DxOMark Lens Scores and APS-C vs. Full Frame

<p>I shoot a D300s and Nikon 12-24mm for many of my nature landscape shots and have been thinking about getting a D800 and 16-35mm. I'd just do it, but I'm intimidated by the cost. When I check the DxOMark lens test scores on various lenses, there really isn't a wide angle DX lens that scores even half-way up the scale toward Excellent. They are much closer to the Poor end of the scale. Never having shot with a full-frame camera and higher-rated lens, I wonder if I am really missing something. On the one hand, I expect people who've used both to say, "Of course it's better!" But I'm not dissatisfied with my current gear. I even have 24x36 prints on my wall that I made with it, and one stitch job that's twice as big. I'd love the details to be sharper, but they are fine at a normal viewing distance. So, for those of you who've made the switch, I'd appreciate your thoughts. Is it truly noticeable to you that the 14-24, 16-35, 24-70 on a full-frame blow away the 12-24 on a DX?</p>

<p>I guess an example could be used to illustrate the situation. Download the first D800 sample of the library interior at</p>

<p>http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample01.htm</p>

<p>FX is quite good for wide angle photography. In my experience the difference is particularly clear at wide apertures though that example is not a wide aperture image.</p>

<p>I have to say, I think it is a really bad choice to base equipment purchases solely on some "test score(s)". All the more, since I am by no means personally convinced that measures used by DxO are well chosen. I think your lack of "dissatifaction" with your current equipment is just fine and well-justified.</p>

<p>Of course, you usually get <em>something</em> for the additional bucks spent on fancier lenses and bodies. However, it does not follow that something that is twice as expensive is twice as "good".</p>

<p>As they always used to say in the disclaimer in the <em>Modern Photography</em> lens tests, actual performance in the intended application is more important than numbers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not dissatisfied with my current gear. I even have 24x36 prints on my wall that I made with it, and one stitch job that's twice as big.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's really the most important criteria. i use the tokina 12-24 on DX, and it's excellent at closed apertures (f/8-11), up to 20x30". i also have an FX set-up w/ D3s, but that's mainly because i needed better low-light performance.</p>

<p>one thing to keep in mind about DxO test scores is that they are all relative. hi-MP FX bodies raise the linear resolution ceiling, but results are <em>not</em> completely comparable since we are talking about different sensor formats. so there's a little bit of apples and oranges going on, even though in absolute terms, more pixels generally equals higher resolution.</p>

<p>if i was mainly a landscape photographer, however, i would probably jump on the d800+16-35, not because APS-C produces poor results, but mainly because you <em>will</em> see a resolution difference when printing large with that set-up, i.e. 36mp FF compared to 12mp APS-C. if you regularly print at 24x36 or larger, a d800 makes a lot more sense than if your pictures are mainly going to a flickr or smugmug page. still, that's a serious outlay of cash, so only you can decide if its worth it. i'd also consider that for landscape use at base ISO, a d7100 costs almost 1/3rd less than a d800 and will give you 2x increased resolution over the d300s. you can also use your 12-24 on that without having to buy a new lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"</em><em>I wonder if I am really missing something."</em> The only way you will know for sure is if you tested the cameras out side-by-side for yourself.<br>

<br>

The only thing I can tell you from my personal experience is that I am very happy with the improved image quality the D800 gives me over my D3.</p>

<p>As Eric, I owned the Tokina 12-24, used on a D300. I do not really care what DxO has to say about it: it was a fabulously sharp lens. Wide open, not so much, but stopped down a bit, it really left little to be desired. The Nikon 12-24 should be at least as good.</p>

<p>Unless you strongly prefer the handling of the D300/D800, the D600 could be a nice option too, and arguably the D7100 too (the extra resolution, and still use your 12-24). Another thing could be waiting for the first tests of the new 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 and see how that compares - the 16-35VR isn't exactly cheap either. It could lower the hurdle a bit, maybe.</p>

<p>I shoot architecture for a living and so sharp images are very important to me and my clients. When I moved from DX to the 12 mpx FX D3 and the 14-24 zoom there was an improvement When I moved to the D3X there was a lot of improvement. When I moved to the D800e there was night and day improvement. If you want sharp images the D800e makes all lenses look better, and the really good lenses shine like never before. </p>

<p>Comparing two 24 Megapixel cameras, one FX and one DX:</p>

<p>The lens on the FX camera have to put 6000 sharp pixels on the 36 mm wide sensor. That's 3000 lines (2 pixels per line) on 36 mm or 83 lines per millimeter (lpm).</p>

<p>The lens on the DX camera also have to put 6000 sharp pixels but on the 24mm wide sensor. That's 3000 lines (2 pixels per line) on 24 mm or 125 lines per millimeter (lpm). So the DX sensor needs a lens that can resolve 50% more than the FX sensor to get the same real resolution on both 24 megapixel cameras.</p>

<p>That's bad enough but consider that a 24mm on FX need to be a 16mm lens DX for the same angle of view. So basically you need a 16mm lens on DX that has 50% more resolution compared to the 24mm lens on FX. That just aint going to happen.</p>

<p><strong>A larger sensor will always have an advantage over a smaller sensor</strong> and the wider you get the larger the advantage for the larger sensor because wider lenses are harder to design. FX will always have more resolution than DX just as a medium format camera will always have more resolution than FX. It's just physics.</p>

<p>For most of us, there is more at play than just a sensor though. It comes down to just HOW much difference there vs the very steep cost. My own judgment was I'd rather have excellent lenses and a $1,000 camera plus a $2,000 ticket to Iceland than a $3,000 camera but have no money to go anywhere. This is known as "alternate use of money." (And actually, I think I could take more interesting photos with a $100 camera in Iceland than I could wiht a $5,000 camera just staying around home, but that's a debate for another thread.) this is all assuming you aren't getting paid for your shots, of course</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

<p>Well spoken, Kent. To the question, when I shot a D300 and nikon 12-24 f4 I was very happy with the combination. I moved to FF because I could, and have enjoyed it. I think the higher pixel count and improved high iso of the new DX cameras makes a compelling argument for "good enough". My complaint about FF is the weight, not the IQ.</p>

<p>I pretty much already answered the DX wide-angle issue on another thread this morning: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bSOd</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I haven't used Tokina's DX wide zooms, but I am not that happy with the Nikon 12-24mm/f4 and 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 DX zooms on their wide ends. The problem is that in order to get really wide on DX, you need something like 15mm or below, and those are very extreme focal lengths but they still have the original flange-to-sensor distance for the F mount designed for 35mm film. Such backward compatibility leads to a lot of compromises on DX wide-angle lenses.<br>

That is why I prefer FX for landscape photography. While Nikon's 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S and 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR are not ideal on their wide end either, you have more choices such as the 28mm/f1.8 AF-S and T/S choices such as the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you want good wide-angle lenses for APS-C, you have to give up backward compatibility with the Nikon F mount and its flange-to-sensor distance. If you go the mirrorless route, you also no longer need retro-focus wide angles.</p>

<p>The 24mm PC-E is now my main landscape lens. There is simply no such option for DX.</p>

<p>I just don't accept Shun's dismissal of the ultrawide zooms, and I certainly don't think the OP should worry about "compromises". ALL lenses are compromises of one kind or another. Plenty of us love our ultrawides just as much as Shun disdains them.<br>

I don't see that the physical/optical problem in getting a 10mm focal length lens to cover APS-C is so much greater than getting a 15mm lens to cover 35mm-sensors at the same flange distance.</p>

<p>As for the PC-E lens, one of these days Nikon will match or excel Canon's 17mm TS-E lens. Not right now, but surely soon. The Canon TS-E 17mm covers the Canon APS-C quite nicely at an equivalent of 28mm or so, not too bad for architectural work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for the PC-E lens, one of these days Nikon will match or excel Canon's 17mm TS-E lens. Not right now, but surely soon. The Canon TS-E 17mm covers the Canon APS-C quite nicely at an equivalent of 28mm or so, not too bad for architectural work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you seen the Canon 17mm TS-E lens? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606803-USA/Canon_3553B002_Wide_Tilt_Shift_TS_E_17mm.html<br>

It has a bulging front element and is a $2500 lens. That is a lot of money to pay to get the equivalent of 25mm; that is assuming that you can mount that lens on DX to begin with. My 24mm PC-E lens has all sorts of movement limitations on my DX bodies such as the D200 and D7000.</p>

<p>You are much better off getting a 24mm PC-E and use it on FX so that you can use filters, e.g. a polarizer to block reflections on architecture.</p>

<p>Again, the whole issue is that you need a very extreme 17mm lens in order to get a moderate wide 25mm lens equivalent for DX, and that 17mm needs to have a very strong retrofocus design to clear the mirror for 35mm film, even though you are not using that sensor size and don't really need to clear such a larger mirror. That is why you end up with a very expensive lens with a bulging front element.</p>

<p>I stick with FX when I need good wide angles, or perhaps better yet, mirrorless.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>i dunno, i've had the tokina 12-24 since 2006. i still use it a lot. i probably would have sold it, or left DX altogether, if i was unhappy with its performance. i'm currently using an old, beat-up sigma 15-30 on FX. it cost me less than $200 for a bulging front element FX lens. i'm happy with that too for what i use it for. i'm no landscape fanatic, but i do like to go wide from time to time. maybe if i cared more, i would get a newer FX UWA, like the tokina 16-28 or nikon 14-24. but then, i could make a case for the <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/1445879@N20/pool/">sigma 8-16</a> easily for DX too. i'm not sure if that's been compared directly to the 14-24, but that lens seems to have a 'wow' factor to it too. at some point, it's not really about the gear, it's about the photographer. i am sure if i had a m4/3 camera with the 9-18 i would get good shots from that too. that said, the d800 seems made for landscape photographers. it does help if you have experience using wide-angle lenses.</p>

<p>JDM, I don't see Shun dismissing UWA zooms for APS-C... Are APS-C UWA lenses closer to hitting engineering limits? Yes, they are. Is it easier to design ultra-wide high quality lenses for full frame? Yes. Shun is right on those counts. All things being equal, FX is the better choice for ultra-wide in the same way DX enjoys advantages at the long end.<br>

But things aren't equal. It does not dismiss the fact that there are multiple considerations (as Kent pointed out). The available Nikon and Tokina APS-C wide angle zooms are very good lenses, and especially the Tokina ones aren't extremely expensive either. Are they outstanding excellent as the Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss 21mm? No, they're not. At which point do you hit the point of diminishing returns? That's something each of us can only decide personally, based on budget, wants, needs....</p>

<p>You will be blown away with D800e and 14-24. D800e is a demanding camera. Make sure you mount the best lens to get the most out of d800e.<br>

I used D300 + 12-24/4 in the past. The results are nowhere close to what d800e + 14-24 can produce.</p>

 

<p><strong>@Wouter</strong><br /> As for Shun "not dismissing" - he said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but <em>I am not that happy</em> with the Nikon 12-24mm/f4 and 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 DX zooms on their wide ends. The <em>problem</em> is that in order to get really wide on DX, you need something like 15mm or below, and <em>those are very extreme focal lengths </em>but they still have the original flange-to-sensor distance for the F mount designed for 35mm film. Such backward compatibility leads to<em> a lot of compromises </em>on DX wide-angle lenses<em>. [emphasis added, JDM]</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds dismissive to me, but maybe not to others.</p>

<p><strong>@Shun</strong><br /> I not only have seen the Canon TS-E 17mm, I <em>own</em> one (and reported -<a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00b2NO">link</a>- on it briefly on this site). Yes it fits APS-C bodies and I use it on both (all EF lenses do fit every Canon EOS ever made, including the APS-C ones). It is fairly compact and easy to use and has remarkable linearity even without the shifts and tilts - better than my Nikkor 20mm f/4 prime, in fact.<br /> <br /> As for its cost? It is only $500 more than the Nikkor PC-E 24mm that you have and that's without the rebate I got on it ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=PC-E+NIKKOR+24mm+f%2F3.5D+ED&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=)</p>

<p>BTW, I also own both a Sigma 10-20mm (only APS-C) and the Sigma 15-30mm (ancestor of current shorter offering) for 35mm-sized sensors. I find them eminently useable. They are not as spectacular as the TS-E 17mm, but they are (1) zooms and (2) are quite good for landscape work. I use the TS-E lens mostly for architectural.</p>

<p>Of course it's good to have FX for wide-angle, no one denies that. It's also good to have DX for telephoto, and nobody says you have to have only one body and one format. <br>

I still shoot both Nikon (see my series on early AF cameras) <em>and</em> Canon cameras. I have never understood the not-quite-stated-but-clear reluctance here on the Nikon forum to accept the idea of having one (at least) of each DX and FX formats. This is pretty accepted practice on the Canon forum.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>@Shun</strong><br /> I not only have seen the Canon TS-E 17mm, I <em>own</em> one (and reported -<a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00b2NO" rel="nofollow">link</a>- on it briefly on this site). Yes it fits APS-C bodies and I use it on both (all EF lenses do fit every Canon EOS ever made, including the APS-C ones).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>JDM, since you actually own that Canon 17mm TS-E, I have to say that I am surprised that you would still recommend to use it on DX (APS-C) bodies.</p>

<p>One is much much better off saving that $500 difference for just one lens towards an FX body, if nothing else, just to avoid that bulging front element and all the inconveniences and limitations that come with it.</p>

<p>I don't know about Canon, but as I said, when I mount my 24mm PC-E on DX bodies, the viewfinder overhang creates all sorts of limitations on lens movements. In fact, it took me 10 minutes to figure out how to mount that lens on the D7000 in the first place, and once mounted, essentially no tilt or shift is possible.</p>

<p>But the main issue is that I am unhappy with the wide end of Nikon's 10-24 and 12-24mm DX lenses. I have had the 12-24mm/f4 DX since it was introduced. Near 12mm, corner sharpness is poor and the image looks smeared.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course it's good to have FX for wide-angle, no one denies that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Great, at least we agree on that. I wonder why when I say that, it is considered "dismissive."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have never understood the not-quite-stated-but-clear reluctance here on the Nikon forum to accept the idea of having one (at least) of each DX and FX formats. This is pretty accepted practice on the Canon forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What in the world are you talking about? I for one use both formats regularly. For FX, I use my D700 and D800E. For DX, I mainly use my D7000 and have my D300 as backup. Most likely I'll add a D7100 in the near future. However, I mainly pair up FX with wide angle or low-light situations and DX with long teles to take full advantage of both formats. My practice is pretty well documented: http://www.photo.net/travel-photography-forum/00aGpD</p>

<p>Besides me, Eric Arnold clearly uses both FX (D3S) and DX (D300). It looks like Matt Laur has added a D600 (FX) to his D300 and D3200, Wouter has a D700 and DX, Jose Angel .... I wonder who on this forum has this "clear reluctance" on using both FX and DX that triggers such generalization. That is completely news to me.</p>

<p>Look, this is getting out of hand. I was not trolling, just reacting to what I disagreed with. I perhaps could have used more polite terms, I grant. On the other hand, everybody seems to be a little, well, sensitive.</p>

<p>Why don't we get back to the OP, and follow this up elsewhere if necessary. :|</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>bulging front element and all the inconveniences and limitations that come with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have lots of "bulgers" and they all work fine. Of course, you need to exercise caution, as you should with any lens, and you are well advised to keep the lens cap on when not shooting - but that's just like any other lens. I just don't see the "inconveniences". I wouldn't recommend it on an older, small body "Rebel" model with the extreme flash overhang, but it works just fine on my APS-C Canon 20D and 50D.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>since you actually own that Canon 17mm TS-E, I have to say that I am surprised that you would still recommend to use it on DX (APS-C) bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps you should rather say that I know what I am talking about because I do use it on both.<br /> Of course, I use it <em>more frequently</em> where I get the maximum effect on a FX body. But when I don't want the full effect, but rather want something closer to the longer shift lenses, then I use it on the APS-C bodies. That way is how I avoid the unnecessary expense of buying both 24mm and a 17mm shift/tilt lenses.</p>

<p>As for being "dismissive", I italicized the wording that led me to that idea - it had nothing to do with your saying that FX is advantageous for wide angle work. I think Wouter put the 'problems' more clearly.</p>

<p>in re use of both formats--</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What in the world are you talking about?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was in a separate post precisely because it had nothing to do with you personally. I frequently recommend the two-body strategy here and on the Canon forum, and I often see that dismissed or ignored by people who don't seem to get it. On the Canon forum, usually there is a "yes, that's a good idea" sort of response.<br /> I didn't say that NOBODY using Nikons got it. I am, by the way, not the only person who has noted this tendency, here. Indeed, it was a comment by another person that led me to start noticing the situation.</p>

<p>the inconvenience of a bulging front element is mainly that you can't use filters on it. that's about it. there is the form factor, too, which is probably one reason i've held on to the D300s+tokina 12-24--its so much more compact than the D3s+15-30 combo. as for a dual format system, it's not perfect, but it can be versatile. by utilizing different lens/body combos, you can take advantage (or not) of the 1.5x DX crop. with a D300s/D3s combo paired with a 24-70/70-200, i actually have a lot of options, from 24mm-300mm, with just two lenses. of course, where you get tripped up is in wide-angle, since its inconvenient to carry two UWAs. so mainly i take the 15-30 in those situations. (it would be nice to have 2.8, but so far i haven't pulled the trigger on that yet.) 15mm isnt super-wide on DX, but if i put it on the FX body, it allows me to use the 24-70 on DX and get a 36-105/2.8, which i can swap out for a 105-300/2.8. great for events. i guess what i'm saying is that you work with what you got and make it work for you. if there's something you need to do and you're limited by your gear, then it's time for new gear.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the inconvenience of a bulging front element is mainly that you can't use filters on it. that's about it. there is the form factor, too,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, it is more than that. A bulging front element is prone both to flare and impact damage. That is why I don't use my 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S very often and try to mainly use it indoors. However, the Nikon 14-24 at least has a built-in hood (that is not removable) around to protect the front element to some degree. If you want an extreme lens such as a 17mm T/S or 14mm wide for FX, you deserve to pay that price (in terms of money and inconvenience).</p>

<p>In any case, I'll try to shoot some wide images with my Nikon 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX on hopefully a D7100 to demonstrate why DX wouldn't be my choice for wide-angle, which should confirm the OP's opening post.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> When I moved to the D800e there was night and day improvement. If you want sharp images the D800e makes all lenses look better, and the really good lenses shine like never before.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't disagree at all with your observation. However I find it an amusing counterpoint to all the posts from users of earlier cameras who are greatly concerned that upgrading to a D800 will make all their old lenses look horrible.</p>

<p>Many thanks, everyone. So much food for thought: night and day improvement, will be blown away, the physics, the Iceland option, FF weight issue (+ carrying both DX & FX).... Shun, I look forward to seeing the 12-24mm image on a higher resolution APS-C sensor. I'm partly weighing the whole D800 issue against an eventual(?) D400. Love to have it all, of course....</p>

<p>Since Nikon is nice enough to ship me a D7100 with Saturday Delivery, here is a test sample, with Nikon's own 12-24mm/f4 DX AF-S on the D7100. That lens is excellent on its long end, 24mm, ok at 18mm. The problem is on the wide end.</p>

<p>This image sample is at 12mm, stopped down to f8 on the D7100 at ISO 100. The set up on a large Gitzo tripod with 1-second exposure delay.</p><div></div>