Lenses DX to FX: I updated my camera to FX body and my Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX lens was a lens I love because of its specific lens distortion. Out of desperation I got a28-80 3.3-5.6 for my...

uhaas2009

I updated my camera to FX body and my Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX lens was a lens I love because of its specific lens distortion. Out of desperation I got a28-80 3.3-5.6 for my FX body.
I’m looking for a similar lens like my 17-55 but I need it for FX body.

BebuLamar

A 24-70 f/2.8 would be close.

Bayou

uhaas2009 wrote:

I updated my camera to FX body and my Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX lens was a lens I love because of its specific lens distortion. Out of desperation I got a28-80 3.3-5.6 for my FX body.
I’m looking for a similar lens like my 17-55 but I need it for FX body.

You've pretty close already. The 28-80mm f3.3-5.6 is an amazingly good lens. It's full frame, fast focusing, and very sharp. Don't be fooled by its super low price and lightweight construction. It does lack VR, though.

Matching the lens distortion? A challenging proposition.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

You might want to build a lens strategy for yourself. It starts with what you shoot right now and what you are planning to shoot in the future. Many of us start with the trinity of 12(14)-24mm f/2.8 or f/4, 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8. That glass is very sharp and the focal range covers a lot of ground. Personally, I use a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 most of the time unless out birding. If you are into nature/wildlife, you would add a longer prime or zoom lens. After that, add something like a 105mm f/2.8 macro. Of course, there are the traditional 24mm, 35mm , 50mm very fast primes if you are so inclined. So, build a list and start collecting as money allows.

Canisdirus

Strodav wrote:

You might want to build a lens strategy for yourse... (show quote)

That is excellent advice...

Anyone who says they want to get into photography in a meaningful way...
Needs to make themselves a roadmap...where are they now...where do they want to go...best way to get there.

It's very easy to get sidetracked and make choice errors that will slow you down or derail your plan entirely.
It seems lots of 'hobbyists' get scattered by marketing push and the idea that more gear is better than less gear.

The good news is...I doubt anyone needs more than 4 to 5 lenses for their current system...and most can get by with 2 or 3.

I do have lenses from dropped systems and ones tech has left behind...and if I needed extra funds ( I don't )...I'd have sold them all already...but I have a few extra dry boxes...and they stay there.

Make a roadmap. Follow it.

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

Check out Ken Rockwell (https://kenrockwell.com/), he covers a very wide range of Canon, Nikon, Sony etc) camera bodies & lenses both DX & FX, which ones are best etc

V2volk Loc: St. Louis area

BebuLamar wrote:

A 24-70 f/2.8 would be close.

The go to lens!

RightOnPhotography Loc: Quebec,QC

Another option is Nikkor AF-S 16-35 f4. Pretty decent lens, reasonably priced. You can find a used one at probably $700.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Lens strategy: When I began, I often bought used and cheaper lenses to make sure that would be a focal length or zoom that I would use and then sell off the first copy to buy a better one. sometimes I found that I didn't use that focal length or zoom range as much and just left it as it was. Many here like the 24-70 or 28-75 f2.8 zooms. I had one, but the weight kept me from using it as much as I would have liked so I went to a lighter, slower lens in the same range and it is my everyday lens. Each person's strategy will vary and that's OK.

User ID

Bayou wrote:

You've pretty close already. The 28-80mm f3.3-5.6 is an amazingly good lens. It's full frame, fast focusing, and very sharp. Don't be fooled by its super low price and lightweight construction. It does lack VR, though.

Matching the lens distortion? A challenging proposition.

Close ? 5.6 is “close” to 2.8 ?!?!?

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

User ID wrote:

Close ? 5.6 is “close” to 2.8 ?!?!?

When film choices were limited (how about Kodachrome 25?) and 2 stops were a very big deal, one could use a 2.8 where a 5.6 wouldn't do. Now with high ISO performance being what it is, AND depending upon subject matter, it's not a big deal.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

DaveyDitzer wrote:

When film choices were limited (how about Kodachrome 25?) and 2 stops were a very big deal, one could use a 2.8 where a 5.6 wouldn't do. Now with high ISO performance being what it is, AND depending upon subject matter, it's not a big deal.

To me, it's a big deal when trying to bring a subject out of a background, i.e., sharp subject, soft background.

BebuLamar

DaveyDitzer wrote:

When film choices were limited (how about Kodachrome 25?) and 2 stops were a very big deal, one could use a 2.8 where a 5.6 wouldn't do. Now with high ISO performance being what it is, AND depending upon subject matter, it's not a big deal.

f/2.8 or f/5.6 is not about low light. When I shoot low light I always use f/5.6 because I don't like paper thin DOF. But if someone who likes shallow DOF then f/5.6 wouldn't do regardless of lighting condition.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

BebuLamar wrote:

f/2.8 or f/5.6 is not about low light. When I shoot low light I always use f/5.6 because I don't like paper thin DOF. But if someone who likes shallow DOF then f/5.6 wouldn't do regardless of lighting condition.

I said, "And depending upon subject ..."

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

BebuLamar wrote:

f/2.8 or f/5.6 is not about low light. When I shoot low light I always use f/5.6 because I don't like paper thin DOF. But if someone who likes shallow DOF then f/5.6 wouldn't do regardless of lighting condition.

The short zoom range of top notch mid zooms (28-75 for example) can allow the photographer to often use a "nifty fifty" f1.8 to achieve the shallow DoF if desired. These are all individual choices. For me lugging the heavy f2.8 zoom was less desirable when I could use a lighter, slower zoom and keep a 7oz. 50mm in my pocket.