Check again... you're mistaken. It's the other way round.
On the Tamron Focal Length Comparison Tool, DX=Digital and FX=35mm Film
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php
Nikkor AFS 24-70 f2.8G
- Thread starter boxerfan
- Start date
- Status
On the Tamron Focal Length Comparison Tool, DX=Digital and FX=35mm Film
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php
Oh dear camerax, I think you still don't get the idea.
Let's make things simple, assume today you are buying the Nikon 24-70mm Len and you are going to mount it on your Nikon Camera:
1) If you mount it on D-700 which is having a Full Frame censor, you get 24-70mm focal lenght from you len.
2) If you mount it on a DX censor camera body (say e.g. D-60), you get 36-105mm.
You may like to refer to David Kwok & tomcat's posts again, both gave excellent explanation on this topic.
seem you are super confuse.
just make life much simple for you.
If you want to stick to DX camera, get 17~55f2.8 you will be fine.
and if you want to use FX camera, use 24~70f2.8 instead.
the lenses on each camera, will have similar coverage on their respective format.
crop factor does not sucks, it depends your budget on which formats which is affordable/comfortable.
Relax. crop factor doesn't sucks! What sucks is if you use a FF lens on the DX body, you end up with quite a fair bit of the glasses around the edges of the circle not used. So what it means ? Pro and Cons as below
Pro
1) Now you get to use the BEST AREA of the lens. Because if you look at lens reviews, they normally give you the 100% corner crop and center crop. Most of the time, the corner crop sucks because light has to bend the most there. smearing of light, light fall off and spherical aberration and lateral aberration are most common at these area. So if you avoid using them, you so call get the BEST of the lens. I personally say it's "bullshit" why ? It's like driving a Ferrari in Singapore road, you probably get stop by the traffic light and also get caught by TP before you can really exploit the most out of the beast itself. :bsmilie:
2) Crop factor terminology is created when Digital is introduced and the frame got smaller than 35mm. Same goes with 4/3 and micro. But it's actually a good thing because it means things go smaller and cost may go down if production of these devices go high. Also it means we can save more on the unnecessary glasses. But con -- refer to con (3)
Con
1) Most surface area of the lens means more glass. Glass is not air, they weigh. Sufficient weight is good for stability, too much is sucks on your hand. Not to forget, you might not be bringing ONE lens only. So if you are an old man, you will complain. But when you are young and sturdy, if might feel it's good training for your biceps. So this part is subjective to individual.
2) More glass also means higher cost. Hence if you use the FF lens on your DX body, you are wasting your money because Nikon engineers design the lens for FX sensor and try their best to make it works correctly on the FX sensor, meaning the cost you pay is their salary and also Nikon's R&D. If you don't use them, you are wasting them. That's my opinion.
3) Unless sensor Manufacturers develop much better sensor which are sensitive to light and yet low on noise, we are facing small pixel sensor means more noise in comparison to same technology but bigger pixel size.
for FEI FEI, TOMCAT, i still think that i am not mistaken. crop factor is a hell of a subject and very confusing. I read about it since two months ago and still misunderstand it but after i see the "tamron tool", i can imagine the concept.
for david kwok, thanks so much for your explanation and i know those actually before you explained it, bu i still thank you for sparing your time to explain those infos.
anyway,
one thing you guys have to remember, 35mm format has BIGGER sensor. so 36mm is as wide as 24mm on DX.
so like nikon 17-55 dx lens and 24-70 fx lens is actually covering about the same view.
17mm on dx is actually the same like / as wide as (17x1.5= 25.5) in fx format.
how come?
becuse the film format have bigger sensor. think about this for a second.
so 24-70 lens, if you mount it on d40, this would be like 36-105mm (like if used in FX format)
but 36 in fx is actuallu like 24 in dx. oh damn, this is so hard to explain.
i refer to tamron tool and confirm it myself.
for anyone, please select digital format from tamron website, and put 24mm.
and then you select 35mm format and put 36
you will notice, THEY ARE THE SAME.
so fox dx users, ask yourself this before you buy nikon 24-70 (touted as legendary lens). Can you live with 24-70 focal length??
if you have 18-55 kit lens, twist that lens to 24 and thats the widest you can get , if you use 24-70.
for david kwok, thanks so much for your explanation and i know those actually before you explained it, bu i still thank you for sparing your time to explain those infos.
anyway,
one thing you guys have to remember, 35mm format has BIGGER sensor. so 36mm is as wide as 24mm on DX.
so like nikon 17-55 dx lens and 24-70 fx lens is actually covering about the same view.
17mm on dx is actually the same like / as wide as (17x1.5= 25.5) in fx format.
how come?
becuse the film format have bigger sensor. think about this for a second.
so 24-70 lens, if you mount it on d40, this would be like 36-105mm (like if used in FX format)
but 36 in fx is actuallu like 24 in dx. oh damn, this is so hard to explain.
i refer to tamron tool and confirm it myself.
for anyone, please select digital format from tamron website, and put 24mm.
and then you select 35mm format and put 36
you will notice, THEY ARE THE SAME.
so fox dx users, ask yourself this before you buy nikon 24-70 (touted as legendary lens). Can you live with 24-70 focal length??
if you have 18-55 kit lens, twist that lens to 24 and thats the widest you can get , if you use 24-70.
You are just wording it in a different way. Dun worry the people who explained to u know the concept of crop factor thing.
Depends on your style of shooting. If the "36-105mm" range is what you frequently use on DX sensors then why not. If you wanted something wider you could have chosen it in the first place. Chosing what to use is a very personalised choice.
Before the intro of FX, Nikon DX users were doing great too
Ryan
After the intro of FX, DX users are still doing great. ;p In fact, FX users would suddenly find that they need to buy new lenses just to make the most of the increased sensor size. :sweat:
Last edited:
Focal length will always be the same regardless of FX or DX. It is the angle of view that will change.
As an example (using 1.5 crop):
If you use a 50mm on a FX, the focal length is 50mm, angle of view is 46 degree.
If you use a 50mm on a DX, the focal lenght is 50mm, BUT the angle of view is now 31.5 degree.
This then lead to an interpretation which was widely misunderstood as this 31.5 degree angle of view seen in a DX with 50mm lens is what you will get using a 75mm lens on a FX.
Unfortunately, this is mistaken widely as a "change in focal length" but in actual fact the focal lenght hasn't and will not change. Very often, this is also (expcially in point and shoot marketing) known as "equivalent 75mm" so as to help consumer relate to the angle of view in days of 35mm film.
As an example (using 1.5 crop):
If you use a 50mm on a FX, the focal length is 50mm, angle of view is 46 degree.
If you use a 50mm on a DX, the focal lenght is 50mm, BUT the angle of view is now 31.5 degree.
This then lead to an interpretation which was widely misunderstood as this 31.5 degree angle of view seen in a DX with 50mm lens is what you will get using a 75mm lens on a FX.
Unfortunately, this is mistaken widely as a "change in focal length" but in actual fact the focal lenght hasn't and will not change. Very often, this is also (expcially in point and shoot marketing) known as "equivalent 75mm" so as to help consumer relate to the angle of view in days of 35mm film.
In fact, if the person haven't even shot 135 format before, it doesn't even mean anything. Anyway, it's now become a standard which must be published.. :sweat: Shows how important 135 format is in the history of photography.
If i buy the 24-70mm f/2.8, how do i check on the spot in the shop if my lens is a sharp copy? and i there is still something i don understand.. what are ur defination of "sharp":dunno: Do impart some of ur Photography skill to me thanks a lot
both 17-55 and 24-70 are very good lenses. doesnt matter if you are getting FX next time or not .. get the 24-70 ... then get the 14-24 then 70-200 .. you will not go wrong with them cos they are the trinity. but i wonder if that much sharpness and f/2.8 really matters for your current need or even in the next 2 or more years.
i'm only using a 17-55 with my d70s and now d300. i really love it as i get to shoot both outdoor/indoor events / walkabout / landscape with just one lens. the missing 12 to 17 and 56 to 70 range didnt bother me at all. the 17-55 combi with a DX body is excellent. i will be getting a 70-200 f2.8 soon but not sure if nikon gonna release a new piece soon.
24-70 is excellent but if you really need wides then you will need to get 1 more 12-24 (f4 only) or 14-24 (1kg+big+no front element protection) to compensate on the wides. but if you are going FX then it doesnt matter ... but when or would you?
17-55 will probably be your only 1 lens that you will ever need for a long time without much worries. the 17mm covers enough wides and the 55mm deliever great result therefore you just need to crop a bit to get the photo
actually, there is nothing wrong about crop factor, at least nikon's crop factor is just x1.5 cos canon is x1.6 and 4/3 is x2.0 .. unless we got extra money to dump on D700/3/3x, we all just have to work around the camera capability.vv
Hi, I tend to disagree with carrying an FX lens on a DX body is a waste of the lens.
I myself uses a Sigma 28-70 DG EX; a full frame lens on my D80, it is true I loses on the 'Wide' side of the lens, but the pictures tend to have very good edge behavior which a DX lens can never give.
Personally, if I could afford I would not have a second thought on an FX lens on a DX body, just my 2 cents.
Agree with nic67. 17-55DX is already 755gm. 24-70 is 900gm. Not exactly 50% more, is there? With the ability to use the sweet spot of the lens, plus the flexibility to use the same lens for FX upgraders, I don't find the extra glass a waste.
- Status