DX UWA on FX
- Thread starter mikew_RIP
- Start date
I have no desire for either,just read it and wondered if it was correct
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
I had the Tokina 11-16 and tried it on my D600 in 2013. I could shoot at 15 or 16mm with no vignetting, but the IQ sucked. Sold it and bought a real FX UWA.
Not sure what a 1.4 convertor has to do with it.
Not sure what a 1.4 convertor has to do with it.
Last edited:
MartinCornwall
Senior Member
I just tried the experiment for you @mikew . Sigma 10-20mm DX lens on a D750. They are correct, although I used an old Jessops x2 converter.
1st pic, 10mm no converter.
2nd pic 10mm with 2x converter
Ignore the subject as it is just a quick test out of a window, but there is clearly no vignetting on the second pic. But it has become 20mm so no longer UWA so I can't see the advantage of this. Although if I had a 1.4 then the 10mm would be 14mm with no vignetting. Even though it has worked it's not for me due to the loss of IQ and slower focusing through the converter.
1st pic, 10mm no converter.
2nd pic 10mm with 2x converter
Ignore the subject as it is just a quick test out of a window, but there is clearly no vignetting on the second pic. But it has become 20mm so no longer UWA so I can't see the advantage of this. Although if I had a 1.4 then the 10mm would be 14mm with no vignetting. Even though it has worked it's not for me due to the loss of IQ and slower focusing through the converter.
Thanks,the other point they raised was if you used a small ext tube instead you got wide angle close up,but you would lose infinity focus.
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
Wide angle close up? huh? All of this sounds crazy and defeats the purpose of UWA. In my experience, DX glass doesn't work on FX, PERIOD. If you can't play with the big boys, stay with DX until you can afford good glass. 
btw, I just bought a D7200 to replace my D7K so I'm not an FX snob.
btw, I just bought a D7200 to replace my D7K so I'm not an FX snob.Wide angle close up? huh? All of this sounds crazy and defeats the purpose of UWA. In my experience, DX glass doesn't work on FX, PERIOD. If you can't play with the big boys, stay with DX until you can afford good glass.
I kept my 10.5mm DX fisheye long after I had given up on DX. Reason being..... I don't take too many fisheye shots, so it took me a while to justify upping to an FX fishseye.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Different lenses will spray differently on an FX sensor. I understand the desire to use the 1.4X to increase the number of pixels getting exposed to light, but you're doing it at a cost of light (and potentially IQ) as well. Given that chances are you're never going to be physically enlarging the image taken with your FX camera and DX lens to the extent that pixels matter that much, just shoot it in FX mode and crop to the vignette in post. This guarantees you get as much as you possibly can, and in some cases you'll actually get a little more image than would have fit on the DX sensor.
1.4x TC with a DX lens "undoes" the crop factor and lets the DX lens project an image that fills the FX frame. The angle of view is approximately preserved too, since for example 10 mm DX lens (1.5x crop factor) corresponds to a 15 mm FX lens, and the same 10 mm DX lens with a 1.4x TC becomes a 14 mm FX lens. So yes, it is doable with a Kenko or similar teleconverter, that doesn't have a protruding front element like the Nikon ones.
Is it worth doing? Hard to say. I'm sure everyone can imagine a situation when this could be useful as a stopgap. Can the 2.25 times increased pixel amount offset the aberrations caused by the teleconverter? I mean, with a D3X the options are either a 10.5 Mpix image using DX crop, or a 24 Mpix FX image with TC. There's no general rule, but my guess is that it is at best a wash and hence the use of the TC is not warranted. There probably are some lenses that make an exception and might prove to be really special.
Extension tubes with UWA lenses produce wonderful photos. The extension ring needs to be rather thin though, something like Nikon PK-11A or even thinner (Nikon K1*), but the perspective and the resulting images are spectacular. Highly recommended. If you haven't tried this, I suggest you do it asap. It is addictive!
-----
* Make sure you understand the limitations of K1 ring before attaching it to your gear otherwise you risk damaging something.
Is it worth doing? Hard to say. I'm sure everyone can imagine a situation when this could be useful as a stopgap. Can the 2.25 times increased pixel amount offset the aberrations caused by the teleconverter? I mean, with a D3X the options are either a 10.5 Mpix image using DX crop, or a 24 Mpix FX image with TC. There's no general rule, but my guess is that it is at best a wash and hence the use of the TC is not warranted. There probably are some lenses that make an exception and might prove to be really special.
Extension tubes with UWA lenses produce wonderful photos. The extension ring needs to be rather thin though, something like Nikon PK-11A or even thinner (Nikon K1*), but the perspective and the resulting images are spectacular. Highly recommended. If you haven't tried this, I suggest you do it asap. It is addictive!
-----
* Make sure you understand the limitations of K1 ring before attaching it to your gear otherwise you risk damaging something.
Last edited:
SkvLTD
Senior Member
While not UWA, 35DX actually works pretty darn well.