Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Yep - there is plenty of confusion to go around in this stuff....

Looking at the actual image that hits the sensor, or more accurately, all around the sensor is eye opening.

Handy link for sure....saved in Evernote! :)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Mostly right, but with a few additional considerations:

1 and 2. Kit/consumer grade FX lenses are ok on DX. If you intend to get FX in the future, make sure you stay clear of the turkeys. Nikon makes some very good consumer FX lenses, but the 28-300 is not one of them.

3. First sentence is absolutely correct. Second sentence, not necessarily. True you give up some pixels if you crop on the FF camera to give you similar framing, but a crop image is "physically" smaller, and to print an uncropped image from a DX to the same size as the FX image "cropped to the same apparent angle of view" as the DX, you will have to magnify (enlarge) the image to a greater degree, and you give away some of that increase in pixel count as it corresponds to image quality to enlargment-related amplifying of lens flaws and technique (motion blur, focus error, etc). Side by side at 16x20 you might think that the cropped FX actually looks better than the DX. You will have to test it for yourself, but that was my experience when I went from a D300 to a D700. I shoot wildlife and birds with a very long lens, and despite the few pixels when cropped, the D700 images were noticeably better than the D300 ones.

Most FX primes, even those from 3rd parties, are really good on DX.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The Nikon Lens Simulator is very good. You can spend hours playing around with bodies and lenses, and it won't cost you anything but time.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

You have summed it up well although there will be tons that try to state it differently and say that it 'isn't equivalent to a 750mm lens but is just cropping the 500mm in the middle. Nikon Canon and others call it a multiplier in order to simplify the description and I have to agree that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably in the duck family. So you are right on.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

MtnMan Loc: ID

Yes, you are right on #3.

A D8xx uses a little less than 16 MP in DX mode. A D6xx about 10MP.

Some suggest you also get a slightly sharper pic when using an FX lens on a DX camera because it uses the center less curved part of the lens which is generally thought to be more precise. I don't know if there is any truth to that or, if there was, if could see the difference.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Most owners of the 28-300, like myself, love it for its versatility.

NJphotodoc Loc: Now in the First State

I tried both manufacturer and 3rd party FX lens on my D7000, I really did not see any better images, just larger given the smaller sensor. If you are going to eventually move to something like a D750, then this is a smart choice. Otherwise, no real advantage and you will lose the wider angle shots.

TrickyDick

Thanks for all the help and comments. UHH is a great place to share and learn.

My conclusion is FX on DX cameras use the center sweet spot and keeps more pixels than comparable FX to FX for the same view and lens. Thus the quality should be better, but perhaps not by much.

No, I am not going to upgrade. I just wanted the best lens for the money. Also, for wide-angle I can go down to 50mm on that lens. I also have a DX 18-55mm and DX 55-300mm.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

My experience, with three different copies, has been different. My work demands higher performance, which, as much as I wanted to find in the 28-300, sadly was not there. Hey, I tried three different lenses, one belonging to a friend, and 2 borrowed from NPS. The results were almost ok for posting on line, but really fell short for print purposes. Glad your lens meets your needs.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

At the wide angle end, some serious optical obstacles have to be overcome to get good performance from a DX lens mounted on a full frame mirror box. ( overly large sensor to lens distance) .....on the other hand, using the sweet spot of a full frame wide angle lens on DX is highly advantageous .....ALL lenses over 250mm that I am aware of are FF -FX , there are NO long lens APSC/DX options?

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

FYI Nikon lists 2 that are DX lenses... 18-300 & 55-300...

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Thanks, I thought there would be some I missed !.......

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

[quote=Gene51]Mostly right, but with a few additional considerations:

1 and 2. Kit/consumer grade FX lenses are ok on DX. If you intend to get FX in the future, make sure you stay clear of the turkeys. Nikon makes some very good consumer FX lenses, but the 28-300 is not one of them.

From experience I agree with Gene, the 28-300 FX Lens was fantastic on my D5300 DX but when I moved up to the D600 FX it just could not make the grade any more.
Craig

amehta Loc: Boston

There are no DX zooms with a focal length longer than 55mm at the wide end. There are 55-200mm and 55-300mm DX lenses, but no 100-400mm DX lenses. As far as I know, other DX zooms are 18mm or wider at the wide end, including the typical 18-55mm and the superzoom 18-300mm. The only DX prime beyond 50mm which I know of is the 85mm macro.