DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> So like... what's the deal with DX lenses?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 5 of 5, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/22/2009 11:48:32 PM · #1
I was bored at work today and I really started thinking about why DX lenses exist. Is there something I'm missing?

Are they cheaper to produce? I wouldn't really guess, since the 50mm f/1.8 is FF and it's $100. You also have pro DX lenses like the 17-55 f/2.8 which cost 1k+, so I don't really think that they're any cheaper to produce.

Does something about casting a smaller image circle make it possible for them to produce lenses of smaller focal lengths that equate to normal lengths of FX? I'll use the 17-55 again; that is essentially a 28-80mm lens when crop factor is taken into account. Not a lot of FX zooms go as wide as 17mm (exceptions being specialty zooms like the 14-24 f/2.8), so does the limiting image circle give manufacturers the kind of means necessary to create normalized focal lengths in FX terms? (PS I'm not sure that made sense)

To me, the DX lenses are a frickin 'scam' by Nikon and Canon and any other manufacturer that produces crop size bodies. They sell you on a cheaper DSLR with a crop sized sensor (which I'm not opposed to, for one; look at what camera I own), and then they sell you lenses that are limited solely to use on those crop DSLRs... Not film, not FX, just crop sensors. When you realize you may want to jump back into film, or upgrade to a FX body, they snag you with a whole new set of lenses because your current set shoots at low resolution.

I guess this makes me angry. What I'd really like to hear is a rationalization behind why they'd introduce a whole lineup of lenses intended solely to limit your options when you decide to upgrade or get an urge to shoot a roll of Velvia.
 03/23/2009 12:05:12 AM · #2
DX lenses exist to match to DX sensors in your DSLR. FX lenses exist to match to full frame sensors. A DX lens will not cover a full frame sensor completely. A FX lense will overshoot a DX sensor.

I know what I meant, and I'm not sure I understand what I just wrote. That's why they call me Dr. Confuser ... no one else needs to draw that to my attention.

Message edited by author 2009-03-23 00:06:09.
 03/23/2009 12:20:55 AM · #3
You can use the full frame lenses on most of the current Nikon and Fuji cameras, all the way back to about 1977 as they were produced, and even the earlier ones if you have the aperture ring trimmed to Ai specs.
The DX lenses are much lighter to haul around and shoot with than the older full frame lenses, but the catch is that they do not produce a large enough image circle to cover the 35mm full frame sensors.
I have about 30 lenses that I actually use on my Fuji S3. Two of them are the DX models, and only three of them have electronics in them. The rest are the older awesome vintage Nikon glass from about 1964 and later. I think that the D300 will meter with the older ones, which my Fuji does not do. I like to manually focus, so the older ones work fine for me, and they are not big dollar items compared to the current top of the line lenses.
ETA, Full frame lenses work great on APC sensor size cameras. They are just using the center portion of the lenses capability, which is the sweet area of the image circle anyway.
Ken says: D300 Lens Compatibility, Ken Rockwell Review
So? "Where's the beef?"



Message edited by author 2009-03-23 00:43:45.
 03/23/2009 10:39:29 AM · #4
Originally posted by Anti-Martyr:

I guess this makes me angry. What I'd really like to hear is a rationalization behind why they'd introduce a whole lineup of lenses intended solely to limit your options when you decide to upgrade or get an urge to shoot a roll of Velvia.


Probably because someone, much like you, sent an angry letter to Nikon a few years ago. They were very angry because there were no true wide angle lens to work with their bright, shiney, new APS-C sensor DSLR.
So Nikon, seeing a chance to make more lens, (which is how they make money and justify their own existence) made some DX lens. Many Nikon owners at the time sighed and feared there would never be a FX sensor, as many times Nikon had heralded to the world "WE WILL NEVER MAKE A FX SENSOR CAMERA". The production of DX lens seemed to prove this statment. Now we move to the present. Because of the wonders of competition a much larger camera co. with many more resources and GOBS of money decided to make a FX size sensor DSLR. It was a truly nice camera. Foretellings of DOOM were generated for Nikon. It didn't have a FX camera. Sports shooters would be dropping their Nikons for Canons and anarchy would prevail on our earthly domain. The Nikon elders wanted to produce a FX camera but remembered they'd told the world this would never happen. They appeared to be truly screwed. Then an American friend reminded them that this was just business after all. Any lies told in the commission of business are forgivable. Nikon then make the D3. They explained to their loyal followers that they never really said they would never produce a FX DSLR. All was right in the world and Canon engineers cried when they saw the low noise, low light capability of the D3. To keep the many loyal Nikon users who bought DX sensors from feeling abandoned, Nikon continued to manufacture DX cameras and lens. This made DX users feel they hadn't thrown their money away buying DX only lens. However, new DSLR users bought these DX cameras without knowing the above, poorly related, history. They then purchased FX sensor cameras when they upgraded and the story our OP related appeared.
 03/23/2009 12:26:17 PM · #5
Originally posted by Anti-Martyr:
I guess this makes me angry. What I'd really like to hear is a rationalization behind why they'd introduce a whole lineup of lenses intended solely to limit your options when you decide to upgrade or get an urge to shoot a roll of Velvia.


You wouldn't expect to keep your 35mm lenses if you upgraded to medium format, would you? Or keep the lens from your small-sensor P&S for your DLSR?
My point is, horses for courses. DX (APS-C) lenses *are* less expensive to produce, and they are smaller and lighter than their DX (35mm frame)counterparts would be. But just like their big sisters, they are produced in both basic "consumer" and professional varieties, and everything in between, with prices to match.
APS-C digital has become a very successful format in its own right, and many (most!) photographers will never want or need to consider a FF DSLR. APS-C and 35mm are just different formats, and the ability to use 35mm lenses on APS-C cameras is an added bonus for APS-C equipment users.
All that said, the similarity of APS-C and 35mm can lead to confusion, and to frustration when upgrading. Serious amateurs and pros who know or suspect that they might someday upgrade should pay attention to lens purchases, or plan for re-sale and replacement.

Edit for typos

Message edited by author 2009-03-23 12:27:40.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 07:29:37 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 07:29:37 PM EDT.