FF lenses on by crop sensor body - future proof and better quality?

I'm getting back into photography after a 30 year layoff. Still love my film gear and even use one of my old lenses on my D7200 and it does great (just no autofocus).

I have a couple of DX lenses but I just bought a used FF lens. I'm wondering if buying good quality, used FF lenses might not be a bad way to go. It future proofs me for the future in case i want to also get a full frame camera and the lenses might be better quality then what i can get a new DX lens for.

Crop Lenses on Crop Bodies: How It Works vs Full Frame (APS-C & M43) - YouTube

TECHNICAL: Full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras is USUALLY bad - YouTube

So basically, the FF lenses on APSC degrade the sharpness.

number_5 said:

Crop Lenses on Crop Bodies: How It Works vs Full Frame (APS-C & M43) - YouTube

TECHNICAL: Full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras is USUALLY bad - YouTube

So basically, the FF lenses on APSC degrade the sharpness.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with that statement. You just need higher quality FF lens to be able to render naturally higher density apsc sensors. Considering that new lenses are designed for new high resolution sensors (45-60Mpx) which have similar density as apsc sensors or higher, it's not an issue at all today. In many cases you will get better FF lens, because they are designed for proffesional use. Obvious downside is price and size.

Martin_99 said:

number_5 said:

Crop Lenses on Crop Bodies: How It Works vs Full Frame (APS-C & M43) - YouTube

TECHNICAL: Full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras is USUALLY bad - YouTube

So basically, the FF lenses on APSC degrade the sharpness.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with that statement. You just need higher quality FF lens to be able to render naturally higher density apsc sensors. Considering that new lenses are designed for new high resolution sensors (45-60Mpx) which have similar density as apsc sensors or higher, it's not an issue at all today. In many cases you will get better FF lens, because they are designed for proffesional use. Obvious downside is price and size.

Click to expand...

From Gerald Undone's video, the APSC's higher pixel density is not the problem, it's the light coverage area. IIRC, I think I read it somewhere that most of the new lenses (at least Sony's) are designed for 100MP FF sensor, so we agree the lenses can handle the density.

His explanation makes sense to me, and not going to argue it to death.

number_5 said:

Martin_99 said:

number_5 said:

Crop Lenses on Crop Bodies: How It Works vs Full Frame (APS-C & M43) - YouTube

TECHNICAL: Full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras is USUALLY bad - YouTube

So basically, the FF lenses on APSC degrade the sharpness.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with that statement. You just need higher quality FF lens to be able to render naturally higher density apsc sensors. Considering that new lenses are designed for new high resolution sensors (45-60Mpx) which have similar density as apsc sensors or higher, it's not an issue at all today. In many cases you will get better FF lens, because they are designed for proffesional use. Obvious downside is price and size.

Click to expand...

From Gerald Undone's video, the APSC's higher pixel density is not the problem, it's the light coverage area.

Click to expand...

I'm far from being optical expert, not saying that "light coverage area" (it's actually not a description of problem? whatever it is) can't make results on apsc worse. But what interest me most is final result - which is similar for both modern apsc and FF lenses used on apsc camera - I can see that on online tests (somewhat rare unfortunately) and from my personal experience.

Even very cheap FF lens Tamron 35 f2.8 M1:2 render very nice on my Sony A6400, certainly better than some of earlier Sony apsc lenses.

number_5 said:

IIRC, I think I read it somewhere that most of the new lenses (at least Sony's) are designed for 100MP FF sensor, so we agree the lenses can handle the density.

His explanation makes sense to me, and not going to argue it to death.

Click to expand...

I will check his video when at home, to see the context and understand the reasoning.

swHill said:

I'm getting back into photography after a 30 year layoff. Still love my film gear and even use one of my old lenses on my D7200 and it does great (just no autofocus).

I have a couple of DX lenses but I just bought a used FF lens. I'm wondering if buying good quality, used FF lenses might not be a bad way to go. It future proofs me for the future in case i want to also get a full frame camera and the lenses might be better quality then what i can get a new DX lens for.

Click to expand...

There's nothing futureproof about F-Mount. You probably don't know, but that mount has been discontinued.

The current Nikon mount is Z, yet you might want to look around to see what's happening.

swHill said:

I'm getting back into photography after a 30 year layoff. Still love my film gear and even use one of my old lenses on my D7200 and it does great (just no autofocus).

I have a couple of DX lenses but I just bought a used FF lens. I'm wondering if buying good quality, used FF lenses might not be a bad way to go. It future proofs me for the future in case i want to also get a full frame camera and the lenses might be better quality then what i can get a new DX lens for.

Click to expand...

When my kids were born I went into a ~15-year photography hiatus. I jumped back in when digital was just getting popular.

It looks like you jumped back into photography just as the camera industry is going through a great transition from DSLR to mirrorless cameras. It is a bummer but there's no future-proofing F- & EF-mount equipment. Nikon & Canon are now concentrating on Z- and R-mount equipment. Adapters are available.

Sony/Minolta A-mount is just plain gone but I still enjoy using my A-mount equipment as a supplemental camera.

I suggest just buying the DSLR equipment you need now and continuing to enjoy the reboot of your photography hobby. Start thinking about the day when the D7200 breaks and Nikon will not be able to fix it. Would you buy a used DSLR or make the transition?

--
Lance H

It might depend on your age. At my age, I have no concern whatsoever about the availability of Nikon dslr bodies and lenses with literally thousands of new and used ones easily found. And I have tried and determined that I personally just don't get along with electronic viewfinders, so will continue to use dslr's till the end.

I also have no desire to go to FF sensors, as my uses just do not tend to benefit from the advantages of more mp's, shallow dof, or larger sensors. I benefit much more from the ability of apsc sensors to achieve more telephoto reach with smaller lenses.

And with Nikon mirrorless at least for now, it seems to be that their adaptor for F mount lenses with internal focus motors works well with full function, so lens compatibility for at least the near future should be insured.

Martin_99 said:

number_5 said:

Martin_99 said:

number_5 said:

Crop Lenses on Crop Bodies: How It Works vs Full Frame (APS-C & M43) - YouTube

TECHNICAL: Full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras is USUALLY bad - YouTube

So basically, the FF lenses on APSC degrade the sharpness.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with that statement. You just need higher quality FF lens to be able to render naturally higher density apsc sensors. Considering that new lenses are designed for new high resolution sensors (45-60Mpx) which have similar density as apsc sensors or higher, it's not an issue at all today. In many cases you will get better FF lens, because they are designed for proffesional use. Obvious downside is price and size.

Click to expand...

From Gerald Undone's video, the APSC's higher pixel density is not the problem, it's the light coverage area.

Click to expand...

I'm far from being optical expert, not saying that "light coverage area" (it's actually not a description of problem? whatever it is) can't make results on apsc worse. But what interest me most is final result - which is similar for both modern apsc and FF lenses used on apsc camera - I can see that on online tests (somewhat rare unfortunately) and from my personal experience.

Even very cheap FF lens Tamron 35 f2.8 M1:2 render very nice on my Sony A6400, certainly better than some of earlier Sony apsc lenses.

Martin_99 said:

IIRC, I think I read it somewhere that most of the new lenses (at least Sony's) are designed for 100MP FF sensor, so we agree the lenses can handle the density.

His explanation makes sense to me, and not going to argue it to death.

Click to expand...

I will check his video when at home, to see the context and understand the reasoning.

Click to expand...

I found good example on www.opticallimits.com

Tests of two great lenses - apsc Sigma 56 f1.4 and FF Sony 90 f2.8 macro. You can see below testing of both on 24Mpx apsc cameras. Results are pretty similar, within measurement error or sample variation. Not sure how can using a 90mm macro be a degradation on apsc camera. Not mention the fact, that above 60mm almost no lenses are produced for apsc format.

number_5 said:

Martin_99 said:

number_5 said:

Crop Lenses on Crop Bodies: How It Works vs Full Frame (APS-C & M43) - YouTube

TECHNICAL: Full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras is USUALLY bad - YouTube

So basically, the FF lenses on APSC degrade the sharpness.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with that statement. You just need higher quality FF lens to be able to render naturally higher density apsc sensors. Considering that new lenses are designed for new high resolution sensors (45-60Mpx) which have similar density as apsc sensors or higher, it's not an issue at all today. In many cases you will get better FF lens, because they are designed for proffesional use. Obvious downside is price and size.

Click to expand...

From Gerald Undone's video, the APSC's higher pixel density is not the problem, it's the light coverage area. IIRC, I think I read it somewhere that most of the new lenses (at least Sony's) are designed for 100MP FF sensor, so we agree the lenses can handle the density.

His explanation makes sense to me, and not going to argue it to death.

Click to expand...

that video was a rant on crop factors that somehow branched off into speedboosters, which are obsolete in this day and age, and have nothing to do with what the o.p. asked.

as far as light coverage goes, putting a ff lens on a crop sensor automatically crops out most of the vignetting, so the light coverage is by definition much better.

number_5 said:

Crop Lenses on Crop Bodies: How It Works vs Full Frame (APS-C & M43) - YouTube

TECHNICAL: Full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras is USUALLY bad - YouTube

So basically, the FF lenses on APSC degrade the sharpness.

Click to expand...

I forced myself to suffer through the second one, and, sure enough, it's the usual Northrup B.S. again. He shows that an FF lens on an FF body produces a better image than an APS-C lens on an APS-C body OR an FF lens on an APS-C body. With the bodies he compares, nobody in their right mind would doubt that.

Then, he concludes that an FF lens on an APS-C body won't deliver as good an image, making it sound like "as opposed to an APS-C lens on the same body". That's the B.S. part: the comparison he showed a minute or two before clearly showed the FF lens performing better than the APS-C lens on the same APS-C body.

In other words, to the OP: yes, quality FX lenses tend to perform better than DX lenses.

Yet, I also concur with the other poster who said that investing in DX or FX means investing in a dying product line.

Bender79ita said:

swHill said:

I'm getting back into photography after a 30 year layoff. Still love my film gear and even use one of my old lenses on my D7200 and it does great (just no autofocus).

I have a couple of DX lenses but I just bought a used FF lens. I'm wondering if buying good quality, used FF lenses might not be a bad way to go. It future proofs me for the future in case i want to also get a full frame camera and the lenses might be better quality then what i can get a new DX lens for.

Click to expand...

There's nothing futureproof about F-Mount. You probably don't know, but that mount has been discontinued.

The current Nikon mount is Z, yet you might want to look around to see what's happening.

https://www.youtube.com/c/dpreview/videos

Click to expand...

That's a bit of a bold statement. Nikon is still producing a whole range of F-mount lenses and will probably continue to do so for some time to come to serve their massive customer base that is still happily shooting DSLR's. So from that point of view, getting back into photography by way of buying into the still very much alive Nikon F-mount can be a rather sensible choice. If the OP's current D7200 dies, there'll be plenty of replacement bodies available for who knows how many years to come.

And since a great deal of the older FF lenses perform brilliantly on DX-bodies like the D7200, I can see why the OP is considering his approach future proof. He's absolutely right!

Excellent thoughts. I concur completely.

Ringwraith69 said:

Bender79ita said:

swHill said:

I'm getting back into photography after a 30 year layoff. Still love my film gear and even use one of my old lenses on my D7200 and it does great (just no autofocus).

I have a couple of DX lenses but I just bought a used FF lens. I'm wondering if buying good quality, used FF lenses might not be a bad way to go. It future proofs me for the future in case i want to also get a full frame camera and the lenses might be better quality then what i can get a new DX lens for.

Click to expand...

There's nothing futureproof about F-Mount. You probably don't know, but that mount has been discontinued.

The current Nikon mount is Z, yet you might want to look around to see what's happening.

https://www.youtube.com/c/dpreview/videos

Click to expand...

That's a bit of a bold statement. Nikon is still producing a whole range of F-mount lenses and will probably continue to do so for some time to come to serve their massive customer base that is still happily shooting DSLR's. So from that point of view, getting back into photography by way of buying into the still very much alive Nikon F-mount can be a rather sensible choice. If the OP's current D7200 dies, there'll be plenty of replacement bodies available for who knows how many years to come.

And since a great deal of the older FF lenses perform brilliantly on DX-bodies like the D7200, I can see why the OP is considering his approach future proof. He's absolutely right!

Click to expand...

You can keep shooting DSLRs as long as you want, if that's your preference. It's a way to go about it like any other. But what we do individually is not relevant to the OP.

You want to go digging for used DSLRs forever, that's your choice. It might be the OP's choice too, I don't really care.

But if somebody makes a post about "futureproofing" mentioning F Mount lenses, and specifically mentioning that he's not been following the photography market, it would be a very big omission not updating the poster on the situation.

There hasn't been a new lens release for F Mount for years now. Officially or not, F Mount has been abandoned just like A-Mount. That is not really my opinion, just reality. You can refuse reality, and that's fine. Also not my business.

It's not really up for debate that Z-Mount is Nikon's "futureproof" mount now, or is it?

I believe that's relevant to the OP given the topic, but if it's not, that would be up to him to decide.

Bender79ita said:

Ringwraith69 said:

Bender79ita said:

swHill said:

I'm getting back into photography after a 30 year layoff. Still love my film gear and even use one of my old lenses on my D7200 and it does great (just no autofocus).

I have a couple of DX lenses but I just bought a used FF lens. I'm wondering if buying good quality, used FF lenses might not be a bad way to go. It future proofs me for the future in case i want to also get a full frame camera and the lenses might be better quality then what i can get a new DX lens for.

Click to expand...

There's nothing futureproof about F-Mount. You probably don't know, but that mount has been discontinued.

The current Nikon mount is Z, yet you might want to look around to see what's happening.

https://www.youtube.com/c/dpreview/videos

Click to expand...

That's a bit of a bold statement. Nikon is still producing a whole range of F-mount lenses and will probably continue to do so for some time to come to serve their massive customer base that is still happily shooting DSLR's. So from that point of view, getting back into photography by way of buying into the still very much alive Nikon F-mount can be a rather sensible choice. If the OP's current D7200 dies, there'll be plenty of replacement bodies available for who knows how many years to come.

And since a great deal of the older FF lenses perform brilliantly on DX-bodies like the D7200, I can see why the OP is considering his approach future proof. He's absolutely right!

Click to expand...

You can keep shooting DSLRs as long as you want, if that's your preference. It's a way to go about it like any other. But what we do individually is not relevant to the OP.

You want to go digging for used DSLRs forever, that's your choice. It might be the OP's choice too, I don't really care.

But if somebody makes a post about "futureproofing" mentioning F Mount lenses, and specifically mentioning that he's not been following the photography market, it would be a very big omission not updating the poster on the situation.

There hasn't been a new lens release for F Mount for years now. Officially or not, F Mount has been abandoned just like A-Mount. That is not really my opinion, just reality. You can refuse reality, and that's fine. Also not my business.

It's not really up for debate that Z-Mount is Nikon's "futureproof" mount now, or is it?

I believe that's relevant to the OP given the topic, but if it's not, that would be up to him to decide.

Click to expand...

The latest F-mount lens introduction was in 2020, the 2.8/120-300 AF-S . New F-mount lenses were introduced in almost every other year up to 2018, too. And again: there's still a plethora of new F-mount lenses in production and widely available in almost every camera store. And Nikon still lists a number of DX and FX DSLR's as 'current models' on their websites. Reality dictates that does not constitute a dead system. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

The situation with Minolta's and later Sony's A-mount is completely different. The last new A-mount lenses were announced by Sony in 2015, the last new camera in 2016. And in the mean time Sony has officially discontinued all A-mount cameras and lenses. Production has ended, Sony is no longer providing the market with A-mount cameras and lenses. It's an inevitable reality that the A-mount is well and truly a dead system.

Now as for the question whether or not mirrorless cameras will completely replace DSLR's eventually, that's a totally different matter. Of course they will. No room for doubt whatsoever there. It's what the market wants so it's what the manufacturers will build. But the F-mount (and the same goes for the EF-mount) is far from dead and buried yet, contrary to the A-mount or for instance Samsung's NX-mount.

number_5 said:

Crop Lenses on Crop Bodies: How It Works vs Full Frame (APS-C & M43) - YouTube

TECHNICAL: Full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras is USUALLY bad - YouTube

So basically, the FF lenses on APSC degrade the sharpness.

Click to expand...

I think this is actually more complicated than most make it out to be. Below are some thoughts:

• The full frame image needs to be magnified less than an APSC image for a given print or display size. This means that the full frame image can have less resolution and appear as sharp as the APSC image at a give display size (full frame has a larger circle of confusion).
• However, we also know that sharpness of a lens tends to degrade closer to the edges of the image circle. The sharpest part of the image circle is typically in the center.
• If an APSC camera has the same number of megapixels a full frame camera, the APSC camera will have higher pixel density on the sharpest part of the image circle (but will need to be enlarged more to get to final display size).

At the end of the day, full frame likely pulls ahead (particularly if the full frame camera has more pixels). But I think the answer on sharpness is more nuanced than most make it out to be. (Likely depends on lens design, aperture, etc.)

Ringwraith69 said:

The latest F-mount lens introduction was in 2020, the 2.8/120-300 AF-S .

Click to expand...

that's a complex $9500 lens, that probably took nikon at least two years to develop and start manufacturing.

Ringwraith69 said:

New F-mount lenses were introduced in almost every other year up to 2018, too.

Click to expand...

and how many new f-mount lenses has nikon released since 2018? how many new f-mount bodies?

you are deliberately leaving out relevant info.

Ringwraith69 said:

And again: there's still a plethora of new F-mount lenses in production and widely available in almost every camera store.

And Nikon still lists a number of DX and FX DSLR's as 'current models' on their websites.

Click to expand...

b&h has seven z-mount bodies for sale, but only five f-mount bodies for sale.

nikon is clearing out old f-mount inventory, they are not developing new f-mount products, which is the definition of a dead mount.

Ringwraith69 said:

The situation with Minolta's and later Sony's A-mount is completely different.

Click to expand...

that's a pointless tangent, because the discussion is about f-mount, not the history of cameras.

Martin_99 said:

Martin_99 said:

number_5 said:

Martin_99 said:

number_5 said:

Crop Lenses on Crop Bodies: How It Works vs Full Frame (APS-C & M43) - YouTube

TECHNICAL: Full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras is USUALLY bad - YouTube

So basically, the FF lenses on APSC degrade the sharpness.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with that statement. You just need higher quality FF lens to be able to render naturally higher density apsc sensors. Considering that new lenses are designed for new high resolution sensors (45-60Mpx) which have similar density as apsc sensors or higher, it's not an issue at all today. In many cases you will get better FF lens, because they are designed for proffesional use. Obvious downside is price and size.

Click to expand...

From Gerald Undone's video, the APSC's higher pixel density is not the problem, it's the light coverage area.

Click to expand...

I'm far from being optical expert, not saying that "light coverage area" (it's actually not a description of problem? whatever it is) can't make results on apsc worse. But what interest me most is final result - which is similar for both modern apsc and FF lenses used on apsc camera - I can see that on online tests (somewhat rare unfortunately) and from my personal experience.

Even very cheap FF lens Tamron 35 f2.8 M1:2 render very nice on my Sony A6400, certainly better than some of earlier Sony apsc lenses.

Martin_99 said:

IIRC, I think I read it somewhere that most of the new lenses (at least Sony's) are designed for 100MP FF sensor, so we agree the lenses can handle the density.

His explanation makes sense to me, and not going to argue it to death.

Click to expand...

I will check his video when at home, to see the context and understand the reasoning.

Click to expand...

I found good example on www.opticallimits.com

Tests of two great lenses - apsc Sigma 56 f1.4 and FF Sony 90 f2.8 macro. You can see below testing of both on 24Mpx apsc cameras. Results are pretty similar, within measurement error or sample variation. Not sure how can using a 90mm macro be a degradation on apsc camera. Not mention the fact, that above 60mm almost no lenses are produced for apsc format.

Click to expand...

This is great information. Thank you.

MILC man said:

number_5 said:

Martin_99 said:

number_5 said:

Crop Lenses on Crop Bodies: How It Works vs Full Frame (APS-C & M43) - YouTube

TECHNICAL: Full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras is USUALLY bad - YouTube

So basically, the FF lenses on APSC degrade the sharpness.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with that statement. You just need higher quality FF lens to be able to render naturally higher density apsc sensors. Considering that new lenses are designed for new high resolution sensors (45-60Mpx) which have similar density as apsc sensors or higher, it's not an issue at all today. In many cases you will get better FF lens, because they are designed for proffesional use. Obvious downside is price and size.

Click to expand...

From Gerald Undone's video, the APSC's higher pixel density is not the problem, it's the light coverage area. IIRC, I think I read it somewhere that most of the new lenses (at least Sony's) are designed for 100MP FF sensor, so we agree the lenses can handle the density.

His explanation makes sense to me, and not going to argue it to death.

Click to expand...

that video was a rant on crop factors that somehow branched off into speedboosters, which are obsolete in this day and age, and have nothing to do with what the o.p. asked.

as far as light coverage goes, putting a ff lens on a crop sensor automatically crops out most of the vignetting, so the light coverage is by definition much better.

Click to expand...

The cropping of vegnetting was also something i was thinking about. It seems to me, the crop sensor would be getting the best of the light the lens lets in.

lokatz said:

number_5 said:

Crop Lenses on Crop Bodies: How It Works vs Full Frame (APS-C & M43) - YouTube

TECHNICAL: Full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras is USUALLY bad - YouTube

So basically, the FF lenses on APSC degrade the sharpness.

Click to expand...

I forced myself to suffer through the second one, and, sure enough, it's the usual Northrup B.S. again. He shows that an FF lens on an FF body produces a better image than an APS-C lens on an APS-C body OR an FF lens on an APS-C body. With the bodies he compares, nobody in their right mind would doubt that.

Then, he concludes that an FF lens on an APS-C body won't deliver as good an image, making it sound like "as opposed to an APS-C lens on the same body". That's the B.S. part: the comparison he showed a minute or two before clearly showed the FF lens performing better than the APS-C lens on the same APS-C body.

In other words, to the OP: yes, quality FX lenses tend to perform better than DX lenses.

Yet, I also concur with the other poster who said that investing in DX or FX means investing in a dying product line.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that DSL isn't the future but I'm not sure I would call it a dying line. I still use and love shooting with my Nikon FE. But I do get your point.