DX vs FX

Have you noticed that FX lenses get the press while DX lenses, no matter the image quality, seem to be left behind in the reviews? Super-zooms are well known for their versatility but are not "king" for image quality. They may be very good but will never compete for the top IQ lens award. Now enter the new 28-300mm FX lens by Nikon. When anyone ever talked about the 18-200 DX lens, it always had the aforementioned limitations quoted. The new 28-300 has met with accolades of how excellent it is. While I believe it is an excellent lens, no qualifiers seem to be attached. As a super-zoom it will always have those limitations.

Now we can also look at the 70-300mm VR zoom. It has been lauded as an excellent lens ( and it is). The new 55-300mm VRII zoom IMO is equally as good if not better but you aren't hearing much about the comparison. At least I am not. Again we are talking about the 70-300 as an FX lens and the 55-300 a DX.

Last but not least come so called "kit lenses". These at times are synonymous with "cheap". That is until the 70-300mm VR lens was added to the D90 "kit'. No one ever called that lens a "kit lens" or down graded it because it was bundled with a camera. My 18-105 VR that was bundled with my D90 is an outstanding lens and has taken many wonderful pictures. I certainly don't consider it an inferior lens because it was bundled with the camera. Actually I probably would have purchased it anyway.

This may be more of a blog entry but I needed to rant this Sunday morning. FX lenses are outstanding and do an excellent job. I just believe that we have some equally outstanding lenses on the DX side but they seem to get less recognition due to a DX stigma, regardless of the resulting image quality attained.

I think the trend seems to be heading towards the FX formant, so it is getting all the hype...lol???

Mark, the kit lens that comes with the body are excellent pieces of glass. Some are even sharper than the other option lenses. I used to have an 18-200 VR1 but I find the 18-105 much much sharper than my 18-200. Since I have changed my lens line up already, I sold my 18-200. Now, my default lens on my DX bodies are my 17-55 F2.8 ( DX lens) and are very much comparable with the 24-70 F2.8 (FX lens) in terms of sharpness and IQ. I can say comparable because I used to have a D700 with a 24-70 F2.8 but I sold it due to some unfortunate circumstance.

Ranie,
That 17-55 f2.8 would be an awesome lens. Fast wide angle glass. Very nice.
The FX bodies and glass seem to be the more pro style stuff but I don't think the DX will get fazed out any time soon. Not unless Nikon is looking to get rid of a huge customer base. If my choice was to get a D3 or D700 vs any of the Canon DX line, I would have HAD to go with Canon for simple price. If FX becomes the gold standard and DX is fazed out, the price will have to drop considerably to keep the consumer or prosumer in the market. And like you said, you are getting comparable picture quality through similar lenses.
Ultimately it comes down to the photographer and not the gear.

I agree with Mark on all counts. FX and DX are just different camera formats anyway. FX for full frame......DX for the cropped frame. Makes no difference, really, in the long run. Both deliver excellent photographs (depending on the photographer, of course ).

Mark and fotojack - I agree. Its the Indian and not the Arrow.

For DX bodies being fade-out? I don't think so, even in the near future.
Thats the bread and butter of every Camera manufacturer, Nikon or otherwise.

I think that marketing has a lot to do with how things are written up...

How many automotive magazines would sell if the journalists did nothing but extol the acceleration and handling of the grocery getters while lamenting the lack of luggage space and the poor fuel economy of the supercars?

Anybody who is spending thousands of dollars on glass (or in the case of the 28-300mm, thousand of dollars) should be doing their homework on the virtues and limitations of the product.

But the DX 18-200mm lens is targeted to a more general market--one where they might be replacing their point-and-shoot superzoom with a DSLR and want a lens to give them nearly as much flexibility. (The 27-300mm equivalent focal length is nothing special for a superzoom point and shoot). It makes sense to make these newcomers aware of issues with large zoom ratios in comparison to smaller zooms and/or prime lenses, as these are other options to consider with a DSLR.

I've read quite a few reviews that give the 18-200mm DX lens accolades because it is so convenient and still remains optically excellent. I've also read reviews on the 28-300mm highlighting its extensive distortion. But the IQ is trivial in comparison to the versatility of both these lenses--especially with image software to straighten things out.

Cal, I am going to respectfully disagree. To use your comparison it would be like GM only giving reports on Cadillacs and totally ignoring or down playing the similar body style in Buick or Chevy. When you see lenses reviewed it just seems that the FX lenses get the press and the DX lenses are down played even when similar characteristics are involved. Some believe that DX is on its way out and that is the reason. I can't see that happening when they continue to bring out DX cameras and lenses. Not to mention that it would dissolve a complete market. I enjoy photography but have no intention of making the huge financial jump to FX when for what I do it would gain me little.

goz63 said:

Cal, I am going to respectfully disagree. To use your comparison it would be like GM only giving reports on Cadillacs and totally ignoring or down playing the similar body style in Buick or Chevy.

Click to expand...

But it isn't GM or Nikon doing these reviews (like you say, you don't usually see manufacturer's publications highlighting limitations or ignoring product lines), it is third party reviewers in both mine and your initial examples. Unless there is a big fat juicy target (an expensive lemon), journalists will generally give nothing but praise to the high ticket items.



I know what you're saying though and it has affected my thinking as well.

I bought my D5000 with the basic 18-55mm kit lens because I didn't have a ton of money and I didn't know any better, having shot digital PNS for years after getting out of 35mm SLRs. And I did the same thing, started reading reviews and thinking I should have got a better quality lens than the basic, cheap, DX 'kit lens'.

So for my next lens, I got a 70-300mm VR FX lens. Partially because I wanted the extra reach compared to the 55-200mm (the 55-300mm hadn't come out yet), partially because it was a better build quality, and partially because... well... you never know if there might be an FX camera that comes along that doesn't weigh as much as a brick or cost an arm and a leg.

But after I got it, turning the zoom ring from 200mm to 300mm was quite disappointing compared to the extra weight and couple hundred bucks I spent. IQ and AF is better, but hardly noticeable. But of course, reading the reviews gave me validation for my purchase--even in comparison to the 55-300mm.

Now that I've lived with both of these lenses for a while, I am satisfied with them both. The focus on the 70-300mm is lightning fast and I like having the manual focus override. The 18-55 is nice and light to carry around when I am not shooting aircraft, animals, sports, and portraits. The pictures with both lenses, of course, are better than anything I ever shot before. Only the subject matter, lighting, and composition needs some work.

Cal, You are right, save the 70-300 non-vr, Nikon makes a great lens no matter what. Some are going to be better, but often they cost a lot more than I am willing to spend and I don't think I would get my monies worth. By that I mean I don't need the extra "whatever" the money is buying. I have the new 55-300 and I could not be happier with it. I don't believe the 70-300 VR is better. The main advantage for it is the ability to work again on FX. Again it seems the DX (55-300) gets pushed aside because it is not FX. I would not trade it for a 70-300 VR. The latter is heavier, more expensive, does not go short enough (ie 70mm vs 55mm), does not have the tripod detection feature to name a few differences. I don't mean to say the 70-330 VR is a bad lens, it isn't, but I would not trade it for my 55-300. Before the 55-300, it was the way to go for both DX and FX to get the reach, now there is some competition.