DX Lens on D600 FX

DHunterDHunter Posts: 5Member
edited February 2013 in Nikon DSLR cameras
I did not see a thread on this so here are some things I discovered and also question. This is seat of the pants eyeball calculations.
I very recently decided on a D600. Having moved up thru the D70, D200, D300 I have a few nice DX lenses. I plan to still carry the D300 like I did the D200 as a back up.
I read about and realize the difference in image size. I know about the DX mode on the D600 that drops to about 10.3 megapixel.
However I tried the DX lenses with out going to DX mode on the D600 to see what the results were. I can crop what I want myself. It shows 24.2 megapixel in the file.
My 12-24 DX is usable as a 16-24 without vignetting or getting the "tunnel vision"
My 17-55 DX (my favorite) becomes a 24-55
The 16-85 DX, dark corners at all focal lengths on the FX but turned out to be a very sharp lens on the DX cameras. Center crop possible.
So not being too proud to TRY a 24-85 "kit" lens, especially for the kit price (could be a mis-nomenclature of past stigma associated with that name), I shot some with my 70-200 2.8 and compared to the same zoom level on each and can say at 50% pixel peeping, yea, there is a slight edge difference, but not much. Depends on what you are shooting for. Prints looked about the same.
I don't shoot many resolution charts and don't mind some technical reviews about what they call problems with just about every lens out there.
The proof is in the image and what you are going to do with it.
Looks like this may open me up to an 85 for a prime.
So I do have some close overlap but depending on the intended project there are some good options.
The 17-55 has been a steller lens and what I use in the studio the most on the D300 but will probably shoot some 1000 plus images for my daughters dance studio with it this year on the D600. That's just two to three days of shooting!
Post edited by DHunter on


  • KnockKnockKnockKnock Posts: 382Member
    Am I reading this right, that the 12-24 and 17-55 are good on the wider sides, but zoomed they lose something (vignetting?) but they're okay as wide zooms?

    I haven't seen many comments, but could you compare your 16-85 on the D300 to shooting in DX crop mode on the D600? I would expect an improvement in a couple generations of sensor improvements. Maybe not much difference in resolution (numerical step back). Most people say it's a waste, but I think the modern vs. old might have something to say here.

    It's as if someone said, here's a modern 10MP APS-C camera with huge photo sensor sites, awesome hi-ISO capability and 120% viewfinder coverage.

    ... crazy ... ?
    D7100, D60, 35mm f/1.8 DX, 50mm f/1.4, 18-105mm DX, 18-55mm VR II, Sony RX-100 ii
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,200Moderator
    @DHunter: What aperture did you try those lenses at?
    Always learning.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,176Member
    edited February 2013
    sorry but you lost me after "The 16-85 DX, fegetaboutit ... " I am not sure which lenses you are comparing and and which observations relating to which lens.. sorry.. please clarify ? Thanks

    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    @ DHunter

    A good way to demonstrate your point is to post a photo on PAD. And if one has it first on a photo site such as Flickr at full size, it allows a nice look at how the sharpness works out.
    Msmoto, mod
  • DHunterDHunter Posts: 5Member
    edited February 2013
    As mentioned this was not a scientific technical study, just what I observed and first impression.

    Just the opposite, KnockKnock. The DX at wider focal lengths I get the barrel effect or darkened corners. There is still sufficient area to crop that out and get a fairly good image.

    I tried F5.6 and F16 and used the preview, nothing changes.

    My 12-24 DX is usable as a 16-24 without vignetting or getting the "tunnel vision"
    My 17-55 DX (my favorite) becomes a 24-55
    The 16-85 DX, dark corners at all focal lengths on the FX but turned out to be a very sharp lens on the DX cameras, so hopefully even better on the FX sensor. Center crop possible, "about" DX coverage.

    I welcome these replies as I want to learn more about how this will work. I would like input from anyone else that has tried this.
    I will try to put up some images.
    Sorry, what is PAD? Might be simple but remember I'm new at some of this posting.
    Bear with me as I try to get up to speed on the abbreviations.
    Post edited by DHunter on
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,289Member
    PAD is the "Photo-A-Day" thread, currently up for February at the top of the post list
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • ElvisheferElvishefer Posts: 329Member
    The 35 f/1.8 is a decent dx/fx crossover lens. There is some vignetting on fx depending on aperture but the net results are decent. My experience is with a D700.
    D700, 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, 24-70mm f/2.8, 14-24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4G, 200mm f/4 Micro, 105mm f/2.8 VRII Micro, 35mm f/1.8, 2xSB900, 1xSB910, R1C1, RRS Support...

    ... And no time to use them.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited February 2013
    @ DHunter PAD = Photo-A-Day


    Post photo on your Flickr account.
    From your Photostream click the photo one time.
    Now at the top left is a “Share” tab.
    CLICK this and from the “Grab the HTML/BBCode” select the “Medium 640 (xxx x 640) size HTML Code.
    COPY the code shown in the window <a href="etc,,,

    Then WRITE your comments in your post and PASTE the HTML code from Flickr.

    There may be other ways to get photos up, but this one works.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,200Moderator
    I tried F5.6 and F16 and used the preview, nothing changes."

    The worst problems would always be at the wide open end and perhaps diminishing at the more stopped down end. You really need to start wide open and see when the vignetting goes away (if it goes away). View it large on a PC/Mac screen to notice it most easily.

    BTW: My handle is Spraynpray.
    Always learning.
  • lionoliono Posts: 9Member

    I agree - I sometimes use my 35mm f/1.8 on my D600 and really like the results. Obviously there's some distortion on the edges but I think the natural vignette is actually really nice, especially when shooting in low light.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    I have seen mostly the same thing on my D800 with DX lenses.
    12-24mm f/4 Tokina - usable from 16mm+. 18mm+works as it should.
    35mm 1.8 - I actually use this quite a bit. Vignetting is there though the whole f-stop range. Auto lens profile in the camera removes the vignetting at f/5.6+. It has a "look" to it and I like it. If you are a very technical shooter you won't like it.

    I have borrowed and used a few zooms just for fun on it and they work fairly well after zooming the first 1/4 of the lens. In a pinch you could get away from it. I wouldn't use them every day though. Optics don't change from body, if they were good on DX the DX portion on a FX sensor will be good too.

    I have looked at the 24-85VR "kit" lens, and it is about 100 steps better than any kit lens I have seen. I wouldn't shoot my pro stuff with it, but family and ram-around stuff it seems to be pretty good. I do like that for video it is about the quietest AF lens out there. That's its real advantage.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
Sign In or Register to comment.