DX crop factor question

lemonart · Jan 12, 2012

Hey everyone. I'm rather new to the forum, and photography in general... but I'm loving it.

Anyhow, my question is as follows...

While I'm aware of WHAT a crop factor is, and how it works re: FX lenses used on a DX camera. I'm a little confused as to the crop factor of DX lenses. If person has a DX lens that says on it, for example, 16-85mm DX... will that actually be 16-85mm on a DX camera or will it still technically be 24-127mm regardless of it being labelled as a DX lens?

Thanks!

Lem

analog.universe · Jan 12, 2012

The actual numbers printed on the lens describe the physics of the glass.. and remain constant no matter which format the lens was designed for or which you mount it to. So your 16-85 dx lens is just a 16-85 still. But it gives the same field of view as a 24-127 would if it was mounted to a full frame camera. The 24-127 is only made as a comparison in case you're already familiar with what stuff looked like on film or full frame. If you only own a dx camera, then just remember what 16 looks like on dx... it won't matter that it looks like 24 on fx.

analog.universe · Jan 12, 2012

analog.universe said:
TBut it gives the same field of view as a 24-127 would if it was mounted to a full frame camera.

Just want to clarify, the bold it refers to the hypothetical 24-127, not your 16-85.

KmH · Jan 12, 2012

analog.universe said:
The actual numbers printed on the lens describe the physics of the glass.. and remain constant no matter which format the lens was designed for or which you mount it to. So your 16-85 dx lens is just a 16-85 still. But it gives the same field of view as a 24-127 would if it was mounted to a full frame camera. The 24-127 is only made as a comparison in case you're already familiar with what stuff looked like on film or full frame. If you only own a dx camera, then just remember what 16 looks like on dx... it won't matter that it looks like 24 on fx.

lemonart · Jan 12, 2012

That makes complete sense. Thanks. :lmao:

The REASON for my question is because I'm considering a new lens... I have a D7000... great camera. But am prepping for an upgrade to an FX camera when a successor to the D700 is available. Therefore, it makes little sense for me to spend a ton on DX lenses when I'm upgrading in the long run.

Currently I have said 16-85 DX, and the Tokina 11-16mm DX (almost worth keeping my D7000 for), plus a couple of FX primes (a 35 and a 50mm). I would like a bit more reach. I was considering the 70-300mm FX... but that's a lot of lenses to carry around since I like to take picture while I travel.

Would I be missing anything significant if I kept my 11-16 wide angle, my primes, and traded the 16-85 up to the 28-300 FX? Maybe sell the primes and grab a 24mm prime? I don't need EVERYTHING covered as I don't mind zooming with my legs.

What would be your advice?

Lem

analog.universe · Jan 12, 2012

That's a tough choice, and depends on the kind of shooting you do. I have a gap in my kit at the same spot, and I'm getting a 24mm to fill it soon I think.

How often do you shoot medium-wide? I've sorta given up on the "I don't want to carry a lot of lenses" thing... I usually don't bring all of them, just the ones that I think are best suited to where I'll be. Your idea of just adding a 70-300 to your existing kit sounded the best to me. Maybe even trade your 16-85 for a 24mm prime if you do that, since you'll have the top end of it covered.

In my experience, I've decided I like having a bunch of primes, it's not what's most convenient, but it gets me the shots I want, your style might be different.

djacobox372 · Jan 13, 2012

Unless you're buying top-end glass and primes which are mostly FX, I'd stick with DX lenses for your DX camera. Decent lenses hold their value pretty well, if/when you upgrade to FX you can easily just sell your lenses and buy exactly what you want.

It doesn't make sense to buy expensive "prosumer" FX lenses for a DX camera. You'll likely get better IQ out of the less expensive DX alternatives.

KmH · Jan 14, 2012

djacobox372 said:
You'll likely get better IQ out of the less expensive DX alternatives.

How does that work?

analog.universe · Jan 14, 2012

djacobox372 said:
Unless you're buying top-end glass and primes which are mostly FX, I'd stick with DX lenses for your DX camera. Decent lenses hold their value pretty well, if/when you upgrade to FX you can easily just sell your lenses and buy exactly what you want.

It doesn't make sense to buy expensive "prosumer" FX lenses for a DX camera. You'll likely get better IQ out of the less expensive DX alternatives.

None of this made sense to me..

The best value is gear that you don't have to sell and upgrade, you spend the money once.
And the best IQ comes from the best glass. The less expensive DX alternatives are engineered to be less expensive, not best quality.

lemonart · Jan 14, 2012

Therein lies the dilemma... The 70-300 makes the most sense to me as well, but when I do jump to FX I'll be looking for something similar to that 28-300... Which renders my 70-300 100% redundant. I could rent the 70-300... But 4 weeks of rentals and I just paid the equivalent of a new 70-300 (cheaper lens) I guess the big question is when that D800 will be announced. If its a ways away, getting the 70-300 isn't terrible. If its sooner than later then it'll be a big *doh* moment

.

Maybe I'll just rent the first time and see where everything's at.

Lem

KmH · Jan 15, 2012

Which 70-300 are you talking about? Both of Nikon's 70-300 mm lenses are FX lenses.

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Telephoto Zoom-Nikkor Lens with HB-26 Hood - Silver Finish - Gray Market

Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Nikkor SLR Camera Lens

jamesbjenkins · Jan 15, 2012

lemonart said:
Therein lies the dilemma... The 70-300 makes the most sense to me as well, but when I do jump to FX I'll be looking for something similar to that 28-300... Which renders my 70-300 100% redundant. I could rent the 70-300... But 4 weeks of rentals and I just paid the equivalent of a new 70-300 (cheaper lens) I guess the big question is when that D800 will be announced. If its a ways away, getting the 70-300 isn't terrible. If its sooner than later then it'll be a big *doh* moment .

Maybe I'll just rent the first time and see where everything's at.

Lem

My money, and Nikon Rumors thinks that Feb 7th. is the day for the D800's announcement. Keep in mind that due to demand, it could easily be a couple of months or more before you can actually get your hands on one (unless you jump on a pre-order.

It doesn't make sense to buy expensive "prosumer" FX lenses for a DX camera. You'll likely get better IQ out of the less expensive DX alternatives.

Yeah, that statement makes zero sense. DX lenses are designed to be used by consumers. You'll never EVER see a full time pro shooting a DX lens.

The 28-300 is a great, versatile lens. However, the IQ of the "Nikon Trinity" (14-24mm 2.8, 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8) is unparalleled. A combination of some or all of those 3 and a couple of fast primes (i.e. 85mm 1.4) is the best choice for 99% of pro or prosumer photographers.

Just food for thought...hope that helps.

lemonart · Jan 16, 2012

Yes I know both 70-300's are FX lenses. If I get the 70-300 it means I'll probably eventually sell it in favour of the 28-300 or the trinity lenses. I was just thinking I may as well get the 28-300 so in the long run post-upgrade, I'm fully good to go out the gate.

Anyhow, a kijiji ad helped make my decision easier... A got the 70-300 ED AF-S VR for $375. At that price I couldn't say no. I should be able to sell it for the same price at least when I get the FX camera. So, no loss! Easy decision

Thanks for all the advice guys!

Lem

djacobox372 · Jan 17, 2012

analog.universe said:
djacobox372 said:

Unless you're buying top-end glass and primes which are mostly FX, I'd stick with DX lenses for your DX camera. Decent lenses hold their value pretty well, if/when you upgrade to FX you can easily just sell your lenses and buy exactly what you want.

It doesn't make sense to buy expensive "prosumer" FX lenses for a DX camera. You'll likely get better IQ out of the less expensive DX alternatives.

Click to expand...

None of this made sense to me..

The best value is gear that you don't have to sell and upgrade, you spend the money once.
And the best IQ comes from the best glass. The less expensive DX alternatives are engineered to be less expensive, not best quality.

I don't think you read my first sentence which was: "Unless you're buying top-end glass and primes which are mostly FX.."

TS was thinking about buying a 28-300mm FX, which is old mid-grade glass, it is NOT as good of quality as the modern DX alternative. They do make professional quality DX lenses, tamron and sigma have been doing it for years and nikon has just started.

As for "buy once" being cheaper/better then upgrading. I don't agree, and here's an example to back it up: a sigma 24-70mm f2.8 FX lens cost 1/3rd more then the DX alternative: 17-50mm f2.8, $900 vs. $600.

On DX, all you get for your extra $300 is a lens that is MUCH heavier, probably focuses slower, and has a less useful focal length, image quality is the same.

You also are not saving any $$ if you happen to upgrade to FX in a couple years. In 2 years the DX version will be worth around $350, whereas the FX version will be worth around $500, so that extra $300 you spent to be able to use it on your next camera would have only been $150 ($200 with shipping) if you had just sold your DX lens and replaced it with a used FX version of the same age.