What are the pros and cons of using FX lenses on a DX Nikon body?

Asked 7/16/2014

1 views

2 answers

0

I have several Nikon FX lenses from my 35mm SLR and also use a DX DSLR. The FX lenses mount and work fine, so I’m wondering whether there’s any real advantage to buying DX lenses instead.

For example, I’m currently using a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D on DX. I understand that on a DX body the field of view is narrower because of the crop factor, while magnification and shooting distance don’t change.

Is that the main difference, or are there other disadvantages or advantages to using FX lenses on DX? Also, would a 50mm DX lens on DX give the same field of view as a 50mm FX lens on FX?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

12y ago

2 Answers

8

The FX lenses work fine, so I wonder if there is any point buying a DX Lens?

Yes there are several points. Because the image circle for a DX is smaller there exist DX lenses which doesn't have counterparts in FX lineup.

Just two examples:

  • the famous Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM (no Full Frame zoom with f/1.8 exist)
  • the new super-super-zoom Tamron 16-300MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD (an equivalent of approx. 25-456mm (!) on Full Frame). And this beast includes also image stabilizer.

Also DX lenses are smaller, easier and cheaper (for example Sigma 8-16mm costs $650 whereas the FX brother - Sigma 12-24mm - costs $950).

However, generally I do recommend you to use FX lenses. Usually (not always, but generally speaking) they are better optically on DX sensors and allow you to upgrade to a Full Frame (FX) sensor in future.

Would a 50mm DX on DX give me the same field of vision as a 50mm FX on FX at the same magnification?

  1. Please ask just one question per question. :) Thank you.
  2. No. 50mm is 50mm. The focal length is a property of the lens. It has nothing to do with the dimensions of the sensor on which the 'field of vision' (as you say) is formed. The 'field of vision' depends on the relationship between the focal length and the dimensions of sensor (given that the sensors are at the same distance from lens). That's why we have focal length Full Frame equivalences. For these equivalences, see a calculator here.

my 50mm FX Lens is like a ~35mm Lens in terms of visible space

IIUC, No (again). Because your sensor is a crop one, the lens will be 'longer' (narrower/"cropped" field of view) not 'wider'. Your 50mm lens will be 50 x 1.52 (the common Nikon crop factor) = 76mm = short tele.

Originally by user952. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user952

12y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

An FX lens on a DX body has no inherent penalty beyond the DX crop: the sensor records a smaller central part of the image circle, so the field of view is narrower, but the lens’s actual focal length and magnification do not change.

A 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens. A 50mm DX on DX does not behave like a 50mm FX on FX in framing; on DX, both 50mm DX and 50mm FX give essentially the same field of view if the focal length is the same.

Why buy DX lenses, then?

  • They can be smaller, lighter, and cheaper.
  • Some DX designs offer combinations that don’t really exist in FX, especially very wide or unusual zoom ranges.

Why keep using FX lenses?

  • They often perform very well on DX because you’re using the center of the image circle.
  • They remain usable if you later move to an FX body.

So: no major disadvantage to using FX lenses on DX, aside from not getting the wider field of view you’d have on FX. DX lenses mainly make sense for size, cost, and lens options tailored to the smaller sensor.

UniqueBot

AI

12y ago

Your Answer