Reading mode: Light Dark

You Can Use Cheap Lenses on the FF D3

Go to last post
British magazine Amateur Photographer published an article a few weeks ago comparing full frame vs cropped. And their conclusion was that full frame for the same number of pixels produced a sharper image. However I'd be worried about the corners, a lot of lenses are fine on DX but fail to deliver on full frame. Have a look at the SLRGear website, there are quite a few tests of FF lenses on both formats.

I've decided to go for the 24-70. Not so sure about the 14-24 as you can't use filters , I'd like to be able to use ND grads.

Rob
 
You can use cheap lenses on the D3 but don't expect miracles. The new lenses: the 14-24 and 24-70 - have changes in construction so to enable them to work nicely on the FX frame. When you compare the 24-70 with the older 28-70, you can notice that the rear element of the previous one is shifted back to the edge of the lens. The same with the 14-24 and 85/1.4, the latter one is, btw, commonly depicted with the D3. It helps keeping the rays of light to fall onto the sensor as perpendicular as possible and lowers CAs and vigneting. So, you'll see a lot of these kind of distortion using cheap lenses, especially those starting from wide angle (not so troublesome for telephoto lenses though).
 
I knew, how famous Ken is in this forum:-))

But anyhow, I still think, his argument is interesting.
The only 'cheap' lens left in my gear is the 70-300 ED (without VR).

When I get my D3 together with the 14-24 and the 24-70 (I ordered and payed it and expect it in 4-5 weeks from now:-))), I will post the results.

I will use Capture NX with the announced CA correction and corrected vignetting for the test shots (best can do with tripod, MLU and ML3).

Besides that I will test the 14-24 against the 12-24 Sigma from my friend.

I am really looking forward for the results...

--
my gear today:
D200, 12-24, 17-55, 105VR, 85 1,4, 70-300ED, SB600's (SB800 on order)

---

till then we have fun waiting for our D3 and taking beautiful pictures with any camera.....
 
I don't think a cheap lens like the 75-150/3.5 or the 50/2.0 or a lot of other old cheap lenses will give you cheap results. I have used these starting on the F2 up to a D200 with excellent results.

Rick

http://slopoki1.smugmug.com/Nature
 
ovrebekk said:
A dx sensor does indeed require more sharpness from a lens than a ff
sensor with similar resolution.
Things like edge sharpness, vignetting and similar might be worse
though because the dx sensor uses the best part of the lens.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is all that Ken really said. How could this turn into a debate?
 
Andrew Chiciak said:
Just a Canon user lurking because of my interest in the D3. Cheap
doesn't always mean bad as is the case with my amazing 50
1.8...arguably the sharpest picture I ever took of two people...a
20x24 print in my studio survives microscopic inspection:

http://www.pbase.com/echelonphoto/image/40304779/original
Click to expand...
I remember that photo from the old full frame digital vs MF discussions. I guess that's your poster child for how high the accutance on digital can be!
 
i never say that he is telling wrong things, its how he says it. Like his views are so much better and are gospel. Its not the message its the messanger! :)
 
What in the world Ken had done to you personally that you are so mean to him?

Does it make us all smarter than Ken, or what? What would you want to prove by demeaning Ken in this forum without letting him know what you are doing to him in HIS BACK? If YOU let him know what you just tell us all in this specific thread, then I must say you are a MAN AND FAIR, too! OK?

SUNNY BOAZ
 
sunny boaz said:
What in the world Ken had done to you personally that you are so mean to him?

Does it make us all smarter than Ken, or what? What would you want to prove by demeaning Ken in this forum without letting him know what you are doing to him in HIS BACK? If oyu let him know what you just tell us all in this specific thread, then I must say you are MAN AND FAIR! OK?
Click to expand...
I agree with you about this boring KR bashing.

I think most KR bashers act purely out of hidden jalousy, but he knows much more about photography than 95% of those who bash on him.
His website is very informative, especially for beginners.
--
Kindest regards,
Stany
I prefer one really good picture in a day over 10 bad ones in a second...

http://www.fotografie.fr/
 
Cookie_Monster said:
If I had my D3, the ONLY lenses can be allowed to mount on my D3:

0: 24mm 1.4D
1: 85mm 1.4D
2: 14-24mm 2.8G
3: 24-70mm 2.8G
4: 70-200mm 2.8G VR
5: 200-400mm 4.0G VR
6: 400mm 2.8G VR (on waiting list)
7: 600mm 4.0G VR (on waiting list too...)

NO cheap walk-around lens like 18-70, 55-200, 18-135, or any other
super cheap plastic lenses. If I put on one of these cheap lenses, D3
will refuse to focus, if it's angry, D3 can blow the whole pieces out
of the front glass of these cheap lenses.

...It happened to me before with Tarmon's 11-18 on D2X. D2X hates its
slow focusing motor and it cracked the rear element and broke the
whole lens yet the body is in perfect condition.

Sensitive cameras.
Click to expand...
Oh man, it's posts like these that keep me reading this forum. Great stuff.
 
Hi out there,
is it not possible to talk this topic on a serious basis??

(If you don't like Ken, why are you looking at his site - or how do you know about what you are arguing:-))

again, let us talk technical aspects about bigger pixels and resolution.

I hope to get some helpful arguments and ideas.

--
with greetings from La Palma, Canary Islands
dierk
 
The position of the rearmost lenses has nothing specifically to do with CA and vignetting. CA and vignetting (and all the other optical abberations like astigmatism, coma, distortion, spherical abberation, reflection, diffraction, etc.) are a sum of the optical system, from the first to the last lens, with the compromises made by the optical designer, be it caused by price, size, weight, glass properties, or simply the limits of current optical construction/calculation capabilities.
mbernard said:
You can use cheap lenses on the D3 but don't expect miracles. The new
lenses: the 14-24 and 24-70 - have changes in construction so to
enable them to work nicely on the FX frame. When you compare the
24-70 with the older 28-70, you can notice that the rear element of
the previous one is shifted back to the edge of the lens. The same
with the 14-24 and 85/1.4, the latter one is, btw, commonly depicted
with the D3. It helps keeping the rays of light to fall onto the
sensor as perpendicular as possible and lowers CAs and vigneting. So,
you'll see a lot of these kind of distortion using cheap lenses,
especially those starting from wide angle (not so troublesome for
telephoto lenses though).
Click to expand...
--
  • Jan
 
The D3 has the new lens recognition feature (LRF), which will identify which lens is mounted.

For lenses below $699, it will reduce the default max resolution to 5.7mpx.

The additional Total Close-Out Module (TCOM) in the software will make the camera produce only blank images on sub $399 lenses.

Good theory, No?
 
I have not read through all of the replies in part because I'm lazy, and in part for fear of what's being said. But I think the idea is that the 12 MP full frame sensor will be more forgiving than the 12 MP DX sensor. And the math of that makes sense. But, why would you buy a $5k camera and put sub par lenses on it?
--
Derbez
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top