"How do I know if a lense works with a DX and a FX sensor?"
The majority of lenses work with both assuming you are using the D3. In the case of a "full frame" lens, like the 28-105 AF it works fine on both formats but lenses like the 17-55 AF requires a camera like the D3 that can shoot both formats.
If your present camera is for the DX format (D100, D200, D300, D1 or D2 series}any lens built since the 80's should fit without problems, with rare exceptions. Just keep in mind that early cameras and some amateur cameras made by Nikon do not allow metering with AIS manual focus lenses.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
plnelson wrote:
Everybody who takes photography seriously should have a backup, so when you get your FX camera I assume you'll still keep the D300, so you should also keep the 17-55 for the D300.
The 24-70 is a great lens - I have it - but why do you want it now? Wait 'til you get the new body.
The 300 f/4 AF-S is also a great lens - I have it, too - so you should get that next since it gives you new coverage, focal-length-wise. Or you could wait to see if Nikon comes out with a VR version, since that's my biggest complaint about the 300 - At that focal length, if you don't have it on a tripod you pretty much have to shoot in bright sunlight to have a high enough shutter speed and low enough ISO to get critical quality shots.
Just a technical note - the usual rule of thumb is 1/focal-length as the minimum shutter speed for hand-holding. But that's really a minimum - I have steadier-than-average hands and I've found that to achieve tripod-like-results I need to shoot at 2-3 times that speed.
Center-sharpness on the 300 is amazing, even wide open, but edge-sharpness improves at f/5.6 and a little more at f/8, so I like to shoot it stopped-down 1 or 2.
The D300's noise levels are fantastic at ISO 200, but there is noticable shadow noise creeping in at ISO 400 although I can usually live with it.
So putting all this together, if you want to shoot critical quality shots, say of birds, with the 300 the "sunny 16 rule" says you can do it at 1/800th of a second at f/8 at ISO 200 in bright sunlight. In my experience, the "sunny 16" rule is a tad optimistic so I've found 1/1000th at f/5.6 at ISO 200, or 1/1000th at f/8 with ISO 400 is often required.
So that's OK for bright sunlight but if it's cloudy or getting near the end of the day I find myself wishing for the 300 f/2.8, or VR because the current 300 f/4 forces you into too many compromises. ...Show more →
I agree 100%! I thought it was just me that couldn't get sharp shots with my 300mm 4.0 AF-S without a tripod! It is not a bad lens, but I hardly ever use it because I don't like lugging around my heavy tripod. Problem with shooting in bright sunlight is that the contrast is very noticeable in the images, whites are blown out. The only reason I dont sell this lens is because I will probably get less than half of what I paid even with the Kirk collar I bought for it.
As far as the 17-55 vs. the 24-70, I also must agree with pnelson on this one. Wait until you get the FX camera, then get the glass. My 17-55 lives on my D200. Advantage is that I also have a pair of D1X's that love my 17-55 as well. Untill all four of my DSLR's die (two D200's, two D1X's), I will still love using the 17-55 on them!
p.s., my absolute favorite telephoto lens is my 180mm 2.8 AF. I can handhold this lens on any of my cameras all day without a tripod and get great results.
