Nikon AF-P DX 70-300 - DX vs FX on Z50!

[Byku]

Recently I had the opportunity to own both FX and DX version of this lens. Here I will give you some comparisons between both lenses. Shoot in JPEG, neutral profile, no ADL active, manual settings.

First - moon:



Left: DX - at 300mm, f/8, right: FX - at 300mm, f/8

It seems that we see a bit more details in bright parts of the moon, and on the edge of the moon the FX version is a bit sharper, but the differences are marginal.

Second - chimney, bright sky in the background.



Left: DX - at 300mm, f/6.3, right: FX - at 300mm, f/6.3

Dx version suffers a lot more from chromatic aberrations. It seems that it's also a bit less sharp, and we don't see as much details in the dark part as on the FX version.

Third - building far away:



Left: DX - at 300mm, f/6.3, right: FX - at 300mm, f/6.3 - center crop

Sharpness seems very similar, although DX version show more chromatic aberrations near the gutter at the top.



Left: DX - at 300mm, f/6.3, right: FX - at 300mm, f/6.3 - a bit below center

Fine details - FX version seems to resolve them a bit better.



Left: DX - at 300mm, f/6.3, right: FX - at 300mm, f/6.3

Unfortunately I forgot to disable vignette control :/, but still, even with it on - the FX version has less vignetting than DX one.


Left: DX - at 300mm, f/6.3, right: FX - at 300mm, f/6.3 - left corner

FX wins, in DX version you can notice chromatic aberrations removal artifacts.

Now let's see how they compare at f/8.


Left: DX - at 300mm, f/8, right: FX - at 300mm, f/8.


Left: DX - at 300mm, f/8, right: FX - at 300mm, f/8 - center

DX shows more chromatic aberrations(gutter at the top), sharpness seems to be very similar.


Left: DX - at 300mm, f/8, right: FX - at 300mm, f/8 - corner.

FX wins again.

Summary - in center both versions are very similar. Chromatic aberrations, vignetting and corner sharpness are better on the FX version.

 

[Parry Johnson]

Excellent comparison, and one that I hoped to see.

All in all, that little DX lens does a pretty good job at about half the price and size of the FX version (if that's all you need -- I've got both formats).

 

[JasonTheBirder]

I have always heard that the FX version is better, and I guess you showed that it is. But it is not a big improvement.

 

[PerL]

...is how incredibly light, compact, silent, fast focusing and affordable it is vs the performance.

 

[Byku]

Link to full res photos(forgot to add it):

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmSrs1y9

Oh and I've showed different parts of the wall when comparing the "fine details". Sry, here's the proper comparison:




FX on the left at f/8, DX on the right at f/8.

FX still a tiny bit better.

 

[AM77]

Recently I had the opportunity to own both FX and DX version of this lens. Here I will give you some comparisons between both lenses. Shoot in JPEG, neutral profile, no ADL active, manual settings.

First - moon:



Left: DX - at 300mm, f/8, right: FX - at 300mm, f/8

It seems that we see a bit more details in bright parts of the moon, and on the edge of the moon the FX version is a bit sharper, but the differences are marginal.

Second - chimney, bright sky in the background.



Left: DX - at 300mm, f/6.3, right: FX - at 300mm, f/6.3

Dx version suffers a lot more from chromatic aberrations. It seems that it's also a bit less sharp, and we don't see as much details in the dark part as on the FX version.

Third - building far away:



Left: DX - at 300mm, f/6.3, right: FX - at 300mm, f/6.3 - center crop

Sharpness seems very similar, although DX version show more chromatic aberrations near the gutter at the top.



Left: DX - at 300mm, f/6.3, right: FX - at 300mm, f/6.3 - a bit below center

Fine details - FX version seems to resolve them a bit better.



Left: DX - at 300mm, f/6.3, right: FX - at 300mm, f/6.3

Unfortunately I forgot to disable vignette control :/, but still, even with it on - the FX version has less vignetting than DX one.


Left: DX - at 300mm, f/6.3, right: FX - at 300mm, f/6.3 - left corner

FX wins, in DX version you can notice chromatic aberrations removal artifacts.

Now let's see how they compare at f/8.


Left: DX - at 300mm, f/8, right: FX - at 300mm, f/8.


Left: DX - at 300mm, f/8, right: FX - at 300mm, f/8 - center

DX shows more chromatic aberrations(gutter at the top), sharpness seems to be very similar.


Left: DX - at 300mm, f/8, right: FX - at 300mm, f/8 - corner.

FX wins again.

Summary - in center both versions are very similar. Chromatic aberrations, vignetting and corner sharpness are better on the FX version.

You magnified the FX samples in order to match the equivalent focal lens, right? Impressive the quality of the FX version...but it costs double )