Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bob Blaylock" data-source="post: 816034" data-attributes="member: 16749">My only direct relevant experience is using ancient lenses for my F2, on my D3200.&nbsp; The F2, and the lenses that I have for it, predate the FX/DX distinction by several decades of course.&nbsp; The F2 uses standard 135 film, with a 36×24mm image area, and so the lenses are made to cover that area.&nbsp; I believe the FX or “full-frame” format is defined as being about the same size as a standard 135 frame—36×24mm.&nbsp; DX is defined by a smaller image size, 24×16mm.&nbsp; At least two of my ancient lenses get used fairly often on my D3200—my 50mm ƒ/1.4 lens, c. 1972, and my Vivitar 85-205mm ƒ/3.8 zoom lens, c. late 1960s or early 1970s.&nbsp; In fact, <a href="https://nikonites.com/forum/posts/815944" target="_blank">my entry in last week's Weekly challenge</a> is a composite of two images, one taken with each of those lenses.&nbsp; Anyway, there is no good reason that I can think of why an FX lens should not work just fine on a DX camera.&nbsp; Here, by the way, is the result going the other way, of mounting the stock 18-55mm lens from my D3200, which, of course, is a DX lens, on my F2, which uses a full 35mm frame.&nbsp; I only took this one picture, with the lens zoomed at 18mm, and you can see that it fails to cover the whole frame.&nbsp; Interestingly, as I observed through the F2's viewfinder, as you zoom it toward the other end, it covers more and more of the frame, covering the entire frame before you get to the 55mm end.[ATTACH=full]401095[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bob Blaylock, post: 816034, member: 16749"] My only direct relevant experience is using ancient lenses for my F2, on my D3200. The F2, and the lenses that I have for it, predate the FX/DX distinction by several decades of course. The F2 uses standard 135 film, with a 36×24mm image area, and so the lenses are made to cover that area. I believe the FX or [I]“full-frame”[/I] format is defined as being about the same size as a standard 135 frame—36×24mm. DX is defined by a smaller image size, 24×16mm. At least two of my ancient lenses get used fairly often on my D3200—my 50mm ƒ/1.4 lens, c. 1972, and my Vivitar 85-205mm ƒ/3.8 zoom lens, c. late 1960s or early 1970s. In fact, [URL='https://nikonites.com/forum/posts/815944']my entry in last week's Weekly challenge[/URL] is a composite of two images, one taken with each of those lenses. Anyway, there is no good reason that I can think of why an FX lens should not work just fine on a DX camera. Here, by the way, is the result going the other way, of mounting the stock 18-55mm lens from my D3200, which, of course, is a DX lens, on my F2, which uses a full 35mm frame. I only took this one picture, with the lens zoomed at 18mm, and you can see that it fails to cover the whole frame. Interestingly, as I observed through the F2's viewfinder, as you zoom it toward the other end, it covers more and more of the frame, covering the entire frame before you get to the 55mm end. [ATTACH type="full" alt="25110545299_14fad99449_k.jpg"]401095[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]

Verification