Difference in Nikon Lenses... DX/FX

PeterM69

PeterM69

Messages
632
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
Can someone explain the difference in a DX or FX lens for me please. Why couldnt I use my 17-55mm DX lens on a FX (D700) body? I've read a few posts saying a DX lens would be a waste on an FX body and vice versa, why? isn't the focal length of the lens the actual focal length no matter what body its attached to? I Know all about crop sensors vs FF but just not sure what the problems would be using my DX lenses on FF bodies.

Thanks
 
A common train of thought with regard to using FX lenses on crop bodies is that you're effectively wasting what the lens was designed to do because you're using a smaller image circle so won't take advantage of edge and corner sharpness that doesn't end up registering on the DX sensor (whereas it would on FX).....
 
DX lenses have a smaller "hole" at the back of the lens for want of a better word. So attaching a DX lens will mean you get serious vignetting. To counter this, Nikon make a DX mode, which basiclly crops the frame to cut out this vignette, turning the 12mp image into a 5mp one.
 
TCR4x4 said:
DX lenses have a smaller "hole" at the back of the lens for want of a better word. So attaching a DX lens will mean you get serious vignetting. To counter this, Nikon make a DX mode, which basiclly crops the frame to cut out this vignette, turning the 12mp image into a 5mp one.
Click to expand...

this is true but some fx lenses do have a samll hole at the back like some primes, and also using a fx lens on a dx camera can produce better sharper pic as the dx sensor uses the best bit of the glass,
 
scottthehat said:
this is true but some fx lenses do have a samll hole at the back like some primes, and also using a fx lens on a dx camera can produce better sharper pic as the dx sensor uses the best bit of the glass,
Click to expand...


But ultimately it sounds like a waste using a DX lens on an FX body. Would love a D700 but my initial investment in DX has scuppered that dream for now.
 
scottthehat said:
not really as on the d700 d3 d3s dx mode produces like 6meg pictuers which is still pleanty, and if you have a d3x in dx mode it produces 10mp pics.
Click to expand...

Maybe but with me I'd want the best the camera could produce so wouldn't contemplate using a DX lens now I know.

With the leaked announcement of the D800 I'm hoping quite a few D700's will be up for grabs second hand, at a great price :)
 
Peter - what DX lenses do you own? The cost to change to the equivalent FX lens might not be as much as you think?....
 
scottthehat said:
fare enough but dome dx lenses are very very good, and you will still produce awsome results but wont get the full potential from the d700,
peter what makes you want a d700, if you dont mind me asking.
Click to expand...

I have to admit it's more to do with aesthetics and build. A friend has a D700 and it just feels right terrific in my hands, the weight, feel etc More importantly the weather protection and robustness lures me into wanting one. I live in Devon and want to venture out onto Dartmoor in all sorts of weather and want the reassurance the camera can handle it. The D7000 is a fantastic camera, PQ wise I have no problem with it but find myself being over protective when out.

specialman Peter - what DX lenses do you own? The cost to change to the equivalent FX lens might not be as much as you think?....
Click to expand...

I have a Tokina 11-16mm, Nikon 17-55mm and Nikon 35mm. I guess not a great loss if I needed to upgrade.
 
Last edited:
PeterM69 said:
I have to admit it's more to do with aesthetics and build. A friend has a D700 and it just feels right terrific in my hands, the weight, feel etc More importantly the weather protection and robustness lures me into wanting one. I live in Devon and want to venture out onto Dartmoor in all sorts of weather and want the reassurance the camera can handle it. The D7000 is a fantastic camera, PQ wise I have no problem with it but find myself being over protective when out.QUOTE]

ok cool i know waht you mean the d700 is awsome. i live in devon to.
Click to expand...
 
PeterM69 said:
I have a Tokina 11-16mm, Nikon 17-55mm and Nikon 35mm. I guess not a great loss if I needed to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Tokina won't work... or at least you'd only be able to use the 16mm bit --- which may be ok :)

no idea on the 17-55 but the 35mm will work on fx, just be wider.

If you've had a play, take your lenses and camera, try them on yours and your friends and take the same pics. Compare afterwards. at least you can see whether you can upgrade to the d700 (wish I could - although I'd prefer swapping to leica lol).

Not sure you can by pass the dx detection for the tokina at 16mm? if you can you may still get a bit of vignetting.

Worth a try first tho. :)
 
Actually regarding the 35mm, if you have the f2 it's fine on FX but the DX f/1.8 will vignette. It's still the most FX compatible DX lens but not really worth using at it vignettes like mad in most situations (close focus wide open it's not too bad).
 
Peter - don't know what a like for like swap FX swap for the Tokina would be (sigma. 15-30 might be a good option) but you'll get around £600 for the 17-55 selling on here, so you'd need to put in £300 or so towards the equivalent, a 24-70. The 35mm could probably be a straight swap for the f/2 version.....
 
Or if he likes the 35mm FOV on the crop, sell the 35 on here and buy the 50 1.8 for the same or less money. Job done.

Thanks,
Rick
 
casts_by_fly said:
Or if he likes the 35mm FOV on the crop, sell the 35 on here and buy the 50 1.8 for the same or less money. Job done.

Thanks,
Rick
Click to expand...

That makes sense and I'd probably do just that along with buying the 24-70mm as specialman suggests but my biggest bugbear is losing the Tokina 11-16, I do like that lens.

Anyway, for the time being I'm not upgrading but thanks for all the explanations regarding the DX/FX format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top