24-50mm FX vs 16-50mm DX

MTFs:

16-50mm

Wide



Tele



24-50mm



On the Z7, the DX lens

• Has longer equivalent zoom range. (24-75 v. 24-50)
• Is lighter and smaller (32mm/135g vs. 51mm/195g)
• Has fewer mpx
• May lose a little DR and noise suppression

So there’s much to be said for the DX zoom on the Z7, if one wants to go light. I’m trying to figure out my use case for the 24-50.

Yet, Thom Hogan says: I suspect the 24-50mm is the lens that will be on my FX bodies as I travel, with the superb 24-70mm f/2.8 in the bag for when I need more.

While we wait on small primes, Nikon has certainly spoiled us for midrange zooms.

OK. Here’s the argument for: Compared to the 16-50, equivalent to 24-75 in DX mode, the 24-50 is also 24-75 when cropped to DX mode in post. And you get more pixels and light gathering at shorter focal lengths. It’s definitely longer, but only 60g more weight.

So I may have to get it. That would give me 5 distinct normal zooms for the Z7 (and Z50). That would be one larger one (f2.8) for special IQ, one larger one for zoom range (24-200) and three smaller ones for just mucking about on the street (or travel) while not having the lens be too large, with the excellent 24-70/4 perhaps struggling now to return to the rotation.



--
Frank
Photos look better in Original Size
Shot in downtown Manhattan, mostlyI suspect the 24-50mm is the lens that will be on my FX bodies as I travel, with the superb 24-70mm f/2.8 in the bag for when I need more.z

I got the 16-50mm to use on my Z6 for a small option but will be replacing it with this new lens.

It's a tougher call if you have the extra megapixels of the Z7, but for me it's a no brainer for the Z6. A FX lens for a FX camera.

fad said:

MTFs:

16-50mm

Wide

Tele

24-50mm

On the Z7, the DX lens

• Has longer equivalent zoom range. (24-75 v. 24-50)
• Is lighter and smaller (32mm/135g vs. 51mm/195g)
• Has fewer mpx
• May lose a little DR and noise suppression

So there’s much to be said for the DX zoom on the Z7, if one wants to go light. I’m trying to figure out my use case for the 24-50.

Yet, Thom Hogan says: I suspect the 24-50mm is the lens that will be on my FX bodies as I travel, with the superb 24-70mm f/2.8 in the bag for when I need more.

While we wait on small primes, Nikon has certainly spoiled us for midrange zooms.

OK. Here’s the argument for: Compared to the 16-50, equivalent to 24-75 in DX mode, the 24-50 is also 24-75 when cropped to DX mode in post. And you get more pixels and light gathering at shorter focal lengths. It’s definitely longer, but only 60g more weight.

So I may have to get it. That would give me 5 distinct normal zooms for the Z7 (and Z50). That would be one larger one (f2.8) for special IQ, one larger one for zoom range (24-200) and three smaller ones for just mucking about on the street (or travel) while not having the lens be too large, with the excellent 24-70/4 perhaps struggling now to return to the rotation.

Click to expand...

I think you're overthinking it, maybe?

I usually don't find use cases for lenses. I find lenses for my use cases.

In terms of comparison if I want a tiny lens, here's what I would do:

• DX lens: 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3
  Aperture = 4.5mm - 8mm
  Has VR
• FX lens: 24-50mm f/4-6.3
  Aperture = 6mm - 8mm

And contrary to what you wrote, the Z50 kit lens does not have a longer equivalent range. You can always crop the new FX lens to the same level; and you cannot get wider on the DX lens since the full-frame Z cameras force DX crop (and the image circle might not be sufficient).

So the FX lens is significantly faster at the wide angle; and the same at the telephoto level. My guess is the optics on the FX lens will be better too.

The only technical benefits to the DX lens I see is that it adds VR (which might make it extra smooth combined with IBIS? Don't know). Also smaller and cheaper maybe?