Zophman Loc: Northwest

I shoot with a Nikon D90 and plan to upgrade to a full frame Nikon body next year. I am also currently upgrading my lenses over the next 6 months. So, I think the smart thing is to procure FX lenses and use them on my D90 until I can decide on a full frame body. My "guru photographer" says it would be fine. Any comments?

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Seems to fit the discussions that have been around for quite some time. Many DX folks are using 70-200,24-70,200-500,etc,and the claim is that they're using the center portion of the FX glass. I'm sure someone will kick in with the technical jargon. Good luck!

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

In a nutshell---if you are going full frame, don't spend another dime on another DX lens.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I think you have the right idea. Pick up FX lenses now so that when you get your FX camera you will be set to go.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Who ever gave you the idea that it wouldn't be fine to use fx lenses on dx bodies?

LarryFB Loc: Depends where our RV is parked

Yes, if you are committed to go to full frame, I agree, don't spend a dime on DX lenses.

However, consider some of the alternatives. I agree that full frame is better than DX. However, you also have to consider what you really want. Can DX cameras give you high quality photographs and prints, Absolutely! Is FF better than DX, certainly yes, but at what cost?

I cost is not an issue, by all means go to full frame! Full frame will probably remain supreme as far a photographic quality is concerned. Jus remember, there is a major cost involved.

Frankly, I use a DX format camera and have only DX lenses. If I went to full frame, I would probably have $8000 invested in my hardware in stead of about $2000.

Would I like to have a FF equivalent to my current camera and lenses, you bet I would. However, I have to consider the cost, the advantages, the disadvantages, and as well as eating beans or steak. This is a personal choice.

OK, now I preparing myself for the responses (positive and negative) that I may receive. I believe that you can make wonderful photographs with both a DX format and a FF camera. I am also convinced that you can take "better" photographs with a FF camera than a DX camera.

What is the best value, DX or FF? That is a more difficult question. This is where your position in life and your own personalty come into play. If you have to have the latest and greatest, by all means go for the full frame solution, there is no question there.

However, if your budget is limited, if you want to be able to obtain great photos with a fairly low cost DSLR, certainly consider a DX format camera. Please notice that I am not mentioning brands of camera. Both Canon and Nikon offer excellent camera bodies and lenses, so do other manufacturers like Pentax, Sony, and others.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I own only 1 Nikon body, a D7200 and currently have only 1 lens for it. Since I already have several FF and CF Canon bodies and quite a few EF mount lenses, I have no current plans for getting a FX Nixon body, but I do want to acquire a few more lenses for the D7200. From what I just read I surmise I should be looking at FX lenses, not DX lenses, correct?

glgracephoto Loc: Arlington, WA

If you do not plan on buying any other Nikon bodies, and your Canon glass does not cross over, then it would seem to make most sense to stay with DX glass for the D7200. I don't know what subjects you shoot, but two most excellent options are the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which is like 24-70 on full frame, and the Tokina 11-16 or newer 11-20 f/2.8 for a nice wide angle.

If you wanted something a bit longer, then I would say go ahead with FX and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. or the older but still produced and most excellent AF-D NIKKOR ED ("New," 1997-) There are several older 80-200 f/2.8's but that specific model would be the best and is still being made

OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey

Good idea, a shame you didn't think of that when you bought the D90...you wouldn't be updating your lenses collection.

OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey

Without question if you plan on going FF in the future...

Bobbee

What happened to the Emoicons????

Oh well, manual button for now!!

<thumbs up> <thumbs up> <thumbs up> <thumbs up> <thumbs up> <thumbs up>

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

In Nikon and probably the other brands, the FX lenses tend to be the better lenses. You will notice that Nikon doesn't make a "DX" 50mm lens. All of the FX lenses will work on any DX Nikon Camera (keeping in mind that some of the DX cameras do NOT have a focus motor built into the camera and require that the lens have a motor in them. In a previous post, someone asked the difference between a Nikon Amateur Camera and a Professional camera. The question should have been the difference between a Nikon "Entry Level" camera and the "Enthusiast" level. The entry level cameras are ALL DX and require that the lens have a focus motor (SWM) built into the lens. The Enthusiast Cameras which start with the Nikon D7xxx (currently) do NOT have this requirement. I have a couple of lenses that are "DX" lenses that are good enough but not great. One is a Tamron 10-24mm lens which while it does have the focus motor, it has a slight but noticeable fisheye at 10mm. One is an older Nikon 70-300mm DX lens that does not have the focus motor and I constantly search for focus on birds in flight and miss the shot. (The SWM lens is faster focusing. The main additional difference is that the DX lenses, while they will work on the FX camera, will only cover the DX portion of the FX sensor (the camera will shift to DX mode usually) but it does give you the DX reach. In other words, if I put that slow focusing DX 70-300mm on my D610, it would appear to be a 105-450mm lens due to the cropped image it was passing to the FX sensor. Typically, Nikon's FX lenses will be better builds than their DX counter parts but that is not always the case. Nikon had an older version of their 80-400mm lens that (while it was a decent lens) required the focus motor in the camera to focus. It was extremely slow focusing and had a few other issues too. But, they came out with a newer 80-400mm lens that had the built in focus motor and other improvements that make this lens a real beauty to use on either FX (which it was designed for) or DX cameras (including Entry Level because of the SWM). So the question should be answered that it depends because your DX lenses can be used but with the thought that they will still act as a DX on the FX. And the FX lenses will work just fine on the DX cameras and because of the sensor size of the DX, that 80-400 will seem to be a 120-600mm lens. Yes, I am saving for that Nikon 200-500mm lens and it will seem to be a 300-750 on my DX bodies which will eliminate me have to put a teleconverter on and lose the f/stop of speed.

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

I agree with you, that's exactly what I'm doing. I have an old d5000 that has been converted to IR and a d7200 that I use for everyday shooting. I anticipate moving to a FF some time next year but I don't anticipate not using my DX cameras. Any FX lens I purchase in the coming months I'll be able to use on both FX and DX. Make sense.

Jim Bob

Exactly. One would have thought this is common sense. But one would obviously be wrong.

Brockvilleal

Why do you babel on as you do? The OP has decided to buy the FX lenses. He was only asking if the FX lense could be used on his DX camera and the potential pitfalls from doing that. Just answer the question!