Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: 40Eridani
Jan 18, 2022 21:46:09   #
larryepage wrote:
...
So yes, FX lenses can be really useful on DX cameras. Sometimes, they can be an unexpected treasure.


That's what I was thinking and it's good to hear. Now of course the challenge is to find out which FX lenses are, like your 18-35mm, a treasure.
Go to
Jan 18, 2022 20:20:38   #
CHG_CANON wrote:
What if you like wide? A 10mm FX lens is a fisheye, but gets you a wide 15mm effective focal length with a DX lens. There's many valid reasons when you think about it, beyond the generally accepted theories.


An outlier example in my case.
Go to
Jan 18, 2022 20:13:14   #
CHG_CANON wrote:
You pay more typically for a lens that can't use 50% of the sensor coverage. The FX lenses are larger and heavier. You can find some utubers that say FX actually doesn't deliver better images on a DX body. You don't have the 18-xxx superzoom options from FX lenses. If your sensor throws away 50% of the frame, how will you ever achieve your potential as a photographer with an FX lens?


True on paying more but if the amount of light that I can use is better corrected, it might be worth it.

I'm not sure I follow you on your last statement.
Go to
Jan 18, 2022 20:02:29   #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Yes, that's the generally accepted theory.


OK, so then the logical, follow on question would be, why not therefore, seek out FX lenses for my DX camera in order to obtain sharper images across the field?
Go to
Jan 18, 2022 18:46:45   #
A previous question that I asked has prompted a new, slightly related one.

As I now understand it, FX lenses produce a larger light cone (circle) at the sensor then do DX ones.

So given that, suppose you have an FX lens that is less sharp at the edges/corners than at the center. Would such a lens tend to have better corner/edge sharpness when used on a DX body?
Go to
Jan 18, 2022 18:28:27   #
CHG_CANON wrote:
You were correct in the smaller 'light cone' projected by the DX lens onto a smaller sensor size. The frame around the rear-end of the lens does not impact that circle size.


So what might be the purpose of that rectangular mask on the AF-P lenses?
Go to
Jan 18, 2022 18:23:25   #
therwol wrote:
Regardless of any masking by a frame or not, DX lenses are designed to cover only the area of an APS-C sensor, which is smaller than a full frame sensor. Some lenses are designed to cover even smaller sensors like 4/3 or 1 inch. If you put a DX lens on an FX camera, the camera will likely limit the area of the sensor used to the APS-C size with a loss of many pixels it would otherwise use. If you override this cropping, you still won't get an image that will cover the entire FX sensor, and it will look pretty bad around the image you do get.
Regardless of any masking by a frame or not, DX le... (show quote)


OK. So optically, the size of the light cone being delivered by the DX lens to the sensor is only large enough to cover an APS-C sensor and insufficient to do so on a full size sensor. Correct?
Go to
Jan 18, 2022 18:14:50   #
I've got three AF-P DX lenses. Looking at the camera side of each I see a rectangular frame which I originally figured was the thing that made them DX. That is, it restricted the size of the light cone exiting the lens to match the size of the APS-C sensor. But, looking now at two of my other DX lenses (35mm f/1.8 & 55-200 VRII) I see no such frame, only a full, unobstructed optic.

So what makes these two DX?
Go to
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.