Why would Nikon make DX Lenses?

[arun_seetharam]

<p>I just went through many posts in this forum. I see all kinds of FX Vs DX threads, but not what I was looking for. I know the differences between the lenses. I have been buying lenses periodically. By now its good 10 of 'em from 12mm to 400mm, primes and zooms. 12-24, is the only DX lens I have. Every lens works perfectly on my D200 and D90 bodies. Of course I use the FXes on D700 and see no problems at all. They all work great on my FM2 too.<br>

Is it because of the 1.5X sweetspot? to minimize light fall-off and get rid of unsharp edges?<br>

Is it cheaper to make them relative to the full frame? I see that prices are neck to neck.<br>

Is it to target the consumer market?<br>

Is it to keep the servomotor smaller?<br>

Would be great to get some insight into it.</p>

[anthony_bez]

<p>They are made because the majority of Nikon's DSLR customers have DX cameras.<br />They are smaller than FX lenses, and cost less to manufacture. Look at the price of the 35mm f1.8 AF-S DX it would be at least double the cost if it covered FX.<br />Also the two systems are suited to different focal lengths.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>They're cheaper, smaller and lighter because they need less glass (and are therefore cheaper to make). Great for the consumer market and anybody else wanting to pay less and carry less weight, especially in zooms. Plus, DX cameras sell well, so there's a large customer base. All of which contributes to the actual reason, which is that Nikon makes money on them.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Is it because of the 1.5X sweetspot? to minimize light fall-off and get rid of unsharp edges?</em></p>

<p>Actually DX lenses have more light fall-off and unsharp edges on DX than FX lenses on DX, typically...</p>

<p>Nikon makes them because that's the format almost all their SLR customers use, and the lenses will be cheaper, smaller, lighter than if they covered FX format. </p>

[JAPster]

<p>A camera like a D-300 uses an image sensor whose Width and Heigth dimensions are about .66X that of 35mm film frame width and heighth. Nikon uses the code DX to indicate this type of sensor size AND the lenses that are designed to for use with DX sensor cameras.</p>

<p>As you mention, you CAN take older Nikon lenses and put them on a Nikon D-SLR. But the older lenses (unless they say DX) are NOT designed for DX format, but for 35mm film fram format. So the optical image that they project into the camera are actully bigger than the sensor itself. And so the field-of-view you see is actually smaller than what's stated on the lens barrel. A '50mm' lens (non DX) will actually look like a 75mm lens when you use it on a DX sensor camera. To advise the customers of this phenomena, Nikon lens manuals for non-DX lenses say to use a Lens Multiplication Factor of 1.5X when you put a non-DX lens on a DX sensor camera. So you can use a non-DX lens on a DX sensor Nikon, but you have to remember to multiply the stated lens focal lengths by 1.5X so you know the true working focal length in efffect when you take pictures.</p>

<p>But since a DX lens is designed up front to match a DX sensor, you dont have to do mental gymnatsics. The focal length stated on the lens is in fact what you should see when you use it on a DX sensor camera.</p>

<p>Also, since DX lenses are newer and more modern than older film lenses, they are designed with more engineering and hi-tech features like VR which can help improve your picture taking.</p>

[john_morris4]

<blockquote>

<p> But since a DX lens is designed up front to match a DX sensor, you dont have to do mental gymnatsics. The focal length stated on the lens is in fact what you should see when you use it on a DX sensor camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Surely this isn't really true. DX lenses are at least marked with the real focal length, right?</p>

 

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>But since a DX lens is designed up front to match a DX sensor, you dont have to do mental gymnatsics. The focal length stated on the lens is in fact what you should see when you use it on a DX sensor camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope, actually you still need to multiply by 1.5 even on DX. Look at Nikon's new press release for the 85 f/3.5 DX for example.<br>

http://press.nikonusa.com/2009/10/nikons_new_afs_dx_85mm_f35_mic.php</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The new 85mm Micro NIKKOR lens, in conjunction with Nikon DX-format digital SLR cameras, renders a picture angle equivalent of approximately 127.5mm (in the 35mm or FX-format), providing a natural perspective along with a desirable and practical lens-to-subject working distance.</p>

</blockquote>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>So you can use a non-DX lens on a DX sensor Nikon, but you have to remember to multiply the stated lens focal lengths by 1.5X so you know the true working focal length in efffect when you take pictures.</em><br /> <em>But since a DX lens is designed up front to match a DX sensor, you dont have to do mental gymnatsics. The focal length stated on the lens is in fact what you should see when you use it on a DX sensor camera.</em></p>

<p>This is incorrect. A DX lens at FL = 50mm will produce exactly the same angle of view as an FX lens at FL = 50mm when both are used on a DX camera.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Focal length and frame size are two independent variables that both go into the formula for field of view. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens whether it's for FX, DX or 6x9 medium format, but each of those formats will have a different field of view used with a 50mm lens (on DX it's a bit tele, on FX it's normal and on 6x9 it's very wide angle).</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Simple answer to your question? Because I want to buy them!</p>

[anthony_bez]

<blockquote>

<p>Simple answer to your question? Because I want to buy them</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So do I.... And it seems we are not the only one's. I read that the 35mm DX it is Nikon's best selling lens?</p>

[phototransformations]

<p>Another factor, I imagine, is that some percentage of DX lens buyers will eventually move to an FX camera, and will likely buy a new set of FX lenses. They have to maintain a fine balance of luring semipro DX people (like me!) to more expensive FX lenses and cameras, while not making the entry fee so high that people just won't do it.</p>

[andylynn]

<blockquote>

<p>I read that the 35mm DX it is Nikon's best selling lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If we're not counting kit lenses that might be right. They must sell a ton of kits with 18-55 lenses. But the 35 DX is very hard to find in stock, they sell so fast.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i like DX also.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Same reason Pentax made lenses that covered only the 35mm image circle even though adapters were available to fit their medium format lenses to 35mm cameras. Same reason Pentax made lenses specifically for their 110 SLR. Same reason some medium format manufacturers make different lenses for 645, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 systems.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>I think people missed the OP's point. What he's saying is that FX lenses work on FX and DX cameras, and considering that the DX lenses seem to be nearly as expensive as the FX equivalents, why bother making DX lenses at all.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Example : The 50 mm 1.8 AF-D is 130. The equivalent field of view DX lens - the 35 mm AF-S is 199. I assume the AF-S increases the DX price a bit. Perhaps if there was a 50 mm 1.8 AF-S FX lens, it'd have been about 199 too. Or maybe say 230-250 (considering the 50 mm 1.4 price)</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Those aren't equivalent. A 35mm is generally going to be more expensive than a 50mm. The 35/2.0D FX lens is $360, and it's a bit slower and not AFS. Comparing that to the DX price, you see the DX advantage.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I'm a pro and do not plan on going to an FX sensor, I like that I can get DX specific lenses that are smaller and lighter and still get great photos. I have a Tokina 12-24, Sigma 50-150 (no Nikon equivalent), and plan on getting someone's 16/17/18-50/55 DX soon.</p>

[rene gm]

<p>>But the 35 DX is very hard to find in stock, they sell so fast.</p>

<p>I just tried to sell mine on ebay, because I discovered that I do not really need it. The pricewas 20% off the sales price, new lens. But nobody wanted it. But that is German ebay, so maybe things are different here.</p>

[jerry_schuler]

<p><em>So you can use a non-DX lens on a DX sensor Nikon, but you have to remember to multiply the stated lens focal lengths by 1.5X so you know the true working focal length in effect when you take pictures. But since a DX lens is designed up front to match a DX sensor, you don’t have to do mental gymnastics. The focal length stated on the lens is in fact what you should see when you use it on a DX sensor camera But since a DX lens is designed up front to match a DX sensor, you don’t have to do mental gymnastics. The focal length stated on the lens is in fact what you should see when you use it on a DX sensor camera.</em><br /><br />Who gives a damn? I prefer to take the ZEN approach. What I see in the viewfinder when composing my shot is what I get.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i think most of the people here saw the OP's point. and most, if not all, of his questions were answered in one way or another. very unfortunate to others, but DX is here to stay :-)</p>

[trevans]

<p>The only reason we talk about crop factors and multiplying focal lengths is because the 35mm format has been so dominant for so long. Ever seen what a "normal" lens on medium or large format cameras is? 150mm or more. That's normal. (Whatever that means.)</p>

<p>We could easily say "Well for FX, remember, you have to reduce the focal length by 1/3 to get the real field of view." How is that for mental gymnastics? :)</p>

<p>Saying a 24mm FX lens is really a 36mm lens on a DX body is incorrect. That lens will always have a 24mm focal length. Them's physics.</p>

[kam_kozalak]

<p>DX format apparently is here to stay, and Nikon seems committed to it. Under this scenario, some people will like to own prime lenses. If they do not intend to move to FX format one day, why should they pay more for the heavier FX modern lenses. Now we have the 35/1.8 and the 85/3.5 micro lenses, which make a good combo. I would not be surprised if they added a 16mm or so, wide angle prime. Equipped with newest technologies such as VR, this will make a fine three-lens set with good coverage, reasonable price, and superb optics.</p>

[xp153dragon]

<p>Until the D3/D700 were released, all of the digital cameras from the D100 to the D2Xs were DX format. The 12-24 and the 17-55 are the only "professional lenses" for DX. What I see is that Nikon will continue to develop the DX line, so obviously they have to make more DX lenses. The recent 35mm and 85mm micro lenses are filling out the prime arena. I would think that next would be some kind of AFS DX 16mm or an 18mm prime to cover the wide angle area of the DX format. I think that they want to have both complete DX and FX lines for us to choose from, offering more choices which means more products to sell and make money at. I am using a D80 and I am not a professional. I will stay with the DX line, and continue to purchase the newer DX lenses. This is just a hobby for me, and DX is fine. The FX format is just way to expensive for the normal amateur hobbyist.</p>