AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR on a DX body - actual focal length?

[ph0enix]

I'm looking to replace the stock 18-105 lens on my Nikon D90 with a better all around lens. I read a bunch of great reviews of the 28-300 including Ken Rockwell's but he's saying that he wouldn't use it on a DX body. Others are suggesting that the focal range on my camera would be 42-450mm (x1.5) because of the DX sensor. Is that true? How does that work? Would I really be better off getting the 18-200 instead? I wanted to stick to FX lenses so I don't have to replace my entire arsenal if I ever upgrade to a FX body. Am I wrong for thinking this way?

Also, I purchased the recently released 50mm f/1.8G lens so I can take better portraits of my kids and I'm absolutely blown away by how great it is. I (almost) never want to take it off the camera ...but is my focal length really 75mm instead of the advertised 50mm?

Thanks!

 

[Infinite_Day]

The actual focal length you have put (42-450mm ) would be the actual focal length you would see. It's because a normal, non-DX lens is designed to project the focal length image onto a 35mm film size area. If the sensor is smaller, the image the lens is projecting is larger than the sensor so the image recorded by the camera is cropped. A DX lens is designed so that the image the lens is showing the sensor is the same as the shown focal length of the lens.

 

[tirediron]

The actual focal length you have put (42-450mm ) would be the actual focal length you would see. It's because a normal, non-DX lens is designed to project the focal length image onto a 35mm film size area. If the sensor is smaller, the image the lens is projecting is larger than the sensor so the image recorded by the camera is cropped. A DX lens is designed so that the image the lens is showing the sensor is the same as the shown focal length of the lens.

Not entirely correct - when used on a crop body, a lens will show a field of view equivalent to the focal length of a lens 1.5x longer, so, using a 50mm lens on a crop body will show you a scene which is about what you would see if you put a 75mm lens on a body with a full-frame sensor. This crop factor applies regardless fo whether a lens is FX or DX - so a DX lens will still show you that longer view. This is because focal length is focal length and in and of itself has nothing to do with the camera body or sensor. The difference between an FX and a DX lens is, as stated, the size of the image circle it is designed to project.

 

[ph0enix]

Thanks for the replies. I'm confused now though. Will the 28-300 (FX) work well as an all around lens for me then or will I be effectively losing anything below 42mm? Should I go with the 18-200 (DX) instead and look into getting a super-telephoto lens on top of it?

 

[cgipson1]

I use the 28-300 on my D7000, and love it! You wont really notice any difference using either DX or FX lenses on a DX camera, since that is what you are used to. Yes.. you do lose field of view compared to what a larger sensor camera would capture with this lens, but you will still get what you see in the viewfinder. The lens is sharp, focuses fast in adequate light (hunts a little in minimal light, but not bad) and the range is nice!

I wish the aperture was constant.. but then it would have cost a lot more! It is a heavy lens, but it is built like a tank.. very smooth and works very well. Highly recommend it! When used wide open, the bokeh is not bad.. actually pretty nice. It is really sharp at mid-range aperture, and actually does decent macro also, if needed. The only other long zoom I would recommend would be the 70-200 2.8 (which again, is more money.. and huge too! But worth it if needed). I am new here, and haven't posted any pics.. let me know if you would like some examples (give me some idea what kind of shots you are looking for also)

How often do you actually use wide angle (28mm - 35mm) ? Do you more often need to zoom in on something that you want to pull in closer? Do you have a dedicated WA lens that you use, or do you plan on getting one? Which is more important to you.. the short end or the long end. If the long end, then this lens is perfect for you. If you are going to carry a dedicated WA lens also (much more versatile) then this lens is an excellent choice. Let us know what you decide.

The ability to later use this on a FX body is also something to think about.

 

[Mike_E]

Thanks for the replies. I'm confused now though. Will the 28-300 (FX) work well as an all around lens for me then or will I be effectively losing anything below 42mm? Should I go with the 18-200 (DX) instead and look into getting a super-telephoto lens on top of it?

Yes, you will lose anything under the equivalent of 42mm.

Yes, you should go with the 18-200mm for a walkabout lens for that reason.

A DX lens is just a lens that doesn't have as large an image circle and is therefore cheaper to make/buy. Image circle describes how large the image is when it hits the sensor so a full frame wouldn't be fully covered by a DX lens and you would get a circular image or at least vignetting up until the far end of the lens on a full frame camera.

 

[KmH]

The 18-200 is not that good a lens. Convenient? Yes! Good? No?

Nikon's 18-200 is one of their current lens lineups worst values.

 

[cgipson1]

I didn't care for the 18-200 either... may have had a bad copy. It lacked the sharpness I am used to seeing in Nikkor lenses, especially in the corners. The 28-300 doesn't have that issue. Is it a prime with pro glass? No! but for the money, it is one heck of a buy!

 

[jdag]

I recently considered the 28-300 and opted for the 24-120 f/4 instead for a variety of reasons, mainly constant aperture. The 24-120 is a bit more costly than the 28-300.

 

[cgipson1]

I recently considered the 28-300 and opted for the 24-120 f/4 instead for a variety of reasons, mainly constant aperture. The 24-120 is a bit more costly than the 28-300.

Nice lens.. it is on my "maybe" list!

 

[ph0enix]

I recently considered the 28-300 and opted for the 24-120 f/4 instead for a variety of reasons, mainly constant aperture. The 24-120 is a bit more costly than the 28-300.

It's on Ken Rockwell's list of 10 worst Nikon lenses ever produced. I'm not sure if that means anything on a DX camera though.

 

[BJF]

Did you ever consider 70-300mm VR? I have one and love it. It can be a good adding lens since you already have 18-105.

70-300mm VR + market price
28-300mm VR + market price

 

[jdag]

I recently considered the 28-300 and opted for the 24-120 f/4 instead for a variety of reasons, mainly constant aperture. The 24-120 is a bit more costly than the 28-300.

It's on Ken Rockwell's list of 10 worst Nikon lenses ever produced. I'm not sure if that means anything on a DX camera though.

Actually, the one on Rockwell's 10 worst list is the old variable aperture f3.5-5.6 version:
Nikon's 10 Worst Lenses

That being said, Rockwell much prefers the 28-300 over the 24-120 f/4. He also prefers the 18-200 over pretty much everything.

 

[IgsEMT]

Colleague of mine uses 28-300 on his D3 as an all around lens for wedding and uses fisheye on his d700.
From thorough examination of the images from that lens, after he shot for me, I think that his 24-85 is overall provides better quality.
18-200 is very subjective lens. Few studios I work for, use is almost exclusively for weddings and are very happy w/ results and at the same time there are people who can't stand it. In my experience it has number of conditions that diminish IQ, like shooting outside of f/6.3-11, wider then 24mm or tighter then 170mm. If you know how to go around its limitations, you mights be very happy w/ IQ.
For me, on DX I know that I need wider angle that 18mm offers. For example I just came back from kids party, where my kids had a blast. I didn't want to take the camcorder and didn't want to take d700 (no video, so ended up taking d300s, used 24-70 on it. The party place was small, and 24mm on Dx was tight. Yet last week I was actually shooting kids party in similar place w/ d700 and the focal length was fine. You have to be mindful of the focal lengths when it comes to good all around lens.
There's another lens out there 28-105 3.5-4.5 that is very good. Its an old model, you can probably find it for under 300 and IQ is great.

Good Luck

P.S.
18-105, is pretty decent lens. Don't shoot it wider the f/6.3 and stopping down 16 its pretty decent throughout the whole focal range.