FX vs DX Lenses

Barry NicholsBarry Nichols Registered Users Posts: 55 Big grins
edited February 2, 2008 in Cameras
Hello all. I am new to this MB but after just a short read, there seem to be some very qualified persons available for advice. So here goes. I have a D300 and a nice selection of DX lenses I have purchased over the last few years. Recently, I bought the 70-200 2.8, which got me to thinking, am I losing something in the quality of my photography by mounting FX lenses on a DX sensor. I have read everything I can find and there is much written about the advantages of Nikons DX lineup and usefullness on DX bodies (ie. crop factor, angle of view, etc.) but not much useful that I can find concerning FX on DX bodies. To the point would I gain or lose by using a 14-24 2.8 instead of my 12-24 4? Opinions?
Barry Nichols

Comments

  • HarrybHarryb Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 22,708 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2008
    Barry Nichols wrote:
    Hello all. I am new to this MB but after just a short read, there seem to be some very qualified persons available for advice. So here goes. I have a D300 and a nice selection of DX lenses I have purchased over the last few years. Recently, I bought the 70-200 2.8, which got me to thinking, am I losing something in the quality of my photography by mounting FX lenses on a DX sensor. I have read everything I can find and there is much written about the advantages of Nikons DX lineup and usefullness on DX bodies (ie. crop factor, angle of view, etc.) but not much useful that I can find concerning FX on DX bodies. To the point would I gain or lose by using a 14-24 2.8 instead of my 12-24 4? Opinions?

    You won't lose anything by mounting FX lenses on a DX body. You will lose something mounting DX lenses an a FX body though.

    On your D300 you would "lose" 3mm by using the 14-28 instead of the 12-24 on your D300 with its 1.5 crop factor. Of course the 14-28 is a better lens than the 12-124.
    Harry
    http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
    How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2008
    Barry Nichols wrote:
    Hello all. To the point would I gain or lose by using a 14-24 2.8 instead of my 12-24 4? Opinions?

    To start with you would gain almost a full stop light wise.....you would lose 2 mm with the 14-24, but then what is 2mm in reach as opposed to gaining more low light ability....Since I do not shoot with camera mfg'ers lenses ( I shoot Sigma and use their full frame lenses not ones design for crop sensors that will not work on a full frame camera.....this is so if I ever decide to go full frame {D3 maybe} then I do not have to repurchase my glass....

    HTH

    Good Luck
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • HarveyMushmanHarveyMushman Registered Users Posts: 550 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2008
    No, you are not losing anything by using "FX" lenses. In some cases "FX" lenses work on crop-sensor digital bodies better than they do on the film bodies they were originally designed for, because the crop factor removes the areas of the frame (edges) most likely to show optical defects.

    You would be gaining by opting for the 14-24 over the 12-24, but only because it's a better lens, not because it's a full-frame lens. I'll go further and say if you are going to spend big bucks on a lens today you'd be foolish to buy a DX lens, since it won't be long before Nikon offers more full-frame options than the D3. With a DX lens you are limited to crop bodies.
    Tim
  • HarrybHarryb Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 22,708 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2008
    I think there are around 6 million DX shooters out there. That's quite a bit more than the FX population. Nikon is not about to forget their largest market.
    Harry
    http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
    How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
  • HarveyMushmanHarveyMushman Registered Users Posts: 550 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2008
    Harryb wrote:
    I think there are around 6 million DX shooters out there. That's quite a bit more than the FX population. Nikon is not about to forget their largest market.

    Didn't say they would. But from a consumer's perspective, as one thinking of paying top-dollar for a new lens that he/she will use for many years, buying a DX lens doesn't make sense, IMHO.
    Tim
  • jonh68jonh68 Registered Users Posts: 2,711 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2008
    From my perspective, I will always have a DX camera, at least an entry level, as long as my 18-200 works. I like that range. Of course, the D3 can shoot in DX format, but it loses resolution. It will be few years before I can get a camera like the D3 though.
    www.jonimages.com
  • Barry NicholsBarry Nichols Registered Users Posts: 55 Big grins
    edited January 31, 2008
    Wow! Thanks for all of the good advice....and quick! So let me ask another question. I am on the fence about the 14-24 f2.8 mainly because of its lack of being able to accept filters. I have the 12-24 and P-mount filters I use occasionally, usually when I am shooting a landscape that I need some extra exposure time to get the foreground without overexposing the skyline. How would you accomplish that task with the 14-24 that does not accept any filter?
    Barry Nichols
  • ktskts Registered Users Posts: 145 Major grins
    edited January 31, 2008
    Art Scott wrote:
    To start with you would gain almost a full stop light wise.....you would lose 2 mm with the 14-24, but then what is 2mm in reach as opposed to gaining more low light ability....

    Just so people don't get the wrong idea from this post, he would lose a lot more than 2mm due to the crop factor.

    The 12-24 f/4 is a DX lens and the would be equivalent to an 18-36mm lens if it was full frame.

    The 14-24 f/2.8 is a FX lens, when used on a DX body is equivalent to a 21-36mm lens.

    So on a DX body he would actually lose 9mm with the FX 14-24mm.

    Anyone feel free to correct me on my math, sometimes I get my crop factors and equivalents mixed up when I do them back and forth in my head a few times.

    Using an FX lens on a DX body is perfectly fine, like HarveyMushman said it might even work better since it's only using the center of the lens and not the edges where most problems with lenses occur.

    A lot of it just depends on what you use the lens for. I'd love to get the 14-24 since I love wide angle shots but until I get an FX body it doesn't make sense because my 12-24 goes much wider on my DX body.
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
  • dancorderdancorder Registered Users Posts: 197 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2008
    kts wrote:
    ...

    So on a DX body he would actually lose 9mm with the FX 14-24mm.

    Anyone feel free to correct me on my math, sometimes I get my crop factors and equivalents mixed up when I do them back and forth in my head a few times.

    ...

    I think you have got mixed up :D. The focal lengths on DX lenses are directly comparable with FX lenses. It's only when you put it on a DX camera that you get a different field of view to a full frame camera and that effect is the same for DX and FX lenses. So you could argue that he would lose 3mm (2mm x crop factor) but not 9mm.

    However, I also don't think it's right to say that it's "only 2mm", at the wide end 2mm makes a pretty big difference (personally I have the Sigma 10-20 because it goes another 2mm wider)
    dancorder.smugmug.com
  • dancorderdancorder Registered Users Posts: 197 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2008
    Barry Nichols wrote:
    Wow! Thanks for all of the good advice....and quick! So let me ask another question. I am on the fence about the 14-24 f2.8 mainly because of its lack of being able to accept filters. I have the 12-24 and P-mount filters I use occasionally, usually when I am shooting a landscape that I need some extra exposure time to get the foreground without overexposing the skyline. How would you accomplish that task with the 14-24 that does not accept any filter?

    If you need a filter to do this then I guess you're probably using a tripod, in which case you can take two or more pictures with varying exposures and then blend them together on your computer. I believe Photoshop will do this for you automtically, with some learning you can also do it manually in the GIMP if you can't afford Photoshop. Alternatively there are cheaper programs that just specialise in this kind of thing like http://photoacute.com/studio/index.html (which I haven't tried but looks useful)
    dancorder.smugmug.com
  • ktskts Registered Users Posts: 145 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2008
    dancorder wrote:
    I think you have got mixed up :D. The focal lengths on DX lenses are directly comparable with FX lenses. It's only when you put it on a DX camera that you get a different field of view to a full frame camera and that effect is the same for DX and FX lenses. So you could argue that he would lose 3mm (2mm x crop factor) but not 9mm.

    However, I also don't think it's right to say that it's "only 2mm", at the wide end 2mm makes a pretty big difference (personally I have the Sigma 10-20 because it goes another 2mm wider)

    Thanks for the correction. I'm still a bit confused however since from what I read on Ken Rockwell's site I thought the 14-24 would act more like a 21-36mm on a DX body.

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Focal Length: 14-24 mm. This lens is intended for use on film and full frame cameras, on which it is obviously a 14-24mm equivalent.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Used on a DX digital SLR, which is stupid because the 12-24mm DX costs less, weighs less, takes regular filters and goes wider on a DX camera, it gives angles of view similar to what a 21-36mm lens would give on a 35mm film or FX camera. Calculated in reverse, you would need a 9.2-16mm lens on a DX camera to replicate the angles of view that this 14-24mm lens gives on FX and film cameras. See also Crop Factor.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Diagonal Angle of View: 114° - 84° on film and FX; 90° - 61° on DX cameras[/FONT]

    I can't wait for Nikon to release a full frame D300 sized body that will make this sort of problem go away. ;)
  • dancorderdancorder Registered Users Posts: 197 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2008
    kts wrote:
    Thanks for the correction. I'm still a bit confused however since from what I read on Ken Rockwell's site I thought the 14-24 would act more like a 21-36mm on a DX body.
    ...

    You're right that the 14-24 on a DX body will give a field of view equivalent to what you'd see using a 21-36 on a full frame body. However, the 12-24 DX on a DX body will give a field of view equivalent to what you'd see using an 18-36 on a full frame body. This is what I meant by the two being directly comparable. The DX in the lens name just means that if you tried it on a full frame body your image would have a big black border.
    dancorder.smugmug.com
Sign In or Register to comment.