DX lens on D3/D700

Discussion in 'Nikon FX DSLR' started by Bob Mohr, Aug 12, 2008.

  1. Bob Mohr

    Bob Mohr

    404
    Oct 20, 2005
    Baltimore, MD
    I understand there is a DX setting on the D3 for using DX lenses. Does this feature give an Optical Quality advantage over the D700 when shooting with DX lenses; say the 16-85 VR, 70-300 VR, or the 12-24 F4 Nikkor?

    How do DX lenses usually fare on the new FX bodies? I'm considering a D700 and was wondering if its necessary to duplicate lens sizes; since I am going to keep my D300 for the 1.5X telephoto advantage.
    I am going on a trip and want max quality for my landscapes and portraits.
     
  2. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    can't answer your question fully
    however the 70-300VR is an FX lens
    and I'm pretty sure the 12-24 only "works" near the long end without severe vignetting
     
  3. i though the D700 has the same feature. either way there won't be an advantage, you can just crop as needed later. if you are keeping the D300, i would consider keeping the 12-24, but ditch the 16-85 for FX lenses. don't plan on using the long end of DX lenses on the FX cameras for anymore than a stopgap. from what i've seen, the corners might be illuminated but can be horrid. extreme astigmatism in the corners, worse than lens baby photos i've seen.
     
  4. Bob Mohr

    Bob Mohr

    404
    Oct 20, 2005
    Baltimore, MD
    Thanks for the correction Frank.
    Joe,
    I like 16-85 on the on the D300, but I would have to add a FX lens in this range if I wanted to use the D700. I thought perhaps the 14-24, mated with the D700, would give better IQ results than the 12-24 on my D300 or do you think the 17-35 would be more practical, but just as good?
     
  5. AndyE

    AndyE

    871
    May 2, 2005
    Vienna, Austria
    The 16-85 and 12-24 are IMO unusable on the D700 (unless you set it to DX mode). The AFS 70-300 actually is very good.
    regards, Andy
     
  6. AndyE

    AndyE

    871
    May 2, 2005
    Vienna, Austria
    The 17-35 gives roughly the equivalent range on a FX body to the 12-24mm on a DX body. Besides a different range, the 14-24 has in this set the best IQ.

    regards, Andy

    PS: I'm using AFS 12-24mm, AFS 17-35mm and AFS 14-24 and both bodies (D300 and D700)
     
  7. Bob Mohr

    Bob Mohr

    404
    Oct 20, 2005
    Baltimore, MD
    Andy,
    If I had the equipment you mention in your PS. I could put the 14-24 on the D700 for ultawide to wide shots, put the 17-35 on the D300 for wide to mid-range, and sell the 12-24. yes?
     
  8. AndyE

    AndyE

    871
    May 2, 2005
    Vienna, Austria
    yes from a quality perspective
    maybe from a handling perspective.
    no from a pure joy perspective :smile:

    Consider the AFS 17-55 for the D300 as well (more reach vs. can't use on FX).
    The 14-24 is significantly bigger than the 12-24 and you can't use filters.

    regards, Andy
     
  9. The 12-24 works wll on the D700. In DX mode the images are good.

    You can also use it in FX mode from about 18mm - 24mm it fills the frame.

    If you want to travel light it's perfect.
     
  10. AndyE

    AndyE

    871
    May 2, 2005
    Vienna, Austria
    Correct, it fills the frame. To say it works well, is from my POV an exaggeration.
    Unfortunately, it also has strong pin cushion distortion, and sharpness at the edge is - well - not there.

    I have done some additional comparisons: http://www.pbase.com/andrease/d700sharpnessww


    Andy

    Overview. Vignetting is turned off (no problem to solve with NX2).
    original.gif


    AFS 12-24mm/4 @ f8 and 18mm in FX mode
    View attachment 238922

    for your comparison, this is the AFS 14-24mm/2.8 @ f8
    View attachment 238923
     
  11. Bob Mohr

    Bob Mohr

    404
    Oct 20, 2005
    Baltimore, MD
    Andy,
    I conclude that "pure joy" refers to weight?
    I looked at your pBase link and was surprised at how poorly the 20-35 and 17-35 did;
    considering they are FF. Perhaps a little cropping, if necessary, would correct that.
    BTW thanks for your efforts.
     
  12. the 14-24 is an awesome lens but I just don't like the zoom range even though I really love shooting wide. I can't really use it like I use other zooms, it works kind of like an adjustable prime lens. after trying it, i describe it as going from pretty wide to wider.

    the 17-35 is what i ended up purchasing, it goes from the middle of the 14-24's range for very wide scenes, then straight trough the useful 28mm range and on to a mellow 35mm. I find that being able to zoom freely in that range much more valuable than getting all the way down to 14mm. if I really need to incorporate that many elements, I'll try to make a composition work on my little fish eye lens.
     
  13. AndyE

    AndyE

    871
    May 2, 2005
    Vienna, Austria
    Joy & weight? - Heck, no :smile:
    Everything including and below the AFS 70-200mm is easy to carry around. What I meant by "joy" is the joay of having a great lens, which performs at a level I haven't had a chance to own and operate before. Forget i.e. the AFS 14mm/2.8 from an IQ perspective.

    On the "poor" performance: Please put the pics in context. These are the outermost corners of the picture, which are seldom the focus area. It would have implications for architecture and the kind of work, but I still recommend the 20-35 and 17-35 considering its price level - great lenses.

    Andy
     
  14. Bob Mohr

    Bob Mohr

    404
    Oct 20, 2005
    Baltimore, MD
    Joe,
    I agree with you. The 17-35mm is wide enough on full frame and can be had at a decent price, used. Although the 12-24 is a good lens, for my purposes, it would be redundant.