where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Ok I've been trying to figure this out for sometime now but with no luck.I'm kinda embarassed to ask... How do you tell if the lens is a FX or DX lens? Is there some secret code written on them? I know AF is Auto Focus, and VR is Vibration Reduction, and so on, but can someone shed the magic light on for me?
Thanks!
Dont be embarassed, i find it pretty difficult myself telling if a 3rd party lens is a DX or a FX. i still dont know. I am in no knowledge on the origional question on how you can tell. Nikon clearly states that on the newer AF-S models are DX. Ones not posted are usually FX including all of the AF-D models which is built for FX cameras
All of Nikon's DX lenses say DX on them. If it doesn't have DX in gold lettering then it's FX. It has nothing to do with AF-S although all DX lenses are AF-S. All newer Nikon lenses, both DX or FX, can have AF-S.
Thanks guys! So as long as it doesnt have the DX on it, it's FX? Does any FX lens have a gold FX on them? Are there any certain lenses that were only made in DX? Will all FX lenses work on a DX body?
All of Nikon's Fmount lenses have been "FX" or full frame. Meaning they are used with 35mm cameras both digital or film. The exception are DX lenses which are meant to be used with APS-C (cropped or smaller than 35mm) digital cameras.
FX can be used with FX or DX cameras, no problem.
DX can be used with DX cameras, no problem.
DX can be used with FX cameras but will have darkened corner edges because they have a smaller image circle.
Currently the only FX cameras Nikon makes are the D3, D3S, D3X, and D700. All other Nikon DSLR's are DX.
Thanks Niko! I'm sure I'll have more questions for you all.
No problem Skid that's what the forum is here for :^)
You are correct it is not AF-S, so will not AF on entry DSLR's
Pete
Hey Skid never be embarrassed this forum is so useful that I'm sure even pros learn many things on a weekly basis! As mentioned already, Nikkor lenses DX ED-IF lenses for digital bodies only will always be marked in "DX" paint. Generally these lenses are not very old. FX glass is the Nikkor D Type AF lenses.
This being said, third party manufacturers can throw you some curveballs so things can get tricky. Tokina only produces DX models right now as far as I know. 35 macro, 10-17, 11-16, 12-24, another 12-24 Pro II, 16-50 and a 50-135mm. I hear they are working on FX glass though. Tamron lenses must say DI on them so they can be used for film bodies or digital. The Di II lenses are their DX lenses. Sigma DX lenses are marked DC and their DG Sigma lenses are for full frame (film or FX) bodies.
Thanks guys. SOOO, if ALL FX lenses work with either FX, DX, or film bodies, and DX only works with DX bodies...then why buy DX lenses at all?
Price and weight, mainly. DX lenses only have to create an image that covers a smaller circle (1.5x smaller in diameter), which means less glass.
edit: take the 35mm offerings from nikon for example
35mm f/2 (AF): $360 and weighs 200g
35mm f/1.8 DX (AF-S): $200 and also weighs 200g (due to the AF motor, I'm assuming)
Thanks Jonnyapple. I not being a professional (not yet anyways), I'm not a total weight weenie. For me anyhow, I think FX is now the way to go, especialy if I'm gonna try film out.
Somewhere on this forum I saw a compatibility lens guide. Can someone show me the way to the link, as I'm now not finding it.
Thanks!
Skid said:
Thanks guys. SOOO, if ALL FX lenses work with either FX, DX, or film bodies, and DX only works with DX bodies...then why buy DX lenses at all?
Yeah I ask myself that very same question too. If Nikon unveils an "affordable" FX camera or an even smaller crop of lenses for a compact EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) camera, then the question becomes harder to answer.
NikoDoby said:
Yeah I ask myself that very same question too. If Nikon unveils an "affordable" FX camera or an even smaller crop of lenses for a compact EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) camera, then the question becomes harder to answer.
...and DX lenses will come down in price, which will be great news for some and awful news for others. I think FX lenses are a good way to go, skid. It's an investment but if you're using film I think there's no question that you're better off that way.
Try this article. It might not be what you saw earlier.
http://bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm
JA - it all depends on personal preferences, if You wanna travel light and You have only DX camera, there's no need for going heavy. IMHO - DX lenses, have their place and as they cost cheaper You can always ask Yourself: how much would I get for my old FX lens when I finally manage to get the FX sensor, and for how much will I manage to sell my DX glass.
as for the gold ring - I think that only the top-of-the-line get them
I completely agree, Adam. My recommendation was for skid, not for everyone. My walkaround lens (I use it probably 60% of the time) is a DX lens—the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I haven't regretted buying it for one minute since 2007 when I got it, and it rivals my D90 purchase for value. I'm planning on keeping it on my D90 even if I go full frame because it's a gem. Back to my comment on weight reduction in DX, I think Nikon engineers missed the memo when they designed the 17-55 f/2.8 DX. It weighs twice what the Tamron does.
Yeah I don't think DX is really cheaper or lighter either. It's just marketing trying to tell you why you should buy them. I didn't buy a DSLR because I wanted a compact and light package.
Light weight and DSLR = oxymoron.
NikoDoby said:
Yeah I don't think DX is really cheaper or lighter either. It's just marketing trying to tell you why you should buy them. I didn't buy a DSLR because I wanted a compact and light package.
Oh yeah? You go tell that to M4/3 too! With a pancake lens, sure it's small. With any zoom, you might as well go for a DSLR.
Yes but M4/3 are a 2x crop. The difference between FX and DX is just .5 and m4/3 has the advantage of the lens sitting closer to the sensor. If Nikon makes a new smaller mount then it could be something like 2 or perhaps even 3X!?
Either way losing the mirror in a DSLR will reduce it's size considerably.
You must log in to post.
