Bought the camera early this year with the kit lens and then bought a 50/1.8 and then a 35/1.8 FX for taking family photos. I am now looking to get a better zoom lens and would love to hear some experiences between the DX and FX versions of the lens given the huge price difference.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D7100 zoom lens DX or FX version?
- Thread starter preetster
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d7100
FX lenses are designed to be used on cameras with a full-sized sensor, not a DX sensor. So your images will not be as wide as you would expect. For instance, if the widest setting you have is 20 mm, it will be the equivalent of you having a 35mm lens. So I don't know how suitable FX lenses are for use on a DX camera. I have the 18-105 mm Zoom lens on my D7100, and I'm reasonably happy with it. I understand that the newer 18-140 mm is even nicer. Both of the lenses have VR (vibration reduction), and it really makes a difference. I recall seeing praises for the 18-200 mm lens from Nikon, but I haven't seen a lot of talk about it lately.
BackroadsTraveler
Leading Member
You didn't say which zoom range you'd be most interested in, but you have plenty of options.
The Nikon 16-85 (and presumably the new 16-80), 10-24 and the 18-140 suggested by the previous post are all fine DX lenses for your D7100.
You may also consider the 70-300 by Nikon. While it is technically an FX lens, it gives very good results with a DX, and in my opinion, is a lot of bang for the buck.
There won't be much of an advantage to buying FX instead of DX if you can find what you need as a DX offering. On the other hand, I don't shy away from buying FX lenses for my D7000 when they suit my needs better than the current DX offerings. (The 70-300 and 80-400 are two examples).
The Nikon 16-85 (and presumably the new 16-80), 10-24 and the 18-140 suggested by the previous post are all fine DX lenses for your D7100.
You may also consider the 70-300 by Nikon. While it is technically an FX lens, it gives very good results with a DX, and in my opinion, is a lot of bang for the buck.
There won't be much of an advantage to buying FX instead of DX if you can find what you need as a DX offering. On the other hand, I don't shy away from buying FX lenses for my D7000 when they suit my needs better than the current DX offerings. (The 70-300 and 80-400 are two examples).
GWGuerrilla
Active member
Horseprints
Member
There is a reason Fx lenses are more expensive. They have better optics and are better built. Also like in a previous post, if you ever see yourself going to a FX camera in the future you would not need to buy all new lenses. You can use FX lenses on a Dx camera but you can't (can but will not work very well) use DX can lenses on a FX body. My plan is to buy a D7200 but every lens I'll buy will be FX. Down the road I can be ready to go by just adding an FX body. You can never go wrong by buying quality glass. Buying Fx lenses for use on a Dx Body you just need to be sure to allow for the crop factor. Long lenses get longer on a Dx but wide lenses get narrower so buy accordingly.
Thank you everyone for the input, I am considering a lens in the 70-200 or 55-200 range for nature photography.
There is a good chance that I will move to an FX body so that is plus to go FX
Good to know that the FX lenses are better build and optics
How much difference in getting a 2.8 lens vs 4.5 for shooting nature?
There is a good chance that I will move to an FX body so that is plus to go FX
Good to know that the FX lenses are better build and optics
How much difference in getting a 2.8 lens vs 4.5 for shooting nature?
Mystery member
Forum Pro
One of the best introductory lenses for nature photography is the Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 VC, which is also an FX capable lens. Costs about $500 and works very well on my D7100. Next step up is the Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm zooms at roughly $1500, but they are nowhere in the region of f/2.8.
Any of the longer f/2.8 lenses with will be very expensive, for example, the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 doesn't leave much change from $10,000. There's a rather nice 200-400mm f/4 zoom which is a snip at $6000.
Tamron 70-300mm. Cropping to the adult bird gives quite a pleasing image.
Last edited:
GWGuerrilla
Active member
I don't shoot wildlife, but I'm guessing you will probably be at the long end of that focal length range most of time. If the 55-200 you mentioned has an aperture range of f4-5.6 then you will be at 5.6 at 200mm. In sunlight it shouldn't be an issue but early morning or evening it will make a difference compared to the fixed f2.8 70-200mm. I do a lot of football and given the lights at the stadium I shoot at, it would be rough to compensate for 2 stops of light and not end up with a really noisy image from having to increase the iso or motion blur from reducing the shutter speed. I can't speak for the 55-200 but the 70-200 is a really nice lens.
GlennW
Senior Member
The 55-200 VR2 makes a light weight mate for the similar 18-55 VR2. Shares the same collapse design & 55mm filters. On a DX camera, use it to go to a zoo or where the animals are penned. At 200mm does a decent job for larger critters.
With a D7100 I expect you have a 18-105 or 18-140 kit lens. Best mate for them is the 70-300VR where you also share 67mm filters.
To upgrade from this the 16-85 is better only in build quality at a loss of range 85-105 or 140.
The new 16-80 would make the best upgrade.
You could consider the Sigma 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.
Using FX on a DX body usually means you use the swweet spot in the center of the lens.
F2.8 vrs F4 gives you a lot more light to work with.
Horseprints
Member
IMO the Sigma Apo 70-200 2.8 is an awesome lens and for $1,200 right now a very good deal.
For about the same money even a little less you could get the new Sigma 150-600mm C for serious wildlife work. It's getting very good reviews but can't give direct feedback as I haven't gotten one ..... yet!
Loading…
www.sigmaphoto.com
For about the same money even a little less you could get the new Sigma 150-600mm C for serious wildlife work. It's getting very good reviews but can't give direct feedback as I haven't gotten one ..... yet!
Loading…
www.sigmaphoto.com
I guess I buy the lens for the focal range, and have not been as concerned about whether or not it is for DX or FX. I plan to stay with DX, for the foreseeable future, so that makes it easier.
So, I have, and am pleased with all of them:
Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 DX
Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 DX
Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 FX
Tamron 70-300mm FX
Nikon 18-140mm DX
So, I have, and am pleased with all of them:
Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 DX
Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 DX
Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 FX
Tamron 70-300mm FX
Nikon 18-140mm DX
Craig Gillette
Forum Pro
When a dx and fx lens are the same focal length, the image projected to the film/sensor is the same in the sense of angle of view, perspective. What might change is the image circle. The lens "projects" a circular image and as you get farther from the middle of the circle, the image quality drops off. The sensor is a rectangle inside the circle. The dx rectangle is smaller than the fx/ff rectangle so the projected image - smaller coverage area can allow for smaller, less expensive, lighter lenses. So for the same focal length the lens for dx might be smaller, lighter, less expensive.
Remember, the focal length doesn't change, the sensor size does. If you think of film, the smaller sensor is like trimming the edges off the negative. So, to put the "same" image in the smaller space, you use a wider lens. the smaller frame/sensor is then enlarged more. Like using a wider 24mm lens in dx to get essentially the same image as a 35mm (36mm for most brands) lens on a full frame sensor.
Remember, the focal length doesn't change, the sensor size does. If you think of film, the smaller sensor is like trimming the edges off the negative. So, to put the "same" image in the smaller space, you use a wider lens. the smaller frame/sensor is then enlarged more. Like using a wider 24mm lens in dx to get essentially the same image as a 35mm (36mm for most brands) lens on a full frame sensor.
1971_M5
Veteran Member
Yes... Craig Gillette hits it on the head. The F/L of a lens is the F/L of a lens. A millimeter is a millimeter. The 1.5x conversion (FML or crop-factor) is simply a mathematical way to normalize what you see in the viewfinder. There is nothing physically happening. Look through the viewfiner of a D7100 with the 12-24 mounted -- and what you see will be just about the same as if you picked-up a D810 with the 17-35 mounted. The nice thing about DX is... it makes no difference if the lens is labeled "FX" or DX" -- you always have the same FLM (crop-factor) that comes into play. So... just buy the lens that offers the range you need and the quality you want (prime or zoom). The main advantage of using an FX lens on a DX camera -- as Craig mentioned -- would be a bigger sweet spot (theoretically) since FX lenses are desgned to cover a larger sensor area. Similarly, DX lenses will "work" on an FX camera (same lens mount) but will exhibit vignetting in the corners (to varying degrees) due to the smaller sensor coverage defined by DX. My favorite DX lenses... 12-24 and 17-55. The 17-55 is a gem. My favorite FX lenses... 70-200 VR1 and the 80-400G. My standard D7100 two-lens walkaround kit... 17-55 and 80-400G.
1971_M5
Veteran Member
YES!
Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
1- Bang for the buck - Nikon 18-140.
2- Ultimate lens (sharpness and lack of CA and flare) - Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4 (expensive)
3- Good bargain Nikon 18-105 (inexpensive used)
4- Sigma 17-50 (very sharp lens for the money)
So, how serious is the shooter?
2- Ultimate lens (sharpness and lack of CA and flare) - Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4 (expensive)
3- Good bargain Nikon 18-105 (inexpensive used)
4- Sigma 17-50 (very sharp lens for the money)
So, how serious is the shooter?
Thank you for that tip, I notice you have a Sigma lens as well, how does that compare to your Nikon lenses?
Thank you very much for some awesome input and guidance, getting the right lens is more important than the FX/DX concern.
I think the 70-200 lens would be ideal range for what I am looking to do and the information shared here.
So my next question is about the brand of lens Sigma vs Nikon as there is a big price difference between the two. I see many of you have both brands and would love to hear your views on the quality difference.
I am also going to look into finding a good used Nikon lens.
thanks again!
I think the 70-200 lens would be ideal range for what I am looking to do and the information shared here.
So my next question is about the brand of lens Sigma vs Nikon as there is a big price difference between the two. I see many of you have both brands and would love to hear your views on the quality difference.
I am also going to look into finding a good used Nikon lens.
thanks again!
Brev00
Forum Pro
calson
Forum Pro
The less expensive DX lenses are f5.6 lenses that require 4x as much light as the f2.8 FX lenses. This means needing a much higher ISO setting or signal amplification (and more noise) and less light reaching the camera's autofocus sensors which slows down focusing considerably.
With the wide angle lenses a DX may be the best choice as with the 10-24mm or 16-80mm lenses as the FX lenses will not be wide enough. If you don't mind a more restrictive wide angle perspective then a FX lens like the 24-105mm f4 that provides the picture angles of a 36-157mm lens on a FX camera can be a good choice (especially when coupled with the 10-24mm f3.5 zoom).
With the wide angle lenses a DX may be the best choice as with the 10-24mm or 16-80mm lenses as the FX lenses will not be wide enough. If you don't mind a more restrictive wide angle perspective then a FX lens like the 24-105mm f4 that provides the picture angles of a 36-157mm lens on a FX camera can be a good choice (especially when coupled with the 10-24mm f3.5 zoom).
I would go for image quality, f2.8 or better, and value. Personally I like the last/older generation pro FX lenses for the 7100 because they are less expensive and super high quality. But I wouldn't pass up a quality fast DX lens if it's a really good lens and a good value. If you buy a quality 2.8 or faster lens for a good price it will be worth about the same money whenever you want to sell it in the future. I would not buy a variable aperture lens personally but I really value subject separation and good bokeh as well as low light performance so nothing less than 2.8 for me. There are some great 70-200 2.8 lenses out there as well as the Nikon 80-200 2.8 AFD (double ring one, not the push pull one).
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum