Overall "quality" of FX lenses vs DX lenses

Started Mar 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
PHXAZCRAIG Forum Pro • Posts: 13,445
Re: Overall "quality" of FX lenses vs DX lenses

It's not really that simple.

DX lenses are typically designed to be cheaper than FX lenses. They can be cheaper, for wide angles, because they don't need as much glass to cover a smaller sensor. They NEED to be cheaper because they are being sold to be used on chea-, uh, less-expensive cameras.

I think that's the only real IQ determinant here. Price.

If you look at one lens that was designed to be a pro-level DX lens, without really compromising on price much, the 17-55F2.8 is just as good as the pro FX zooms of its day.

The 35F1.8 DX is better than the (more expensive, but much older) 35F2 FX lens, though it also has some different characteristics.

If you want to generalize and say that a $400 lens is not as good as a $1000 lens, I'd mostly agree there.

I'd suggest that in general DX lenses aren't as good as FX lenses that were designed at the same time. But newer lenses, DX or FX, are generally better than older designs.

If you want to compare the 18-105vr to other lenses, you can, but you have to consider a number of trade-offs, including pricing, weight, focal range, intended market, distortion control, CA, resolution, etc. And even software. Does distortion matter as much if it can be corrected in-camera in a JPG conversion, when the intended market mostly shoots JPG?

-- hide signature --
 PHXAZCRAIG's gear list:PHXAZCRAIG's gear list
Nikon D80 Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon 1 V1 +35 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow