>>4185152>My pictures are fine but I'm wanting more reach for wildlife.You came to the right place, fren
>There aren't many DX/aps-c format f mount lenses at all. I'm looking for a telephoto specifically. You don't need to use a DX-specific lens, FX works fine on DX bodies but the opposite isn't true.
>The only option that looks usable is the 18-300 and on paper it is still slow at f3.5-6.3. Not to mention its expensiveYou don't need to get a lens that fast, just get something stabilized and avoid superzooms like that, 70-300 will be much better. Also the D3300 has a really clean sensor.
>Also there isn't a "nifty 50" for the DX at allThe point of those is good aperture for cheap, normal focal lengths are boring as fuck. On APS-C they become a portrait lens with good background separation.
>Also, also all of the DX format lenses don't have an aperture ring, which makes astro photography difficult unless I focus on the sky before nightfall (nearly impossible to find the infinity setting when in manual focus mode).What does the aperture ring have to do with focusing? Use live view and zoom in at maximum if you can't do it through the OVF, but there's an easy way to pull it off: chromatic aberration. If you're too far or too near you'll see the objects surrounded by green or purple. As you dial the focus in this disappears. You need to get right in between of green and purple
>Also, I'm aware that the full frame lenses will fit onto the D300 body. So should I invest in a full frame lens and also save up for a full fame camera?You're after reach. If you were after wide angles I'd say absolutely go for FF. You won't get any more reach from a Nikon than what you have right now, your body is a 24MP one. That is like having a 60MP full frame in terms of reach, like the Sigma fp L. The only way to get even more reach is getting a Canon 90D, Olympus or Panasonic MFT with 20MP (and they're mirrorless which sucks), Panasonic with 25MP (GH6). Look into third party lenses.
