Check out Film Photography section of our forum.
DX-FX Compatible
Jul 16, 2015 13:26:00 #
kfoo
Loc: Arkansas
I have a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm 1:3.5-5.6 G ED lens. I am thinking about buying a DX format Nikon. Will this lens work with the DX sensor?
Jul 16, 2015 13:31:01 #
kfoo
Loc: Arkansas
I messed up in my last post. I meant that I was thinking about getting an FX format camera , not a DX format. Sorry about the confusion.
Jul 16, 2015 13:49:56 #
In a word, sorta but not so well. Your f/3.5-5.6 is a DX lens which will not cover the entire full frame sensor. You can compensate by switching the FX body to crop mode and lose a lot of pixels, like a 24MP body will turn off the outside pixels leaving you with only 10 MP.
Much better option, other than $, is the AF-s Nikkor 24-120mm 1:4 G ED. That's a $1300 lens, but I got a most excellent used one for about $900.
That's just part of the deal moving to FX. Be prepared to mortgage your house for lenses.
Option #3, before digital, all Nikon lenses were FX and there are some really good AF-Nikkors out there, sometimes less than $100.
Much better option, other than $, is the AF-s Nikkor 24-120mm 1:4 G ED. That's a $1300 lens, but I got a most excellent used one for about $900.
That's just part of the deal moving to FX. Be prepared to mortgage your house for lenses.
Option #3, before digital, all Nikon lenses were FX and there are some really good AF-Nikkors out there, sometimes less than $100.
Check out The Dynamics of Photographic Lighting section of our forum.
Jul 16, 2015 13:50:56 #
Jul 16, 2015 13:52:20 #
imagemeister wrote:
Yes, ......but that lens does not have a good reputation.
Since we were typing at the same time, I think you mean the 24-120 DX does not have a good reputation. The FX version is first rate.
Jul 16, 2015 13:53:45 #
OddJobber wrote:
In a word, sorta but not so well. Your f/3.5-5.6 ... (show quote)
The 3.5-5.6 lens IS a film lens and therefore FX. You will need a body with a focus motor to drive it.
Jul 16, 2015 14:00:03 #
imagemeister wrote:
The 3.5-5.6 lens IS a film lens and therefore FX. You will need a body with a focus motor to drive it.
But don't all the Nikon FX bodies have in-body focus motors?
Jul 16, 2015 14:07:37 #
OddJobber wrote:
But don't all the Nikon FX bodies have in-body focus motors?
I am not a Nikon expert , ....but I imagine that is is true come to think about it. It is hard to keep up with Nikon stuff.
Jul 16, 2015 14:19:17 #
imagemeister wrote:
The 3.5-5.6 lens IS a film lens and therefore FX. You will need a body with a focus motor to drive it.
While this lens is indeed a full frame (FX) lens it is also an AF-S lens which means it has a built-in focus motor.
Ken Rockwell has this lens on his Nikon 's 10 worst lens list...says it is not sharp, even stopped down.
Jul 16, 2015 14:34:01 #
flip1948 wrote:
While this lens is indeed a full frame (FX) lens it is also an AF-S lens which means it has a built-in focus motor.
Ken Rockwell has this lens on his Nikon 's 10 worst lens list...says it is not sharp, even stopped down.
Ken Rockwell has this lens on his Nikon 's 10 worst lens list...says it is not sharp, even stopped down.
I agree with Ken, I didn't like mine either.
It was not very sharp...about equal to my old 43-86.
I am seriously considering getting the newest version.
It's supposed to be very good.
Renting first though.
Jul 16, 2015 14:40:24 #
imagemeister wrote:
The 3.5-5.6 lens IS a film lens and therefore FX.
:oops: :oops: :oops: Oops, uh-oh, and damn me! You're right, it's FX. I think I was thrown by a comment that it has "extended range on DX", just their way of saying it's angle of view is equivalent to higher mm's when used on DX. So apologies for any confusion I caused.
DX lenses have "DX" in their name and are prominently marked DX on the lens itself. :|
Check out Infrared Photography section of our forum.
Jul 16, 2015 14:41:50 #
GoofyNewfie wrote:
I agree with Ken, I didn't like mine either.
It was not very sharp...about equal to my old 43-86.
It was not very sharp...about equal to my old 43-86.
I never quite understood the zoom range on the 43-86....seemed silly.
Jul 16, 2015 14:53:33 #
GoofyNewfie wrote:
I am seriously considering getting the newest version.
It's supposed to be very good.
Renting first though.
It's supposed to be very good.
Renting first though.
Save your rental money, Goofy. Rockwell and DXO Marks and The Oddjobber all like the new version and that's good enough for me. :XD: Ken recommends the 28-300 for it's longer range and lower price though.
Jul 16, 2015 14:54:10 #
flip1948 wrote:
I never quite understood the zoom range on the 43-86....seemed silly.
:thumbup:
I went back to primes.
Not long enough or short enough or fast enough.
Did Nikon unintentionally make the first soft-focus zoom?
Originally made around 1963 and used on the Nikkorex fixed lens slr.
The newer ones were touted to be better, but that was probably not a hard thing to do.
Jul 16, 2015 15:01:01 #
OddJobber wrote:
Save your rental money, Goofy. Rockwell and DXO Marks and The Oddjobber all like the new version and that's good enough for me. :XD: Ken recommends the 28-300 for it's longer range and lower price though.
Thanks for the tip.
The 28-300 is a very good performer, but it stays in the cabinet most of the time-
it's too slow & not wide enough for most of my regular shooting, which is indoors.
It comes out of hiding for golf tournaments.
Belongs to my boss (not a pro but he's pretty dang good) and I try to treat it nicely.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.