PDA

View Full Version : Why buy DX lens'?



croy1985
09-14-2008, 08:48 AM
I had originally thought that the DX lens' cancelled out the crop factor (yeah its good to have it at telephoto, but not so much at the wide-angle), but it turns out it doesn't, - atleast thats how i understand it anyway.

So yeah with that in mind i struggle to see a reason for buying dx format lens'? If your gonna go to full frame at some time, then your better of buying 'normal' lens, and even if your sticking with dx, your better off wi normal lens anyway coz your camera only sees the centre part of what the lens is seeing, it eliminates barrel distortion. so i understand it anyway lol.

Am i right in my assumptions, or are there benefits t using dx lens'?

Paradox
09-14-2008, 08:58 AM
They're usually cheaper, smaller, and lighter. So for the budget user who's not upgrading to a full frame camera in the forseeable future, and/or wants to keep the camera as light and portable as possible, they're a good choice.

swpars
09-14-2008, 12:38 PM
Some examples of comparable DX versus FX lenses; all prices from B&H Photo. These lenses have a similar angle of view if the DX lens is mounted on a DX camera (ie: D300) and the FX lens is mounted on an FX camera (ie: D700)

Comparison 1: Budget tele zoom lens

DX: Nikon 55-200mm f4-5.6 VR = $219

FX: Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR = $479 (the 70-300 does add ring type AF-S with full time manual focusing)

Comparison 2: High quality f2.8 standard zoom lens:

DX: Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 = $1200

FX: Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 = $1700

Both lenses here are high quality professional grade lenses with ring type AF-S.

Comparison 3: Wide angle lens:

DX: Nikon 12-24mm f4: $914

FX: Nikon 17-35mm f2.8: $1500

Notes: FX is 1 stop faster of course, plus, there's the 14-24/2.8 available for $30 or so more, which no DX lens currently made for Nikon compares to.