FX Primes on DX bodies

tcole1983

You can't tell the difference...and buy whatever lenses fit your needs. As you shoot DX with FX lenses or eventually FX with FX lenses. Just don't invest in more DX glass unless you plan on staying DX. You might have to compromise for a bit if you try to save FX glass for an FX body down the line...especially when it comes to zooms they don't really match up because of the cropping factor...however there are an array of primes that work well on DX and FX.

FX lens on DX body




Dx lens on DX body

NSXTypeR

Different strokes for different folks. I don't foresee myself moving to FX anytime soon. That's not to say I don't own FX lenses. I have the 50mm 1.2 and the 105mm macro. But until I run my D7000 into the ground, I won't be buying any other new camera bodies. The FX 35mm 1.8 wasn't available when I got my DX 35mm 1.8, and even if it was, it is currently triple the price of the DX 35mm 1.8. Those $400 (before tax) I've saved could have been used somewhere else- (maybe a PS4 with Arkham Knight and Metal Gear Solid 5 or something. )

That's why I want Nikon to make wide DX primes, they cover less of the imaging circle, so in theory they should be cheaper.

I don't think you should limit yourself to only FX lenses even if they seem to be the obvious upgrade path. The 35mm 1.8 is my favorite lens on DX and one of the most versatile lenses that I use. I've gotten more than my fair share of keepers on it. That lens came out in 2009. The 35mm FX lens came out last year. I would not have gotten many of the photos I really liked if I had waited for that FX lens.

Like others have said, if you obviously have the money, then spring for the FX lenses, but don't make it the end all or be all.

JonMcGuffin

We don't all have to agree in a discussion of course - that's fine - but nobody seems to have given any thought to my point that the next camera the op buys may not even use F mount lenses except maybe via an adaptor. So as I said, why buy FX lenses at this time when the future of the F mount lenses is uncertain? We are talking about 6 years at a time when mirrorless FX and DX are getting very close.

I honestly don't feel that F mount is at risk at all. Yes Nikon may come out with another mount but that doesn't mean that they are going to abandon F mount anytime soon, not likely in our lifetime. Take for instance the two brand new 500mm and 600mm $10,000 lenses just released. No way they are releasing lenses the way they have been with any plan in sight to abandon the mount that has been working for what.. Like a hundred years?

The OP along with all of us will upgrade far sooner than the F mount becoming a thing of the past... Also note the D5 which is Nikon's flagship body will arrive with a F mount...

Pistnbroke

D7200?? If on a buget why not get the D7100. Unless you need the extr buffer for birding/Sport etc then there is no difference in picture quality

spraynpray

We don't all have to agree in a discussion of course - that's fine - but nobody seems to have given any thought to my point that the next camera the op buys may not even use F mount lenses except maybe via an adaptor. So as I said, why buy FX lenses at this time when the future of the F mount lenses is uncertain? We are talking about 6 years at a time when mirrorless FX and DX are getting very close.

I honestly don't feel that F mount is at risk at all. Yes Nikon may come out with another mount but that doesn't mean that they are going to abandon F mount anytime soon, not likely in our lifetime. Take for instance the two brand new 500mm and 600mm $10,000 lenses just released. No way they are releasing lenses the way they have been with any plan in sight to abandon the mount that has been working for what.. Like a hundred years?

The OP along with all of us will upgrade far sooner than the F mount becoming a thing of the past... Also note the D5 which is Nikon's flagship body will arrive with a F mount...

I never said Nikon would abandon the F mount, I said it may not be used on the next DX/FX mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras that most people will agree are coming. It could be that if Nikon want to get the best out of a mirrorless design, they should have an entirely separate range of lenses to use with it. All I am saying is that there are more reasons to buy DX lenses for a D7200 than there are to buy FX lenses for it given the uncertain future regarding bodies as we know them and bearing in mind the 6 year refresh cycle of the op.

Let's meet up here in 6 years and see if any of my guesswork turns out true.

WestEndFoto

We don't all have to agree in a discussion of course - that's fine - but nobody seems to have given any thought to my point that the next camera the op buys may not even use F mount lenses except maybe via an adaptor. So as I said, why buy FX lenses at this time when the future of the F mount lenses is uncertain? We are talking about 6 years at a time when mirrorless FX and DX are getting very close.

I honestly don't feel that F mount is at risk at all. Yes Nikon may come out with another mount but that doesn't mean that they are going to abandon F mount anytime soon, not likely in our lifetime. Take for instance the two brand new 500mm and 600mm $10,000 lenses just released. No way they are releasing lenses the way they have been with any plan in sight to abandon the mount that has been working for what.. Like a hundred years?

The OP along with all of us will upgrade far sooner than the F mount becoming a thing of the past... Also note the D5 which is Nikon's flagship body will arrive with a F mount...

I never said Nikon would abandon the F mount, I said it may not be used on the next DX/FX mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras that most people will agree are coming. It could be that if Nikon want to get the best out of a mirrorless design, they should have an entirely separate range of lenses to use with it. All I am saying is that there are more reasons to buy DX lenses for a D7200 than there are to buy FX lenses for it given the uncertain future regarding bodies as we know them and bearing in mind the 6 year refresh cycle of the op.

Let's meet up here in 6 years and see if any of my guesswork turns out true.

You seem to be saying to somebody that wants "A" instead of "B" to buy "B", not "A", because Nikon might come out with "C". This is the logic that I am not following.

Pick the lenses you want, then buy the right camera for those lenses. All you have to consider is the narrower field of view if you buy a DX camera.

tcole1983

The zooms on the wide end are the only place that DX and FX lenses aren't really equivalent. Because of the cropping distance the FX lenses are usually not wide enough. However in all other cases...using and lens made by Nikon on DX is just fine. So if one wants a wide zoom they have to go with a DX if you want wider angles at the 16-18mm range...otherwise get whatever lenses one needs or wants. Of course FX lenses usually come at a premium such as the 35 F1.8 or the 24-70 vs the 17-55.

JonMcGuffin

D7200?? If on a buget why not get the D7100. Unless you need the extr buffer for birding/Sport etc then there is no difference in picture quality

It's true if budget is a concern, the D7100 is just fine. Peter is posting up here links to grey market D7200's for around $890. Stellar bang for buck camera...

I'm convinced Nikon is starting to price their bodies like HP and Epsom price their printers. Bring 'em in on a inexpensive body and stick it to them in lenses. Their lenses keep going up and up and bodies are more attractively priced than ever.

WestEndFoto

D7200?? If on a buget why not get the D7100. Unless you need the extr buffer for birding/Sport etc then there is no difference in picture quality

It's true if budget is a concern, the D7100 is just fine. Peter is posting up here links to grey market D7200's for around $890. Stellar bang for buck camera...

I'm convinced Nikon is starting to price their bodies like HP and Epsom price their printers. Bring 'em in on a inexpensive body and stick it to them in lenses. Their lenses keep going up and up and bodies are more attractively priced than ever.

I don't really see that. The US dollar is going up which puts upwards pressure on items that are traded in it. Lenses do not go down much over time, so this effect will be noticeable with lenses. You can argue that lens prices are not going up, but the currency you buy them in is going down. This is certainly true of the Canadian dollar.

Cameras on the other hand, depreciate quickly, though not as quickly if the currency that you buy them in is going down.

PB_PM

I don't really see that. The US dollar is going up which puts upwards pressure on items that are traded in it. Lenses do not go down much over time, so this effect will be noticeable with lenses. You can argue that lens prices are not going up, but the currency you buy them in is going down. This is certainly true of the Canadian dollar.

Cameras on the other hand, depreciate quickly, though not as quickly if the currency that you buy them in is going down.

The market is very cruel right now, partially for cameras, and while less so lenses it's still bad. All the camera shops, at least ones around Vancouver, that take trade ins are doing it based on the US price, even in the face of the fallen dollar. If a lens is fetching $900 USD on eBay, you get $900 Canadian on trade. It sucks, but that is what they seem to be doing.

It's surprising, that even in the face of price increases on new lenses, the used prices are still hanging in at much lower levels. I recently traded in my excellent, but not seeing much use anymore, 24-70mm F2.8G. That's a lens that goes for around $1800 brand new. Trade in value? $980. They rated my lens as a 8/10 due to cosmetic ware (lens barrel and rubber showed heavy signs of use ) and prefect glass. The store sold it for $1200. A privet sale would have generated more cash, but by the time I would have been done with eBay and Paypal fees it wouldn't have been much better. Not to mention the time wasted selling it.

Moral of the story? Don't buy lenses as an investment, cause they an't one!

niemeyjt

D7200?? If on a buget why not get the D7100. Unless you need the extr buffer for birding/Sport etc then there is no difference in picture quality

In UK, the 7200 is £100 more than 7100 before the current offer. After the current offer is costed in the 7100 is about £100 more expensive.

I like the idea of running DX and FX together rather than switching to FX later. Makes a lot of sense at the telephoto end of things - and given similarity of controls between 7200 and 750 this will work well.

As for six year upgrade cycle - this was due to me buying a compact Lumix camera in interim which I hate using - great on paper, lousy in practice. With modern mobiles able to replace the Lumix at one end of the scale, a decent SLR will cover other end.

Thanks to all for their thoughts

heartyfisher

Hi niemeyjt
You are buying now whic is at a time when a change is in the wind.. its there for all to see if you know where to look :-) I think you need to consider the following points raised so far.

1) Mirrorless is on the way ? it is here now ! the slow moving behemoths that is Nikon will still use Fmount for the next 5 years as it transitions to Mirrorless if they are able to do it successfully which I hope they will (I am sure they will wont they?)

2) FX glass .. For use on DX, there are 2 types, good glass and bad glass, good glass gets better on DX, bad glass gets worst on DX. You will need to differentiate.. no use getting bad FX glass for your DX kit and suffer the weakness till you can get an FX camera. If you have time to reserch teh difference then go for it.. if not better to get DX glass..

3) there are many great DX lenses out there .. unfortunately the best ones are not from Nikon. the close second best ones are from Nikon .. however the far third ones are also not form nikon.

The D7200 is a great kit I have ordered one.. expecting to get it by the end of this week!! I decided not to get the D750 and keep my D610. The D7200 is for upgrading my D7000 which I will be selling soon.
I was planing to get the D7200 for a while now.. just waiting for the right time which was 2 weeks ago.. it was on sale.. and its gone back up I saved $200 (happy as a lark!)

I have the D70 same sensor as the D40.. Its a good sensor however the DR of the D7000 and D7200 are miles above .. You will love it .. If you are thinking of FX the D600/D610 is good value but I would go with ethe D7200 if I were you.. I plan to be keeping my D7200 for the longest time and wait for the mirrorless dust to settle I plan to be selling a whole bunch of gear in the next six month to consolidate my kit.

One of the really great things about the D7200 is that you have a choice of lots of great Old glass to play with..many are cheap on second hand. I will be selling lots of lenses and stuff but I will be keeping some old nikkor glass for their special flavour !

Msmoto

One of the interesting points of all discussions is that we really do not know what the future will bring. While i think the "F" mount will be around, there may be advances in imaging within five years none of us can even imagine at present.

DX lenses may be more economical, and as to quality, for the vast majority of us, are quite sufficient unless we have a billboard or special use for an image. Or, just want to use the larger format....

DX on FX? Well, always an opportunity to show my 10.5mm modified so as to be of some use on FX.....latest:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/19280241568/in/datetaken-public/

Ironheart

Good glass, bad glass, sounds subjective to me :-) depends on what you are trying to achieve. I have 50 year old glass, 25 year old glass, and 25 week old glass. All have plus and minus, just need to decide what "look" you want. Nikon 1 has an adaptor for F, aptly named the FT-1. If Nikon comes out with a Mirrorless mount, they will make an adaptor called the FT-M or whatever it's called. My theory is it will just be a 20mm extension ring (The FT-1 is really an extension/adaptor ring) with an actuator for moving the mechanical aperture lever. This allows Nikon to say "we're still using the F mount, just optimized for mirrorless" meaning "we've moved the lens 20mm closer to the sensor".
Investment? I think of all of my lenses and bodies as an investment... In my happiness. I'll leave it to the executors of my estate to figure out the ROI :-)) If you buy used, you can likely sell it for roughly what you paid for it, sometimes more, sometimes less. If you want to know how much a premium new is, look at the used market, that's what your new lens is worth on the used market.

heartyfisher

good FX glass / bad FX glass for DX cameras..
Good : when the centre IQ is good so that when used in the smaller image circle of the DX frame the sensor doesn't out resolve the lense resulting is good images. Bad when the DX sensor out resolves the lense .. the images looks soft or lots of coma or fuzzyness or chromatic aberration. when the "Bad" lense is used on FX the larger pixels can not resolve the CA or COMA, or blur. other attributes is if the lense is not built with good internal anti reflective design which results in lost of contrast when used on DX bodies.

spraynpray

So do Nikon need to publish a list of lenses good enough for the D7100/7200 now? :-/

Ironheart

@hearty, Do you have any examples? As a D7200 owner, and the owner of several FX lenses, I haven't seen anything like you are talking about. I've also rented the "big guns" and plopped them on D5100 and D7000 without any issues. So far I've used all these FX lenses on DX:

Prime:
20mm f/1.8
28mm f/1.8
50mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.8
50mm f/2
85mm f/1.8
600mm f/4
Zoom:
70-300 f/4.5
24-120 f/4

All of these seemed fine to me.

WestEndFoto

So do Nikon need to publish a list of lenses good enough for the D7100/7200 now? :-/

Heartyfisher can do it. I imagine that the perceptual megapixel measurement that DXO publishes would be a good place too start.

heartyfisher

I wrote a long reply .. and its lost .. too lazy to type it all in again ,.. summarise .. you have "good" fx glass there @ironheart :-)

I am having problems accessing the forum ... :-( admin says it not his end .. I dunno whats happening .. I can get slow access to the main blog .. and times out on the forum .. I am posting here now through a free web proxy :-( that crashes once in a while :-(

Ironheart

@hearty, can you give some examples or just a quick list of which ones to avoid?

JonMcGuffin

You guys really need to see this...


Important to watch the whole way through. I'm actually a pretty big fan of Tony Northrup but I feel he honestly gets a few things completely wrong here. What do you think?

BVS

In answer to OP's question:
Yes, FX primes work fine on DX bodies. However, the field of view (FOV) is narrower because the smaller DX sensor is only using a small portion of the image circle cast by the FX lens.

In response to getting a 7200 instead of 750 due to budget reasons:
You mentioned starting with the 35mm on the 7200. Two questions:

1. Are you basing your decision on the cost of buying 'new'?

2. Did you pick that because you like the 35mm FOV on DX or because you like the 35mm FOV on FX?

If you answer "Yes" and "FOV on DX", consider that 35mm DX is similar to 50mm FX and then re-look at the numbers:

D7200 (New): $1,200
FX 35mm 1.8 (New): $600
Total: $1,800

D750 (Refurb): $1,800*
FX 50mm 1.8 (Refurb): $170*
Total: $1,970

Difference: $170

Furthermore, if you were to wait for one of Nikon's 10% off refurbished sales (which happen nearly every holiday) the D750 combo would actually be cheaper.

At the end of the day though, if you have a compelling reason for wanting the D750 and plan to use it for a number of years, I'd do whatever you have to do to get it. Personally, I'd rather spend the next 6 years enjoying it and knowing I got the thing I wanted rather than have the nagging thought in the back of my head wishing I'd gotten something else.

*Buying from nikonusa.com. Other sellers may be cheaper.

spraynpray

In answer to OP's question:
Yes, FX primes work fine on DX bodies. However, the field of view (FOV) is narrower because the smaller DX sensor is only using a small portion of the image circle cast by the FX lens.

The field of view of a 35mm FX lens and a 35mm DX lens are the same on a DX body. The difference is the diameter of the image circle of the FX lens is bigger than the DX lens. The amount used by the DX body is the same.

BVS

The field of view of a 35mm FX lens and a 35mm DX lens are the same on a DX body. The difference is the diameter of the image circle of the FX lens is bigger than the DX lens. The amount used by the DX body is the same.

Agreed. I was just noting that the 35mm FX on DX FOV was different than the 35mm FX on FX FOV, since it sounded like the OP wanted to get the 35mm FX lens.

JonMcGuffin

I can't believe I'm not hearing any feedback on Tony's video. He's saying that you have to multiply both the focal length and aperature by the crop factor, but he says this has to do with light gathering ability as well as DOF. That's just not true..