Thoughts on lenses for full-frame cameras...

(Any other full-frame user who is using glass other than the new hotness? Chime in. This could be an entertaining and educational thread for those thinking about jumping to FF. )

As a photography hobbyist and a current Nikon D700 user, I have seen multiple comments from people contemplating the move to FF about needing to replace their lenses if they should actually make the move. A few times here on ARFCOM, more often on several other photography-oriented websites, and in real life. And you'll find no shortage of people who will advocate new (and expensive) glass and happily help you spend massive amounts of your money.

This slightly tongue-in-cheek post is geared towards those who shoot family photos or just enjoy the hobby, not pro photogs. (Applicable disclaimers listed at the bottom of this post.)

Photography can be expensive. Really expensive. As in "BRD-is-a-piker" expensive. There are several names given to the affliction akin to BRD. LL (Lens Lust) and NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome) are a couple common terms if you haven't heard them already. If you succumb to the affliction, you can fight to control it, or live with the fact that you will spend money.

"It's a waste to spend the money on a full-frame camera and not buy the best glass.", or "If you don't buy this lens and that lens you will not get decent images from the D-whatever body." are two comments I hear/ read quite frequently. As someone who has some of the newest super-duper magic-pixie-dust-coated marvels of optical engineering as well as 30+ y/o lens designs, I can say - it depends.

Is the newest bestest glass really good? Yes. Some of them are stunningly good. Is older and/ or less-expensive glass as good? It depends - sometimes there is no modern equivalent available, sometimes your intended use negates the modern advantage, etc... Are the older and/ or less expensive lenses capable of producing decent imagery (providing you do your part)? Yes.

There are several questions you need to ask your self before purchasing, that might save you some coin.

Are you a gear-head/ measure-baitor/ pixel-peeper? If so, you might as well just spend the money, and realize you'll not be happy unless you have the best. And when the next new shiny comes along that becomes the best, you'll have to have that one as well. (I'm a gear-head. And yes, I fight the urge. I'm not doing too bad... )

If you aren't in these categories... what do you plan on doing with the images? Web display? Printing? If so, what maximum size? What subjects are you going to shoot? Fast moving objects like munchkins or fighter jets? Or landscapes? Daylight? Lower light levels? Are your eyes good enough to use manual focus? Or do you need auto-focus? Has age begun to creep up on you, or do you have some medical issues that introduce tremors or unsteadiness? Do you take shots in places with conditions that introduce flare or color-fringing? Answer questions like these, and you can tailor your lenses to your needs. VR or no VR, fast glass, auto-focus or manual-focus, etc... many options available and not all of them are overly expensive.

Nikon's FF cameras have the capability to use a massive amount of legacy glass. Ai, Converted Ai, Ai-S, Ai-P, AF, AF-I, and AF-D lenses are all available on the used market. Sometimes for very low cost compared to the quality you get. Some of the older manual-focus lenses are still considered stellar performers (like the Ai-S 105mm f/2.5), even with their "outdated" optical formulas. And they can be purchased at a significant discount from the price of the new versions of the lens. There are less-expensive more modern options such as kit and third-party lenses, but I am not as familiar with those.

I shot for a month with this setup - D700 with Ai-S 50/1.8 and 135/2.8. (Those two primes can be had for less than $300 combined. There is a modern AF-S 50/1.8 for a bit over $200, but no modern prime equivalent to the 135/2.8 - closest is an AF DC 135mm/2 at $1300+. Faster glass and has de-focus control.)



People were surprised at the quality of the images produced by the "old" optical formulas and coatings. (They were not overly impressed with my compositional skills however. ) Another example is the Ai-S 200/4 - you can find these in decent condition with perfect glass for a bit over $150. This is another lens that can surprise people when photos are posted.



If you want the updated optical formulas and modern coatings, and can afford to spend the cash - by all means do so. They are wonderful lenses. If you need VR, you can still save some cash while getting decent glass - the 70-300VR instead of the 70-200VRII, for example.

But don't think that you absolutely need to drop $5200 on a 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200... just to upgrade to FF. Don't be afraid of the older and/ or less expensive glass. You might be pleasantly surprised. And save some coin.



* Damn it Jim, I'm a hobbyist, not a photographer!

** IANAL

*** IMHO

**** YMMV

The Sales Dept "asked" that I come down and have a "chat" with you.

Completely agreed. I shot Nikon up until 2000 or so and had a number of the ai-s lenses. The 300 f4 was sharper and far cheaper than my Canon 300 f4L. Seemed they had a serious downturn with their initial 2.8 zooms but after they got it ironed out with the following generations they were back up to snuff.

You also can't beat the Nikon customer service. I mounted a Monarch riflescope on my 300 win mag then proceeded to twist my ankle as I removed it from the truck and dropped the gun. Bent the tube. Sent it back to be repaired, explained what happend and received a new one in two weeks.

Back in the day I shot Nikon –– F2AS and an F3HP. I had a few lenses, but nothing notable. (I was on a budget, so a Tokina 70-200 2.8, Russian 300 2.8...)

Glad to hear about the CS - haven't had to use it on any of my Nikon gear (yet)...



Yep, I love the distance scale on the lenses. Instant visual representation of your DOF, and setting hyperfocal like you mentioned.

As for stacking up against the Canon Ls... probably the same as against modern Nikkors, IMHO. In lab testing, the modern lenses with improved optical formulas and coatings usually beat the older lenses. Same with pixel-peeping. Doesn't mean the older glass isn't capable of producing decent images - it just depends on the intended use.

Options. We has them. And they are a good thing. An amazing time to be a photographer (of any level) when you think about the options and technology available.

The D200/D300 DX line also does a lot of the older lenses.

After upgrading my D70S to the D200, I pulled out my old film Minolta setup. The Tamron 500mm f/8 mirror lens had an "adapt-all" mount on it. I bought a Nikon mount for it off e-bay, and was good to go on the D200. Manual focusing on screens that are optimized for auto-focus sucks, but the price was right. Of course, the lens works just fine on my D700, too.

PhotoZone.de lens test

Good point - I forgot about some of the DX bodies. D7000 can use them as well. I find MF a bit more problematic on most DX viewfinders though - too small and dark for my eyes. Not a problem with the bigger/ brighter viewfinders on the D2x/s and the FX bodies.

I do miss the manual-focus screens. Been debating on trying one of the KatzEye replacement screens.

Nikon? Might as well blow your money on hookers and beer....the satisfaction will last longer.

Someone sounds jealous.

Actually, no. The larger image sensor means lens resolution is less critical to overall image resolution.

Tons of older glass that is just as good, sometimes better, than new glass. One of the strengths of Nikon is the availability of all that older glass.

And 99.9% of people will never be able to tell the difference between an image taken with a $250 Sigma lens instead of a $1300 Nikon brand lens.

Thanks for adding that info. I'm kind of surprised at the number of people who I hear using the excuse you quoted from my OP. I also agree most won't be able to tell the difference.

As for just as good/ better... one area I believe a lot of the new lens do a better job in, is the control of aberrations. My 135/2.8 has some pretty gnarly color fringing - something my newer lenses control better.

I believe that in most instances, any actual differences are not nearly as bad as people seem to believe. I also think too many people get wrapped up in test results and mft charts and such.

And some of us just spend a few extra bucks and get DxO Optics Pro and correct in post processing...

That's funny, because when the 5D Mk II came out people were complaining that the camera accentuated the flaws in their glass, causing them to go out and buy better lenses. IT may not matter so much on a Nikon full frame but with the amount of pixels on a canon, it is more important.

You make it sound like there is a big difference between the Nikons and Canons.

I won't speak for Gamma762, but I think I understand his point. I'll add my .02...

I've heard/ read many Nikon DX users mention wanting to go full-frame, but use the reasoning of having to replace all of their lenses (possible if the have only DX lenses) or "it's a waste to upgrade to FF and not get the best glass". Most of them want to get a D700. I argue the point with them that it's not necessarily the case. I have the D700. I happily use (and actually prefer to use) manual focus lenses - old Ai-S and new Voigtlander Ai-P equivalent lenses. However, there are times that I need to use VR, and/ or auto-focus. (Getting old sucks.) But I don't need the new lenses to use my D700 - they're needed because of my limitations.

From the way I understand sensor technology, using the same generation sensor technology - a 12mp APS-C sensor has substantially smaller photosites than a 12mp FF sensor. A 21/ 24/ 36mp FF sensor has smaller photosites than a 12mp FF sensor as well. The large photosites are better at collecting light, and give better dynamic range and better low-light performance. More photosites on a sensor increase sensor resolution, at the expense of some dynamic range and low-light performance. The higher resolution sensor is less forgiving of a lens's resolving ability. (Hence the reason the 21mp FF 5DmkII, the 16mp APS-C D7000, and the 24mp FF D3x show flaws in some lenses. And all of those cameras are less forgiving of user technique.)

As sensor tech improves, the smaller photosites are increasingly better at dynamic range and low-light performance. If the same sensor improvements were applied backwards to a 12mp FF sensor, it would again be better at dynamic range and low-light performance than the sensors with smaller photosites.

On the 12mp FF D700/ D3/ D3s, older/ less expensive lenses work quite well. On the D3x? Maybe not so well due to the sensor resolution.

That's the way I understand the basic relationship between sensors, photosites and lenses. But it is actually more complicated a subject than what I have presented... sensor format, photosite size, light properties, lens design and optic properties/ quality, aperture setting, etc... all factor into the equation. There is a good tutorial at Luminous Landscapes with regard to this subject. It's a bit deep (for me anyways), and I'm still trying to wrap my brain around some of the info.

I'm not an expert. Anyone who is and would like to share, please feel free to chime in. Learning is a good thing.

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.