Nikon FX vs DX Lenses: I need a little explanation of the differences between these two Nikon lens formats. The FX is much more expensive so it must do something that maybe I need, or...

jimpitt

I need a little explanation of the differences between these two Nikon lens formats. The FX is much more expensive so it must do something that maybe I need, or maybe not. I have a 24-120 FX VR (portrait zoom) and a 70-300 DX VR (tele zoom) paired with a 1 week old D 5300. Am considering a wide zoom such as the 16-35 FX VR and wonder if I need to spend the extra $'s or just go with a DX. My expertise level is advanced amateur. Thanks in advance for your comments.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

I am assuming that you are using an DX camera? You like photography? You will eventually move up to FX. Resale and performance is often better but also sensor dependant. I see DX systems disappearing in the future.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

When I was first shooting digital on a D80 I started aquiring FX lenses and I was glad I did when I moved to a Nikon FX camera. The problem is a 16-35 on a DX is 24-50. If 24 is wide enough for you by all means go for it but only if you think one day you will migrate to FX.. ;)

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

FX and DX are camera formats--FX is a full frame sensor (larger); the DX is a cropped sensor (smaller). Simplified, the lens is suited for the appropriate camera format.

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

jimpitt wrote:

I need a little explanation of the differences between these two Nikon lens formats. The FX is much more expensive so it must do something that maybe I need, or maybe not. I have a 24-120 FX VR (portrait zoom) and a 70-300 DX VR (tele zoom) paired with a 1 week old D 5300. Am considering a wide zoom such as the 16-35 FX VR and wonder if I need to spend the extra $'s or just go with a DX. My expertise level is advanced amateur. Thanks in advance for your comments.

I wouldent call myself a advanced amateur . if I dident know the difference
between a Dx len's and a fx. so if you never see yourself with a fx camera
stop throwing your money away . there is no kneed to get a fx camera or fx
lenses . your not going to see a notable difference in any photos you take . unless you go head first full out for a fx out fit . and spend the bucks for the most expensive fx len's you can buy , and upgrade your computer to handle
all the problems that arrive with FF . a printer that prints a lot bigger than 8x10 .unless your planning to make a living with your camera or become
obsessed with pixel peeping . like others here , you will do just fine with
DX . and possibly be much happier . I shot film cameras in 1965 which is the same ratio as FF 35 mm SLR . the most you should strive for is the top of the line Dx in canon or nikon . you won't miss anything

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

Mark7829 wrote:

I am assuming that you are using an DX camera? You like photography? You will eventually move up to FX. Resale and performance is often better but also sensor dependant. I see DX systems disappearing in the future.

Dx will never disappear . so you don't have to worry . the only way it would is
if they were the same price . the camera makers know what there doing .
there not going to shot them selves in the foot . there is too much money in
keeping both formats going . to many people would just switch to a point and shoot and say the hell with it . I know I would anl I been into cameras for forty nine years .

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Bram boy wrote:

I wouldent call myself a advanced amateur . if I d... (show quote)

Why would the computer need to be upgraded to handle and/or store images from a FX camera? 24mp FX is the same as 24mp DX as far as a computer is concerned. Now if the op were to go for an D8XX that would be a different matter... ;)

amehta Loc: Boston

jimpitt wrote:

I need a little explanation of the differences between these two Nikon lens formats. The FX is much more expensive so it must do something that maybe I need, or maybe not. I have a 24-120 FX VR (portrait zoom) and a 70-300 DX VR (tele zoom) paired with a 1 week old D 5300. Am considering a wide zoom such as the 16-35 FX VR and wonder if I need to spend the extra $'s or just go with a DX. My expertise level is advanced amateur. Thanks in advance for your comments.

Welcome!

The FX lens has to cover a larger image circle, because the FX sensor is 1.5x larger. With wide angle and ultra wide angle lenses, this is a big factor. Since you already have the 24-120mm lens, I would not get either a FX 16-35mm or a DX lens starting at 18mm, because there is so much overlap. Instead, consider the Nikon 12-24mm f/4G DX, which will complement your current lens perfectly.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Investing in a full frame camera, and the appropriate lenses, is a personal decision based on how serious one is about photography, and how much money one is willing to spend. DX is great, but full frame is the recognized format for most, but not all, DSLR professional work.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. FX lenses on FX cameras produce better images, images that you would print, frame, proudly display and might even sell. Quality lenses, have little or no distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, are often coated to reduce flare and are extremely sharp. They likely have superior glass (more elements and groupings), a wider aperture for a narrower DOF, render bokeh, faster and reliable autofocus, VR/IS, superior warranty, studier-metal builds, weatherproofing, and a much higher resale value. And often last a lifetime.

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

Db7423 wrote:

Why would the computer need to be upgraded to handle and/or store images from a FX camera? 24mp FX is the same as 24mp DX as far as a computer is concerned. Now if the op were to go for an D8XX that would be a different matter... ;)

there is more to it than that . try down loading a couple 100 raw
pic from from a d 800 or d600 , then take the same pic then on the same tripod with a d7100 with the equal len's on both . if you don't blow any thing
you shoot up bigger than 16x30 or crop the hell out of it your not going to see
much difference

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Mark7829 wrote:

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. F... (show quote)

Indeed. ;)

jimpitt

To Bram:
You seemed sarcastic and insulting.
As for my expertise, I have been shooting slides (about 45,000) since my first Nikon FTN in 1968. I recently sold on consignment four camera bodies and eleven non-digital lenses. I have attended the Nikon School of Photography three times (however not yet digital). My question on this site was precipitated by conflicting and inconsistent information from photography store clerks; I thought this would be a friendly professional forum to get the correct information. Your answer is that I am probably wasting $'s with my FX lens on a D 5300. That lens was part of a kit package with a D 80 (DX) six years ago; according to you seems that was not such a good "deal" if not properly matched as you imply.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

I'd say the difference is

DX - $$$
FX - $$$$$

Any questions? :P

MtnMan Loc: ID

jimpitt wrote:

I need a little explanation of the differences between these two Nikon lens formats. The FX is much more expensive so it must do something that maybe I need, or maybe not. I have a 24-120 FX VR (portrait zoom) and a 70-300 DX VR (tele zoom) paired with a 1 week old D 5300. Am considering a wide zoom such as the 16-35 FX VR and wonder if I need to spend the extra $'s or just go with a DX. My expertise level is advanced amateur. Thanks in advance for your comments.

The Nikon 10-24 mm is a fabulous DX wide angle lens. It is better suited to the Nikon D5300 than the 16-35 because of the lens mm and it is about half the price.

FX lenses are designed to make an image the size of an FX sensor, which is the same size as 35mm slide film. DX sensors are about half that size. The D5300 is a DX sensor camera.

While FX lenses will work on DX cameras, you are only using half the area that the lens images. Some argue that is a good thing because when you use an FX lens on a DX sensor camera it uses the center of the lens, which is usually a little sharper.

Nikon FX cameras let you use DX lenses; either using just half the sensor or, with some cameras, in different images sizes. DX zoom lenses often work OK over a limited zoom range on the full FX image area. For example, my 10-24 works fine on my D800 in full FX mode above about 18mm. Below 18mm you get significant vignetting.