Is it better to use FX lens on DX camera ?

[HVenkat]

Hi,

I have this quandrary of whether it is better to use an FX lens on DX (I have a D7000), maybe it is due to the fact that I have always found my 70-300 Fx to be better in sharpness, bokeh etc than the 16-85 DX lens (which also has been rated reasonably well)

So is there some logic to this or is it just my observation or are some FX lenses suitable for DX but some are not and it is wise to know which are not so that one does'nt end up buying it and then regretting it.

Also finally this entire talk about DX systems expiry which will end up burdening one with DX lenses ? (I have just added this extra comment, though my main argument is specified in the 1st paragraph)

 

[KevinJames]

I think it's fair to assume that the DX format will be around for some time. Most people just getting into DSLRs won't be willing to spend the big money that FX systems demand.

That said, one should understand that DX lenses are mostly targeted at the "less than pro" crowd. That's not to say that they're poor quality, only that you can't expect the totally-best-wow-gotta-have-it lens in a DX format. And you're not likely to ever see a 70-200 f/2.8 or a 400 f/4 for DX...optics make that a fool's errand.

Looking at FX, there are a number of pretty good lenses made for FX, that perform really well on DX. The Nikkor 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 and the 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 AF-D lenses come to mind. They were "pretty good," or, one might say, "quality consumer" lenses on 35mm film format, but are real bargains for DX, as you're using the center of the lens, and any corner compromises in sharpness don't show up too much. Of course, the FOV of the DX fomat makes them work more like a 42-155 (a useful range) and a 27-52 (not quite as useful, IMO).

If you're really concerned about investing too much in the DX format, I think your real concern might be in the EVIL cameras and lenses coming down the pike.
--
Kevin

 

[Kerry Pierce]

DX cameras only use the center of the lens, which is usually the best part of any lens. Vignetting, corner & edge softness are not nearly the problem on DX as they are on FX. AFAIK, Pro DX lenses are just as good as the Pro FX lenses, with the possible exception of the latest incarnations. Technology marches on and the newer lenses are usually better, because of better coatings and other technological advances.

In general, I don't worry about buying DX or FX lenses, but I don't usually buy the cheapest lenses available. I buy the best lenses that I can afford. I have both formats and intend to keep using both formats. I buy the lenses that will do the job that I need done and don't care about the DX/FX debate, especially the DX is dead nonsense. DX cameras are already counted in the millions and I suspect that Nikon will produce DX format until DSLR's are replaced by some new technology. There will be a market for used DX lenses, especially the top performers, for many, many years, IMO.

Kerry
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[Brev00]

Take it on a case-by-case basis. What lenses are you specifically targeting? One big factor in favor of a dx lens is the range. 17-xx makes more sense for most dx shooters than a 24-xx type zoom, for example. So, what lenses are you looking at?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

 

[HVenkat]

Thanks for the responses, I am basically looking to replace the 16-85 mm, hence looking at 1 or 2 fast primes, 28 1.8 mm & 50 1.8 mm FX, so that would give equivalent to 42 (close to 50 ) and 75 mm and a WA that would meet my current 16 mm (i.e. 24 mm FX), hence the Tokina 16-28 so that I don't miss out on the wider end.

I don't as of now intend to go wider than 16 mm (24 mm equivalent). I can quit the 28 mm for now, since the Tokina stretches to 28 mm.

So 2 lenses that would almost meet the range of my current 16-85 and would be faster and hopefully better in most respects.

 

[Brev00]

That does clear things up a bit. Are you planning on going fx one day? Personally, I do not like 50mm on dx. I have a Nikon 50 1.8 and rarely use it. I would think that getting a 35mm and an 85mm prime pair would be nice, giving you a little telephoto in your kit. There are a lot of variations to this type of set up--substituting a 40mm (dx) or 90mm (fx) macro for one of these lenses, for instance. I have no experience with the 16-28--sounds like a nice range. Many love the fifty so good luck!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

 

[GlennW]

Don't give up on the 16-85. Just use it on sunny days. You can use it as a stand in for any primes from 24, 35, 40, 50, 85,etc to see what FL you would use indoors or for other purposes. Can't decide for you if a 35-85 combo would be better than anything else.
--
I Shoot RAW

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

--It depends, but generally the answer is yes. Nothing to replace the 12-24 DX though..., with this the opposite applies... it is better (after 20mm) than the FX lenses ...on FX!

Theodoros
http://www.fotometria.gr

 

[Arree]

For me it is, my 70-200VR1 is the best lens I've got for good portraits, I mostly use a 16-85mmVRII but thats ONLY for conviency we are still waiting till the next 16-85/ f4 will come out, my camera is a D300.
--
Regards,

Arree

Like to see some pic's ?
http://picasaweb.google.nl/Arretje56/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13935871@N04/

 

[SeanU]

If you are shooting dx, the only dx lens you should buy is to cover your wide angle needs. I don't think dx lenses will hold their value as well in the long term... and if you ever decide to go full frame, even as a second body to your dx kit, you will only need to deal with covering the wide end.

Sean
--
http://www.dustandrust.com

 

[Mr Fartleberry]

Only if it's a trick FX lense like the first 70-200.
--

Sold the (old) half-frame from Thailand. Bought a 700 under my own personal stimulus
plan.

 

[SHEIKH ZAHID]

WOULD ANYBODY SUGGEST ME NIKON 70-200 F2.8 VR II I CAN USE ON MY DX BODY NIKON D7200 / I AM REALLY CONFUSED PLEASE SUGGEST ME

 

[Janoch]

I suggest, you click once on your caps-lock.

Lens will work fine, but will be rather front heavy...

 

[Arahne27]

Has anyone used 14-24 2.8 on dx format camera? What are the results? Thanks for the reply in advance.

 

[Mahoonse]

Tony Northrop on his youtube channel on photography has a video "20 things most photographers get wrong" at

. One of the things he mentions is using FX lenses on DX bodies. I'm not completely convinced by his argument but it is worth checking out. I have a couple of FX lenses I use with my D7100 but Tony claims that this causes a loss of resolution compared to using DX lenses on a DX body. I'm happy with my results though.

 

[historianx]

Hi,

I have this quandrary of whether it is better to use an FX lens on DX (I have a D7000), maybe it is due to the fact that I have always found my 70-300 Fx to be better in sharpness, bokeh etc than the 16-85 DX lens (which also has been rated reasonably well)

So is there some logic to this or is it just my observation or are some FX lenses suitable for DX but some are not and it is wise to know which are not so that one does'nt end up buying it and then regretting it.

Also finally this entire talk about DX systems expiry which will end up burdening one with DX lenses ? (I have just added this extra comment, though my main argument is specified in the 1st paragraph)

I do it all the time, and don't care what so-called internet "experts" like Tony N have to say. As a matter of fact my only DX lens is the fabulous Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art. All the rest are FX.

 

[historianx]

WOULD ANYBODY SUGGEST ME NIKON 70-200 F2.8 VR II I CAN USE ON MY DX BODY NIKON D7200 / I AM REALLY CONFUSED PLEASE SUGGEST ME

Mr. Caps Lock don't be confused. It will work fine--although you may want to get the MBD15 battery grip to give it a little more balance and leverage. I use my VRII on my D7100 for more reach, and it works splendidly.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Are you planning on going fx one day?

Why suggest "going FX one day" when mixing DX and FX usually gives better overall results in some situations.

Further on in the thread on the 14-24, when I need 24 mm on DX, at 24mm f2.8 the 14-24 performs much better than the 24-70 at 24mm f2.8 on FX or DX.

 

[GlennW]

Tony Northrop on his youtube channel on photography has a video "20 things most photographers get wrong" at

. One of the things he mentions is using FX lenses on DX bodies. I'm not completely convinced by his argument but it is worth checking out. I have a couple of FX lenses I use with my D7100 but Tony claims that this causes a loss of resolution compared to using DX lenses on a DX body. I'm happy with my results though.

IIRC he has another video where it depends what FX lens you are talking about. In a 18-55 range, better to use the DX lens designed for the DX sensor. At longer FL, for birds, a 80-300 becomes a 120-450. The new 200-500 becomes another good example.

The crazy part is from 50mm up there aren't that many DX lens, only the 55-200 or 55-300. so you buy the FX lens anyway to get the FL you need. As long as you use the center sharp portion of the lens you get the sweet spot.

 

[CabezaDiva]

My question is this. I have a Nikon D7200 with an 18-200m DX lens. I have been getting more and more experience with event photography. Should I get a 70-200mm 2.8 FX lens and use it with my body? I am asking as there are no long zoom 2.8 lens for this body. I have a 17-50 2.8 DX lens but I need the 70-200 lens. I don't have the money to buy an FX body right now so is it worth to buy the 70-200mm 2.8 lens? Any guidance would be much appreciated. I have been told that using an FX lens like that on a DX body is a waste. Is that true?