+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Senior Member


    I posted this question on a different Photography site and got some conflicting answers. So Iíll ask it here. Suppose with my D7500 mounted on a tripod and focused on a busy landscape scene, I take a picture using my Nikon 70-300 (DX) lens at a focal length of 300mm.

    I then replace that lens with a Nikon (FX) lens (keep it pointed in the same direction) and take a shot.

    Will the FOV (field of view) of the two shots be the same, different, and if the latter by what angle?

    interested in your opinions. Thanks

    › See More: Fov

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    480sparky's Avatar

    Re: Fov

    They would be the same.
    Don't mind me... I'm out roaming around somewhere between Zone III and VII.

    Go forth and actuate!

    My Website.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Bikerbrent's Avatar

    Re: Fov

    Assuming both FX and DX lenses are set at 300mm, they will be the same.
    Brent: Poway, CA
    D7200, D200, F100
    Tokina 12-24mm
    Nikon 18-200mm
    Tokina 28-70mm f2.6-2.8
    Nikon 80-200mm f2.8
    Sigma 150-600mm
    Nikon 50 AF f1.8
    Tokina 100mm f2.8 Macro
    Nikon SB800

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    480sparky's Avatar

    Re: Fov

    FWIW, any 300mm lens with an image circle large enough to cover a DX sensor would produce the same FOV. Even one of these (if you could mount it to the D7500 somehow):

    Don't mind me... I'm out roaming around somewhere between Zone III and VII.

    Go forth and actuate!

    My Website.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Moab Man's Avatar

    Re: Fov

    D5100, D7100, D600, D750, Df
    Lenses: Nikon DX 18-55mm, 55-200mm, 55-300mm, Tamron SP 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD & 200-500mm
    Prime: Nikon 35mm, 50mm, & 85mm f/1.8G, 300mm f/4
    Wide Angle: Tokina AT-X116 Pro DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8, Rokinon f/2.8 14mm (chipped)
    Macro: Nikon 40mm, Tamron 90mm
    ​Flash: Nissin MARK II Di622
    Stuff: Expodisc Neutral & Portrait
    ​Editing: CS6, CC, Nik Tools, Portrait Pro 12, Topaz
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    mikew's Avatar

    Re: Fov

    As said the actual FL would be the same but the DX sensor crops a smaller image out,this can make you think the efective FL is longer on DX than FX.
    The apparent change in FOV is nothing to do with the lens in you quoted set up its the crop factor of the sensor.
    One reason for FX and DX lenses is an DX lens normaly will not give full coverage on an FX sensor so they are easier and cheaper to make.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

    Nikon Z50,Nikon16-50MM,Nikon50-250MM,FTZ Adapter
    Sigma 100-400, Sigma 105mm macro
    Nikon V2,10-30MM,30-110MM FT1 Adapter

  7. #7
    Super Mod
    hark's Avatar

    Re: Fov

    A 300mm lens is 300mm no matter what body it's on. So 2 different 300mm lenses on the same body will produce the same FoV.

    My guess is some of the people who responded might have been incorrectly comparing the FoV of a 300mm lens on a DX body vs. an FX body. THEN the FoV would be different due to the different size of the sensors.
    and My 2020 Thread

    Where the Spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art
    -- Leonardo da Vinci

  8. #8
    Senior Member

    Re: Fov

    Some lenses have more focus breathing issues than others.

    Last edited by Andy W; 01-31-2019 at 02:43 PM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    480sparky's Avatar

    Re: Fov

    And this is why I wish the 'crop factor conversion' idea would disappear from the face of the earth. Erase it. Delete it. Send it to the Trash Bin. Eradicate it. As if it never existed.

    What I find amazing is back in my film days, there was no such thing as a 'conversion factor' to compare lenses between 135, 120 and 4x5 formats. I never heard of a number to multiply (or divide by) when changing from 35mm to 6x4.5 format, or to 6x7 format, or to 4x5 format. I never had to 'convert' the 80mm lens of my Mamiya 645 to 'the equivelant of __mm on my 35mm camera". Nor convert the 150mm on my 4x5 to 'the equivelant of __mm on my RB67 camera".

    I understand why the manufacturers created the 'conversion' factor. It was a marketing tool to help sell fledgling digital SLRs to an uneducated populace. The populace that had grown up with one format: 35mm. Everyone and their uncle owned a 35mm film camera. Most carried a 50mm 'standard' lens. Many purchased 28mm wide-angles and 135mm telephotos. So that was 'the gold standard' back then.

    Then along came digital. But the sensors were smaller than a 35mm frame. So the manufacturers needed an easy way for those transitioning to digital to 'relearn' how focal length related to FOV. "Conversion factor' seemed like the perfect choice. And it was. At least back then.

    But today, we have an entire generation that has never even SEEN a 35mm film camera, let alone understand focal length, sensor/film plane size and how the two relate to FOV. So today, the 'conversion factor' has royally muddied the waters. Not to mention the internet, and it's ability to spread incorrect information that will be accepted as gospel.

    And next, the assumption (and even firm belief with some) that the 'conversion factor' applies to other properties of the lens, such as aperture and minimum focus.

    I say it's time to deposit 'the conversion factor' to the dustbin of history. Let it reside the Hall of Useless Technology, next to ice picks, buggy whips and 8-track tapes.
    Thanks/Like cbg, Michael J. Thanks/liked this post
    Best Answers Dawg Pics, Michael J. voted best answer for this post
    Don't mind me... I'm out roaming around somewhere between Zone III and VII.

    Go forth and actuate!

    My Website.

  10. #10
    Senior Member

    Re: Fov

    Thanks to all who responded. The answer, "same", is what I had anticipated. And based on that I believe that that FX lens on a FF sensor camera would give the same FOV but at 450mm fl. I now understand why some people have been telling me my 18-400 Tamron DX is really a 27-600. But I agree with 480sparky in his/her later comment that all this conversion factor nomenclature is confusing and a waste of time. What matters (to me) is not specific numbers but rather how well my equipment performs and how good (hopefully) my work is.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

If you are already a member, please login above before posting.

Similar Threads

  1. Non-Nikon Cameras

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts