Just a small enquiry and would appreciate some expertise answers

[kimazuru]

Hi all
I'm a canon user and thinking of changing system to D700 currently
I've one thing i don't quite understand which is,
Nikon have DX, AF-S, G, etc....
And to my understanding...
Nikon allows FF body like D700, D3x, etc bodies to use both "1.5x lens" and "FF lens" right?
So It does means i can buy a D700 with a 17-50 f2.8 DX (1.5 crop) lens and achieve a 25.5 - 75mm F2.8 effect rather den buying a 24-70 f2.8 which is much more expensive?

If this is true, what's the disadvantage of doing a set up like this beside losing the 1.5mm widest?

Thanks for the replies.

C=
Have a nice day ahead

 

[Irvine]

Hi all
I'm a canon user and thinking of changing system to D700 currently
I've one thing i don't quite understand which is,
Nikon have DX, AF-S, G, etc....
And to my understanding...
Nikon allows FF body like D700, D3x, etc bodies to use both "1.5x lens" and "FF lens" right?
So It does means i can buy a D700 with a 17-50 f2.8 DX (1.5 crop) lens and achieve a 25.5 - 75mm F2.8 effect rather den buying a 24-70 f2.8 which is much more expensive?


If this is true, what's the disadvantage of doing a set up like this beside losing the 1.5mm widest?



Thanks for the replies.

C=
Have a nice day ahead

d700 can shoot both in DX n FX modes.if u shoot using the 17-55mm DX lens in DX mode, u will get the FOV similar to the FOV u get on focal lengths ranging from 25.5-82.5 on full frame, but the camera's effective resolution dropped to 6+ MP. if u shoot using the same lens but on FX mode, u will get vignetting since the lens is made for DX bodies only.

to put it simply, u buy a FX camera, shoot in FX. u r wasting ur money if u keep shooting using DX mode on a FX camera when DX cameras can do better at a lower cost with higher effective resolution.

 

[tltan]

you can also choose to get the 28-75 f2.8 Tamron or the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 as alternative.

 

[daredevil123]

Hi all
I'm a canon user and thinking of changing system to D700 currently
I've one thing i don't quite understand which is,
Nikon have DX, AF-S, G, etc....
And to my understanding...
Nikon allows FF body like D700, D3x, etc bodies to use both "1.5x lens" and "FF lens" right?
So It does means i can buy a D700 with a 17-50 f2.8 DX (1.5 crop) lens and achieve a 25.5 - 75mm F2.8 effect rather den buying a 24-70 f2.8 which is much more expensive?

If this is true, what's the disadvantage of doing a set up like this beside losing the 1.5mm widest?

Thanks for the replies.

C=
Have a nice day ahead

The focal length of a lens will never change. FF or crop only means the sensor is bigger or smaller. But the size of the image projected is the same, just depends on the size of the area capture is bigger or smaller. Just like you use a projector and project an image on the wall. The size of the screen can change, but image is still same size really.

So a 17-55 lens will remain 17-55mm when mounted on a FX (Nikon's term for FF) camera. Just that you might get heavy vignetting at wider focal lengths.

Nikon FX cameras, by factory default, will automatically switch to DX (1.5x crop) mode when a Nikon DX lens is mounted. On the D700, that means the image will be auto cropped to the DX size, but resolution will be reduced to 5MP. You can go into options and force the camera to shoot in FX mode still, but if using DX lens, you risk vignetting as mentioned previously.

A quick explanation of abbreviations:

DX = crop sensor (1.5x)
FX = full frame sensor
AF-S or AF-I = autofocus driven by motor in lens
AF = autofocus driven by motor in camera body.
AF-D = same as AF, but the lens has a microchip to send focus distance back to camera (useful for TTL flash).

 

[kimazuru]

Oh ok thanks alot guys.. now i've got the entire picture about how the system works. C= Once again thanks alot ppl C=

 

[twisted illusion]

i came from canon too...
canon ef body can only mount ef lens, unless u trim away part of the ef-s extension on the lens..
which i did before...
nikon f mount can mount on both fx and dx body...
nikon dnt hv L lens, but ED is similar to L...
canon ultrasonic is ultrasonic.. only 1 grade.. fast and torquey...
but nikon swm have at least 2 grades... the swm on the 24-70, 70-200, etc is faster to lock and feels torquey...
but the swm on the 35 f1.8 or 50 f1.4 is like craps..
nikon dont have a 17-50 f2.8 dx...
it has the same 17-55 f2.8 like canon...
17-50 are mostly 3rd party like tamron, sigma, etc...

Hi all
I'm a canon user and thinking of changing system to D700 currently
I've one thing i don't quite understand which is,
Nikon have DX, AF-S, G, etc....
And to my understanding...
Nikon allows FF body like D700, D3x, etc bodies to use both "1.5x lens" and "FF lens" right?
So It does means i can buy a D700 with a 17-50 f2.8 DX (1.5 crop) lens and achieve a 25.5 - 75mm F2.8 effect rather den buying a 24-70 f2.8 which is much more expensive?

If this is true, what's the disadvantage of doing a set up like this beside losing the 1.5mm widest?

Thanks for the replies.

C=
Have a nice day ahead

 

[spree86]

i came from canon too...
canon ef body can only mount ef lens, unless u trim away part of the ef-s extension on the lens..
which i did before...
nikon f mount can mount on both fx and dx body...
nikon dnt hv L lens, but ED is similar to L...
canon ultrasonic is ultrasonic.. only 1 grade.. fast and torquey...
but nikon swm have at least 2 grades... the swm on the 24-70, 70-200, etc is faster to lock and feels torquey...
but the swm on the 35 f1.8 or 50 f1.4 is like craps..
nikon dont have a 17-50 f2.8 dx...
it has the same 17-55 f2.8 like canon...
17-50 are mostly 3rd party like tamron, sigma, etc...

Please try not to post things that will confuse the TS. ED is not equivalent to L, ED just means an Extra-low Dispersion glass element to help reduce CA. You can find the coding ED in the 18-135 kit lens and also the 55-200mm, even the 18-55 kit lens has ED. None of these lenses are even near to standard of L lenses.

 

[Kipling88]

i came from canon too...
canon ef body can only mount ef lens, unless u trim away part of the ef-s extension on the lens..
which i did before...
nikon f mount can mount on both fx and dx body...
nikon dnt hv L lens, but ED is similar to L...
canon ultrasonic is ultrasonic.. only 1 grade.. fast and torquey...
but nikon swm have at least 2 grades... the swm on the 24-70, 70-200, etc is faster to lock and feels torquey...
but the swm on the 35 f1.8 or 50 f1.4 is like craps..
nikon dont have a 17-50 f2.8 dx...
it has the same 17-55 f2.8 like canon...
17-50 are mostly 3rd party like tamron, sigma, etc...

:bsmilie: canon 'ultrasonic' also have the same 2 grades, the small motor and ring type..

AND canon UD equivalent is nikon ED

Know ur stuff before u speak

 

[r0n1n]

Just to add:

(from KRW) G stands for gelded. G lenses are lenses which have been crippled by removing their aperture rings to save cost. This is a classic example of taking away features while making customers think they are getting something new. G eliminates many features with older cameras.

N stands for Nano crystal coating which helps reduce flare and ghosting. Equivalent to Canon's SWC.

 

[Ben Ang]

Just to add:

(from KRW) G stands for gelded. G lenses are lenses which have been crippled by removing their aperture rings to save cost. This is a classic example of taking away features while making customers think they are getting something new. G eliminates many features with older cameras.

N stands for Nano crystal coating which helps reduce flare and ghosting. Equivalent to Canon's SWC.

BUT! you have better weather sealing and somewhat better build quality. with so many people adjusting aperture via the camera, theres not loss. i think even pentax has remove its.

dun get me wrong. i love the feature and wish they would keep it in all the lenses cos i use the aperture ring. but i think there're also upsides to it (+ i dun really like krw =P)

 

[r0n1n]

BUT! you have better weather sealing and somewhat better build quality. with so many people adjusting aperture via the camera, theres not loss. i think even pentax has remove its.

dun get me wrong. i love the feature and wish they would keep it in all the lenses cos i use the aperture ring. but i think there're also upsides to it (+ i dun really like krw =P)

haha no worries, it's just an excerpt I took from KRW to address TS' question about "G"

 

[nickzkcin]

Take Ken Rockwell's posts with a large grain of salt. He's known to post 'reviews' of gear that he has not touched, just purely on speculation alone. Most of his 'reviews' are to generate traffic for his website for revenue.

Also, he shoots in jpg, not raw and sets his camera profile to vivid...

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

Hi all
I'm a canon user and thinking of changing system to D700 currently
I've one thing i don't quite understand which is,
Nikon have DX, AF-S, G, etc....
And to my understanding...
Nikon allows FF body like D700, D3x, etc bodies to use both "1.5x lens" and "FF lens" right?
So It does means i can buy a D700 with a 17-50 f2.8 DX (1.5 crop) lens and achieve a 25.5 - 75mm F2.8 effect rather den buying a 24-70 f2.8 which is much more expensive?

If this is true, what's the disadvantage of doing a set up like this beside losing the 1.5mm widest?

Thanks for the replies.

C=
Have a nice day ahead

Hi TS.

First of all, welcome to the dark side :devil:

For some explanation on Nikon's lens abbreviations, kindly refer to THIS site by Thom Hogan. It's very wordy, but feel free to bookmark it and refer to it from time to time. Don't think it's feasible to try and remember all the abbreviations in one go!

The difference between a DX lens and a non-DX lens (lenses for meant for FX cameras are not marked with 'DX') is the size of the image circle. Picking up on daredevil123's analogy of the projector, it is the size of the image projected by the projector. Is it big enough to cover the rectangular whiteboard completely?
If you look at the image below

taken from http://www.digital-photography-school.com/crop-factor-explained

hopefully it makes some sense.

I would conclude by saying that it doesn't really make sense to buy a 'DX' lens and use it with an FX camera like D700, D3S, etc.

 

[twisted illusion]

i know their ultrasonic have 2 different motor drives.. just like those in their 50mm f1.4 smaller type..
but as long as their ultraonic grade, it focus fast...
but nikon swm have 2 speed.. this is what i mean...
who cares what motor they use.. canon dont confuse user with a slower ultrasonic label...
but nikon swm u need to know deep inside their motor...
this is what i meant...

:bsmilie: canon 'ultrasonic' also have the same 2 grades, the small motor and ring type..

AND canon UD equivalent is nikon ED

Know ur stuff before u speak

 

[chanjyj]

so what if i like to post things to mislead the TS?
did i said equivalent?
you said, i said similar only...
i said similar as maybe he like to know which is which...
do i need to go into the very details...
how much will you pay me to go into details...
you can post what you like...
i can post what i like...
who are you to teach me?
i am not TS... i am ?

You said "similar", but even that, is wrong.

L and ED have no relation at all. You are comparing an apple to an orange.

Canon's L denotes "prime quality", IMO. Nikon's ED just means ED glass was used. Heck, even the D40 18-55mm kit lens used ED glass (not that it wasn't a good lens)

 

[nickzkcin]

'ED' is not a 'starting point' for comparison; having the designation means that Nikon has included Extra-low Dispersion elements within the lens to deal with chromatic abberation(meaning purple or green tinge will show up on edges otherwise). Also, almost all of Nikon's recent lenses have ED elements(AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX and AF-S 50mm f/1.8 don't have them)

And just for the record, Nikon's gold ring is similar to Canon's 'L' designation. This hasn't always been the case however, as the older Nikon professional glass lacks the gold ring.

 

[Nostalgraphy]

:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:

Wah Spree....jia lart...... you really chew on people!!! Pai Kia!!! hahaha!!!

Anyway, I was misguided on L versus ED once.... but not by twisted but guess who? Ken Rockwell!!!! haha
When I was hesitating to buy between 24-120 or 28-300, he wrote "Both lenses use ED glass, but only the 24-120 bothers to use gold trim. The gold trim for the 28-300mm ED was put on the non-ED 85mm f/1.4 AF-S instead by mistake. (The exterior styling has nothing to do with what's inside.)" - so, this remark suggest to his reader who didn't know better that the gold trim is similar to L lens in Canon.

I cannot locate the site anymore but I recall there is one particular review Ken made that specifically says the gold trim is reserve for ED lenses, which obviously, we all now know it is not true.

 

[Irvine]

Wah Spree....jia lart...... you really chew on people!!! Pai Kia!!! hahaha!!!

Anyway, I was misguided on L versus ED once.... but not by twisted but guess who? Ken Rockwell!!!! haha
When I was hesitating to buy between 24-120 or 28-300, he wrote "Both lenses use ED glass, but only the 24-120 bothers to use gold trim. The gold trim for the 28-300mm ED was put on the non-ED 85mm f/1.4 AF-S instead by mistake. (The exterior styling has nothing to do with what's inside.)" - so, this remark suggest to his reader who didn't know better that the gold trim is similar to L lens in Canon.

I cannot locate the site anymore but I recall there is one particular review Ken made that specifically says the gold trim is reserve for ED lenses, which obviously, we all now know it is not true.

u mean this? http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-120mm.htm

Both lenses use ED glass, but only the 24-120 bothers to use gold trim. The gold trim for the 28-300mm ED was put on the non-ED 85mm f/1.4 AF-S instead by mistake. (The exterior styling has nothing to do with what's inside.)

this is where he mentioned about the ED with the gold ring. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm

"Extra-low Dispersion glass." Nikon started using this only in their super speed super teles in the late 1960s. These lenses say "ED" on and have a gold band around the barrel. All ED lenses say so.

 

[Nostalgraphy]

u mean this? http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-120mm.htm



this is where he mentioned about the ED with the gold ring. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm

Bingo!!! Thanks Irvine!!! Anyway, still no regret for buying the 28-300. Only problem is it is not as magical as he claims to be and without IF, I must really put in effort to wipe of the dust after extending the lens to prevent dust from going into it.

 

[Irvine]

anyway, a note to twisted illusion:

dun differentiate professional lenses apart just based on seeing the type of coatings they have. almost every current nikon lens has ED element(s) now, so wad ken rockwell said as mentioned earlier is no longer true. a better way to tell if it's a professional lens is judging by its build. the build of the professional lenses r also significantly better as compared to the other lenses. they feel like mini-tanks, even when some r made of plastic though. that's how i differentiate, i may be wrong on this part though.