Can DX lens be used on film cameras?

[Staphylococcus]

Hi,

Was wondering whether there's any difference in using DX lens on film cameras? What's the advantage of DX lenses besides it being developed for digital SLRs?

[ortega]

DX lenses have a smaller image circle.

so it can be made smaller and lighter

DX lenses can be used with FF cameras, but not fully

[Andy Ho]

That depends on which DX lenses you are talking about. Generally DX lenses produces a smaller image circle unlike non DX variants. So technically speaking DX lenses would form vignetting on your image if shot on 35mm films. But DX lenses like the 17-55mm could still be used on film camera without any sign of vignette if shot from approx. 26mm all the way to 55mm. Wider than 26mm you see vignette. The 18-70mm DX is not useable on 35mm film throughout the focal range unless of course you don't mind the vignette.

[espn]

It's easier to say no, rather than 'not use fully on FF cameras'. It only confuses people further when they don't understand and then we have to spend time explaining further.

DX glasses were never designed to be used on FF cameras in the first place, thus it's perfectly correct to say "no".

[Andy Ho]

No you can't use DX lenses on film SLR...so ESPN could save the hassle of explaining...

Take my advice ESPN...don't come into this thread if you don't bother to explain...

[espn]

Originally Posted by Andy Ho No you can't use DX lenses on film SLR...so ESPN could save the hassle of explaining... Take my advice ESPN...don't come into this thread if you don't bother to explain...

Good for you mah, then you can explain all you want and confuse people further only.

[Andy Ho]

Thanks so much! Look at my post counter, only 342 posts since I joined, excluding this one. And you have already clocked 21085 posts! That is TWENTY ONE THOUSAND AND EIGHTY-FIVE posts and counting!

If ESPN can't explain, which obviously ESPN had done many numerous explainations based on his number of post submissions, then who can???

And since ESPN had been getting a lot of from fellow CSer here, then I think ESPN should be more helpful here in getting the right info to those who don't know right? Or unless ESPN wrote the above statement because arrogance is getting the better of him and he is not wanting to share his knowledge but instead come up with sarcastic remarks like causing people to be Confused ??? I think ESPN really think people are all dimwits isn't it? That I think is very arrogant.

[espn]

Originally Posted by Andy Ho Thanks so much! Look at my post counter, only 342 posts since I joined, excluding this one. And you have already clocked 21085 posts! That is TWENTY ONE THOUSAND AND EIGHTY-FIVE posts and counting!

Tsk tsk... so post count conscientious.

Originally Posted by Andy Ho If ESPN can't explain, which obviously ESPN had done many numerous explainations based on his number of post submissions, then who can???

Then why are you blabbering and complaining about since you assume that if I can't, nobody can, so why are you still 'explaining' about DX glasses in post #3? Corny, isn't it.

Originally Posted by Andy Ho And since ESPN had been getting a lot of from fellow CSer here, then I think ESPN should be more helpful here in getting the right info to those who don't know right?

Don't make assumptions, you want to make an ass out of yourself is fine, I don't need to be made one.

Originally Posted by Andy Ho Or unless ESPN wrote the above statement because arrogance is getting the better of him and he is not wanting to share his knowledge but instead come up with sarcastic remarks like causing people to be Confused ???

Isn't it? The question is a straight forward answer of boolean value "No". Why dump the entire chapter chunk of DX usable from certain range etc etc. Tsk tsk... personal attack eh, arrogance? You talking about yourself?

Originally Posted by Andy Ho I think ESPN really think people are all dimwits isn't it? That I think is very arrogant.

No, but you happened to prove yourself valid as one. I'm arrogant only to idiots. If you can feel that I'm arrogant, it must be because you're one. I don't see the rest complaining.

[Andy Ho]

Phew!!! I think it is a waste of time arguing with people who still don't grasp what they have said. I think it's easier to say you win so that I may not confuse you further with more arguments? And waste my time finding facts to argue with you?

For me, one of the purpose I serve in CS is to help people who generally wants to know or learn. And that means imparting the truth or making them understand the facts without concealing anything.

If you think that my being a little too elaborate in my explanations to Staphylococcus which might cause him or other people here to be confused and leading on to fellow CSer here into more difficulty explaining the whole mechanics then I would say, too bad, it's not me to give a simple answer and thus concealing the full truth. Period! So shut your gap! I am off!

[espn]

Originally Posted by Andy Ho Phew!!! I think it is a waste of time arguing with people who still don't grasp what they have said. I think it's easier to say you win so that I may not confuse you further with more arguments? And waste my time finding facts to argue with you? For me, one of the purpose I serve in CS is to help people who generally wants to know or learn. And that means imparting the truth or making them understand the facts without concealing anything. If you think that my being a little too elaborate in my explanations to Staphylococcus which might cause him or other people here to be confused and leading on to fellow CSer here into more difficulty explaining the whole mechanics then I would say, too bad, it's not me to give a simple answer and thus concealing the full truth.

Heh.. trying to make yourself look good eh? You need to try harder. If you didn't want to argue and made personal attacks in the first place, I won't have bothered to reply you in the first place.

If you think you're being a saviour to the world, go ahead, I don't care, I for one, don't declare what I'm doing is for the good of others blah blah blah. It takes a conceited & insecure person to announce his actions to the world.

Not being able to use the DX glass totally/fully is a simple answer of no, mechanical, theorotical, practically a fact that "No" answers the TS' question directly.

Originally Posted by Andy Ho Period! So shut your gap! I am off!

Haha... Trying to end the case with hard comments and making an ungraceful exit by imposing his absence with a command that one need not pay any attention to.

[dslang]

Originally Posted by espn Not being able to use the DX glass totally/fully is a simple answer of no, mechanical, theorotical, practically a fact that "No" answers the TS' question directly.

what?!! using DX lenses on my nikon film cameras gives me a cool vignetting effect, esp. with bw film. isn't this desired for by everybody? in fact, i know quite a few people who now vignette very obviously in photoshop. why not save yourself the artistic integrity and do it on the camera?! no need photoshop!

*goes to portraits&poses forum to proclaim my findings*

[F5user]

Originally Posted by Andy Ho Phew!!! I think it is a waste of time arguing with people who still don't grasp what they have said. I think it's easier to say you win so that I may not confuse you further with more arguments? And waste my time finding facts to argue with you? For me, one of the purpose I serve in CS is to help people who generally wants to know or learn. And that means imparting the truth or making them understand the facts without concealing anything. If you think that my being a little too elaborate in my explanations to Staphylococcus which might cause him or other people here to be confused and leading on to fellow CSer here into more difficulty explaining the whole mechanics then I would say, too bad, it's not me to give a simple answer and thus concealing the full truth. Period! So shut your gap! I am off!

sad hor....

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by Andy Ho That depends on which DX lenses you are talking about. Generally DX lenses produces a smaller image circle unlike non DX variants. So technically speaking DX lenses would form vignetting on your image if shot on 35mm films. But DX lenses like the 17-55mm could still be used on film camera without any sign of vignette if shot from approx. 26mm all the way to 55mm. Wider than 26mm you see vignette. The 18-70mm DX is not useable on 35mm film throughout the focal range unless of course you don't mind the vignette.

Have you tried it? My experience with the 17-55 is that at 55mm, there is still a very slight hint of vignetting, anything shorter, you will see that the the vignetting is unacceptable unless you are prepared to just crop out the centre. So my answer to the TS's question is - no. It can be mounted on a FF body but there is really no point in doing so because the image circle is only sufficient for a DX sized sensor.

[Staphylococcus]

Thanks for the info to all CSers. I'm asking because I own a D70 and also a F60. Was juz wondering what are the effects of using DX lenses. Now I know of the vignetting effect. Didn't want to use a DX lens on film and shoot only to result in poor images.

Some clarification needed on "image circle". Is this what is captured on the sensors (digital)?


P/S: No need for 'mud-slinging' on this thread. I can take all sorts of replies. Nice ones, I read and appreciate, bad ones I juz don't bother. But thanks anyway!

[espn]

Originally Posted by lsisaxon Have you tried it? My experience with the 17-55 is that at 55mm, there is still a very slight hint of vignetting, anything shorter, you will see that the the vignetting is unacceptable unless you are prepared to just crop out the centre. So my answer to the TS's question is - no. It can be mounted on a FF body but there is really no point in doing so because the image circle is only sufficient for a DX sized sensor.

Bingo... I have no idea why people take things soooooooooooooooo seriously and they have to announce to the whole world they're doing good. So much for humility.

lsisaxon most PRO liao

[theRBK]

Originally Posted by Staphylococcus Some clarification needed on "image circle". Is this what is captured on the sensors (digital)?

"Image circle" is the area that the lens projects on the plane of the imaging device that is usable for the creation of an image. Preferably, the "image circle" so projected should be reasonably distortion free and with minimal light fall off...and any area where such defects are unacceptable would be considered outside the "image circle"...

any better explanations?

[Artosoft]

This question is similar like: "Can I put vertical grip on D70/D50/D70s?".

Regards,
Arto.

[markccm]

iirc, there is a portion in the DX lens manual that states it cannot be used with a film SLR.

think Nikon has made it clear that the DX range is clearly for digital.

even though there r some exceptions at a limited focal length, it does not make sense to claim it's use on film.

i mean who would buy a 17-55 F2.8 DX to use say 24mm-35mm? (just an example)

[Staphylococcus]

Thanks to all who replied. Appreciate the information.

As always, I'm learning new things everyday.

Cheers

[Andy Ho]

Originally Posted by lsisaxon Have you tried it? My experience with the 17-55 is that at 55mm, there is still a very slight hint of vignetting, anything shorter, you will see that the the vignetting is unacceptable unless you are prepared to just crop out the centre. So my answer to the TS's question is - no. It can be mounted on a FF body but there is really no point in doing so because the image circle is only sufficient for a DX sized sensor.

Hi Isisaxon,

Yes I have tried it on a roll of E100 slides film. It was shot when I first bought my lens and I shot it without filters so I guess that is why I don't see any vignette. With filters on it would probably look like those shot with super wide angle with polarizing filters attached.

I tested it because I read it in Thom Hogan's review and decided to try it out. I know there is no reason to bother as it is clearly a DX lens but I am just trying out to see if I could always bring my film camera along with my digital so that I can use that lens since I am left with only prime lenses for film camera now and it will be heavy and inconvenient to bring all on long treks.