I don't think you'll be disappointed, mine stays on my camera almost all the time.
Now, at the risk of flogging a dead horse :deadhorse
I decided to do my own experiment to settle my curiosity. I put my D50 on a tripod and took some pictures with my 18-200DX and my fixed 50mm non-DX lens.
From the point of view of answering the original question: 50mm on my DX camera with a DX lens looks the same as 50mm on my DX camera with a non-DX lens. (There is a slight difference but I think that must be down to scale on my zoom being slightly off, see further down for what 75mm looks like). Therefore Giphsub should be comparing the 200mm on the DX with the 300mm on his non-DX.
18-200DX @ 50mm
50mm fixed non-DX
18-200mm DX @ 75mm for comparison
Never get an equestrian photographer involved in horse-killin'!
I had a post on the same subject, with photos on a D200, first image from my 17-55DX set at 55mm, the second from the same tripod spot using a 24-135 also set at 55mm, and the image is exactly the same, top to bottom, left to right. That thread has fallen off the board. Above, the slight difference you see in your 50mm images is most likely due to either scaling, as you say, or that the two lenses weren't exactly set to the same focal length.
What we haven't seen is the same experiment done comparing the images of DX and non-DX lenses mounted on a Nikon 35mm film camera. I've meant to do this, maybe over the weekend... BUT, the theory goes that, and a fiven focal length, the image would be essentially the same in the center, but the image from the dx lens will have an unexposed halo on the outer 1/3 of the image. I'm not actually sure if the DX lens will function on anything other than a dx camera, but I'll try it. Anyone around here tried that for curiosity?
Other than to show that 75mm will give a narrower image, the 75mm shot has no bearing in this discussion, unless you have a 75mm image from the other lens... Therefore, if someone is using a dx camera, 200mm is to be compared to nothing other than 200mm.
Per Harvey's suggestion, as Canon has both full frame and ".66 frame" sensors, someone with both could put a 200mm lens on both and display that the full frame will have a wider angle of view at the same focal length. Until we have the D3, we won't be able to do any of this on a Nikon...
That's true. My statement only applies when using an FX lens. But I didn't really consider that anyone would really consider using a DX lens on a FX body. I guess the only way to really prove this to the world would be with the new D3 which can shoot in FX or DX mode. I think I heard that when you go into DX mode, the resolution drops down to where it is only able to use about 5MP of the 12 Mp sensor.
Not to carry on as an argument, but your statement doesn't apply to an FX lens either.
"Reach" is not really a textbook term that I know of, but is nonetheless a commonly used term. It would need more clear definition. In discussion with other photographers with whom I work, it's not just the lens or the sensor size or the pixel count, but a combo of them all. Better "reach" would manifest itself in how nicely an image will crop. For instance, when I switched from the D100 to the D200 at horse shows, I had an immediate gain in reach because I could shoot at 200mm, same image on both cameras, but crop in tighter with the D200 image, reaching an extra 50m, yet delivering a better quality print off the D200 than the D100. Conversely, for horse shows, I don't anticipate getting the D3, as it will be a decrease in reach. (Now for the interior architecural work that I do, the D3 looks rather nice, but will require a new non-dx lens!)
Question, can the subject be throroughly discussed while allowing the horse to still live?
Thank you, but the more meaningful comparison would be between a crop-sensor camera like your D50 and a full-frame sensor camera like the new D3. Maybe the Canon guys could help us out here?
Not as far as the original question went. The OP wanted to know if he should comparing 200mm vs (300mm * 1.5 = 450mm) or 200mm vs 300mm on a crop camera.
Also as I only have a crop camera this is the question I was interested in too
Other than to show that 75mm will give a narrower image, the 75mm shot has no bearing in this discussion, unless you have a 75mm image from the other lens... Therefore, if someone is using a dx camera, 200mm is to be compared to nothing other than 200mm.
I only included the 75mm shot to show that the slight difference between the two 50mm shots wasn't in the same league as the difference between 50mm and 75mm.
Comments
Never get an equestrian photographer involved in horse-killin'!
I had a post on the same subject, with photos on a D200, first image from my 17-55DX set at 55mm, the second from the same tripod spot using a 24-135 also set at 55mm, and the image is exactly the same, top to bottom, left to right. That thread has fallen off the board. Above, the slight difference you see in your 50mm images is most likely due to either scaling, as you say, or that the two lenses weren't exactly set to the same focal length.
What we haven't seen is the same experiment done comparing the images of DX and non-DX lenses mounted on a Nikon 35mm film camera. I've meant to do this, maybe over the weekend... BUT, the theory goes that, and a fiven focal length, the image would be essentially the same in the center, but the image from the dx lens will have an unexposed halo on the outer 1/3 of the image. I'm not actually sure if the DX lens will function on anything other than a dx camera, but I'll try it. Anyone around here tried that for curiosity?
Other than to show that 75mm will give a narrower image, the 75mm shot has no bearing in this discussion, unless you have a 75mm image from the other lens... Therefore, if someone is using a dx camera, 200mm is to be compared to nothing other than 200mm.
Per Harvey's suggestion, as Canon has both full frame and ".66 frame" sensors, someone with both could put a 200mm lens on both and display that the full frame will have a wider angle of view at the same focal length. Until we have the D3, we won't be able to do any of this on a Nikon...
www.HoofClix.com / Personal Facebook / Facebook Page
and I do believe its true.. that there are roads left in both of our shoes..
Not to carry on as an argument, but your statement doesn't apply to an FX lens either.
"Reach" is not really a textbook term that I know of, but is nonetheless a commonly used term. It would need more clear definition. In discussion with other photographers with whom I work, it's not just the lens or the sensor size or the pixel count, but a combo of them all. Better "reach" would manifest itself in how nicely an image will crop. For instance, when I switched from the D100 to the D200 at horse shows, I had an immediate gain in reach because I could shoot at 200mm, same image on both cameras, but crop in tighter with the D200 image, reaching an extra 50m, yet delivering a better quality print off the D200 than the D100. Conversely, for horse shows, I don't anticipate getting the D3, as it will be a decrease in reach. (Now for the interior architecural work that I do, the D3 looks rather nice, but will require a new non-dx lens!)
Question, can the subject be throroughly discussed while allowing the horse to still live?
www.HoofClix.com / Personal Facebook / Facebook Page
and I do believe its true.. that there are roads left in both of our shoes..
Not as far as the original question went. The OP wanted to know if he should comparing 200mm vs (300mm * 1.5 = 450mm) or 200mm vs 300mm on a crop camera.
Also as I only have a crop camera this is the question I was interested in too
I only included the 75mm shot to show that the slight difference between the two 50mm shots wasn't in the same league as the difference between 50mm and 75mm.