DX lenses

I am a little bit confused abou the DX lenses.

Are they the best choice for dSLR cameras?

Will the be able to work with full frames cameras in the future?

What are they properties? And the advantage of them?

Sorry for my english.

Greetings from Spain,

Escalar.

Right now there are 2 DX lenses:

10.5 f2.6

12-24 f4

17-55 f2.8

18-70 f3.5

Are they the best choice, or are they the ONLY choice? :-) The best choice would be a lens that could do EVERYTHING - zoom from 12 to 120mm and do macro and wideangle on the same dive...:-)

If you wish to go with a truly wideangle lens, then the 12-24DX is the widest rectilinear lens that you can use on a Nikon digital SLR. It will not fill the frame on a full frame camera until you zoom it out to about 18mm. Users report that it's a pretty good 18-24mm zoom though (not joking).

I don't have any experience w/ the other lenses, so can't comment.

The "property" of these lenses is that they are designed to project an image onto an area the size of a DX sensor which is something like 24mm wide, instead of the traditional 36mm film negative.

Cheers

James

Escalar, I understand that DX lenses will only work with digital cameras that are not full frame.

Edit: oops.....James you beat me to it!

Karl: I think that the 18-70 will work on full frame from about 28mm up and the 17-55 will work on full frame from about 26mm on up.

I haven't tried it myself though - that's just what others report. The camera doesn't actually know that it has a DX lens attached.

Cheers

James

I just read this on popphoto.com:

According to Olympus and several other manufacturers, resolution and light falloff around the edges of an image are caused by the extreme angles of light from a non-aspheric lens striking the smaller image sensor found on a typical digital SLR (see our test of the Olympus E-1, November 2003). This is particularly noticeable at wide apertures on wide-angle lenses. Image contrast is also lowered by increased lens flare, which is caused by two things: First, light bouncing off the internal components and sides of a lens adds unwanted light to shadow areas. Second, light striking the protective glass filters on the front of a CCD or CMOS sensor reflects back to the rear lens elements and is mirrored back to the image sensor, again adding light where it doesn’t belong. On film SLRs, a coating on the back of the film minimized this part of the flare problem, so few lenses were designed with anti-reflective coatings on the rear elements. Newer digital lenses include more aspherical lens elements to straighten out the light path and more anti-reflective coatings on rear elements.

Cheers

James

To me there are too many things that go obsolete. IMHO dx lenses that won't be able to do a full frame dslr when they are more plentiful is one of them. I can't help but think that the future cameras in the future in my opinion will have more full frame sensors. I say buy high quality glass, I have yet to see any stray light problems on my S2 or D70.

Tony

What's the magic of full frame that will lead digital SLRs to eventually be full frame?

Is it so that existing full frame lenses can be used? Or are there more fundamental reasons relating to physics and optics?

And what are the downsides of full frame sensors other than cost? The one that comes to my mind, as a 5050 shooter, is a significantly reduced depth of field at a given f stop. I know some people like blurred backgrounds. But I have gotten used to having lots of my picture in focus.

Curious minds want/need to know.

What's the magic of full frame that will lead digital SLRs to eventually be full frame?

 

Is it so that existing full frame lenses can be used? Or are there more fundamental reasons relating to physics and optics?

 

And what are the downsides of full frame sensors other than cost? The one that comes to my mind, as a 5050 shooter, is a significantly reduced depth of field at a given f stop. I know some people like blurred backgrounds. But I have gotten used to having lots of my picture in focus.

 

Curious minds want/need to know.

The reduced depth of field at a given f stop is more than offset by the availiblity of smaller apertures before becoming defraction limited. For macro shots, where large DOF is most desirable, the larger sensor has a net advantage, i.e. if you frame fill a subject an inch long , at F/32 the Canon IDs will have better DOF and resolution than the 5050 at F/8.

The above is true even for large subjects when you take the signal-to-noise into account. A DSLR can have the same sharp background the 5050 has if the aperture is dialed down. The ISO can be pushed up to compensate the loss of light. For example if you are shooting a diver in natural light, you may have to go to F/4 and ISO 100. A DSLR will have to go to F/11 and ISO 800 to the get the same exposure and better DOF. However, the signal-to-noise of the DSLR is better at ISO 800 than the 5050 at ISO 100.

I can't think of a case where a smaller sensor has the advantage.

To me there are too many things that go obsolete. IMHO dx lenses that won't be able to do a full frame dslr when they are more plentiful is one of them. I can't help but think that the future cameras in the future in my opinion will have more full frame sensors. I say buy high quality glass, I have yet to see any stray light problems on my S2 or D70.

 

Tony

You don't believe Nikon's position that there's no need for full frame

My prediction is that the 1.5x cropped DSLR's are here to stay, and they will always out number the full frame DSLR's. The facts are that large Si chips will always be very expensive, and the majority of people does not need higher resolution. Progress in semiconductors are made by putting more functions in a given area and not at reducing the cost of a give size chip.

Look at how little the price of an 1Ds has dropped over the last couple of years. Compare that to any given consumer digicam who's price has fallen by over a factor of 2 in the same period.

I think Nikon is missing an opportunity in not having a full frame camera, and Canon is missing an opportunity in not producing good wide angle lenses for the millions of DSLR's they've sold.

One obvious advantage of a larger sensor is that you can have larger pixels in the sensor. All things being equal this should give a higher quality image. However a smaller pixel made two years from now with improved technology may give a better quality image than a pixel twice as large made with today's technology.

Full frame is only of value by itself if you have a collection of full frame lenses already and want to keep the same perspective as you did when you shot those lenses with a 35 mm SLR. Such as a portrait photographer who wants to shoot faces with an 80 mm lens.

1.5x dSLRs have a lot of advantages. They can be made smaller and lighter and presumably cheaper. Same for the DX lenses with the additional optical advantages mentioned above as they are made for digital sensors.

If you have a large megapixel full frame then you have to have a lot of memory and computing power to process that image (in the camera and out of it). You will also need a huge memory card. What do those 8 GB CF cards go for? I used a 512 card with my 5000 and it worked great. Now I have to use a 2 GB card with my D100 and carry an extra 40 GB HD to store the images.

Rumor has it that some future Nikons may use a 1.4x or 1.3x sensor and that supposedly the DX lenses will work fine on them. Supposedly without vignetting.

As mentioned above the DX lenses work on full frame. Not just to their widest zoom. But the focal length they work to is very similar to the widest focal length that their full fame comparable lens zooms to. Meaning the 12-24 has the same angle of coverage as the 17-35 when they both are at their widest practical zoom range.

If you really think you need a full frame dSLR then how would you be satisfied with anything less than a Hasselbald H1 with it's 20,000$ digital back? That would make a full frame camera seem like a joke. And why would anyone ever have taken down a Nikonos instead of a Hasse in a Gates housing? After all they use to advertise they would give you a free South Seas dive vacation every time you bought one. Those medium formate negatives were clearly superior to those from a 35 mm camera.

Of course a 1000$ full frame camera would be a different story. But you would still have to deal with the large files.

I have not heard of those photographers using full frame cameras complaining about the supposed optical failings of 35 mm lenses on digital sensors as claimed in the Olympus study. That study is intended to justify the 4:3 format system. I should state that I've been told that in their digital studios they find the quality of the Oly dSLR to be as good as the 6 MP cameras by the other manufactures.

Herb and Dave, Thanks for the education on DX lenses and pros and cons of full frame.

Based on what you have said I plan to keep my dream alive for a D70 with a 12 - 24 lens.

The results speak for themselves, IMO. Sharp corners, great contrast, and an excellent zoom range. If you haven't tried a 12-24 w/ a DX sensor camera, then you should give it a chance. The Canon people (except for Evart and Eric) were jonesing for a wide angle zoom lens in Fiji where the subjects were perfect for it.

Cheers

James