Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Quote:
If you have a DX camera you should buy DX lens.
Not necessarily. FX lenses will work fine on DX cameras.
For example, with my Nikon D300 (DX sensor) I use the following lenses:
Sigma 10mm-20mm (DX)
Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 (DX)
Sigma 30mm (DX)
Sigma 18-200mm (DX)
Nikkor 70-300mm (FX)
Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 macro (FX)
Nikkor 500mm f/4 (FX)
At least it means that if I ever upgrade to an FX camera (which I guess is almost inevitable eventually) almost half of my lenses will be fully functional.
Quote: So, does it come as 'FX' on the lens for guidance purposes...like the 'DX'? You know what I mean!
say for example I want to go in a shop and ask for a lens for an full format camera what should I ask for? DX, EX, or FX? Silly me!
Not silly at all Siham. If you are seriously thinking of buying s fullframe camera soon, you are far better going for FX lenses now, although I don't know if they'll actually say that on the lens itself, but definitely should on the box. All of them will be usable on both your current DX and future FX cameras, so no money wasted. All you'll need to do meantime is buy a wider angled lens for the DX such as an 18 to something or a 10-20 or whatever.
If you go for a Nikon D3 you will find that the camera will instantly drop from a 12mp to a 6mp camera covering the dx sensor area of the FX camera. If you override the auto correction you will end up with massive vignietting at the wider angles of the fx zoom lenses.
I would go for the better quality FX lenses if you want to swith to FX. I use my Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 on both my D3 and D300 and I cannot argue with the quality on either.
I work in newspapers and my reason for saying d3 would be mainly for speed in continuous shooting for sport and the fact that lots of rain at football matches dictates as weatherproof a camera as possible.
In photo terms I love using the D300.
Horses for courses.
It's down to money.
A D700 with money to spend on a 17-35mm f2.8, 17-55mm f2.8 or 70-300mm f2.8 would make the most sense in general.
After all, an image will gain more from the quality of lens than the camera.
Things havent changed that much from the days of 35mm film.
If your ultimate goal is a " FX " full frame camera, Don't buy DX lens, Its that simple.
D700 fabulous camera, Period.....
Quote: 70-300mm f2.8
LOL....I'd like one of those.....
If they existed..... Surely you mean 70 - 200mm f/2.8....
Quote: Hi guys,
please, could you tell me the diferernce betwen a Dx lens and a full format lens. In term of what should I look for
thank you
The image circle on the FX format is larger than that of the DX format so the REAR elements on the fx lenses have to be larger to accomidate the larger sensor.
DX lenses have a a smaller rear element to accomidate the smaller image circle of the DX format.
You can use dx lenses on 35mm cameras but vignetting occurs
Also the Digital FX format cameras accept dx lenses BUT you loose the full frame abilaty as they automatically crop the sensor down to dx mode reducing the megapixels that it captures 5.1 mp on D3 , D700 @ 1.5x crop and D3s 8.4mp @1.2x crop.
Agree with Cameracat - if you are aiming for a Full Frame (not Full Format, BTW) camera then don't buy DX lenses unless you want a cropped sensor body as back-up and don't mind using lenses on only half your equipment. As has been said, you end up losing a bunch of MegaPixies if you put a DX lens on a FF body. I bought 2 DX lenses and regret it from a financial point of view.
Anyhoo, back to the Q - you say you want to 'upgrade' but you don't say from what (apart from a vague suggestion of an 'entry level' Nikon). So, that leaves me wide open to state my preferences! In which case, I'd have to say that I LOVE my D3 (bought second hand for not much more than a new D700) plus (second hand) 28 - 70mm f2.8 (half the price of the newer 24 - 70mm f2.8) and the older 70-200 f2.8 (bought full price at the time but before the price hikes!). And I love my 50mm f1.4 though the 1.8's a bargain.
It's late (or early), so I'm probably rambling - going to bed now. Hope it's helped a bit though!
Jane
p.s. I'd LOVE a D3S but it ain't going to happen anytime soon, unless I win one somehow - I'm waiting until they put more magic fairy dust in a D700 and give it see-clearly-in-a-coal-hole capacity along with HD video that produces good jpeg stills for around £2k or, preferably, less.
Trying to answer the question - about an entry level camera purchase - DX is fine - and usually optically better on an entry level camera.
DX format records the picture at about 1 inch by 0.66 inches.
FX records the picture bigger - at 1.5 by 1 inches.
In theory DX lenses do not cover the full 1.5x1 FX format producing dark corners - however several DX zooms fully cover FX at middle and long end zoom settings.
As you want an entry level camera and the cheapest FX body with the cheapest FX zoom will set you back at least £2,100 I assume your mind is concentrated on what those new to "DSLR" photography consider "affordable" prices.
Whilst DX lenses have a smaller "image circle" than FX the bonus is they can be made to give better corner quality on DX than an equivalent FX lens on FX. The proof is the 16-85 DX on DX compared to the 24-120 FX on FX.
Probably 80% of Nikon photographers will not be able to afford FX within the next 3 years - FX remains a niche market.
Nikon's current entry level DSLR's used sensibly even with the cheapest DX lenses can produce good 16 inch wide prints - which far exceeds the expectations most have of an entry level camera.
DX lenses work just like DX lenses on FX if in a few years you add an FX body to increase your shooting options.
Interestingly if you have a 12-24 DX it gives the old 20-35 FX a hard time from 22mm when used on FX digital, though the maximum apertures are not the same.
On a budget get a DX body and a good DX zoom
OK cameracat, well spotted but the 3 is close to the 2 on the keyboard and I'm only a photographer, it's not like I have to be observant.............gulp.....
Could have used the excuse that that on my D3 it is a 70-200 and on my D300 it is 105-300 and therefore..... oh what the hell.....
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Nikon Nation
Are you a Nikon owner? Check out Nikon Nation to find the latest Nikon news, reviews, discussion and photos on ePHOTOzine.
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top