Trying to figure out what I lose with a NON-DX format lense

[Ali_334]

On this page: http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5 Nikon has a

separate category for "DX Nikkor Lenses for DX Format Digital SLRs", which makes

me wonder what I would lose if I buy a lens outside that category.

 

I shoot with d70 and d50, always in AF and use in auto exposure much of the

time. I want all the automation that I can get. I've been using the 18-70mm

f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor and the 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX

Fisheye-Nikkor so far.

 

Now I want a 80-200 zoom or something in similar range with the widest aperture

I can get. 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor is one I am looking at. However,

this is not listed under the "DX Nikkor Lenses for DX Format Digital SLRs"

category.

 

My questions: Am I going to lose any functions I currently have by getting a

Non-DX lens? What is special about the DX lenses that Nikon has put them in

their own category?

[gaius1]

DX lenses can only be used on DX cameras, non DX lenses can be used on any camera.

 

The reason for DX lenses is to make lenses that are smaller and lighter than the equivalent non-DX, so people who are only using DX cameras will have to carry less. That is the only reason. Oh, and to make more money for Nikon :-P

[Peter_in_PA]

Ali,

 

Not only do you NOT LOSE anything by using a non-DX AF lens on your camera, what you

GAIN is incredible when it comes to telephoto... namely... field of view equivalent is longer

(an 80-200 becomes a 120-300) and you are only using the center portion of the lens, which

means pesky little problems like vignetting and edge sharpness go away. An 80-200 will

work FANTASTIC on your D-SLRs.

[Ed_Ingold]

You can use any Nikon lens on a Nikon DSLR and expect good results. The 80-200/2.8 AFD is an excellent lens (the AFS and 70-200/2.8 VR are better), and will work equally well with film or digital.

 

Nikon DX lenses have a smaller image circle, which makes it less expensive to build wide-angle zoom lenses. Some "digital" lenses have a "colinear" design which makes the light strike the sensor closer to right angles across the entire span. Nikon uses micro-lenses on the sensor, so there is no more falloff (vignetting) with any lens than that lens would have on film.

[gaius1]

<blockquote>which makes it less expensive to build wide-angle zoom lenses</blockquote>Compare the price of the 17-55/2.8 DX to the 28-70/2.8 (non-DX).

[Jerry_]

Some 'cheap' lenses work as well (if you are in bright sunshine....)

 

 

 

The AF 80-200mm f4.5D~5.6D Nikkor lens works, and it is much, much lighter to haul around. The $600 or so lighter price is not bad either.<div></div>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>DX lenses can only be used on DX cameras</I><P>Well that doesn't explain how

I'vebeenable to use a 12-24mm f/4 DXNikkor on decidely non DXcameras likean F5 and an

F2 does it? Of course I only had full frame coverage from 17-24mm but DX lenses can work

on non DX cameras. And at 20mm tghe resultswere better than from a 20mm f/2.8 AF-D

Nikkor at f/4.

[kevin_lam]

I've been using the 17-55mm DX on my F80D, and the quality is quite good, although the useful portion is approximately 20mm and above, or there will be vignetting.

[mark u]

In the Nikon system, "use" or "work" is a relative term. I'll leave it to others more conversant with the details, but with some older lens designs you may not be able to meter with certain bodies, or to use AF if you have a D40. That said, there are many fine lenses that are not DX which will work very well.

[paul levin]

Mr. Hammond's comments make me believe he has some kind of problem with capitalism. I would like to correct his obvious misconception. ALL Nikon lenses are made to make more money for Nikon. That aspect is not limited to DX lenses. :-)

[chris hughes]

"Not only do you NOT LOSE anything by using a non-DX AF lens on your camera, what you

GAIN is incredible when it comes to telephoto..."

 

This is true of DX and non DX lenses. It's a function of the sensor size in the camera, not the

construction of the lense.

[ilkka_nissila]

Well, Paul, DX lenses are especially useful for money making because first people buy normal Nikkors for their film SLRs, then they buy DX Nikkors to complete their collection for DX digital SLRs. Then they sell their FF wide angles because they trust Nikon to stick with DX. Finally they will buy again regular Nikkors for their yet-to-be-introduced FF digital DSLRs.

 

Thus DX lenses are excellent money making instruments for Nikon. Multiple sales for the same function!

[paul levin]

Illka I'll concede your theory works for old farts like me who started with film. From some of the questions I read here it's pretty obvious there's a whole new generation with DSLR's who wouldn't have a clue about what to do with an F2. Come to think of it, this new lens for money thing isn't new at all. I remember my first autofocus camera was an 8008s. Then I bought an F5 and if I really wanted to get full advantage of of my F5's fancy dancy new metering capabilities well heck, I should replace all my AF glass with D-glass. I smell a conspiracy. :-)

[ShunCheung]

Ilkka's theory fails for a very simple reason. When people sell their FF lenses in favor of DX lenses, those used FF lenses are not trashed and destroyed. Those excessive lenses will drag down used prices. The bigger the price spread between used lenses and new lenses, the harder it will be for Nikon to sell new lenses. Back in 2001, the F100 was Nikon's best selling SLR, but when people dump F100 massively in favor of DSLRs, Nikon simply cannot compete against used Nikons, and the F100 went from best selling to discontinued without (film SLR) replacement in merely 4 years.

 

There is certainly a new generation of young photographers who will never shoot film in their lifetime and never know what the big deal is with 24x36mm, the so called "full frame." It is just like in Ansel Adams' generation, an 8x10" view camera was the norm and that was "full frame." Today, most of us have never used one of those; I certainly haven't.