FX lens on DX body question?

SsSsSsSsSnake

SsSsSsSsSnake

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,886
Edit My Images
Yes
I’ve just read this on a forum
The advantage of the DX-designed lens? For the same basic lens design, a DX lens will be sharper on a DX body than an FX lens on a DX body.
I was led to believe because you are using the centre part of lens it would be using the sharpest area of the FX lens?
 
I've always felt that FX glass is better, and many opinions resonate that. Someone sent me a video a few years ago that stated the opposite. The creator of that video actually got a fair bit of backlash off of it if I remember correctly.

For what it's worth, I curiously tested a DX standard zoom versus my FX standard(ish) zoom and telephoto before I sold the DX one. Body was my D3000 and all three lenses were set for 70mm I think. Both of the FX blew the DX out of the water.
 
Neither Canon or Nikon produced 'professional' level APS-c lenses, I can only think of the last 16-80 Nikkor that was introduced with the D500 that could be described as anywhere near premium. I do not believe there were any EF-S (crop) 'L' lenses. Most people I know who were enthusiasts shooting with APS-c used EF Canon or FX Nikkor even though the FF cameras were outside the price range but the crop frame lenses lacked the quality. It was only a matter of time before Nikon and Canon extended their full-frame offerings to a lower price point (6D/D600). Pentax, on the other hand, did offer premium DA* (crop) lenses for their APS-c cameras which were way superior to the DA (non-star crop) offerings, but at a price (and with poor AF motors), these have more or less being supplanted by D-FA/D-FA* (FF) glass. Pentax were late to the full-frame party so developed their crop range more extensively, but at the expense of a very limited full-frame range.

So for your the DX/EF-s compatible ranges the full-frame glass is better because the image will be covering only the central portion of the lens where it is the sharpest, not at the corners....giving them an advantage. With full-frame glass, assuming you can afford it, premium glass is available.
 
I was under the impression one of the main drawbacks was DX bodies don't have the motor for autofocus so the FX lens won't autofocus on a DX body.
 
Nod said:
According to Mr R, the lens "doesn't work on FF bodies". Well, it does, just not in FF mode. The problem (well, the BIGGEST problem) with KR is that you need to know which of his statements to believe and if you know that, you probably don't need his advice!
Click to expand...
Yep agreed.

When my daughter got married the "pro tog" used a Nikon D810 with a DX lens.

Nothing pro about him.
 
Nod said:
According to Mr R, the lens "doesn't work on FF bodies". Well, it does, just not in FF mode. The problem (well, the BIGGEST problem) with KR is that you need to know which of his statements to believe and if you know that, you probably don't need his advice!
Click to expand...
I've just read what KR says and he doesn't say it 'doesn't work' on FX, he says not to bother with it on FX. But I've no wish to get into a KR argument. His pages helped me a lot when I started using Nikon digitals, and I still find his lens info pages helpful, particularly the comparison pages.
 
Won't work on 35mm or FX cameras, except at longer focal lengths.

Copy and pasted from KR's site.
 
It's all down to the lens. Years back I had a Sigma 17-70 and then moved to a Canon 17-40. Both good lenses however the Sigma thrashed the Canon.
 
I know the D810 and D850 can recognise when a DX lens is attached. So Nikkor DX lenses do work but are of very limited usability (you use the advantage of the 'shorter' focal length and you lose the 'magnification'. Whether D6*0 or D7*0 series cameras have the same function I don't know and whether the D8*0 cameras recognise 3rd party APSc lenses and adjust. I started in the Nikon system with a D3 so all I ever bought was full-frame.

As for Mr Rockwell, I reviewed his site when I was looking for newer lenses etc but not solely. It's like using TripAdvisor, I don't always look at the 5* reviews when looking for hotels or restaurants.
 
Yes, the 7*0 Nikons do have a Dx mode.

As long as you treat KR's site as entertainment as much as information, it's OK (and seems to make him a few bob!)
 
Ed Sutton said:
Nikon did. https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/1755.htm
Click to expand...
There was also the Canon 17-55 2.8, that wasn’t L build quality but was definitely optically equivalent. Better than the 17-40 L and the first Sigma 17-50 (I tried both before buying the 17-55)

But I’m not sure if there’s a later better Sigma, or how the Tamron compares. Also I’ve no idea what Ken R thinks of it.
 
All the DX lenses work on FX bodies and vice versa except for those which don't work for other reasons (no focus motor, old manual so won't meter, AF-P, etc) KR's site has a really good page on Nikon lens compatibility. The FF DSLRs can also select to see FF on a DX lens and you get the smaller DX image inside the full frame. With some DX lenses this is a full image (with strong vignetting) at 1.2 crop or even full frame. You can't do this with the Z series bodies (Probably because the DX sized mirrorless lenses would be too good on full frame. They probably have an even wider image circle than DSLR lenses.).

Disadvantage of crop is that you need really good lenses to get the best out of the sensor (wide open) as your 24 MPix APSC DSLR has a pixel density equivalent to 54 MPix on full frame.

I can see how a DX camera would make pictures with sharper corners if you put a FX lens on it which was soft on the FX corners. But the FX camera would still be better in the centre and who cares about the corners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top