Significance of DX Lenses?

Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
93
Location
Vancouver, Canada
Assumption (to make answering my question easier): Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 DX and Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 non-DX lenses are exactly the same in quality, optics, etc. - disregard the loss of 20mm of zoom, as I only care about shooting at the wider end of the zoom.

Are there any huge advantages to using the DX lens instead of the non-DX lens, described above, on my D2X? I read something about the image hitting the sensor more perpendicularly if a DX lens was used on a cropped body?

I'm thinking ahead, into the future, about 900 years for when I might become a full-time FX shooter. If so, then the 17-55mm f/2.8 will be wasted. So, if the 17-35mm f/2.8 will do just as well on my D2X (keeping in mind I only care about the wider end of the zoom (they'll both be 17mm x 1.5 = 25.5mm on my D2X)), and that there aren't great advantages to using DX lenses, it might be safer for me to get that just in case I do convert to FX completely.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
2,450
Location
Bay Area, USA
DX lenses have a smaller image circle which allow for greater optical correction, and so they tend to be sharper wide open. But this is an "all else equal" thing, and is not neccesarily true regarding all lenses.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
I have shot with the 17-35 lens, but never with the 17-55, so what I write here is from what I have read from others, but I think I have read it so many times, that it maybe might help you.

The 17-55 lens is sharp allready from f 2.8 but more prone to flare/ghosting than the 17-35.

The 17-35 lens is sharp from about f 5.6 and about here or maybe lower it is really, really sharp.

So therefore many says, that the 17-35 is very good for landscapes.

---

The Nikon 14-24 is sharper, but can not use a filter.

The Tokina 11-16 could maybe also be an option for you. Cheaper than all the others.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
93
Location
Vancouver, Canada
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Thanks, Steinar.

I'm aware of the two lens' optical (in)capabilities, but was wondering if there was anything else aside from that, as in any downsides because a lens is a non-DX instead of a DX, on a DX body... more immediate flaws.

Thanks for the suggestions, but Nikkor only for me :)
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
Hi Kevin

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

Thank you for your respons.

I understand your "Nikon-feelings" - the Tokina 11-16 is the only non-Nikon lens I have among about 9 Nikon lenses.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
1,003
Location
Austin
Since the DX lens is designed for a smaller sensor they only guarantee consistent light on a smaller area in the back of the camera. That could manifest itself as bad edge performance, blocked light from hoods, blocked light from internal parts, etc. So essentially they can be quite useless on an FX body (when using the sensor in FX mode).

Those two specific lenses will have varying characteristics. You'll have to let someone else familiarize you with those. But just because both lenses are Nikon F/2.8 lenses that in no way means they're the same optical or will have the same performance, DX or not.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
99
Location
Vancouver, Canada
If you've already investigated the lens IQ differences then I won't get into them. For landscapes (i.e. stopped down), I can barely tell the two lenses apart, and if I were going to give one an edge for corner sharpness and CA control it would be the 17-35. So if landscapes are going to be your main usage, I have no qualms with the 17-35 as a future-proof lens and a lens that compares quite favourably to the 14-24 when stopped down.

Personally, I've moved on to the 14-24 and 24-70. The 17-35 is still decent on both DX and FX, but by no means gives me the phenomenal IQ of these lenses. I also do people photography and I'm not as pleased with the 17-35 in that sort of situation, but keep in mind I am picky about skin tones. The 17-35 contrasty rendition, while not awful by any means, I feel is more favourable to landscapes. The 17-55 would be my preferred choice on DX for my PJ/event work, no question, as I need the range primarily.

Yes, digital lenses in general are designed to have more perpendicularity of the light rays hitting the sensor. It's on FX where you really need this retrofocal / telecentric design of the lens or you will get significant corner light fall-off. The 17-35 was designed with digital in mind back in the D1 days so that's not an issue with it though the more recent lenses do improve on the fall-off.

Note that the 17-55 is also usable on FX as well. It's just at the wider angles where it vignettes significantly on FX. I believe around 25 (?)mm it starts to have full coverage on FX.

Martin
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
4,553
Hi Kevin,
the 17-55 has better boke than the 17-35 and it is cheaper. These are the only positive things that come to mind.

On the other hand the DX lens suffers from significant field curvature adding the problems of the already soft corners, has strong distortions and tendency for ghosts (bright spots) and flaring (severe loss of contrast) with light sources in the image.

I was going through the same questions about a year ago, borrowed both lenses, shot loads of test images, and bought the 17-35.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
7,873
Location
Paris, France
… keeping in mind I only care about the wider end of the zoom (they'll both be 17mm x 1.5 = 25.5mm on my D2X …
Hum I'm surprised on one jumped on that one ( or I didn't read all the answers correctly ) : the wide end on the 17-55 on your D2X will be just that , 17mm whereas the wide end of the 17-35 will be as you said 25.5 ( because it's not a DX lens ). So if you're only interested in the wider end than the answer is pretty simple …
 
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
314
Location
UK
yes but the 17mm on the 17-55, on put on an FX camera will vignette. The 17mm on the 17-35 will cover the whole frame.
Sure, but the focal length remains the same. A 35mm DX lens has the same focal length as a 35mm FX lens; however, as you rightly point out a DX lens may not cover a full frame sensor at some or all of the focal lengths in its stated (zoom) range.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
493
Location
Warrington, England
the advantage of using an FX lens on a DX body is sharper corners.

Look at the 70-200 2.8 VR on an FX body, it vignettes quite badly, and corner performance isn't fantastic. However, on a DX body, the sensor is smaller than the bad bits. So the this lens is generally better on a DX than an FX.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
1,379
Location
Cambridge (the UK version!)
Hum I'm surprised on one jumped on that one ( or I didn't read all the answers correctly ) : the wide end on the 17-55 on your D2X will be just that , 17mm whereas the wide end of the 17-35 will be as you said 25.5 ( because it's not a DX lens ). So if you're only interested in the wider end than the answer is pretty simple …
Woah!

17mm is 17mm is 17mm on both lenses.
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
493
Location
Warrington, England
17mm is 17mm. I think what you're getting confused with is the crop factor. 17mm will have the same field of view as a 25.5mm on a full frame camera. Regardless of whether it's 17mm DX lens or 17mm FX lens, it will still have the same field of view.
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
1,128
Location
Superior CO
guys, the original question is regarding the use of the 17-35 range on each lens on a DX body only, and if the DX design has any advantage over the non-DX design.

so far it has been suggested that ....

the 17-55 has better bokeh
the 17-35 is sharper stopped down
the 17-55 is sharper wide open
the 17-35 is more flare resistant
the 17-55 has the correct hood for DX

the question is not about focal lengths and FX usage at all.

personally, if the extra zoom on the DX lens really is of no importance, I recommend the 17-35. getting ultra sharp shots wide open is novelty to me, very difficult to take advantage of in the field, and often easy to work around when you don't have it. I would value the flare resistance as much as any other parameter. But i would also recommend to think twice about that. My brother tried my 17-35 on his DX camera and did say that its a very awkward zoom range.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
Two of my best lenses - 35-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 VR are prone to flare/ghosting.

I can work around it .... at least at some level, but I would be happy if I do not have to do that, and it is not always possibly, so I agree:

I also value the flare/ghosting resistance very much and it will be one of the things I will look for, when I buy new lenses.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom