Options
FX vs DX Lenses
Barry Nichols
Registered Users Posts: 55 Big grins
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
0
Comments
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.
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!"
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
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.
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!"
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.
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]
I think you have got mixed up
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)
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)
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
I can't wait for Nikon to release a full frame D300 sized body that will make this sort of problem go away.
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.