Zoom comparison

Karn

Senior Member
I've decided to spend a good 1000$ give or take a couple hundred on a nice lens, my top 2 picks so far are the (AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor
105mm f/2.8G IF-ED) and the (AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED) I've started looking at the (AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED) idk why, I just like lenses with low apertures, and finally I noticed the (AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR) also I noticed with this FX lens it is comparable to a 750mm zoom on a DX camera, not sure how that works but would it really 'zoom' farther than a 650mm zoom? I'm liking the 200-500 because right now I have the 18-140 so I'm pretty good up to 140 I think and the 70-300 seems like less coverage since I already have the 70-140 range covered,
 

nickt

Senior Member
and finally I noticed the (AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR) also I noticed with this FX lens it is comparable to a 750mm zoom on a DX camera, not sure how that works but would it really 'zoom' farther than a 650mm zoom?
No, fx or dx lens will look the same on your camera for a given focal length. The FX lens just has more glass and will better cover an FX sensor. The DX sensor is smaller and captures less of the image cast upon the sensor plane. That cropped dx image is then enlarged to a standard size, giving a zoom-like affect. Its really just a lesser field of view due to the smaller sensor. Your dx body is giving you the 1.5 zoom-like effect, not the lens.
 

Karn

Senior Member
So would a DX lens be overall better for a DX camera or do FX lenses work just as good if not better on a DX camera?
 

Dawg Pics

Senior Member
Yup, I really think that is a flawed comparison.
If you enjoy shooting small things like birds, then you won't be cropping as much with the DX sensor because the image size is smaller to begin with. If you want to be closer to the subject, then you need a bigger zoom no matter what camera body you use.
Good luck with your decision.
 

nickt

Senior Member
A dx lens will not be better but it probably won't be worse either. An FX lens is pricier. It will be heavier. It will still work for you if you move on to an FX body. It MIGHT give you a better image on a DX, but probably not enough to be the sole reason you buy it. I say it might give a better image because lenses tend to not be as sharp in the corners and since the fx lens is designed for a larger sensor, your dx sensor will be capturing what might be the best part of the image.
 

Dawg Pics

Senior Member
@nickt
Great explanation of the zoom effect. I haven't heard anybody explain the part about the image being enlarged to standard size giving the zoom effect. Thanks.
 

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
A dx lens will not be better but it probably won't be worse either. An FX lens is pricier. It will be heavier. It will still work for you if you move on to an FX body. It MIGHT give you a better image on a DX, but probably not enough to be the sole reason you buy it. I say it might give a better image because lenses tend to not be as sharp in the corners and since the fx lens is designed for a larger sensor, your dx sensor will be capturing what might be the best part of the image.

This is a very good reply. One thing nickt left out is that Nikon does not make any DX lenses of the same optical quality as the professional FX lenses. For example there is no Nikon DX equivalent to the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 or 70-200mm F2.8
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
This is a very good reply. One thing nickt left out is that Nikon does not make any DX lenses of the same optical quality as the professional FX lenses. For example there is no Nikon DX equivalent to the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 or 70-200mm F2.8

I don't own one, but the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is supposed to be a sharp and well made DX lens. And, it should be for $1500.00. :)

That said, the Tamron and Sigma 17-50 or 17-70 lenses might be even better optically for a fraction of the cost. Don't tell anyone, though. It's a secret! :)
 
Last edited:

Dawg Pics

Senior Member
I think the OP is looking for longer zooms. 300mm or so @Karn
Are you just trying to have a range covered just in case you need it or do you have subjects in mind where you need the reach? Are you looking at shooting wildlife, the moon, or what? This information will help people with recommendations for you.

Typically there is going to be some overlap in the focal lengths when you have zooms, but maybe somebody here can guide you based on where you feel you are lacking with your lenses.
 
Last edited:

Karn

Senior Member
Yeah, I am liking the 200-500, I'm not sure what I want to shoot yet but I definitely want a lens that's going to give me a quality image if I can ever shoot a piece worth enlarging, I love my 18-140, its really nice and a good for anything kind of lens, I also have one of those cheap 650-1300mm lenses with the x2 thingi making it 2600mm and I'm actually surprised with how well it works-- you just need to 2 tripods, one for the lens and one for the camera, lol
 

C. Hand

Senior Member
I have had several Nikon zooms, but sold them and got the Tamron A005 AF 70-300mm f4-5.6 SP Di USD VC for my D7100 and I love it! It is not as fast as the Nikon focus wise, but for what I shoot that is fine, the picture quality is excellent. This is the first non-Nikon lens I have ever owned, and really never gave Tamron much of a thought. So, for my walk around lens I have an old Nikon 18-70 no VR, but pretty darn good, but I am thinking about replacing it and I will certainly be giving Tamron and Sigma lenses more of a serious look!
 

Karn

Senior Member
I suppose I'll give Tamron and sigma a try as it seems those are mostly what's being recommend, and not to mention I could buy 2 or 3 of them for what 1 Nikon lens cost, I'm just picky about name brands and quality, im the one that buys all top name brand products, like North Face, Apple, Duracell, Klein tools, and Fluke, even when it comes to something as simple as a pencil I'll spend 10x as much just because it's made by Staedtler, although I really can't afford to
 

C. Hand

Senior Member
I am too, but don't take it from us, go to a camera store and try them, that is what I did. To me a new lens is an investment, an investment that my wife does not take lightly! So, go try before you buy, rent if you have to, but I was able to go to my local camera shop and try all the lenses out and then I walked away and thought about it for a week, just to make sure I was thinking through my purchase. I love Nikon and their lens's, but for what I do, I am very pleased with this zoom. In testing there was no doubt that the Nikon was faster focusing, and the image quality was the same, but the Tamron VC was twice as good, and for less money.
 

Karn

Senior Member
Good idea, I might have to do that, Im moving to Atlanta next week, I'm sure there's a camera store somewhere near there
 

Danno

Senior Member
Yeah, I am liking the 200-500, I'm not sure what I want to shoot yet but I definitely want a lens that's going to give me a quality image if I can ever shoot a piece worth enlarging, I love my 18-140, its really nice and a good for anything kind of lens, I also have one of those cheap 650-1300mm lenses with the x2 thingi making it 2600mm and I'm actually surprised with how well it works-- you just need to 2 tripods, one for the lens and one for the camera, lol

I have the 200-500 f/5.6 Nikon Lens. It is a great lens. Quick focus that I think is pretty sharp. The only issue I have with it is the weight. it is hard for me to pack around anymore. It is pretty much requires a tripod for me. But a lot of folks can hand hold it. I am just not one of them. I would recommend trying it out if you are serious about getting one just to get comfortable with the weight.

I will say that when spring comes I will be doing a lot of porch sitting with the big lens on the tripod catching birds at the feeders.
 

nickt

Senior Member
I have the Sigma 105 and the Tamron 70-300. Happy with both. If you look at the Tamron, make sure it is the SP version, not the lower cost version w/macro. Its around $450. I got it on a very nice rebate several years back. My everyday lens is (was?) a 18-140. Nice lens, but I picked up a Sigma 17-50, love it.
 
Top