Nikkor 18-300 DX vs 28-300 FX: Ok, all you hedgehoggers. I need some input. I have a Nikon D7000 with the 18-105 kit lens. Don't see a full frame any time in the near future. So...

devolution Loc: Dubuque. IA

Ok, all you hedgehoggers. I need some input. I have a Nikon D7000 with the 18-105 kit lens. Don't see a full frame any time in the near future. So, should I go with the 18-300 DX or the 28-300 FX and take advantage of the crop factor which would give me a 42-450. Also, aren't FX lenses better quality than DX lenses? I would appreciate any and all opinons. Thanks!

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

FX lenses are not necessarily better than DX lenses, being FX does not imbue them with some magical power :-)

You should choose the lens that suits what you are doing. Would 28mm be wide enough for you?

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

Yes...with the crop....42mm isn't very wide...the one draw back I have with mine.

deej

I own the 28-300 FX lens but cannot talk of the 18-300. The DX camera will use the center of the FX lens which eliminates most if not all vignetting and it has been said the best part is the center of the glass on focus. Coupled with these benefits and wanting to go with a FX body in the future I chose this lens. Color rendition etc... Is fantastic, focusing is a little slow but it has a built in focus motor allowing use on most Nikons.

Steinmetz Loc: Oregon based

In my collection of nikon lenses,
I have both the Nikon 18-200 and the 28-300.
With the 1.5 crop factor, you will likely find yourself wishing you
had the 18-200 on your camera. ( 27mm versus 42 ) for wide angle, and
if you are going to be shooting at the long range most of the time,
yes, the 28-300 will bring you in a little closer. I shoot mostly fx but do carry some dx cameras and utilize them, particularly in daylight shooting..

In a proportion I say, the 18-200 is approximately to the dx as the 28-300 is to the fx.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

Have the D800 - one feature is that you can change the image from the FX 1:1 mode to the DX 1.5 crop mode. I have the 28-300 (sold the 18-200 when I got the 800) in the DX mode it converts to a 42-450. Neat function. For watever its worth...

colane Loc: IOWA

I am rather new to digital photography. Would someone please explain the difference between DX and FX cameras? And, how do I know which camera I have. I have the Nikon D3100.

Steinmetz Loc: Oregon based

Your nikon d3100 is dx ( with a 1.5 crop factor )

Here is a site explaining the difference... between dx and fx (full frame)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJeQ11sEwjc

Fat Gregory Loc: Southern New Jersey

DX is what most of us have...
FX is what we want...
That may be the biggest difference!!!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

devolution wrote:

Ok, all you hedgehoggers. I need some input. I have a Nikon D7000 with the 18-105 kit lens. Don't see a full frame any time in the near future. So, should I go with the 18-300 DX or the 28-300 FX and take advantage of the crop factor which would give me a 42-450. Also, aren't FX lenses better quality than DX lenses? I would appreciate any and all opinons. Thanks!

I have the 18-200mm and it seldom leaves my camera (D7000). I considered the 18-300mm, but after using other 300mm lenses, I decided that 300mm was more than I needed, and holding it steady enough was a consideration.

Using a 28-300mm would lose me too much on the wide end, something I use more than the long end. I just prefer wide to long.

Read reviews, but I doubt they'll help much. None of the lenses mentioned is "bad," so it comes down to personal preference, need, and finances.

Steinmetz Loc: Oregon based

Like Fat Gregory's sense of humor...;=)

Seriously though,
there is a time and a place for both the DX and the FX camera, or a cellphone camera too.. ;=)

Each has its costs associated with it; and, for instance when I have my fx cameras cleaned, including the sensors, it runs twice in cost what it does to have my dx dslr cameras cleaned for the same work.

So costs are a big thing in photography regardless. Just know what you want to do before you purchase anything; and, ask lots of questions -- this may save one lots of money ...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Steinmetz wrote:

...when I have my fx cameras cleaned, including the sensors, it runs twice in cost what it does to have my dx dslr cameras cleaned...

Of course it costs more. The guy has to spend sooo much more time going over the entire surface of that massive FX sensor. :D

devolution Loc: Dubuque. IA

Thanks for all the input people. Since I mostly use the long range of a lens(I mostly shoot sports and cannot afford a f/2.8) and the price difference is not that much, I think I'll go with the 28-300 and get the extra boost at the end that the crop factor gives me.

MtnMan Loc: ID

FilmFanatic wrote:

FX lenses are not necessarily better than DX lenses, being FX does not imbue them with some magical power :-)

You should choose the lens that suits what you are doing. Would 28mm be wide enough for you?

I suppose it depends on the particular lens but in general using an FX lens on a DX camera may have a magical quality. You are only using the center part of the lens which usually is better (as in more uniform) than the edges.

MtnMan Loc: ID

jerryc41 wrote:

I have the 18-200mm and it seldom leaves my camera (D7000). I considered the 18-300mm, but after using other 300mm lenses, I decided that 300mm was more than I needed, and holding it steady enough was a consideration.

It depends on what you are doing. I just spent a couple of days in YNP. I must have switched my lenses 300 times in the two days. In Yellowstone you are going from wide angle scenery to telephoto critter shots every 30 minutes. I'd sure have liked something like the 18-300.

I am using this with my wife (who watched all the shenagins whilst whipping our her P500 with 36X zoom) to make a case for having a second camera body so I can keep the wide angle on one and the telephoto on the other. The Nikon D600 siren song is ringing in my ears...

Sleepy guy just got up

Your standard YNP hot pool