![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRmAjnDkPL9_rM0YxBq-omUAu9nfcfXLca_BnUV3i4AmNKi9BplDe-3G49Dni3MndNbt_13YbWz6XP-1IJlBHkO2801f1A-2cNOn6VfBFdorueqKcrXSJsZPUr7BnecmH7TmHP5Ct3Gko/s400/DSC_3864_Purple_Flower_and_Rocks.jpg)
This means that if you buy a lens and you think you'll still be doing semi/serious photography for at least another year or two, you really need to consider if you buy FX capable lens or not.
But knowing whether a lens can do FX is tricky! Would that Nikon had adopted a consistent naming scheme...
Into this breach steps Thom Hogan and his page which lists current lenses and their FX / DX capability.
Of course I have considered getting the D700... who wouldn't! But its a big big spend. Not only do I need the $3000 camera, then I need glass to do it justice.
I LOVE my Tokina 12-24 on my D300, example picture here. The FX equivalent would be 18-36, so the nearest equivalent would be ummm well there isn't one at the moment that I would want to buy. Its only a matter of time before Nikon fix this of course.
More pictures from Yosemite
No comments:
Post a Comment