13 replies to this topic

[karenfreer]

Hello,  I am confused about the lenses that are available for the D3200.  I come from a film background and I normally use a 50mm f1.8 prime lens.  I also like my 28mm f2.8 lens.  

 

As I understand it, the D3200 native lenses are the DX ones.  If I get any FX lenses for it they are going to be a different focal length?  for example, the AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 will actually be a 75mm lens on my camera.  

 

I have seen this lens - Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8.  Now it looks as though it was made for a film camera but I'm wondering if I can use this with the D3200.

 

I have got the 18-55mm AF-S DX Nikkor f/3.5-5.6 lens but I don't like the fact that I can't go all the way to f/1.8.  It's just what I am used to I suppose but if someone could maybe explain how nikon lens work that would be great.

 

 

[Merco_61]

What you need to look for is the AF-S designation as your D3200 has a crippled F-mount without the focus motor in the body that the film bodies had and the digital bodies above the D3x00 and D5x00 series still have. 

 

The crop factor won't change any properties of the lenses you use, you will just see a smaller part of the image circle than on film or FX. The crop factor is just a convenient way of describing what the crop is. A 50 mm lens on DX gives the same field of view as a 75 mm on FX, but the depth of field is still that of the 50 mm, so it will look like it was about a step more stopped down than if it was taken with a 75 on FX.

 

A 35/1.8 DX is a nice, cheap, fastish normal lens on DX, the 50/1.8 is more of a portrait lens. To replace a 28/2.8 on film, the relatively new 20/1.8 does a good job.

[Ron]

The main limitation as far as mounting lenses on your D3200 is the fact that the camera doesn't have an auto focus motor built in. There is no drive lug to focus older AF lenses such as the film camera lens you referenced. You need lenses marked 'AFS' to work with you camera. These lenses have their own AF motors and are much quieter and more accurate.

 

If you want a nice low light kit, I would get the Nikon AFS 50mm f/1.8G and the Nikon AFS DX 35mm f/1.8G . The 50mm is an FX lens and it will give you about a 75mm equivalent field of view as you pointed out. The 35mm, however, is a dedicated DX optic. It will give you a 50mm equivalent field of view. Yes, unfortunately they don't do the math for you when you switch from FX to DX. The bonus here is that these are two of Nikon's least expensive lenses and both have received very good reviews. You can pick up both of them together for a little over US$400. I'm not sure what they go for on your side of the pond but I expect that they are equally inexpensive.

 

--Ron

I seriously want that AFS 20mm f/1.8 for my FX body. Unfortunately, it ain't cheap! Do you have any experience with it, Peter?

 

--Ron

[Merco_61]

Ron, I have borrowed one over a weekend. It is very sharp but it vignettes quite a bit when focused close to infinity. The distortion it has is easily corrected in post. Very low CA and the coma error disappears at f/2.8, even in the corners.

It is on my list for new lenses I want, but a bit down on the list as I have the 14-24 zoom. 

[Ron]

I really need a good wide angle lens. For awhile I've jumped back and forth between the Nikon DX 10-24mm and an FX in the range of your 14-24. Lately, I've pretty much settled on FX. I recently saw a review of the 20 f/1.8 that was very positive and the included photos were gorgeous. I particularly like the way it renders starbursts and how close it focuses. The speed is icing on the cake. Would I like it to be even wider? Sure... but who can afford a 14mm Nikkor prime... let alone you're zoom? In fact, at the moment, the 20 would be pushing my budget a bit.

 

BTW... the gorgeous 14-24 photos you posted are at least partly to blame for the ants in my pants. I do hope you're satisfied!

 

--Ron

[TBonz]

I would say the 14-24 is the "next" lens on my list after the 105 Micro...you can definitely find it used occasionally which may end up being the way I go.  There have been times I have wanted wider than the 24 and I am sure I will "see" opportunities for the lens as I wander with it, but with my shooting, the wide end is less critical than the long end...

[Ron]

The size of the 14-24 gives me pause. Also, I'm not crazy about that huge exposed front element and it's also quite heavy... 2.20lbs. (1000g). But, I'm sure that I'd put it to use if I had it.

 

In my old Minolta days, I would often set out with just my XD-11 or SRT and a 28mm f/2.8 Celtic lens. I loved the way that lens rendered landscapes and, when pointed at the sun (or other point light sources) it produced gorgeous starbursts. It had fewer aperture blades than Nikon or Canon lenses so it had fewer points but they were beautiful none the less. I already have a nice (if slow) 24-120D that, strangly, also produces nice starbursts but, well... I've always wanted a 20mm lens. So there. LOL

 

--Ron

[TBonz]

Go for it Ron!

 

In my kit, the 14-24 would be fairly small next to the 24-70, 70-200 and 200-400 !  I did pick up a used Nikon 1 V2 with a 10-30 and 30-110 (basically covers 27-297 equivalent) for those times when I don't want to carry (or risk) the good stuff.  Working on replacing my D7000 body, both D600 bodies, the 18-135 DX and the motors with a D4s and 105 Micro.  So, it will be awhile before the 14-24 joins the kit...Well, hopefully I'll get some good paying gigs and it won't take long, but not sure about that right now...

[Ron]

I saw the text message about receiving the Nikon 1 V2. I've been thinking of picking up a 'carry around' camera for all the times when lugging DSLR's and lenses is just too much to deal with. I'd really like a rangefinder camera since I dislike using a monitor to frame photos but there aren't many of them around that don't have the Lecia brand on them somewhere and even the ones that do tend to be fairly expensive. It's not a biggie though. I'm still learning the idiosyncrasies of my D610 and the new lenses I've recently purchased. I've got enough stuff to keep me busy for awhile, even if I don't spurge for the 20mm widey.

 

I hope you get your gigs and the D4s. Sounds like a plan to me.

 

--Ron

[karenfreer]

Hello,  I am confused about the lenses that are available for the D3200.  I come from a film background and I normally use a 50mm f1.8 prime lens.  I also like my 28mm f2.8 lens.  

 

As I understand it, the D3200 native lenses are the DX ones.  If I get any FX lenses for it they are going to be a different focal length?  for example, the AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 will actually be a 75mm lens on my camera.  

 

I have seen this lens - Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8.  Now it looks as though it was made for a film camera but I'm wondering if I can use this with the D3200.

 

I have got the 18-55mm AF-S DX Nikkor f/3.5-5.6 lens but I don't like the fact that I can't go all the way to f/1.8.  It's just what I am used to I suppose but if someone could maybe explain how nikon lens work that would be great.

 

 

What you need to look for is the AF-S designation as your D3200 has a crippled F-mount without the focus motor in the body that the film bodies had and the digital bodies above the D3x00 and D5x00 series still have. 

 

The crop factor won't change any properties of the lenses you use, you will just see a smaller part of the image circle than on film or FX. The crop factor is just a convenient way of describing what the crop is. A 50 mm lens on DX gives the same field of view as a 75 mm on FX, but the depth of field is still that of the 50 mm, so it will look like it was about a step more stopped down than if it was taken with a 75 on FX.

 

A 35/1.8 DX is a nice, cheap, fastish normal lens on DX, the 50/1.8 is more of a portrait lens. To replace a 28/2.8 on film, the relatively new 20/1.8 does a good job.

 

 

Thanks a lot guys.  very helpful.  I will probably get that 35mm lens.  

 

One last thing though.  Why do they bother to write DX on some lenses if you still have a crop factor?  

[Merco_61]

DX lenses vignette heavily on FX as they don't fill the full format. That is why they are marked accordingly. When a DX lens is mounted on an FX camera, the camera switches to DX mode which is cropped from the full sensor.

[del fox]

DX lenses vignette heavily on FX as they don't fill the full format. That is why they are marked accordingly. When a DX lens is mounted on an FX camera, the camera switches to DX mode which is cropped from the full sensor.

will it be ok to use an FX lense on a DX body taking into consideration the manual focus?

[Adam]

will it be ok to use an FX lense on a DX body taking into consideration the manual focus?

 

Perfectly fine, and AF functionality will actually be retained for all modern FX lenses.  The only thing is that some older lenses (AF-D, i.e. screwdrive AF) won't AF on certain newer bodies.

[TBonz]

And the D7xxx series of DX bodies does have the drive..All of the new AF-S lenses (DX or FX) should autofocus as well...