DX Lenses Slow & Simple Please

[WeLoveNemo]

OK, I understand the DX vs FX concept however, when considering a lens I get things all turned around in my brain. I currently have a new Nikon D90, the 35mm 1.8 DX, the kit 18-105mm DX, and an old lens from my D50, a non-DX 70-300mm.

I'm looking to replace the 70-300 mm, it's seen better days. How does the Nikon 55-200mm DX sound as a replacment for this lens? I like the VR, speed, and feel of the 18-105 I have and the 55-200 has similar features.

This is where I get confused, the comparison cited for this lens with regard to 35mm is 78-300mm. Does this mean I will find it as useful as I did the 70-300? Or am I completely missing the concept?

Oh and just a note, I don't really have the resources($) for the much applauded 18-200mm lens.

 

[photo_chick]

I came back to delete my post becasue what I said apparently isn't right for Nikon. Wow.... other lenses it is. GO Nikon for making it difficult for consumers.

Go to a store where you can try one out... see if you're good with the range.

 

[GrillMouster]

Just so I'm clear...Are you asking whether the effective focal lengh of the 55-200will be equal to that of the 70-300 on the same DX body? If so, then the answer is no. You'd still multiply the focal length by 1.5 to get the effective focal length of the lens. In other words, the crop that results from using a DX body has made the field of view provided by your 70-300 similar to that of a 105-400mm lens on an FX body.

When calculating effective focal lengths ignore the whole DX/FX designation of the lens.

 

[handicap18]

What DX means is that the lens was built to be optimized on a crop digital body (ie: D50, D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D5000, D70, D70s, D80, D90, D100, D200, D300, D300s). A DX lens will fit and focus and everything on an FX body (ie: D3, D3x, D3s, D700), but there will be sever viginetting (sp?) (meaning the edges will look horrible because the opening on a DX lens is smaller than the opening on an FX lens).

The 70-300mm lens is a 70-300mm lens no matter what camera body it is on. What happens on a crop body (see list above) is that it just gets cropped because of the smaller sensor. Thus giving it a field of view of a lens that is 1.5 times bigger. If you take a picture with a full frame D700 and crop down to 1 1/2 times smaller you'll get the same image as you would with the crop body D90 without having to crop it.

The 50-200mm DX lens is still 50-200mm. On your D90 it will give you a field of view of a 75-300mm, just as the 70-300mm lens gave you a field of view of a 105-450mm.

The DX part just means that the insides are created smaller to "better" fit with the smaller sensor on the crop bodies.

 

[Toxic!]

OK, I understand the DX vs FX concept however, when considering a lens I get things all turned around in my brain. I currently have a new Nikon D90, the 35mm 1.8 DX, the kit 18-105mm DX, and an old lens from my D50, a non-DX 70-300mm.

I'm looking to replace the 70-300 mm, it's seen better days. How does the Nikon 55-200mm DX sound as a replacment for this lens? I like the VR, speed, and feel of the 18-105 I have and the 55-200 has similar features.

This is where I get confused, the comparison cited for this lens with regard to 35mm is 78-300mm. Does this mean I will find it as useful as I did the 70-300? Or am I completely missing the concept?

Oh and just a note, I don't really have the resources($) for the much applauded 18-200mm lens.

I'm currently using this lens as my super:

It's a 70-200mm lens, and it's a fantastic DX lens. I use it on my D80 constantly, but it fits the form factor of the D300, simply because it's gigantic.

I don't know if it's an FX or a DX lens, but considering the fact that my D80 is a DX and it works perfectly fine, I'm assuming that it's ok. It's a bit expensive though, when I got it, it was priced at 1,700 dollars. It might have dropped prices now, considering that the next generation is about to be released.

 

[photo_chick]

Ok... I've never given much thought to this, I usually live blissfully ignorant of the crop factor. But it got me thinking and here is what Nikon says....

"A wide 55-200mm (picture angle equivalent to 82.5-300mm lens in the 35mm format) 3.6x zoom range offers high quality images "


http://imaging.nikon.com/products/i...m/af-s_dx_vr_zoom55-200mmf_4-56g_if/index.htm

But like said above, you have to take into account the crop factor and the 70-300 lens.

 

[WeLoveNemo]

Your link noted above is the exact source of my confusion! I read this and started to question the role the DX lenses, thus losing my blissful ignorance.

But all of your posts have been helpful. If I have this straight:

(1) DX format is important when considered in light of the FX format

(2) My D90 is my only camera so for all practical purposes, this comparison is not relevant to me, and

(3) The DX series of lenses were created to optimize cameras like my D90.

 

[disneyboy2003]

Your link noted above is the exact source of my confusion! I read this and started to question the role the DX lenses, thus losing my blissful ignorance.

But all of your posts have been helpful. If I have this straight:

(1) DX format is important when considered in light of the FX format

(2) My D90 is my only camera so for all practical purposes, this comparison is not relevant to me, and

(3) The DX series of lenses were created to optimize cameras like my D90.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I understand your 3 conclusions above.

I might be repeating a lot of what's been said. Nikon's FX format (ie. "full frame") means that the sensor is the same size as the classic 35mm film size.

On the other hand, Nikon's DX format (ie. "crop frame") means that the sensor is about 2/3 the size of full frame. Your Nikon D90 camera is a DX camera. In other words, your camera is a "crop frame" camera.

So why is this important? For a full frame camera, any time you put a lens on the camera, the focal length you see is exactly the focal length that's printed on the lens. In other words, if you put a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, the view you see is exactly the 50mm view.

However, on your crop frame camera, because your sensor size is 2/3 the size of full frame, your "effective view" is 1.5x the focal length. So when you attach a 50mm lens onto your Nikon D90, you're seeing the equivalent of a 75mm view (that's 50mm x 1.5). When you attach a 100mm lens onto your camera, you're seeing the equivalent of a 150mm view (100mm x 1.5).

Here's another way of putting it. Let's say you have 2 cameras: a crop frame camera and a full frame camera. Place a 100mm lens on your crop frame camera, and place a 150mm lens on your full frame camera. When you look through the viewfinders of both cameras, you'll see the exact same view. (btw, I don't think there is such a thing as a 150mm lens)

You said that you currently own a 70-300mm lens. When attached to your crop-frame camera, you're seeing an equivalent view of 105-450mm (70x1.5 and 300x1.5).

You're currently looking to buy a 55-200mm lens. When attached to your crop-frame camera, you're seeing an equivalent view of 82.5-300mm (55x1.5 and 200x1.5).

The good news is that crop frame cameras like your Nikon D90 can accept all lenses, both FX and DX lenses. Nikon's DX lenses are made specifically for crop frame (DX format) cameras.

Regardless of whether you're using Nikon's DX or FX lenses, you still have to multiply 1.5 to the focal length to get the effective field of view.

If you happen to own a full frame camera, you'll get some pretty bad results if you try to attach a DX lens. Full frame camera owners will use only FX lenses.

Hope that helps to confuse things some more. I shoot Canon, so please correct me if any of this is wrong.

 

[Uncle Greg]

OK, I understand the DX vs FX concept however, when considering a lens I get things all turned around in my brain. I currently have a new Nikon D90, the 35mm 1.8 DX, the kit 18-105mm DX, and an old lens from my D50, a non-DX 70-300mm.

I'm looking to replace the 70-300 mm, it's seen better days. How does the Nikon 55-200mm DX sound as a replacment for this lens? I like the VR, speed, and feel of the 18-105 I have and the 55-200 has similar features.

This is where I get confused, the comparison cited for this lens with regard to 35mm is 78-300mm. Does this mean I will find it as useful as I did the 70-300? Or am I completely missing the concept?

Oh and just a note, I don't really have the resources($) for the much applauded 18-200mm lens.

I'm going to assume that your old 70-300 is the non-VR version. Before you sell yourself completely on the 55-200 I would suggest you look into the 70-300 VR. This lens, while more expensive than the 55-200, is considered to be one the "biggest bang for your buck" lenses that Nikon offers. It's considered to be leaps and bounds better than the original 70-300 non-VR.

 

[GrillMouster]

Your link noted above is the exact source of my confusion! I read this and started to question the role the DX lenses, thus losing my blissful ignorance.

But all of your posts have been helpful. If I have this straight:

(1) DX format is important when considered in light of the FX format

(2) My D90 is my only camera so for all practical purposes, this comparison is not relevant to me, and

(3) The DX series of lenses were created to optimize cameras like my D90.

I think what you're saying in points 1 & 2 is that since you're shooting with a DX camera you don't need to worry about whether a lens is designated as DX or FX. If that's what you're saying, then you're correct. DX and FX lenses will work with a DX body, so you don't really need to worry about which designation the lens has. If you were using an FX body, then you would need to think about what kind of lens you're using.

To clarify your point #3, I don't know that a DX lens is really made to optimize your camera. It really just allows the manufacturer to make a lighter and smaller lens, because an FX lens would have a lot of extra glass and air space that is not necessary for DX bodies. It may also be cheaper for the manufacturer to produce the DX lens.

 

[WeLoveNemo]

This was all very helpful! That is great input about the newer 70-300mm lens by Nikon. I LOVE my older version for its use in "non-invasive kid photography" and use it much more than I ever anticipated. But, at the longer end, the photos just are not good. I will look more into this lens (and start saving).

I also really appreciate the post just before this because I was beginning to wonder why make DX lenses at all.

Taking these two points into consideration of each other, how is the weight of the newer 70-300mm, since I cannot find a DX version of this lens? Is it much different than the older non-VR version I have?

- Thanks Everyone!

 

[My2Girls66]

I have both the old 75-300mm lens(which is probably older than your 70-300) and the newer 70-300mm VRII. I really like the VR! I think you'd miss the 300mm end if you went with the 55-200mm but the 70-300mmVR is quite a bit more money. The specs on the new VR lens says it weighs 26oz. With the VR I was able to get some decents shots of my DD tubing while balancing on a moving boat that I doubt I could have gotten without it.