I'm lacking a walk-around lens right now. I do enjoy my 10-20 wide lens, my 50, 85, and 70-300, but I don't have a normal focal length lens (for DX). I used to have a 35, but my d5200 doesn't have focus calibration, so I got rid of it at a small loss (20 bucks).

The benefits of going ff as far as I see it are these:
1) My 50mm and 85mm primes become amazing
2) My 70-300 becomes a lot better for many applications (ie. portraiture), although I bought it for wildlife
3) Shallow DoF, actually good camera, etc... FF is FF

The benefits of sticking with DX as I see it are:
1) I have a 10-20 DX lens already
2) My 70-300 remains a 105-450 equivalent FoV, though superior ISO performance might outweigh the reach for cropability
3) Cheaper, the 18-35 1.8 is $1000 after taxes, going FF (and not getting a shitty older ff camera) means about $2000 after taxes, plus if I want to replace my wide angle that's an additional $1000 for anything worth-while
4) I'm not a pro, and if DX continues to be supported with better glass (ie. f1 or f1.2 crop-only primes, f1.8 70-200 equivalents, etc), then DX might last as a format & be worth investing in.

I'm curious, do you think it's worth embracing DX and getting the Sigma 18-35 1.8?

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Aug 21 2014 10:52pm

One of the nice things about nikon

Id say keep the 10-20 and get full frame. 50mm will make a nice walk around lens with a full frame. Dof looks different on full frame in other ways than Dof being more shallow. Sharp area turns into bokeh in within a smaller area in FF, because first of all longer lenses do that(and you obviously need to use a longer lens to gain the same Fov in FF than crop), also because the area pictured is larger(and then shrinked to same final size when printed or viewed on computer) the area in which sharp turns into bokeh looks smaller. Because of this you can also create larger areas of bokeh without making the bokeh "larger"/more blurred, this makes the pictures have really different, more professional feel to them than what you can get with crop sensor, even when using lenses with large aperture.

This post was edited by Antichrist- on Aug 22 2014 03:35am

The Art series are amazing lenses.. I can't talk more about the quality they produce. You'll be happy with the 18-35.

I rarely take the 35 1.4 ART off my camera when shooting fashion editorials. Best lens I've ever had, so sharp.

You won't see any f1 or f1.2 crop only primes. Lenses that wide open are large, heavy and expensive. DX will always be geared to the cheaper end of the market.

FF is a whole new investment.

The 70-300 is pretty woeful and will show it even worse on a FF. The only lenses worth keeping are the 50 and 85. I'd get a 35 on top of that.

This post was edited by lithfkn on Aug 22 2014 06:16pm

I find the 70-300 VR is quite good. I have a couple loon shots at 300mm with it here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/124630848@N07/

I think FF will be a whole new investment. It's part of why I got the 10-20 earlier (because I decided a FF ultrawide is ridiculously expensive). It's also part of why I think the 18-35 1.8 might be the way to go, or maybe the 35 1.4 if not the zoom lens. I mean, if I did go with something like a D610, my 10-20 sigma isn't the sharpest or best thing in the world (though my copy is quite decent), so a reduced MP count might not matter in DX mode on the FX body. That makes my $500 investment sad, but I wanted an ultrawide. However, the D610 doesn't represent good value to me at $1800, aside from getting a full frame sensor. The rumored D710 or D750 or whatever it will be called is set to sell at the $2400 or so price-point.

With all that said, the resale value of my D5200 is probably at $400, so a D610 is $1400, and an 18-35 is $900. That's a $500 difference.

I'm leaning toward the 18-35 simply because it would make a good walk-about lens. My only apprehension is that I would be missing out on that ultra thin DoF of f1.8 or f1.4 with a 50mm prime, 85mm prime, and 35mm prime. I get essentially an f2.7 DoF (f1.8 x 1.5 crop factor) currently. Otherwise, the 18-35 represents amazing value & at f1.8 (compared to f2.8 on a 24-70), I would get better low light noise performance at the same exposure than a full frame body.



Good point about the DX-mode on an FX body.

The points about the DoF are mostly true. However, if you shoot at same 50mm on a crop body at f1.8, and compare it with 75mm on a full frame body at f2.8, the pictures will look nearly identical. That extra separation on full frame is due to the thinner DoF, but if you could shoot at a quicker aperture on a crop camera, that actually closes the gap & makes the performance almost indistinguishable (insofar as looking at one still picture, the bokeh, etc).

Nevertheless, there's no such thing as an f1.2 crop-only lens that would behave like an f1.8 on a full frame. So, my f1.8 lenses will never be as nice on DX. That's definitely still weighing on my mind.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Aug 22 2014 10:10pm

I think I'll retire to the 18-35 1.8. It will give me a very healthy range: 10-20, 18-35, 50, 85, 70-300. I can photograph everything.

Were I to move to FX, to get the same value, I would need to spend:
$1800 on the body (D610)
$1300 on the 16-35 wide angle Nikkor lens
$1500+tax on the 24-70 Nikkor lens

I want FX, but only for a stop of ISO performance, better use of my 85mm lens, and shallower depth of field.

The way I see it, the whole glass market will be different in 5 years from now. Canon and Nikon are a little archaic by supporting older DSLR's with inferior flange distances as mirrorless technology is heralded in; the point being, FX glass and DX glass both have lifespans, and I don't want to overrate FX glass as if it's eternal. I'll just stick to DX, maybe get another DX body in 2.5 years, and be happy with the 18-35 f1.8 upgrade.

Feels like a bit of a cop-out, a bit of an excuse (money-wise), but I think I should be happy. I'll only miss a little DoF (to be honest that's the only thing on my mind, f1.8 DoF on full frame versus the equivalent f2.7 DoF I'll get on crop). Mistake? Pretty dead forum I know.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Aug 24 2014 10:58pm

Bought it. Then I found out the dock doesn't come with it. Bought the dock, another $60.

I'm down $850. Happy though. Or so I should be I hope!

Photos or didnt happen

Hasn't arrived yet. I've shelled out the $$$ though.

Just got it in the mail, it's 10:30PM now. Can't really do much testing yet!!! Really excited. Did a few in my room shots at 1/100 at ISO 1600... terrible lighting, just shooting random stuff. Going to pixel peep so I have something to do with it tonight.