Too drastic for a expensive FF prime on a DX body?


Jan 27, 2010
809
0
0
#1
1) Was considering the 24mm f1.4 G for my d90. I've read many reviews saying its a waste of money. Anyone went this route before?

ie. 35mm f1.4G, or 14-24mm f2.8?

Btw i dont mean any FF lens. I mean those that have alternatives for the DX range but you opted for the best glass and got the FX Nikon version.

Alternatives in my case would be the 24mm f2.8 and the Sigma 24mm f1.8 Macro.

2) Will FX glass on DX actually work better due to the smaller image circle?
 

Irvine

Senior Member
Jan 1, 2010
1,037
0
36
North? South? East? West?
#2
1) Was considering the 24mm f1.4 G for my d90. I've read many reviews saying its a waste of money. Anyone went this route before?

ie. 35mm f1.4G, or 14-24mm f2.8?

Btw i dont mean any FF lens. I mean those that have alternatives for the DX range but you opted for the best glass and got the FX Nikon version.

Alternatives in my case would be the 24mm f2.8 and the Sigma 24mm f1.8 Macro.

2) Will FX glass on DX actually work better due to the smaller image circle?
1) i dun see why it will be a waste of money as long as u got the money to afford it. to some it might be a waste of money when there r cheaper alternatives available (eg 35mm f/1.8 DX). in my opinion, as long as u got a deeeeeeeep pocket, it'd be better to get the best ones out there to suit ur needs.

2) Yes, the border quality will be better as compared to the border quality on FX. vignetting is also significantly lower compared to the vignetting caused by DX lenses while mounted DX bodies.
 

Last edited:

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#3
Before nikon launched their FX cameras ( which was not too long ago , D3 was introduced late 2007 ) , Nikon users were using their APS-C sensor Nikon DSLRs with great FX glasses too ;)

Ryan
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#4
Nope it isn't too drastic. After all good glass matters more than good camera when it comes to image quality
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,041
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#5
1) Was considering the 24mm f1.4 G for my d90. I've read many reviews saying its a waste of money. Anyone went this route before?

ie. 35mm f1.4G, or 14-24mm f2.8?

Btw i dont mean any FF lens. I mean those that have alternatives for the DX range but you opted for the best glass and got the FX Nikon version.

Alternatives in my case would be the 24mm f2.8 and the Sigma 24mm f1.8 Macro.

2) Will FX glass on DX actually work better due to the smaller image circle?
2) It should, because DX takes the image centre, so you would have less problems with corner sharpness if it were an issue on the lens.
 

Omega23

New Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,074
0
0
#6
Why not? I got a 24mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 for use on my dx body..
 

kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,793
1
38
Singapore
www.kentwongphoto.com
#7
It's not just a crop on DX, but also the details captured by bigger sensor on FX body. Hence, the photos come out from FX prime lens + FX body are richer and more detailed, which utilize the potential of the FX prime. The depth of field which the FX prime gives at f1.4 on FX body also better.
However, it's nothing wrong to buy FX prime and use it on DX body, if you have the money and don't mind not to fully utilize the FX prime potential.
 

Last edited:
Jan 27, 2010
809
0
0
#8
Why not? I got a 24mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 for use on my dx body..
How do you find the 24 1.4 for you DX cam? Any focus issues as by DPReviewers?

It's not just a crop on DX, but also the details captured by bigger sensor on FX body. Hence, the photos come out from FX prime lens + FX body are richer and more detailed, which utilize the potential of the FX prime. The depth of field which the FX prime gives at f1.4 on FX body also better.
However, it's nothing wrong to buy FX prime and use it on DX body, if you have the money and don't mind not to fully utilize the FX prime potential.
I do understand I'm paying a 'unnecessary' premium but the specs of the lens is pretty addicting..

Btw to the rest, appreciate your time and comments on this matter. :)
 

Jul 9, 2009
849
1
0
Singapore
#11
Im a D90 user too and have tried using the 24 1.4G, 14-24G, 17-35 and 70-200. They all work perfectly great! Nothings too drastic but better quality glass plus they are future proof.
 

cyberixus

New Member
Jul 16, 2006
127
0
0
#12
1) Was considering the 24mm f1.4 G for my d90. I've read many reviews saying its a waste of money. Anyone went this route before?

ie. 35mm f1.4G, or 14-24mm f2.8?

Btw i dont mean any FF lens. I mean those that have alternatives for the DX range but you opted for the best glass and got the FX Nikon version.

Alternatives in my case would be the 24mm f2.8 and the Sigma 24mm f1.8 Macro.

2) Will FX glass on DX actually work better due to the smaller image circle?
Sooner or later, you'll upgrade to FX. It's just a matter of time. You money is better spent on FX lenses now than selling the DX lenses later.
 

gyjoe

New Member
Mar 24, 2003
90
0
0
#13
1) Was considering the 24mm f1.4 G for my d90. I've read many reviews saying its a waste of money. Anyone went this route before?
Only if you need the speed, and if you are definitely upgrading to FX. If you are not doing any of those two, then yeah I think it is a waste.

DX is here to stay. FX is inevitably heavy and expensive, with a more specific target group. Doesn't anyone think about how expensive (and heavy!) DSLR are compared to 35mm film SLR? I know I am in no hurry to change to FX.
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#14
The only reason why it would be drastic is if you don't ever need the f1.4

If you will use f1.4, then it is not too drastic. If you won't ever use it or will seldom use it, you're better off with a cheaper prime.
 

baggiolee

New Member
Dec 7, 2006
1,748
0
0
www.facebook.com
#15
for me i do not have enough budget, so i rather invest more on the lens rather than camera. in terms of IQ improvement, having quality lens is alot more important than a having a high end camera.

don't listen to ppl who said it's a waste for FX lens on DX bodies. of cuz the ultimate combo would be FX lens on FX bodies, but only provided u can afford both. else stick with quality lens 1st. you will be amazed to see the difference compare to most of the DX lens.
 

Last edited:

moby

New Member
Apr 8, 2005
304
0
0
#16
I am a budget shooter.

Got my trusty D80 with 50mm f1.4 and one more 35mm F1.8 DX lens. Already quite enough to suit my needs. I think at todays market value, the 2 lens will only cost about $680. And they are fast sharp lenses.

And not forgetting that they weigh so much less than all the gold ring lens, plus I dont have to worry about protecting the gear all the time. So my mind and body is better to enjoy shooting more.

But to each their own. I like "Value for Money". :thumbsup:
 

Last edited:
Jan 5, 2010
276
0
0
#17
Hotchoco1ate, I am in almost the same situation as you, but at least I know I will go into FX in the near future, therefore, easier for me to decide and ...... have to start going on diet! :bsmilie:
 

ovaltinemilo

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,819
0
0
Sin jia Po lah
#18
FF lens on Apsc utilises the lens' centre sharpness.:thumbsup:
If crop factor is not a prob to you. Go get it!;p
 

kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,793
1
38
Singapore
www.kentwongphoto.com
#19
Yeah you can enjoy the sweet spot of the FX lens on DX body due to the centre crop.
However, the 24mm f1.4 lens costs the crazy sum $2800 because it is built with super centre-to-edge sharpness(which other cheaper lenses are unable to produce), the "wow" perspective of 24mm wide and the difficulty of making wide angle lens at aperture f1.4.
When you mount it on a DX body, it crops away the sharp corners produced by this great lens. The "wow" perspective is also no longer there as the field o view becomes 36mm, which is a general purpose focal length.
 

PaulKami

New Member
Sep 9, 2007
574
0
0
paulkami.com
#20
My opinion is that if you're serious in this (such that you'll upgrade to FX eventually), why not?
 

Top Bottom