-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Non-DX lens on a DX body?
- Thread starter Amin88
- Start date
pavi1
Veteran Member
Zero disadvantage. Probably some advantages with some lenses.
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44
--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44
nirvana0001
Leading Member
Nothing except you lose the wide angle.
pavi1
Veteran Member
That is not a disadvantage of using an FX lens on a DX body. That is a disadvantage of using a DX body.
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44
--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44
Chuck Yadmark
Veteran Member
It's slightly bigger and more and expensive than it needs to be, and you lose some wide-angle. But otherwise no image quality issues
--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cyadmark
Ann Arbor, MI USA
Equipment in profile
--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cyadmark
Ann Arbor, MI USA
Equipment in profile
Just as long as you know that the 24-70 is effectively a 36 to 105 and will be a bit front heavy compared to the respective 17-55 2.8.
IMHO makes the perfect portrait lense but would be a very heavy and not so optimal walkaround lense being just a little to long on the wide side.
IMHO makes the perfect portrait lense but would be a very heavy and not so optimal walkaround lense being just a little to long on the wide side.
nirvana0001
Leading Member
My answer was for "What is the disadvantage of using non-DX lens on a DX body?" not "What is the disadvantage of using non-DX lens?".
pavi1
Veteran Member
Correct, I understood what you said, I might not understand what you mean.
Loosing wide angle has nothing to do with using non-DX lens on a DX body. If you use a DX 35mm lens and a 35mm FX lens on a DX body, both will produce the same picture. It is the DX body that causes you to loose the wide angle.
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44
Loosing wide angle has nothing to do with using non-DX lens on a DX body. If you use a DX 35mm lens and a 35mm FX lens on a DX body, both will produce the same picture. It is the DX body that causes you to loose the wide angle.
--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44
step_ahead
Well-known member
their usability shifts a bit. for instance, a 24-70 on full frame is a walkaround, a landscape, weddings, but does bokeh portraits also.
if you put it on a dx, gets you from normal to telephoto = eg 35-105. so no more landscapes, no more weddings. (of course you can use everywhere, but like indoors its not that great anymore). gets you to portrait bokeh and details.
the thing with wide fx, is that they cost a premium. is not a good use put a 14-24 on a dx for that value if you can get a way cheaper lens to do the same. (14mm on fx is a very very very wide one)
as for quality, you dont loose anything, because you only use the best part of the lens, the middle. so dont worry about vignettes for instance. i think aberrations stay.
if you put it on a dx, gets you from normal to telephoto = eg 35-105. so no more landscapes, no more weddings. (of course you can use everywhere, but like indoors its not that great anymore). gets you to portrait bokeh and details.
the thing with wide fx, is that they cost a premium. is not a good use put a 14-24 on a dx for that value if you can get a way cheaper lens to do the same. (14mm on fx is a very very very wide one)
as for quality, you dont loose anything, because you only use the best part of the lens, the middle. so dont worry about vignettes for instance. i think aberrations stay.
pavi1
Veteran Member
That is a function of the body not the lens. If you use a 24-70 DX lens on a DX body you get exactly the same thing. You will save some weight with the DX but there is no 24 -70 DX lens that is even near the quality of teh Nikon 24-70.
True with both FX and DX 24-70
Again you can not get a 14-24 DX lens that is even in the same ball park as the Nikon 14-24
--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44
nirvana0001
Leading Member
What I mean is that it doesn't matter whether the cons come from the lens or body, once mounted together they work as a whole.
Midrange isn't midrange with an FX lens on a DX body. At the wide and long ends the 1.5 shift doesn't matter as much, but in the middle, it can make a huge difference. A midrange that doesn't go down to 18mm or so would be totally useless to me. I'd be changing lenses all the time. Best to get a lens that works great for you today. Let tomorrow work itself out.
pavi1
Veteran Member
True, but midrange is not midrange with a DX lens on a DX body. So we are back to this not being a disadvantage of usuing a FX lens on a DX body and that is what the original question was.
This still has nothing to do with FX lens on a DX body. This is a focal length issue.
--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44
oking23
Forum Enthusiast
None. I use the 24-70, 70-200, and 70-300 on the D200 and S5.
The focal length issue is the issue. In a midrange DX zoom, I want at least 18-50 so I can go from a medium portrait length telephoto to a medium landscape wide angle. That is a functional range for a walkaround lens. I can't think of a time when a 24-70 would be useful to me on DX. A fast 50 prime would make a better portrait lens. And a $120 18-55 VR would be more useful for walkaround use in good light.
It is a total waste to get a lens today that doesn't really work for what you need in the hopes that it might be more useful with some future theoretical camera. Get equipment that you can use and get your money out of now. If budget is an issue, there are lots of great third party alternatives that are just as good as the Nikon 17-55 2.8.
If someone gets saddled with a lens with a focal length that isn't functional for them, it's going to sit in the bag and be a total waste of money. If you shoot DX, buy lenses that work for DX. If you go to FX at some point in the future, sell your DX body with the DX midrange zoom and get a midrange zoom that works for FX.
Like I said, telephotos longer than 100mm are different. You can always use a 200mm or 105mm on FX. It won't be as long, but it will just slide down a notch and still be useful for shorter range.
It is a total waste to get a lens today that doesn't really work for what you need in the hopes that it might be more useful with some future theoretical camera. Get equipment that you can use and get your money out of now. If budget is an issue, there are lots of great third party alternatives that are just as good as the Nikon 17-55 2.8.
If someone gets saddled with a lens with a focal length that isn't functional for them, it's going to sit in the bag and be a total waste of money. If you shoot DX, buy lenses that work for DX. If you go to FX at some point in the future, sell your DX body with the DX midrange zoom and get a midrange zoom that works for FX.
Like I said, telephotos longer than 100mm are different. You can always use a 200mm or 105mm on FX. It won't be as long, but it will just slide down a notch and still be useful for shorter range.
pavi1
Veteran Member
What are you talking about. You are just rambling. Stick to the original question. Your perfect focal length is your perfect focal length. It has nothing to do with the original question. My 35-70 is my favorite lens for two reasons. It is the perfect focal lenth and excellent quality. A 24 - 70 would even be better.
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44
--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum