Ok.
There are at least 4 50mm lenses from Nikon (Nikkor) that AF. Be more exact?
Don't rely on DXOmark (most meaningless and sometimes plain nonsensical "results"). Read other lens reviews, and then decide if the negatives they find and the positives they find touch on your uses and likes and dislikes or not.
You can't compare their sharpness ratings between sensor formats. Nothing wrong with the lens on a D7100.
Which lenses do you think perform well on an APS-C sensor? I guess they would be non-AF lenses?
They may well perform better than inexpensive lenses that were designed for the sensor. You'll just have to look it up and read the reviews for yourself. There are too many of them for me to generalize.
Wow ! it's amazing some of the stuff I read on here. I guarantee you 100% that if I showed you 2 photos taken with any of the 50 1.8's on a D7100 or a D750 the only difference you would see would be in the crop factor. Just go out and buy any of the 50 1.8's and start shooting. They're all excellent performers.
It's a true statement, but you neglected to quote the rest, where I wrote: "That doesn't mean it's a bad lens", and "They may well perform better than inexpensive lenses that were designed for the sensor." I also wrote quite a bit more, including these statements: "What are you worried about? It will be fine. Nikon is not going to make a bad 50mm lens."
I think his problem was your statement that "lenses don't perform as well..." What empirical evidence are you relying on to make this statement? As someone else mentioned in this thread, in good light, it would be extremely hard to distinguish the output between the D7100 and D750, two cameras with equal resolution.
I got into an argument about that before, and I asked for evidence. They told me to go to DxO.
So I did, and that ended the discussion. I never got another argument until now. So now I'm telling you to check the DxO sharpness scores on different sensors.Ah, there's the crux of the argument. DxO uses voodoo. It requires evidence, though. Care to rephrase that?
Yes they are. In most instances, a lot higher.
Or maybe in large prints? The ISO setting has nothing to do with the lens performance, but you have a grain of truth here, if you care to be more specific. (And you can find the info in the DxO reviews.
)Did I not already mention (twice) that full-frame lenses are usually pretty good with APS-C sensors? But they're even better on full-frame sensors.
DXO is a sad lens "review" site. Pretty useless. No wonder you typed what you typed.I got into an argument about that before, and I asked for evidence. They told me to go to DxO.
Ah, there's the crux of the argument. DxO uses voodoo. It requires evidence, though. Care to rephrase that?
Yes they are. In most instances, a lot higher.
Or maybe in large prints? The ISO setting has nothing to do with the lens performance, but you have a grain of truth here, if you care to be more specific. (And you can find the info in the DxO reviews.
Did I not already mention (twice) that full-frame lenses are usually pretty good with APS-C sensors? But they're even better on full-frame sensors.
Well, DxO is a major player in lens and camera testing. Their software and tests are used by many camera manufacturers and review sites, including this one. I think a lot of people are bothered by a single score that is supposed to represent a camera-lens combination, but they don't bother to read the details.
I don't have to come up with any evidence. It is in plain sight. With many lenses the DXO "results" are totally nonsensical. And when other, more reliable websites show what a lens actually does, that is your evidence. But you can base your then nonsensical posts on the DXO lens test dribble... Nothing can stop you from that.
If you sample an image with the smaller APS-C sensor instead of full frame, the resolution improves. But when you display it at the same size as the full-frame image, the resolution will be worse. You have lost all that improvement and more. The effect is usually worst at small f-stops.
