I have an 80-200,2.8D that was bought in 1992, is this a DX or FX lens

[Auslese]

and if FX would I get better shots on an FX camera than I do on my D7100 which is DX? Because my 7100, D80 and D90 shots were all amazing. I am trying to understand whether a pro camera is worth the price, because with the gains in DPI lesser cameras can easily beat pro cameras if used by a better eye.

 

[480sparky]

DX lenses are thus marked. Anything else would be FX.

The Nikon F-mount was introduced in 1959, long before digital and DX sensors. They were not marked as full-frame or FX because everything was full-frame back then.... it was all simply 35mm film.

When digital came along and smaller-than-24x36-mm sensors hit the market, Nikon designated them as DX sensors and marketed DX lenses to go along with them, using the DX monikor to designate the lens as having a smaller projected image circle. The older full-frame lenses could be used too, but they weren't marked as such. The tradition continues today.

If it doesn't say "DX" on it, it's full frame. Of course, that's just for Nikon. All bets are off for 3rd-party glass.

So the lens would be usable on both DX and FX bodies.

Whether you would benefit from jumping aboard the FX boat depends on what you shoot, how you shoot, and what your needs are.

FX is not a goal, it's a tool. Buy the tool if you need it, but don't buy a bazooka to hunt squirrels.

 

[Auslese]

DX lenses are thus marked. Anything else would be FX.

The Nikon F-mount was introduced in 1959, long before digital and DX sensors. They were not marked as full-frame or FX because everything was full-frame back then.... it was all simply 35mm film.

When digital came along and smaller-than-24x36-mm sensors hit the market, Nikon designated them as DX sensors and marketed DX lenses to go along with them, using the DX monikor to designate the lens as having a smaller projected image circle. The older full-frame lenses could be used too, but they weren't marked as such. The tradition continues today.

If it doesn't say "DX" on it, it's full frame. Of course, that's just for Nikon. All bets are off for 3rd-party glass.

So the lens would be usable on both DX and FX bodies.

Whether you would benefit from jumping aboard the FX boat depends on what you shoot, how you shoot, and what your needs are.

FX is not a goal, it's a tool. Buy the tool if you need it, but don't buy a bazooka to hunt squirrels.

Thanks it looks like the only DX lens I have is my 18-200. This kind of flips my head a little though, because I had thought that DX because it was new was better, but it seems that my older lenses are better quality than my newest. As for my shots, here are some examples, I do dog and dog to wildlife photography. Auslese's

Great Smokie Mountains National Park

Any input from my shots as to whether I would see better photos with an FX camera? From what I gather you get a bigger picture with FX which seems almost irrelevant as I crop nearly every image somehow? Thanks

 

[Designer]

I think this is the lens:

Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF

According to the review, this lens has good optics, and since it will work on your existing camera bodies, why not just use it on your existing camera bodies?

 

[480sparky]

Shooting with the longer FLs you do, you might find the D7100 better as it uses the 'crop factor'. The only advantage I can see for going to FX is a better low-light capability. But the D7100 ain't all that bad either.

 

[astroNikon]

The 80-200/2.8 AF-D (and it's other iterations) are FX lenses. I have one and it's great. I've used it on a d7000 and d600 with great results.

The one in the link you have above is the push-pull version of the lens. The "newer" ones are dual rings - one focus ring and one zoom ring. They were replaced with the AF-S 80-200/2.8 then the 70-200/2.8s.