300 as a backup camera and for those times when a crop camera is called for.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

I agree. BUT ...
For many lenses, a 1.4 TC will ameliorate that.
It will make that circle larger, and "fill the frame".
I use DX lenses on my film cameras with mine. It stops that fugly "border frame" I'd get.
You'll lose a stop or two. Make sure you get the "real" one, with the glass, and not just a tube.
Tho some have had some luck with those, too.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I would keep the entire D5300 kit and use it as “backup”. You already know how it works, and it’s resale value is limited.

CO

As was already recommended, sell the DX lenses and start over. If you like prime lenses and hand hold the camera a lot, look at Tamron's SP VC prime lenses. The reason is, they all have stabilization. They're also fully weather sealed and have a metal lens barrel. I use the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 SP VC lens on my D750. They also make a 35mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8 lens. Vibration compensation gives about 3 f-stops additional handholding-ability.

Nikon D750 with Tamron 45mm f/1.8 SP VC lens. 1/100 sec

(Download)

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

The 35mm F1.8 DX will just about cover the FX sensor - so I'd keep it. The other two lenses are ok kit lenses, but you won't be using them on the D750. So those "experts" who have provided a knee-jerk response need to Google this and become informed.

https://photographylife.com/using-nikon-dx-lenses-on-fx-cameras

Another lens is the 10.5mm DX Fisheye. If you can get someone to mod the lens to remove the non-removable lens hood, there is no problem using it on an FX body, also without needing to resort to using a crop mode.

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

There are exceptions, and he just happens to own one.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

Why does everyone thing that FX is an “upgrade” from DX. Consider getting a D500 which is a pro quality DX body and don’t fret your lenses. The D500 is a much better camera than a D750.

ELNikkor

Don't sell the 35 1.8 until you've tried it on the D750. I've seen articles that show it covers FX, so that might be one to keep. Since the D5300 and those lenses will not bring in much, I'd say keep them awhile after you go FX, there may be times when either you need a back-up, or just don't need the difference you get with the D750. (I kept my D5100 with lenses when I bought my D750, and am glad I did.)
As others have mentioned here, the D500 is similar in price to the D750, and seems to compare favorably in image quality. I knew that when I bought my D750, but wanted FX because I have many vintage Nikon lenses from the old days and wanted to use them with the FX sensor. Also, since the D500 doesn't have a built-in flash, that was a deal-breaker.