Posted by Lindy Martin on March 23, 2010 at 8:05 PM
I understand that the 24-70 Nikon is essentially for full frame cameras. Does this mean that the images taken with that lens on a D200 or D300 are not acceptable? Or does it means it is too much lens for the body and the cost factor is too high? Any info would help as I am considering renting one.
Thanks!
Posted by Bill Stice on March 23, 2010 at 10:14 PM
Lindy, the 24 to 70 will work fine on a D200 or D300. You just have to apply the crop factor of 1.5. With the crop factor it will give you the equivalent of a 36 to 105 lens. I use full frame lenses on D200's and D300's all the time. The problem arises when you attempt to use a DX lens on a full frame body. With a fixed focal length like the 35 1.8 DX you will get serious darkening or cutting off of the corners because the lens can't cover the full frame. With a zoom like the 16 to 85 you can use it on full frame but only from about 24 and up. Go wider than that and you will get darkened corners again. Hope this helps.
Posted by Luke Ormand on March 23, 2010 at 10:14 PM
I don't know what you mean by "not acceptable". It's my understanding that using the 24-70 on a full frame sensor camera equates it to a standard wide angle lens on a cropped sensor lens (18-55 for example). So, using this lens on a cropped sensor won't allow for wide angle shots
There's no problem at all using a FX (full-frame) lens on a DX camera. What you are paying for is the ability of the lens to cover a larger image circle (with the larger sensor of the FX bodies), so in a sense it is "over-kill" if you have a DX camera. And, in most cases, you won't be able to take advantage of the quality bump the FX lenses impart (when using a DX body). Bear in mind that the reverse is not true, i.e., DX lenses do NOT perform well on FX bodies (and many of the Nikon's automatically take this into consideration and crop the image down automatically, the crop being down to the size of a DX sensor). So...when investing in lenses I'd recommend asking the following question: are you likely to purchase a full-frame (FX) camera in the future? If so, I'd argue AGAINST buying DX lenses and argue FOR FX lenses. Bear in mind that many think that Nikon will be expanding their full-frame offerings (FX camera bodies) significantly in the future, and some have even argued that soon only the lowest end DSLR's from Nikon will be DX cameras. If this is true (and no one can tell you for sure if it is or not), then DX lenses will not be worth a whole lot in the future (i.e., a very diminished re-sale market).
Personally I now use FX bodies only, but even if I still had a DX camera I wouldn't consider purchasing any DX lenses - too much of a one way street for me...
Cheers...
Brad
Posted by Bill Chambers on March 24, 2010 at 11:30 AM
I use an older 28-70 on my D2X and it's a wonderfully sharp lens. You shouldn't have any issues at all with it as long as the focal length falls within your desired specs.
No, it means the opposite. Your pictures will have higher contrast, be more sharp, and render better color at the edges than if you put the lens on a full frame camera. If you put this lens on a d300, I think you would have a good balance between lens quality and camera quality. Note that you will probably have to get a wider lens to capture bigger landscapes.
The bottom line is; the 24-70 is a great lens and you will not be dissapointed. Just keep in mind the crop factor, so your set of lenses still covers all focal lengths. I also strongly agree with the advice to buy full frame lenses, rather than DX. They will be a much wiser investment in the long run. If you go ahead and rent one, I think your decision will be easy.
I own the Nikon D60 and the D300s. Both are DX sensor cameras and after reviewing lens performance in lab tests and talking to people using the lens; I am planning on purchasing the 24-70mm lens. With the 1.5 crop factor, I will have an extremely sharp 36-105mm lens that utilizes the sweet spot at the center. I'm not sure I agree with the idea of not purchasing any DX lenses as there is a need to cover the wide-angle part of the spectrum for DX. That being said; my other non-kit lenses are all FX or 35mm format
Discussion
7 repliesThanks!
- Luke
There's no problem at all using a FX (full-frame) lens on a DX camera. What you are paying for is the ability of the lens to cover a larger image circle (with the larger sensor of the FX bodies), so in a sense it is "over-kill" if you have a DX camera. And, in most cases, you won't be able to take advantage of the quality bump the FX lenses impart (when using a DX body). Bear in mind that the reverse is not true, i.e., DX lenses do NOT perform well on FX bodies (and many of the Nikon's automatically take this into consideration and crop the image down automatically, the crop being down to the size of a DX sensor). So...when investing in lenses I'd recommend asking the following question: are you likely to purchase a full-frame (FX) camera in the future? If so, I'd argue AGAINST buying DX lenses and argue FOR FX lenses. Bear in mind that many think that Nikon will be expanding their full-frame offerings (FX camera bodies) significantly in the future, and some have even argued that soon only the lowest end DSLR's from Nikon will be DX cameras. If this is true (and no one can tell you for sure if it is or not), then DX lenses will not be worth a whole lot in the future (i.e., a very diminished re-sale market).
Personally I now use FX bodies only, but even if I still had a DX camera I wouldn't consider purchasing any DX lenses - too much of a one way street for me...
Cheers...
Brad