DX or FX formats

[commtrd]

I am a little confused...are certain lenses constructed purposely to be used with

either the full frame (FX) or DX sensors? I had thought all Nikkors (at least the

recent lenses) were useable for both sensors...with the DX sensors at the 1.5x

cropping factor. I understand the 24-70 for instance to be built primarily for the full-

frame? But still useable on a D300? Is there a list of which lenses were intended

for which sensor? This would be good to know before spending any more so that in

case the DX becomes obsolete in the future the lenses owned can also be used

satisfactorily on the new FX format cameras or the existing D3. Due to the cost of

good glass, it is very important to make informed decisions when purchasing.

[ellis_vener_photography]

there are a few DX Nikor lenses available. if not noted as DX in the name the y will work for both formats. the DX designated Zooms generally also cover the full FX format over the latter half of there range -- example: the 12-24mm f/4G DX Nikkor covers the 24x36mm area FX format from 17-24mm.

[trunfio]

Yes, DX lenses are smaller so that they project the image to cover the smaller sensor.

They will vignette on FX sensors.

[michael_bradtke]

If it is a DX lens it is meant for the DX format. DX means the image circle it projects may not cover the FX or film frame.

All other Nikon glass will work fine on DX or FX or film for that matter.

[Ed_Ingold]

Nikon lenses with a "DX" designation have an image circle sized to fit an APS-C sized sensor, but will tend to vignette on a full-frame camera, depending on the aperture and zoom settings. The 24-70/2.8 AFS is designed for a full-frame camera, film or FX digital, but will work on a DX-sized camera too.

 

It is customary for both DX and FX lenses to bear the true focal length, although the effective focal length is multiplied by 1.5x on a DX camera due to cropping.

[Matt Laur]

DX lenses are all marked as such. That format won't be going away any time soon. Lenses made for FX-size use are indeed more flexible that way, but are also much larger, heavier, and expensive as a result.

 

Nikon has made many lenses, recently, that are expressly for DX sensors (and they sell tons of them). The 24-70 certainly is usable on a D300, but it doesn't get you very wide. More of a normal-to-mid-tele.

 

It seems likely to me that you'll be able sell any quality DX lens for a decent return. The cheap kit lenses don't hold a lot of value, but the pro lenses (like the 17-55/2.8) should - if kept in good shape - resell for a pretty good portion of that they're worth, should you head into FX-land.

[samoksner]

here is nikon's list of DX lens:

AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED (2.0x)

AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED (3.2x)

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II (3.0x)

AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (3.0x)

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED (3.8x)

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED (7.5x)

AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED (11.1x)

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED (3.6x)

AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED (3.6x)

 

here is sigma's list of DX lens':

 

10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC

17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO

17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM

18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO

18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM

18-50mm F3.5-5.6 DC

18-50mm f3.5-5.6 DC HSM

18-125mm F3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM

18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC for Nikon

18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM

18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC

18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS

APO 50-150mm F2.8 II EX DC HSM

APO 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC HSM

55-200mm F4-5.6 DC

55-200mm F4-5.6 DC HSM

4.5mm F2.8 EX DC Circular Fisheye HSM

10mm F2.8 EX DC Fisheye HSM

30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM

 

here is tokina's list:

 

11-16mm f2.8

12-24mm f4

16-50mm f2.8

50-135mm f2.8

10-17mm fisheye f3.5-4.5

35mm f2.8 macro

 

for tamron:

 

11-18mm f4.5-5.6

17-50mm f2.8

18-200mm f3.5-6.3

18-250mm f3.5-6.3

55-200mm f4-5.6

 

that's a pretty good list

[samoksner]

oh, and of course the formatting is messed up....

sry about that, i put a lot of time into that too...

[commtrd]

OK now I can see how to identify DX lenses...I will eventually end up with a 14-24 f2.8, and 24-70 f2.8, and a 70-200 f2.8 for a three-lens solution to everything I will be shooting. Plus I have the 105 VR macro and the 50 f1.8 so these lenses will transition nicely into the D3 (someday). Now I need to sell the 18-200 as I find I am not using it that much anymore and it is a DX lens.

[samoksner]

maybe it'll work this time:

 

Nikon:

 

 

AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED

 

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED

 

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

 

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

 

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II

 

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

 

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

 

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

 

AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

 

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED

 

AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED

 

 

 

Sigma:

 

 

10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC

 

17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO

 

17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO HSM

 

18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO

 

18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO HSM

 

18-50mm F3.5-5.6 DC

 

18-50mm f3.5-5.6 DC HSM

 

18-125mm F3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM

 

18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC

 

18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS

 

18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM

 

APO 50-150mm F2.8 II EX DC HSM

 

APO 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC HSM

 

55-200mm F4-5.6 DC

 

55-200mm F4-5.6 DC HSM

 

4.5mm F2.8 EX DC Circular Fisheye HSM

 

10mm F2.8 EX DC Fisheye HSM

 

30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM

 

 

 

 

Tokina:

 

 

11-16mm f2.8

 

12-24mm f4

 

16-50mm f2.8

 

50-135mm f2.8

 

10-17mm fisheye f3.5-4.5

 

35mm f2.8 macro

 

 

 

 

Tamron:

 

 

11-18mm f4.5-5.6

 

17-50mm f2.8

 

18-200mm f3.5-6.3

 

18-250mm f3.5-6.3

 

55-200mm f4-5.6

[Peter_in_PA]

Keith,

 

Think long and hard about that 14-24 lens, though. It's a special purpose lens, and the

17-35 is MUCH better for most FX users. the 14-24 takes no filters and has a HUGE

protruding piece of glass on the front. You REALLY need to need the 14-27 range for

specific things to need that lens, and on DX the 12-24s, Sigma 10-20, or Tokina 11-16

are better choices for most shooters.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Matt Laur wrote :

 

>> Nikon has made many lenses, recently, that are expressly for DX sensors (and they sell tons of them). DX lenses are all marked as such. That format won't be going away any time soon. Lenses made for FX-size use are indeed more flexible that way, but are also much larger, heavier, and expensive as a result.<<

 

Sorry Matt, but the adverb "recently" is a bit inadequate..; As soon as the D3 was issued, they marketed no less than 5 new FX compatible lenses, for only one new DX for the issue of the D300...

 

>> The 24-70 certainly is usable on a D300, but it doesn't get you very wide. More of a normal-to-mid-tele. <<

 

A 24-70 f/2.8 which is an FX lens and fully compatible with DX format, suits better by its zoom range the need of a DX format user than it suits the need of an FX format user... On a DX body it is the equivalent of a 36-105mm zoom which can cover everything from a small group of persons to a true portrait of each of them without changing the lens. On an FX body, it will venture into the field of serious wide angles at 24mm (where IMHO you don't really need either a zoom or even AF) but fails short at the other end as an effective true portrait lens. But at least, if Keith decides to go FX next time, this lens is a keeper so he will not lose a penny in a re-sale operation.

 

>> It seems likely to me that you'll be able sell any quality DX lens for a decent return. The cheap kit lenses don't hold a lot of value, but the pro lenses (like the 17-55/2.8) should - if kept in good shape - resell for a pretty good portion of that they're worth, should you head into FX-land. <<

 

I beg to respectfully disagree...

 

17-55 f/2.8 zoom as good as it may be, is one of the *few* prosumer oriented DX lens. It will retain a substantial value on second hand market only if some Nikon prosumer body is still produced in DX format... I doubt you will find any such camera in the next generation of Nikon prosumers' bodies... So the pros equipped with this lens will re-sale it fast when upgrading to the next generation (2 to 3 years from now) and the price will drop because the offer will exceed the demand. Most amateurs are happy with the kit lens and it is probably the only one they will ever buy in the end, let alone a comparatively expensive pro level wide aperture trnas-standard zoom.

 

The other DX lenses are mainly short of being true professional lenses, with their relatively small maximum aperture and the fact they are mostly variable aperture zooms. This situation is unlikely to change in the future as Nikon has now marketed a pro FX digital body.

 

My advice to Keith is to shy the DX lenses as much as he can.

 

On the wide angle side, you can buy a Sigma 12-24 zoom which covers the FX format and brings a respectable equivalent to 18-36 mm lens on a DX format. Seems to be a good lens from the tests I read, particularly from f/8 on in actual use.

 

Then the FX 24-70 and the FX 70-200 f/2.8 will probably cover all what you need for your D300 and will be fully re-useable on any future FX camera you fancy to buy in the future.

 

Paul Trunfio wrote :

 

>> Yes, DX lenses are smaller so that they project the image to cover the smaller sensor. <<

 

Sorry Paul, I don't buy this explanation. The size of a lens is not mainly determined in modern times by the extent of the circle of shapness it can produce... A Leica M 35mm f/1,4 lens totally covers the 35mm format and is one aperture more open than a Nikon 35mm f/2 AF lens, which also covers this format but which is nonehteless far bigger.

 

The real issue which produces a tad smaller lenses in DX format is almost certainly the fact they have mostly smaller apertures for the same field of view covered and a variable one. Which goes for a much simpler optical formula.

 

The same applies by the way for the average prices of DX series lenses. They are mostly cheaper because they have smaller aperture for the same actual focal length (not to be confused with their field of view).

 

We are actually living in a transitional period and care should be exerted in choosing lenses which will last as long as possible as they are the only major component of a photo gear today worth to consider able to remain in your bag a long time.

 

FPW

 

 

[commtrd]

Wow...the depth of information here is awesome. Sam that was a good bit of work to compile this info. Much appreciated. I do feel more comfortable with purchasing lenses which will work with my D300 currently and the future D3 to keep the D300 as a great backup body. So it makes sense to get the appropriate lenses for adaptability that way. Plus if DX is ever obsoleted then the lenses are already in place for FX format...may not happen any time soon, but technological progression may take its toll someday...

[timporter]

A slightly OT tangent to this discussion:

 

Other than the minor difference in focal length, what is the difference between the "old" 24-70mm Nikon -- a non-DX lens -- and the new 24-70mm Nikon being made for use with the D3?

[Peter_in_PA]

Nikon has only made one 24-70 f2.8 lens, it came out this year. That is the lens I think

folks are talking about. It's huge and heavy and beautiful and awesome.

[tri-x1]

Anyone predicting the demise of DX lenses is wetting their finger and holding it in the air to decide which way the wind is blowing.

 

Yes, Nikon came out with the D3--probably because Canon had one and it's good for the company image. But consider the DX body base out there now--D100. D200, D300, D1, d2, D40, D50, D60 and D80 .

 

Then take into consideration that there is no magical thing about the FX (24x36) format other than the fact that it is connected to 35mm film. Maybe the larger format is a little better at controlling noise at higher iso but it is debatable if that will be the case as sensor technology improves.

 

Everyone now seems to believe the next generation of Nikon DSLRs will be full frame and more affordable. Given the success of the DX D300 Nikon has no real reason to abandon DX in advanced amateur DSLRs--I would guess at least 80 percent or the Nikon zooms sold in the past 5 years have been DX

[timporter]

Sorry .. I mis-typed. I meant the "old" 28-70mm Nikon -- the Beast. There's a slight difference in focal length between the two, but any other major differences?

 

I'm asking because I'm thinking of selling my D2x's for D3s and am considering what the additional investment in lenses would have to be. I have the 70-200mm VR and the 28-70mm -- both non-DX -- and would want to keep the 28-70 if it performed well on the D3.

[Davide Baroni]

I tend to agree with Wayne Cornell. OK, eventually maybe every reflex in the digital world wull be in Film Format. Eventually, maybe. And the only DX lenses that are really worth having are the costant max aperture wide angles. True: all the other ones, including the 18-70, are surpassed in performance by the equivalent FX lenses (as much as in price, weight, and some other criteria...). So the only true choice to be made here may be between the DX 12-24 f/4, which I would NOT use on FX sensors, and the FX 14-24 f/2.8, which is a superb lens but a bit "specialistic" on Film Frame (FF from now on). So the thing could be: "Do you really need such a wide angle zoom lens on your eventual FX body?"... If the answer is "No", then you can have a 2nd hand 12-24 that you'll resell whenever you go FF, without losing that much money. DX will stay around for long, I believe. At least until FX sensors won't come cheap. And even then, DX will still be much cheaper. :-D

And if the answer is "yes", then you'd go for the 14-24 now... or better in a few months' time, when its price will reduce "for physiological reasons". ;-)

Also, I've seen HUGE prints made from DX files. It seems to me that they have all you need for any purpose, fine art, advertisement, whatever. :-)

So I still don't see the REAL point in these "DX vs FX" discussions...

Ciao,

Davide

 

PS: Tim Porter, the previous Nikon lens was the 28-70 f/2.8, now discontinued... great lens though. Used it a whole afternoon with some friends. Minimum focal length and nano-treatment of the glass aside, I don't know the differences. :-)

[Davide Baroni]

Sorry, Tim, you posted while I was writing. :-)

 

28-70 still seems to work well on D3... as for some friends opinions. I do NOT own either the D3 nor the 28-70. But anywhy there's a difference in the lenses treatment, I don't know what it results in, practically. Sorry for not being of more help.

 

Davide

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Wayne wrote

 

>> Everyone now seems to believe the next generation of Nikon DSLRs will be full frame and more affordable. Given the success of the DX D300 Nikon has no real reason to abandon DX in advanced amateur DSLRs--I would guess at least 80 percent or the Nikon zooms sold in the past 5 years have been DX <<

 

No reasons to abandon the DX format for prosumers and pro cameras ?

 

There are tons of them...

 

Nikon still has a large collection of relatively old designs compatible with FX format in this range and most of them are really professionnally designed and under-exploited on DX cameras. Re-working them with wonder new nano crystal technology and incorporating faster Silent Wave motor for the AF will cost almost peanuts in R&D as opposed to developing an all new range of profesionnally oriented DX lenses from scratch, which will be redundant and compete with there FX lens range and slow down the sales of the new D3 and following FX bodies.

 

Taking aside very few DX lenses, all this range is amateur oriented and was so even when Nikon still said officially they had no intention to go full format.

 

D3 design philosophy is totally opposed to the Canon EOS 1Ds Mk. III philosophy. Canon full format pro camera is designed as described by Canon officials to be destined to conquer part of the market of medium format photography (and you don't need to be a magician to predict it will be a failure, as the price with no lens is almost identical to the one of a medium format digital back, add just one pro lens and the difference is wiped off... People having already a Hasselblad body and a bunch of lenses will laugh at the Canon, which failed to reach the definition of the MF digital backs and is far more sensitive to noise). Nikon chose to stay within its speciality, what it does the best : small format SLR and opened an entirely new perspective in available light photography with the D3 and got a full format which is tuned to be the best small format camera ever for what these camera are designed: PJ work and action photography. So there is few (if any) influence on the D3 design or the adoption of FX format from the Canon conceptions.

 

The progress of DSLR's, all in APS-C format then, was characterised by cramming more and more pixels on the same small surface while trying to improve the resistance to noise at high sensitivity and develop dynamic range of pixels becoming smaller and smaller... Just see what is happening since a few years... the pace of this developement is slowing down. To regain momentum this movement will need extensive R&D or even an all new technology. Any full format camera beats any APS-C camera pixel for pixel in noise resistance and dynamic range to a point the now aeging (and not so expensive) Canon 5D may not be considered totally obsolete when compared to any APS-C camera (including the splendid D300) in image quality and high ISO use. It seems clear that industrialization, problems for larger sensors production had been largely solved and "affordability" is becoming a reality (even the D3 was cheaper when introduced than the DX format D2X).

 

Why Nikon should spend a lot of money to speed up research to improve APS-C sensor performance as they can make a much better affordable (not cheap) FX camera with more performance and quietly follow the pace of improvements when it will go to improve again the definition without losing anything in high ISO capabilities and dynamic range for the generations to come ?

 

Do you really believe Nikon would have issued a full format DSLR with five brand new FX lenses if they intend to reserve FX format to one body or even one body line ? They have made this choice consciously because they feel it was the most promising (and profitable) solution at hand.

 

Using the already produced D3 sensor with a slower fps capability (not all photographers need 6 to 8fps) and a tad less bells and whistles will lead to the production of a second FX body with a relatively low development cost and the perfect answer to the eventual successor of the Canon 5D, while filling the gap between the D300 and the D3. The next generation will simply equal the speed of the D 300 with a new processor and perhaps a small increase in pixel count for the same performance the D300 have otherwise.

 

In turn it will allow Nikon to slow down or stop the development of new DX lenses which range is already full for amateur use and concentrate on FX lens range.

 

Nikon sold a lot of DX lens un the past years ? What is relevant in this saying apart it is true to forecast the lack of demise of DX format in prosumer and pro camera range ?

 

Nothing... Nikon, as always, has provided their customers with maximum compatibility : You can use a DX lens on a D3, albeit with a resulting defintion of 5Mpex only. But we can expect in an undetermined future the pixel density on FX cameras will be such as to offer something around 10Mpex or more with such a crop. It looks (though with a more complexe, costly and long operation) exactly like the transition from F mount to Ai mount, just a case of already been there done that .

 

Pros will sell already amortized DX lenses and buy FX instead...

 

Experienced amateurs will keep their DX bodies for a few years more and try to sell their DX lenses to lower grade amateurs (albeit at a sensible loss of money) as the DX format will stay for quite a number of years on the entry and intermediate level bodies. and in a more far fetched and undetermined future, when FX will be the only format to remain, the definition of the cropped part of the sensor will be more than enough to satisfy people printing in A3+.

 

APS-C format is of no more practical value than full format and conversely. No magic indeed, but it has not proven any decisive advantage over the nominal format of the old 35mm photography either. Size and weight reductions were never significant enough to justifiy the cost of the accelerated R&D now necessary to give the cropped sensors the same performance as the one of full format all things equal elsewhere on prosumer or pro bodies.

 

FPW

 

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

Counter to what Mr. Weill writes:

 

As of August 25, 2007 Nikon had no plans to eliminate DX format cameras from their line up through at least 2010. Iwas there when they publicly laid out their roadmap and so was Bjorn Rorslett and about 500 other journalists and financial analysts from around the world who cover the global digital camera market. Could that "road map" change? Of course! A map is never the territory but I doubt that you will ever see digital cameras with APS-C size CMOS /CCD sensors disappear in the next 3 years

 

According to my sources in and outside of Canon the Canon EOS 1Ds mark 3 is selling in about the numbers Canon projected and to the people Canon considered when designing the camera.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Ellis Vener wrote:

 

>> As of August 25, 2007 Nikon had no plans to eliminate DX format cameras from their line up through at least 2010. <<

 

Did I say anything contrary to this ?

 

I said they will all but eliminate DX format in the prosumer-pro camera range within a few years (coincidentally, we are in 2008 and the expected life of a nikon prosumer camera before being replaced is about three years... 2008 + 3 = 2011) ... I don't believe they will eliminate DX format from the entry level - intermediate level anytime soon ...

 

I said that people who wants or need a pro or prosumer level camera as their body should consider the fact it is better to go for FX lens as these lenses are liable to eamin useable longer than the the delay I anticipate to see DX format demise form prosumer - pro camera body range.

 

>> I was there when they publicly laid out their roadmap and so was Bjorn Rorslett and about 500 other journalists and financial analysts from around the world who cover the global digital camera market. Could that "road map" change? Of course! A map is never the territory but I doubt that you will ever see digital cameras with APS-C size CMOS /CCD sensors disappear in the next 3 years <<

 

The roadmap is not even contradictory to the total withdrawal of DX format sensors at the end of 2010... Something I never affirmated nor believe.

 

On the contrary, the fact Nikon officials admitted after 2010 (two years from now) for them the possibility to withdraw from production *all* DX sensors is even harsher than my personal forecast which is a clear separation between entry and intermediate level camera bodies, keeping their APS-C sensors for an indeterminate duration and the Prosumer-pro camera body range which will in all probability adopt the FX format as the norm after 2010.

 

The worst immediate implication for DX lens owners still using their DX format camera will be the lack of any development in DX range of more truly professional lenses, including more fixed large aperture zooms and very wide aperture primes.

 

>> According to my sources in and outside of Canon the Canon EOS 1Ds mark 3 is selling in about the numbers Canon projected and to the people Canon considered when designing the camera. <<

 

According to any more or less official source from any brand of any product in the world things are ever going as planned. There is no way to cross examine this statement as Canon never made public the number of EOS 1Ds Mk.III they considered they should sale. But lots of comments on the Internet from professional photographers on the performance of this camera and a simple comparative study of costs for someone already involved in MF photography and having a camera which can hold a digital back and the associated lens set when it goes to buy either the Canon (and the related set of lenses) or a digital back speaks for itself.

 

Now you're entirely entitled to keep your opinion.

 

FPW

[._._z]

"Canon full format pro camera is designed as described by Canon officials to be destined to conquer part of the market of medium format photography"

 

Got a quote for that?

[commtrd]

I intend to focus ;-) on acquiring primarily FX format lenses with subsequent purchases...I think that is the wise course of action because these lenses are expensive and I want to be able to utilize on FX sensor bodies as I feel that is the way it is going eventually. Plus they will work fine on the D300 as well so nothing lost there, possibly cost more though. Good heads-up about the 14-24 lens.

Great thread!

[garrison_k.]

François P. WEILL wrote "17-55 f/2.8 zoom as good as it may be, is one of the *few* prosumer oriented DX lens."

 

Prosumer? Blimey, the 17-55 was the first Nikon zoom to achieve 3x at a constant f2.8. With this and its price, I'd call it a pro lens.

 

I then asked them for a DX 35-105 f2.8 and they told me not to hold my breath.