DX Lens on Fullframe Bodies; and reverse

Fingertip

This is probably nothing new, but I'm preparing to jump up my camera from the D200 to the D700 or D300. So, until I decide on the body, I've started purchasing a few lens. I tried the Nikkor 24-120 VR on my D200 and I'm certain it was not as sharp as the 18-70 DX. I understand that using DX glass on a full frame body is not as sharp as using the made for glass on the body. But, I've not heard the opposite. Anybody else experience this?

Art Scott

The difference with Nikon is taht the D700 and I presume the D3 , switch over to their "crop" area of the sensor (on the D700 it drops from 12mp to 5.+ mp) so that no vignetting occurs.....as far as sharpness.....taht should noting to do with sharpness............but if you're investing in a lot of DX lenses why would you want to go FX ..... if I had a sizeable investment in DX glass I would move from the D200 to the D300 and keep the 200 as a backup or even have it refurbed into an IR cam......or if Icould afford 3 bodies....then I would sell the D200 after getting my 1st D300 and get 2 more......one of which would become an IR cam.......

Cygnus Studios

Putting a DX lens on a FX body makes no sense. Even on the D3 you only get 5mp vs the 12 with FF glass. Really defeats the purpose. I agree with Art. If you have plenty of DX glass, go to the D300. It is a great camera that will last for years to come.

ziggy53

Fingertip wrote:

This is probably nothing new, but I'm preparing to jump up my camera from the D200 to the D700 or D300. So, until I decide on the body, I've started purchasing a few lens. I tried the Nikkor 24-120 VR on my D200 and I'm certain it was not as sharp as the 18-70 DX. I understand that using DX glass on a full frame body is not as sharp as using the made for glass on the body. But, I've not heard the opposite. Anybody else experience this?

Fingertip, welcome to the Digital Grin.

As the others have said the problem is not that of sharpness, the DX lenses are just as sharp on the FX bodies as they are the DX bodies. The issue is that of image coverage. A DX lens on an FX body will not cover the image frame of the camera, leaving you with either a reduced image circle which you would then manually crop, or you can use the auto-cropping feature of most Nikon FX cameras (all current Nikon FX cameras I believe) to capture just the central portion of the imager chip covered by the DX lens.

If you only need 5 MPix of image then a DX lens on an FX body can be useful. Most folks would want to use the entire image frame of the FX camera so they would want to use FX lenses exclusively.

HarveyMushman

Fingertip wrote:

This is probably nothing new, but I'm preparing to jump up my camera from the D200 to the D700 or D300. So, until I decide on the body, I've started purchasing a few lens. I tried the Nikkor 24-120 VR on my D200 and I'm certain it was not as sharp as the 18-70 DX. I understand that using DX glass on a full frame body is not as sharp as using the made for glass on the body. But, I've not heard the opposite. Anybody else experience this?

The 24-120 wasn't as sharp as your 18-70 because it's not a very good lens, not because it's a FX lens. In any case, sharpness really isn't the issue. Sharp lenses are available in both formats and yes, a sharp FX lens will be sharp on a DX body.

LifeandLens

Just Do It!
Fingertip, I have a D700 and I sometimes use a DX lens. The reason this can make sense is you have mixed FX and DX glass, and sometimes want to use the DX glass as it is lighter and smaller. And while you only get 5.1 mega pixels, they are really big and really nice mega pixels. So your low light capability is outstanding and your prints will be great up to about 8x12. If you wanna go bigger, use Genuine Fractals to go bigger than 20x30. I also have a D90 so why use the DX glass on the FX camera? Well, I really like the control layout on the D700 and even though it is a bigger body, it feels soooooo nice in my hands.
I respect my colleagues that have posted on this topic, but I think they might be posting their feelings and not their experiences. (no disrespect intended!) I've done it and I say just do it!

- Tom

Cygnus Studios

LifeandLens wrote:

I respect my colleagues that have posted on this topic, but I think they might be posting their feelings and not their experiences. (no disrespect intended!) I've done it and I say just do it!

For my part I would wonder why lose the mp for the sake of shooting DX? The op is considering an upgrade to a new body. If already invested in DX glass, go with the D300. You get the most out of the glass and have the option of using FF glass on that body.
With my D3 I have the option of shooting in DX mode with any glass, but with the loss of quality in the image, it seems a tad silly to me.
Now I not a fan of DX glass, but if you own it, you might as well get the most out of it.

jonh68

Cygnus Studios wrote:

For my part I would wonder why lose the mp for the sake of shooting DX? The op is considering an upgrade to a new body. If already invested in DX glass, go with the D300. You get the most out of the glass and have the option of using FF glass on that body.
With my D3 I have the option of shooting in DX mode with any glass, but with the loss of quality in the image, it seems a tad silly to me.
Now I not a fan of DX glass, but if you own it, you might as well get the most out of it.

But there isn't a loss in IQ, just a loss in the size of the image. If you have a DX lens already and the application isn't critical, why the fuss? I mean, just a few years ago, top end was 2-3 mp and billboards were being made out of those.

I am not advocating buying a DX lens for FF, but if you have a favorite DX lens you use for light travel etc, there isn't a problem.

This was shot with a D700 and 18-200 VR at 6400 ISO. No pp done. Doesn't look like "loss of quality" to me.

Fingertip

I think you're right.......

HarveyMushman wrote:

The 24-120 wasn't as sharp as your 18-70 because it's not a very good lens, not because it's a FX lens. In any case, sharpness really isn't the issue. Sharp lenses are available in both formats and yes, a sharp FX lens will be sharp on a DX body.

You are right. I have a couple other FX lenses that I've used on my DX and they're great. I'm quite disappointed in the 24-120. I'm going to sell it and procure the 24-70. It'll cost an arm and a leg, but I'm at the point of demanding good quality in my pictures.

Fingertip

Thanks, but it's not as sharp......

ziggy53 wrote:

Fingertip, welcome to the Digital Grin.

As the others have said the problem is not that of sharpness, the DX lenses are just as sharp on the FX bodies as they are the DX bodies. The issue is that of image coverage. A DX lens on an FX body will not cover the image frame of the camera, leaving you with either a reduced image circle which you would then manually crop, or you can use the auto-cropping feature of most Nikon FX cameras (all current Nikon FX cameras I believe) to capture just the central portion of the imager chip covered by the DX lens.

If you only need 5 MPix of image then a DX lens on an FX body can be useful. Most folks would want to use the entire image frame of the FX camera so they would want to use FX lenses exclusively.

I much appreciate your reply. Great info. But, I'm not experiementing with DX's on an FX body. I read a recent study that did cover that and I'll try to find the report and post the URL. The study had concluded that DX on FX was less sharp. My question was not centered on crop, but quality of glass. It appears that on my D200, the FX 24-120 is just simply not as good as the D200 FX kit lens, 18-70. In my case, I believe it's a matter of glass quality rather than body used.

catspaw

Fingertip wrote:

I much appreciate your reply. Great info. But, I'm not experiementing with DX's on an FX body. I read a recent study that did cover that and I'll try to find the report and post the URL. The study had concluded that DX on FX was less sharp. My question was not centered on crop, but quality of glass. It appears that on my D200, the FX 24-120 is just simply not as good as the D200 FX kit lens, 18-70. In my case, I believe it's a matter of glass quality rather than body used.

it's always a matter of the quality of glass. However, your initial post made it seem like it was an DX vs. FX issue.

ziggy53

Fingertip wrote:

I much appreciate your reply. Great info. But, I'm not experiementing with DX's on an FX body. I read a recent study that did cover that and I'll try to find the report and post the URL. The study had concluded that DX on FX was less sharp. My question was not centered on crop, but quality of glass. It appears that on my D200, the FX 24-120 is just simply not as good as the D200 FX kit lens, 18-70. In my case, I believe it's a matter of glass quality rather than body used.

My father has the Nikkor 18-70mm, f/3.5-4.5G AF-S DX IF-ED and I can confirm that it is a "very" nice lens and much better than the average "kit" lens.