Thursday, March 21, 2013

Choosing between full frame vs. APS-C

I know some of us are choosing between a full frame camera and an APS-C camera, such as the D600 and the D7100.  The purpose of this post is to highlight some of the differences to help you reach an informed decision.


1. Low light.
One typical advantage of full frame cameras is better low light capability.  Some would say that you can use flash in low light.  Of course you can.  But low light capability can complement flash use, not only increasing the potential range of your flash but also making it easier to mix the flash and ambient for natural-looking results.
Nikon D600 with flash. ISO 12,800.

Moreover there are times when using a flash is difficult.  In the shot below, the background was cavernous, and the black ceilings would have been difficult to bounce from.  At the same time we were constantly moving, therefore a long exposure would have resulted in a blurry shot.  Thanks to the D3's high ISO capability, I could use a shutter speed as high as 1/160 (f/2.8, ISO 12,800) for a sharp shot.
Nikon D3 with Tokina 11-16 at 16mm, f/2.8, 12,800 ISO.
The better argument in my view is that a full frame camera no longer has an obvious advantage over APS-C for low light.  With new high-performing APS-C cameras, you would have to look at specific cameras to draw a conclusion.  For example, DXO scores notwithstanding, I believe a Nikon D7100 can have a comparable image quality to the Nikon D3, with both at 12,800 ISO, if the D7100 shot is reduced to the same resolution, especially if both are viewed at laptop viewing sizes. [UPDATE: I have confirmed that, as incredible as it sounds, the D7100 does indeed have the same high ISO performance as the D700/D3 when viewed at the same 12mp size.  See here.]

D7100-0961-201303200058.jpg
Nikon D7100 at 12,800 ISO (with flash). No noise reduction yet.
2. Sharpness.
All factors being equal, a full frame camera will be sharper than an APS-C camera.  I know there are skeptics out there so let's look at DXO scores for the Sigma 35 1.4, one of the sharpest lenses ever made.

On a 6mp Nikon D70, the Sigma 35 1.4 has a resolution of 6 perceptual megapixels (i.e. the lens outresolves the sensor).  On the higher resolution sensor of the 12mp Nikon D300S, the Sigma 35 1.4 has a resolution of 10 pmp, a nearly proportionate increase of total resolution.  On the 16mp Nikon D7000, however, the Sigma 35 1.4 only has a resolution of 11 pmp.


Although there is a significant increase in sensor resolution from the D300S to the D7000, the increase in total system resolution is marginal.  It appears the lens has reached its limit.

Or has it?  If we compare the Sigma 35 1.4 on the D7000 with the Nikon D4 which also has 16mp, the system resolution jumps to 14pmp.  This alone should tell you that all factors being equal, full frame cameras will give a sharper image than APS-C.  However, that's not the end of the story.  If you go still higher to a 24mp Nikon D3x, the total system resolution leaps to 20 pmp.  In fact, you may have heard that on the D800, the Sigma 35 1.4 reaches as high as 23 pmp.  So in fact, the Sigma has far greater potential resolution than the D7000 result would imply.


The explanation is simple: an APS-C camera has smaller pixels than a full frame camera, and a lens has to have a higher resolution in order to fully utilize the resolution of a sensor with smaller pixels.  Below a certain pixel size, a lens has to be extremely sharp to match the sensor resolution.  The Sigma 35 1.4 is already one of the sharpest lenses out there but even the Sigma cannot fully use the 16mp resolution of the D7000.  This is why I think that if DXO tests the Sigma 35 1.4 on the 24mp D7100 or D5200, the increase in resolution will be marginal.  Hopefully, in the future, manufacturers step up and design higher resolution lenses for APS-C (there are after all many high resolution Micro 4/3 lenses).  For now, though, there aren't any.  See the list of sharpest lenses for DX here.

Of course there are other factors that affect sharpness (duh!).  Nonetheless, if we stick to the issue of whether a full frame camera is sharper, the answer is that indeed, a full frame camera has a higher potential for sharpness than an APS-C camera.

3. Depth of field.
85 1.8G on Nikon D600

A full frame camera using a lens with the same field of view as an APS-C camera will appear to have a shallower depth of field, all other factors being equal (same distance to subject, same distance to background, same aperture).  However, one counterargument is that you CAN achieve a very shallow DOF on an APS-C camera as well, such as by using a longer focal length, moving closer to the subject, etc.

28-105 @ 105mm f/4.5 on Nikon D7100
Moreover, sometimes a very shallow DOF is not practical.  For example, if you use a 70-200 at f/2.8 on full frame to take a photo of a couple of people, the DOF is usually not deep enough to keep both faces in focus, unless they are exactly at the same distance to the camera.

On the other hand, at wider focal lengths, it is not easy to achieve a shallow DOF on APS-C, this gives wide-aperture wide angle full frame shots a distinctive appearance.
28 1.8G on Nikon D600
I personally believe that after we all have looked at many photos, we gain an intuitive expectation of the DOF of an APS-C camera as opposed to full frame, and when we see a shot with unusually shallow DOF at a wide angle, we recognize it as a full frame shot.  In fact, I would go even further. You know how some people say that full frame has a certain 'look' but they can't put it into words?  I think what gives full frame that distinctive appearance is the unexpectedly shallow DOF.

Sigma 50 1.4 on Nikon D600


4. Cost vs. versatility.
24-70 on full frame (Nikon D3)
One deterrent for getting a full frame camera is the cost of lenses.  It is true that full frame lenses generally cost more than their APS-C-only counterpart.  However, if you have an APS-C as a second camera, a full frame lens can function as two different focal lengths.  For example, the 24-70 2.8 is great as a standard zoom on full frame.  On APS-C it can work as a portrait lens.

24-70 on APS-C (Nikon D90)

5. Wider angles vs. reach.
The conventional thinking is that full frame is better for wider angles because at the same focal length, you'll have a wider field of view, while APS-C is better for longer focal lengths because at the same focal length, you'll have a longer equivalent focal length.

I think this is not a big factor.  There are wide angle lenses specifically designed for APS-C that will allow a wide field of view.  For example, the Sigma 8-16 can have a field of view as wide as a 12mm full frame lens.  That's just the same as the widest full frame ultrawide, the Sigma 12-24.

Sigma 10-20 @ 12mm on Fuji S5, an APS-C DSLR
As for reach, a full frame image can be cropped to have a smaller equivalent field of view (plus you have more flexibility for choosing the framing).  So I think the key issue is the resolution of the cameras you're comparing. For example, if you're comparing a D3 (12mp) and D7100 (24mp) then the D7100 will probably come out ahead because the DX-cropped D3 image will only have about 5mp, a much lower resolution than the D7100 (do consider other factors such as noise, etc.).  On the other hand if you're comparing a D800 (36mp) with a D70 (6mp) then the DX-cropped D800 image will have about 15mp, while the D70 has only 6mp, therefore the DX-cropped D800 image will probably be better (indeed at least one comparison of the D800 DX crop to the D7000 shows that the cropped D800 image is comparable to the D7000).

EPILOGUE
As you can see, the choice between full frame or APS-C really depends on what kinds of photos you take.  Personally, I like having the versatility of having both a full frame and APS-C camera.  When I want shallower DOF, such as on a standard zoom, I use full frame.  When I want a deeper DOF, such as an ultrawide or fast telephoto zoom, I use an APS-C camera.

RELATED POSTS:
Full Frame DSLR FAQ
Comparison of DOF between APS-C and FF in Depth of Field of Kit Lenses

23 comments:

  1. Hi,

    I've had a look at your High-ISO and Low-ISO comparison shots of the D600 and the D7100.

    At low ISO, the D7100 images actually appeared sharper to me, than the D600 images. What's your point on this, as it seems to be a contradiction to what one might expect.

    About the limiting lens resolution:
    The tests are performed with the widest aperture, which usually doesn't lead to the best resolution.

    So the actual system resolution can be significantly higher than in these tests.

    cheers, and thx for your awesome work!

    Philipp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Philipp! You know what, you're not the only one to notice that. See comment from Pr0 on the post re D600 vs D7100 test shots. Personally, looking at my own shots, it also seems the D7100 is slightly sharper or maybe it's just my imagination.

      Anyway, ironically I haven't had the time to look at the D7100 vs D600 shots myself! lol! Assuming it is as you say, then I can only ascribe the difference to the absence of a low-pass filter on the D7100.

      Thanks for the point about the testing aperture, and for your support!

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
  2. Dear Sirs. With a good enough lens, at low ISO, the D7100 will be sharper then D600 because lack of AA filter. But, to utilise the 24Mp on APC/DX IQ, one need the best of lenses, that is to use the central part of the best FX lenses. On ultrawide, DX don't have lenses in the 14-24 or 16-35 class. FX cameras as D600 can produce equal or better IQ with even a little lesser glas, and better as ISO rises. Whith D600, the cost and weight compared to a D7100 based system aiming at same IQ, almost the same. The FX system still has better potensial. I realy hope the debris problem soon be history. Yours R.Velle, Norway

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree R. Velle! As for the dust issue, so far my camera doesn't have a problem with it anymore.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    2. Great article! I've been wondering the same thing as far as FX cameras being able to produce better images with lesser glass. I've heard that the D600 high ISO performance is roughly 2 stops better than a D7000. Was wondering whether a D600 with a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 might be comparable in performance to a D7000 with a 70-200 f/2.8, specifically for shooting moving subjects at distance in low light. Since the equivalent aperture of a 2.8 on APS-C is actually more like f/4(?), and the D600 high ISO performance may be around 2-stops better, I think you might be able to achieve similar shutter speeds with the D600 ISO bumped up a bit. What is your experience with lesser glass on FX vs DX? Though most people say invest in glass first, I think this may be one case where camera body first might make more sense, as one could move to full frame at a similar price point.

      Delete
    3. Thanks! If what you care about is sharpness, then yes you can stop down a couple of stops and sometimes the result will similar in sharpness to a more expensive lens. However, I think there are other factors involved, so personally I think it depends on what the issue is with the cheaper lens. There are some cheaper lenses that are just fine for certain purposes. For example, the Tamron 70-300 VC is quite inexpensive, and it has excellent contrast (and great stabilization). However, the resolution is not superb (the bokeh is also blah). Would it be ok for you? It depends. If you like viewing the smallest details, then no. However, if you are not the type to pixel peep, then it is actually a very good lens.

      Delete
  3. Hi Mic,

    I've just had a closer look at the imaging-resource.com sample pictures of the D7100 the D4, and the D3X.
    According to a forum posting of the websites administrator, all the full-res photos are taken with the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro lens. (this information is consistent with the EXIF data, which shows 70mm focal lengths and aperture f8.)

    If you compare the "Still Life" sample pictures of the D7100 with the ones of the D4, you will clearly see, that the resolution of the D7100 image is a lot higher. Compared to the D3X the D7100 looks at least equal to me. (Actually, it's easier for me to read the very small text on the D7100 image than on the D3X image.)

    Unfortunately I don't know how DXO exactly evaluates the resolution of a camera system. (I couldn't find any proper information about it.)

    But according to my perception, an APS-C camera like the D7100 can clearly outperform an top-end FX camera like the D4 in terms of resolution. (Of course only at low-ISO)

    It's kind of surprising, that a 1200$ camera has clearly higher resolution (under certain conditions, like enough light) than a 6000$ camera.

    A couple of weeks ago, I would have been sure, that there is no situation where an APS-C consumer camera offers higher quality than a D4.

    But as a future D7100 owner, I'm more than glad about it. (I shoot 95% of my images at ISO 100 at daylight)

    Cheers,

    Philipp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Philipp. That is very interesting. I will take a look later for myself. Thanks for letting me know! Meanwhile I found DXO's lens testing protocol here: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/In-depth-measurements/DxOMark-testing-protocols/MTF

      On dpreview, there is a thread with the D600 vs. D7100 daylight shots I took. People with high resolution monitors say that on their displays the d7100 looks sharper than the D600. See here http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3451197 Hmmm...

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
  4. Hi Mic,

    thanks for your quick reply. The link in the testing protocol finally leads to what I was looking for: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/Sharpness

    The only information which is still missing, is where on the photo the resolution is evaluated. It seems that they make several measurements, (some more in the centre and some on the outside) and then take an average.

    But the explanation in the link above is quite sufficient, even without this information.

    From my point of view, this definition of the system resolution is quite "generous", because the test allows a contrast attenuation of 95%, which is far away from looking sharp!
    But I think, that they loose a bit of resolution in their test because of the maximum lens aperture.

    Anyway:
    It will be interesting to see what DXO says about the D7100.

    Cheers,

    P.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Mic,

    Great job on your blog which I find very helpful. I have been searching for an answer for my dilemma, whether to go FX on my next camera or stay with DX. I currently own a Nikon D90 with a variety of DX lenses such as the Nikon 18-200mm VR1, Nikon 35mm f1.8 and Tokina 12-24mm f4. I have a old film lenses, Nikon 28-105mm D and 50mm f1.8. I was going to jump into FX with the D600 and held back on news of the sensor dust issue, which seems to have gone away. And just as I was about to commit, the Nikon D7100 was launched. I am really torn as to whether I should stay DX and save money or go FX and spend double on the body and yet more on new lenses. I am drooling over the nano coated lenses such as the Nikon 24-120mm f4 and 70-200mm f4. I have been taking photos since film but only an occasional shooter, mainly for family holidays and gatherings. As I intend to keep the D90 as a backup, after reading your posts, where you actually use both FX and DX, I am starting to think it might not be such a tough choice for me. I might sell off the DX lenses and keep the 18-200mm only to raise some funds (though not enough to pay for the D600).

    My question is, now that the D7100 is out, would spending all that money on the D600 and new lenses give me photos that are twice as good? Or would the improvement be marginal? Now that the FX body is within reach, would it make sense to have 2 DX bodies (for me, meaning the D90 and D7100)? Your thoughts on this dilemma greatly welcome.

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi there! Thanks for the feedback.

      I think the first question is what you are looking for in a new camera that you are not already getting with the D90. I found the D90 was a very capable camera. The biggest drawback for me was that it does not have AF fine tuning, but for some folks that's a non-issue.

      The D7100 might get you noticeably sharper shots, but sharpness depends on other factors. Are your shots with the D90 tack sharp? If so then you might see even better sharpness with the D7100. If your D90 shots are not tack sharp, there is some bottleneck to sharpness (lens or shooting technique or something else) that will not let you take full advantage of the D7100's sharpness.

      As for the D600, the benefits compared to the D90 are mainly shallow depth of field (if you like that) and better low light capability. However, to really take advantage of the shallow DOF you need a wide aperture lens. Also, if you only want shallow depth of field for telephoto shots (as opposed to wide angle) then the D90 can do that.

      I think having 2 bodies (either both DX or DX+FX) is definitely useful for situations when you can't change lenses quickly. The issue is whether it would be worth the cost for you if you don't shoot often.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    2. Hi Mic,
      Thanks for sharing and your very prompt reply, fantastic!

      My initial motivation was to refresh my tech, since the D90 is coming to the 5 year mark, a very long time indeed in the tech world! Indeed my shots with the D90 are not as sharp as I would like, though it's not the AF tuning issue. It's more to do with lenses, I guess. I need to stop down the 18-200mm VR1 to f5.6 and higher to get sharp photos and that limits bokeh quite significantly. Talking about lenses, it seems that Nikon is releasing good FX lenses recently and not sure if they will follow suit with similar DX lenses, but no news yet. So, if I am going to invest in lenses anyway, going FX might be the best way of maximizing the investment.

      I do like your observation about the "FX look"; the shallow DOF at wider lens focal lengths, which is what I am looking for. It's not achievable with my 18-200mm VR1 nor Tokina 12-24mm f4 DX lenses.

      I forgot to mention my teenage son is a constant user of my gear. Besides taking stills, he's into making videos of himself and his friends performing music in HD for YouTube. He's been pining for the shallow DOF capability (you can find many samples on YouTube).

      So the scorecard between D7100 and D600 seems to be equivalent sharpness, with low light and shallow DOF for subject isolation going to D600. How about dynamic range? Does the D600 have a wider dynamic range than the D7100?

      The combination of shallow DOF at wider focal lengths, higher dynamic range and wider choice of lenses (which work at the right focal length) might swing me over to FX. The better results might motivate me to shoot more often too.

      Cheers!

      Delete
    3. Hi Wisdom-Eye. Yes you're right about the DX lenses. For some reason Nikon is not releasing exceptional DX lenses (on par with their new FX lenses). That's one factor to consider.

      I have not measured dynamic range yet but the D600's shadow recovery is far better than that of the D7100.

      If you want shallow DOF at wider angles then FX is the way to go! I definitely have no regrets with the D600 (or a D700 would be good too). While Nikon still has a sale, you may want to get the 28 1.8G, 50 1.8G and/or 85 1.8G.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    4. Hi Mic,

      Thanks once again for your help. I am deciding by this week and will be heading down to the shops to get a hands on with both bodies. Will post again, if you don't mind, after that.

      Cheers!

      Delete
    5. Absolutely. Looking forward to hearing from you!

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    6. Hi Mic,

      Here's a quick update. I have bought the D600 and thoroughly enjoy using it. I haven't explored all the features yet, but it's been great so far. Besides the great photo quality, the viewfinder is indeed extra wide compared to DX, width of focus points has not been a problem for me (just focus lock and re-frame before shooting) and focusing, even with my lenses from film days has been fast and accurate.

      My son and I went to a hot air balloon festival and we used both the D600 and D90, similar to what you recommended with regards to having both a DX and FX body. The D600 was great for the wider angle shots and subject isolation, while the D90 had a greater telephoto reach. We were both switching between the D90 and D600 and it was completely seamless!

      Some early observations: I am able to get subject isolation with the shallower depth of field even with my Nikon 18-105mm AF-D lens at f4. In fact, the camera shop sales guy told me to keep and use the lens as he felt there was no need for me to go for the Nikon 24-120mm f4. So, for now, I will be shooting with lenses from my film days which also includes the Nikon 50mm f1.8. The bokeh on the 50mm is incredible, seeing that I bought the lens used many years ago.

      One thing that has come back from the film days is vignetting at 28mm with the 28-105. I've had to set the vignetting setting to high and installed a slim filter on the lens. This, plus the shallower depth of field, has made me start to think again about what aperture I want to shoot at. It looks like f8 at least if I don't want to blur out the background. With DX, I usually shot wide open.

      So, this brings me to a point where lots of people are recommending using the best lenses with nano coat and apertures of f2.8 with DX. The logic seems to be that since we invested so much in the body, only the best lenses will do. I am sure if one were a pro and being paid to take photos, it would be a sound investment.

      However, since the DOF in DX is so shallow, even at wide focal lengths and moderate apertures, I think that most lenses need not be shot wide open all the time; I am specifically thinking of zoom lenses. If so, in most shooting conditions, needing a lens that is sharp corner to corner at f2.8 might not be needed. I am thinking that it might be that FX requires good quality lenses, but not necessarily great (read expensive) lenses to get good results.

      Conversely, since it is harder to get shallow DOF in DX, you would then require those f2.8 lenses, which ironically, most were made for FX (at least for Nikon).

      So, to conclude, I will be using my Nikon 28-105mm AF-D as my regular walkabout lens, 50mm for low light and great bokeh. I might add on the Nikon 16-35mm for wide angle and either 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR or 70-200mm f4 for telephoto and maybe 85mm f1.8 for portraits.

      Thanks again for sharing and keep up the great work on your blog.

      Cheers!

      Delete
    7. Hi Mic,

      Here's a quick update. I have bought the D600 and thoroughly enjoy using it. I haven't explored all the features yet, but it's been great so far. Besides the great photo quality, the viewfinder is indeed extra wide compared to DX, width of focus points has not been a problem for me (just focus lock and reframe before shooting) and focusing, even with my film lenses has been fast and accurate.

      My son and I shot a hot air balloon festival and it was very practical having a FX and DX body at the same time, as you recommended. We used the D600 for subject isolation and wider shots and the D90 for telephoto. We were both switching between the D600 and D90 seamlessly.

      I am able to get subject isolation with the shallower depth of field even with my Nikon 18-105mm AF-D lens. In fact, the camera shop sales guy told me to hold on to the lens as he felt there was no need for me to go for the Nikon 24-120mm f4. So, for now, I will be shooting with lenses from my film days which also includes the Nikon 50mm f1.8. The bokeh on the 50mm is incredible, seeing that I bought the lens used many years ago.

      One thing that has come back from the film days is vignetting at 28mm with the 28-105. I've had to set the vignetting setting to high and installed a slim filter on the lens. This, plus the shallower depth of field, has made me start to think again about what aperture I want to shoot at. It looks like f8 at least if I don't want to blur out the background. With DX, I usually shot wide open.

      So, this brings me to a point where lots of people recommended using the best lenses with nano coat and apertures of f2.8 with DX. Since we invested so much in the body, only the best lenses will do. I am sure if one were a pro and being paid, it would be a sound investment. However, since the DOF in DX is so shallow, even at wide focal lengths and moderate apertures, I think that most lenses need not be shot wide open all the time; I am specifically thinking of zoom lenses. If so, in most shooting conditions, needing a lens that is sharp corner to corner at f2.8 might not be needed. So, as what other people say, it might be that FX requires good quality lenses, but not necessarily great (read expensive) lenses to get good results. Conversely, since it is harder to get a shallow DOF on DX at wider focal lengths, it might be that indeed those f2.8 lenses are needed. Ironic since, for Nikon at least, most of those lenses are FX!

      So, for now, I will use the 28-105 as my walkabout lens and 50mm for low light and bokeh. I might add a 16-35mm f4 for wide angle, either 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR or 70-200mm f4 VR for telephoto and maybe 85mm f1.8 for portraits, one piece at a time.

      Once again, many thanks for sharing and keep up the great blog.

      Cheers!

      Delete
    8. Congratulations my friend!! That's awesome! I remember what it felt like the first time I got a full frame camera. I'm very happy for you and your son.

      About the lenses, if by 28-105 you mean the 28-105 3.5-4.5D, yes it's a pretty good lens. Quite sharp, with a useful 1:2 macro mode. The two issues with it are susceptibility to contrast-robbing flare and chromatic aberration. The latter doesn't bother me so much but it's an issue for some people. As for flare well I guess you just have to block the sun and other strong light sources with your hand.

      The 16-35 f/4 VR is a pretty good lens. As an alternative you may be interested in the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. It's much more affordable and according to DXO, it's the sharpest wide angle zoom for Nikon that they've tested (beating the nikon 16-35 and nikon 17-35, but they haven't tested the 14-24). I highly recommend the 85 1.8G. It's not only one of the sharpest lenses for Nikon, it's also actually usable wide open (for sharpness, autofocus and dof). The 70-300 VR and 70-200 f/4 VR are great choices for tele!

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    9. Hi Mic,

      thanks for the correction; indeed it's the 28-105 3.5-4.5D lens. For the flare, I've got hold of a third party lens hood that is the same spec as the original HB-18. I got a couple of new lens caps as well to "refresh" the look of the lenses (the originals had the Nikon logo all faded). Will check out the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 as well. I have the DX Tokina 12-24mm f4 and pretty happy with it. If the Tokina 16-28mm is reasonably priced, might be able to go for the Nikon 85mm and 70-200mm f4 as add ons, but one step at a time! :)

      Cheers!

      Delete
    10. Hi Mic,

      thanks for the correction; indeed it's the 28-105 3.5-4.5D lens. For the flare, I've got hold of a third party lens hood that is the same spec as the original HB-18. I got a couple of new lens caps as well to "refresh" the look of the lenses (the originals had the Nikon logo all faded). Will check out the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 as well. I have the DX Tokina 12-24mm f4 and pretty happy with it. If the Tokina 16-28mm is reasonably priced, might be able to go for the Nikon 85mm and 70-200mm f4 as add ons, but one step at a time! :)

      Cheers!

      Delete
    11. Hi Mic,
      After shooting for a couple of weeks with the 28-105mm, I am starting to miss VR! Since this focal length is what I normally shoot at, I was thinking of springing for a 24-120mm f4 VR with a soon to be received tax refund. That would mean having a redundant focal length range, but I would use the 28-105mm for the occasional macro shot. Then, I am planning to add the 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 and 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR later, starting with the 18-35mm. Would you recommend the 24-120mm f4 VR? And with a limited budget for the entire range, I know I am compromising on the wide and tele lenses, but would the 18-35 and 70-300 be OK choices? Thanks.

      Cheers!

      Delete
    12. Hi Wisdom-Eye. First of all, congratulations on the tax refund! :D

      I know what you mean about the VR. If I may suggest, try it out a little longer. Shoot at higher shutter speeds (if you use the D600's Auto ISO, select the fastest auto shutter speed) and see what you think. For me, without VR I was forced to shoot at higher shutter speeds and the side effect was that my shots got sharper.

      I don't have personal experience with the lenses you mentioned but have heard good things about the 24-120 f/4 VR and 70-300 VR. I don't know anything about the new 18-35 VR.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    13. Hi Mic,
      thanks for the suggestions and will give it a try. Thanks as always for sharing.

      Cheers!

      Delete

Thanks for your comment. It will be published as soon as we get a chance to review it, sorry for that, but we get lots of spam with malicious links.