The only time I can think FX lenses aren't as exciting is when they are wide angle. Sure, you can get ultra wide from a 14mm lens, but it isn't the same thing.

There are loads of sharp, contrasty primes and zooms you can plant on your DX.

My favs are:

28 2,8 AiS
50 1,2 Ai
24-70 2,8G

I have the 24-70 on my D7000. I haven't taken it off since I bought it. I really like the range for 90% of what I shoot, though a recent trip to Arizona including the Grand Canyon and Sunset Crater made me wish I had the 14-24.

All of my lenses are Fx (except my 18-70mm and 10.5mm) And they all work well My faves are my 17-35mm (despite what Dxo says) is amazing on Dx (as a normal range lens). The 21mm max I get from my 14-24mm is very good too (and the whole image is %100 tack sharp at f2.8).

Best overall to start with in my opinion is the 70-200mm f2.8. It is just very practical

Last year I bought a 2002/2003 AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5 lens secondhand, having been advised by my camera shop that it was "an FX lens".

Which was fine by me.

It's a very sweet lens, and gives me about 36-130 (35mm equiv), sorta like the old Nikkors that ran 35-135mm on film. After I bought it I found that it was a well received lens on release and still garners praise for its performance. Matches well with my 12-24/f4, and 35/f1.8.

Can recommend this lens.

zsherwood said:
I'm a current DX user, but anticipate upgrading to FX in the future. Is there any specific FX lenses (zoom or prime) anyone suggests investing in that would work well on the DX body now but also would be a very useful lens on an eventual FX body I plan to buy?

Some lenses I love with DX:

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG RF - a nice crop normal lens. Would not use on FX though (tested on a friend´s D700 and the corners were horrible)

Nikkor AF-S 50mm 1.8G - cheap yet very good. Cant´t beat the 85mm/1.8D though.

Nikkor AF 85mm/1.8D - simply excellent for the price. D series - won´t autofocus with the cheapest DX bodies.

Sigma 150mm EX DG IF HSM macro - slow AF, but very, very sharp as macros tend to be.

AF-S 300mm f/4 IF-ED - just awesome image quality and relatively fast AF at a relatively low price considering the focal length.

TaoTeJared said:
There is no magical end of a projected image at a "black circle line" on your diagram it actually continues - This is where vignetting (darkening of the image at the edges) comes into play. The best image area on DX lenses, is the size of the DX sensors. It does not mean that it can not be used on FX or the image does not cover a FX image sensor. On Zoom lenses as Elvishefer pointed out, as you zoom the image circle become larger and covers more area.

The 35mm 1.8 does work with a FX sensor but that does not mean all DX lenses will work as well. I have seen sample photos of the 85mm VR macro on FX and that looked pretty nasty. Same goes for the 18-55mm lens. How well DX lenses work on FX sensors is lens by lens.

Thanks TTJ, I think I'm understanding this a little better now :)

elvishefer said:
The 11-16 is usable on a d700 at 16.

Quality is 'pretty good' given how it's being used.

Awesome! I hadn't even considered that, didn't think a lens that wide would even give slightly acceptable image quality on an FX body.

Thanks for your answers Tao, as I understand it the 35mm does have a 35mm view on FX, but the image quality outside of the DX image circle can suffer, however on this lens it appears to be acceptable. Once I have my D700 I'll verify the usability of both the 35mm DX and Tokina 11-16, will get back to you all should you be interested.

iris chrome said:
TaoTeJared, my understanding of the whole DX vs. FX can be summed up by this image (and correct me if I'm wrong):

There is no magical end of a projected image at a "black circle line" on your diagram it actually continues - This is where vignetting (darkening of the image at the edges) comes into play. The best image area on DX lenses, is the size of the DX sensors. It does not mean that it can not be used on FX or the image does not cover a FX image sensor. On Zoom lenses as Elvishefer pointed out, as you zoom the image circle become larger and covers more area.

The 35mm 1.8 does work with a FX sensor but that does not mean all DX lenses will work as well. I have seen sample photos of the 85mm VR macro on FX and that looked pretty nasty. Same goes for the 18-55mm lens. How well DX lenses work on FX sensors is lens by lens.

The 11-16 is usable on a d700 at 16.

Quality is 'pretty good' given how it's being used.

35mm focal length is 35mm focal length whether its on a FX or DX camera or whether its an FX lens or a Dx lens.

A lens is designated DX bec the lens design guarantees that within the DX circle the image is within some high standard. Many dx lenses can be used on FX cameras but the IQ outside the DX image circle will suffer from some or all of the following issues.
1) Vignetting - this is the most cited reason
2) sharpness or lack of
3) chromatic aberrations
4) Spherical aberration
5) Coma
6) Astigmatism
7) Field curvature
8) Image distortion

Granted some lenses like the 35mm1.8 does perform relatively well outside the DX circle, but, most dont that's why they are designated DX.

TaoTeJared said:
Sorry, that is not totally accurate with the 35mm 1.8. It will have have a 35mm view and the depth of field will be less on a FX than DX.

It is NOT the lens but the sensor that dictates the changes in focal length and DOF. On DX, the crop of the sensor will make it a 50mm. The depth of field increases on DX as well to about equal of a f/2.3ish. Again that is due to the size of the sensor.

TaoTeJared, my understanding of the whole DX vs. FX can be summed up by this image (and correct me if I'm wrong):

With the small and big rectangles being the DX and FX sensors respectively. So, I guess yes, while the DX lens will "look" a bit wider on an FX sensor, it will not be as wide as an FX lens of the same length on an FX body and I doubt that the added field of view on the sides is much useable. If not then why designate the lens as DX?

iris chrome said:
As far as the width goes, the 35mm is a DX lens so it will never be able to give you the entire 35mm width of an FX 35mm lens. Even when it was attached to a DX body, it's field of view was 50mm. It is basically designed to behave the same as an FX 35mm that's attached to a DX body. Also the depth of field of the DX lens would be the same as that of the FX lens no matter what type body you attach it to which is what you're seeing in that other post. This is because the DX lens essentially has the same kind of optics as the FX only kinda "cropped" at the edges so they can better fit the smaller or "cropped" sensor.

Sorry, that is not totally accurate with the 35mm 1.8. It will have have a 35mm view and the depth of field will be less on a FX than DX.

It is NOT the lens but the sensor that dictates the changes in focal length and DOF. On DX, the crop of the sensor will make it a 50mm. The depth of field increases on DX as well to about equal of a f/2.3ish. Again that is due to the size of the sensor.

Bram said:
Yes that's what most sites showed. But I wonder about the focal length. See, when using DX-mode on an FX body, I believe because of the cropping the lens is essentially used as a DX lens, thus with the 1.5 cropping factor. My 35mm would then be used as a 50mm lens and lose a lot of its width. However, when using it in FX-mode, do you guys reckon it'd still be used as a proper 35mm lens? I rather need the width, it'd be nice if I could just use this lens for that.

This guy tried the same trick:
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2586

And I believe this does look like proper 35mm. There's heavy vignetting visible but he took these at f/1.8, it should get better when stopping down and applying lens corrections in post-processing.

As far as the width goes, the 35mm is a DX lens so it will never be able to give you the entire 35mm width of an FX 35mm lens. Even when it was attached to a DX body, it's field of view was 50mm. It is basically designed to behave the same as an FX 35mm that's attached to a DX body. Also the depth of field of the DX lens would be the same as that of the FX lens no matter what type body you attach it to which is what you're seeing in that other post. This is because the DX lens essentially has the same kind of optics as the FX only kinda "cropped" at the edges so they can better fit the smaller or "cropped" sensor.

Everything else about its downgraded resolution and vignetting on an FX body would also apply :)

if You shoot 35/1.8 wide open than the vignietting is almost unvisible, also if You use the 5x4 format

The vignetting of the 35mm F1.8G is okay for some subjects, but terrible for others. The lens is useless for any images with the sky in the shot. Sold it shortly after moving to the D700.

I have met a few people who do use the 35mm 1.8 on FX cameras in FX mode and the images look fine to me. Vignetting is there but not terrible to my eye. I add vignetting to almost everything so I don't see it mattering. As long as you keep it in mind when you shoot, it will work well.

Bram said:
Cary - I've used the 35 1.8 extensively on my D90 as well. I'd like to use it for its width on the D700. Would you say the images having it on an FX camera and set to FX mode are usable after post-processing and when stopping down?

Sevencrossing - Thanks for that tip, I've actually been looking for a walkaround lens so I don't have to switch lenses so often. I'd say the D700 is usable way beyond 1600 BTW, making that f4 lens even more great.

Oh I take it you mean 24-120?

It really depends on the shot and what you're shooting. For very stylistic shots where you want some vignetting, the 35 mm 1.8G DX will work great in FX mode. If you're shooting something that you don't want to show fall-off, I wouldn't recommend the 35mm 1.8G in FX mode.

It's sharp in the center with slight loss of sharpness and falloff in the corners in FX mode.

Bram said:
Oh I take it you mean 24-120?

oops , yes, I did indeed ( post corected )
My other lens is the 16 -35 f4 VR
re ISO values, yes the can go beyond 1600 for most things
At the moment I have a comission for some 6 foot wide panos, so I am using a tripod and ISO 200
The great thing about the D700 it seems to handel, anything I throw at it

Cary - I've used the 35 1.8 extensively on my D90 as well. I'd like to use it for its width on the D700. Would you say the images having it on an FX camera and set to FX mode are usable after post-processing and when stopping down?

Sevencrossing - Thanks for that tip, I've actually been looking for a walkaround lens so I don't have to switch lenses so often. I'd say the D700 is usable way beyond 1600 BTW, making that f4 lens even more great.

Oh I take it you mean 24-120?

If you set it DX crop, the D700 will work like a DX camera, but you will using only a part of the sensor, so IQ will be poor , worst than if you had stuck with your DX camera
To take advantage of the D700, you will have to raid the piggy bank and buy a some FX lenses. I would start with the f4 24 - 120 VR. I use this for 90% of my work,
yes its "only" f4 BUT it's sharp wide open and you crank the ISO on the d700 up to 1600, without too much loss, and being VR, you can use fairly low shutter speeds.
a lot of people will disagree with this, but I doubt it they have actually used the 16-120

Bram said:
Brought this topic up because I have a question regarding using DX lenses on a full frame camera (D700). I know it's kind of the reverse of the subject of this thread but I couldn't find any other topic more suitable. Admin, should you know of a better option then please share :)

I'm getting a D700 body, but since I currently own only two lenses suitable for FF (50mm and 85mm) I'm curious to see how my other two lenses (35mm and 11-16) would turn out on that body. I know that when using a DX lens on a FF body there's the option of using the camera at DX-mode, essentially cropping the picture so that it fits exactly the DX sensor size and reducing the resolution of the FX sensor. Now if I were using my 35mm lens, that would essentially make it a 50mm right (well 52.5mm but okay..). However I read that there's also the option of maintaining the camera at FX-mode. How exactly would this mode handle my 35mm DX lens?

The 35mm 1.8G DX lens does work well on FX, but does have a decent amount of vignetting. If you used the DX mode, obviously vignetting is not an issue, but at the cost of lower resolution. I have used the 35 1.8 on full-frame and actually like it(for certain shots). Its a great lens and one of my faves on a DX body. Its nice to be able to use on FX as well.

alchse said:
I believe you end up with black areas around the edges....think extreme vignetting

Yes that's what most sites showed. But I wonder about the focal length. See, when using DX-mode on an FX body, I believe because of the cropping the lens is essentially used as a DX lens, thus with the 1.5 cropping factor. My 35mm would then be used as a 50mm lens and lose a lot of its width. However, when using it in FX-mode, do you guys reckon it'd still be used as a proper 35mm lens? I rather need the width, it'd be nice if I could just use this lens for that.

This guy tried the same trick:
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2586

And I believe this does look like proper 35mm. There's heavy vignetting visible but he took these at f/1.8, it should get better when stopping down and applying lens corrections in post-processing.

I believe you end up with black areas around the edges....think extreme vignetting

Brought this topic up because I have a question regarding using DX lenses on a full frame camera (D700). I know it's kind of the reverse of the subject of this thread but I couldn't find any other topic more suitable. Admin, should you know of a better option then please share :)

I'm getting a D700 body, but since I currently own only two lenses suitable for FF (50mm and 85mm) I'm curious to see how my other two lenses (35mm and 11-16) would turn out on that body. I know that when using a DX lens on a FF body there's the option of using the camera at DX-mode, essentially cropping the picture so that it fits exactly the DX sensor size and reducing the resolution of the FX sensor. Now if I were using my 35mm lens, that would essentially make it a 50mm right (well 52.5mm but okay..). However I read that there's also the option of maintaining the camera at FX-mode. How exactly would this mode handle my 35mm DX lens?

I got it at the $199 price. I bought it directly from Amazon and not a 3rd party merchant. At the time Amazon was showing the lens "Temporarily Out of Stock" but would still allow you to place your order and they would ship as the lens becomes available.