DX vs non-DX lens ....

[erictan8888]

hi,

trying to understand the main difference between DX and non-DX lens....
besides the fact that DX lens can't really (or not so ok) to use on film and FF DSLR.....

can someone enlighten?

thanks

[TMC]

DX lens designed for APS sensors thus the image circle and size is smaller compared to those non DX lens.

Both ok to use on digital and film cameras, but the DX will have its useable range restricted due the the size of its image circle.

[erictan8888]

so DX lens is cheaper to make?
or easier?

is DX lens more optimally catered to DSLR or should we say more suitable?
but if so, we have a lot of non-DX lens that perform better than DX lens....

what is the reason that Nikon is producing DX lens?

[TMC]

Smaller, Cheaper, how much better/worse no idea. Some good some bad. Most of the DX lenses are the consumer level, eg the 18-70 isnt bad. The better ones 17-55 or the 105VR are good also. DX lens is suppose to cater to the aps sensor size due to the image circle, can use on film but why? esp when the film area is larger.

[Tetrode]

Originally Posted by erictan8888 so DX lens is cheaper to make? or easier?

Yes

Originally Posted by erictan8888 is DX lens more optimally catered to DSLR or should we say more suitable?

Yes

Originally Posted by erictan8888 but if so, we have a lot of non-DX lens that perform better than DX lens.... ?

For dSLRs, the DX lenses will in most cases perform better bec they are optimised for the DX format.

Originally Posted by erictan8888 what is the reason that Nikon is producing DX lens?

Profit.


I dislike DX and G lenses.

[ExplorerZ]

One thing i love about DX lens is that you can get a longer range of focal length yet maintaining the same aperture like 17-55DX against 17-35...

[Jimbotan]

Originally Posted by TMC Smaller, Cheaper, how much better/worse no idea. Some good some bad. Most of the DX lenses are the consumer level, eg the 18-70 isnt bad. The better ones 17-55 or the 105VR are good also. DX lens is suppose to cater to the aps sensor size due to the image circle, can use on film but why? esp when the film area is larger.

105VR is not DX la.....

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by Tetrode Profit. I dislike DX and G lenses.

I won't say that Nikon is making DX lenses for profit, but rather to make wide angle lenses more affordable on a DX-sized sensor. The angle of view is equivalent to lenses with focal lengths 1.5x longer. A 28mm wide angle would no longer be as wide anymore. An 18mm that covers the whole 35mm frame would cost a lot more because it's more difficult to make to perfection.

If you don't need the extra coverage, why not reduce the price by designing the optics to cover just enough? Just look at the price difference between 17-35/2.8 and 17-55/2.8DX.

[Tetrode]

Originally Posted by lsisaxon I won't say that Nikon is making DX lenses for profit, but rather to make wide angle lenses more affordable on a DX-sized sensor. The angle of view is equivalent to lenses with focal lengths 1.5x longer. A 28mm wide angle would no longer be as wide anymore. An 18mm that covers the whole 35mm frame would cost a lot more because it's more difficult to make to perfection. If you don't need the extra coverage, why not reduce the price by designing the optics to cover just enough? Just look at the price difference between 17-35/2.8 and 17-55/2.8DX.

Exactly, for profit. Otherwise they would not still be in business. I don't know of any business that doesn't manufacture goods or offer services in order to make a profit.

Now whether I agree with their business practices is another thing. I don't agree with Nikon's current business practices - I think their decision to produce DX and G lenses is shyte (or shite - which ever way you prefer to spell it). But that is my opinion only.

[glennyong]

i am basically ok with G lenses.

but i am NOT ok for DX. tats all...

why ?

i just dun like it...

i just like it the way it used to be and will always be.....

Non-DX lens is the way to go.....

[Tetrode]

Originally Posted by glennyong i am basically ok with G lenses. but i am NOT ok for DX. tats all... why ? i just dun like it... i just like it the way it used to be and will always be..... Non-DX lens is the way to go.....

It ok if you don't plan to ever use older film cameras with your G lenses or macro work with bellows.

[lastboltnut]

Yah, my concern is compatibility with FF and SLR cam...if ever one day Nikon starts to build only FF DSLR, then DX lenses how??

Originally Posted by Tetrode It ok if you don't plan to ever use older film cameras with your G lenses or macro work with bellows.

[GmbH.]

Originally Posted by ExplorerZ One thing i love about DX lens is that you can get a longer range of focal length yet maintaining the same aperture like 17-55DX against 17-35...

i thought the 17-35 is a constant aperture lens as well?

[zac08]

Originally Posted by lastboltnut Yah, my concern is compatibility with FF and SLR cam...if ever one day Nikon starts to build only FF DSLR, then DX lenses how??

Then you get a lens with a nive vigenetting effect....

j/k

By then, you would have more lenses to choose from... dun worry too much

[lastboltnut]

Ha! My concern is actually now.... I have an FM2 and D80 with me now.... That's why my only DX lens is my D80 kit....which I can still use with FM2 when I think vigenetting adds to the mood of my subject.

Originally Posted by zac08 Then you get a lens with a nive vigenetting effect.... j/k By then, you would have more lenses to choose from... dun worry too much

[Tetrode]

Originally Posted by lastboltnut Ha! My concern is actually now.... I have an FM2 and D80 with me now.... That's why my only DX lens is my D80 kit....which I can still use with FM2 when I think vigenetting adds to the mood of my subject.

There would have been no difference if you had gone Canon with your dSLR, except you would not be able to mount the lens. But mounting a DX and G lens on an FM2 is silly.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by GmbH. i thought the 17-35 is a constant aperture lens as well?

It is.. I think what he meant was that for less $$ he got a longer zoom range for the DX.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by glennyong i am basically ok with G lenses. but i am NOT ok for DX. tats all... why ? i just dun like it... i just like it the way it used to be and will always be..... Non-DX lens is the way to go.....

That's ok if you don't shoot much wide angle on digital or you'd rather use film to do that.. Given a choice I would have opted for non-DX also but $$ is definitely a limiting factor.

The other factors... 17-35 is wide enough but not long enough on the long end, so it's not versatile, I would still have to bring a medium tele like a 50mm. 28-70 is a versatile lens for film but it's just like a medium tele lens on a DX body. 17-55, 18-70 and 18-200 are ideal but only available in DX.

[lastboltnut]

Why silly?

If I go Canon with dSLR, then i cannot even use my MF lens from my FM2 on my dSLR....not good for my situation...

Originally Posted by Tetrode There would have been no difference if you had gone Canon with your dSLR, except you would not be able to mount the lens. But mounting a DX and G lens on an FM2 is silly.

[Tetrode]

Originally Posted by lastboltnut Why silly? If I go Canon with dSLR, then i cannot even use my MF lens from my FM2 on my dSLR....not good for my situation...

But you can't use it anyway unless you own a D200 and above.